Vans Settles Long Lawsuit Over Tyga’s “Wavy Baby” Sneakers

CAP D’ANTIBES, FRANCE – MAY 23: Tyga attends the amfAR Cannes Gala 30th edition Presented by Chopard and Red Sea International Film Festival at Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc on May 23, 2024 in Cap d’Antibes, France. (Photo by Stephane Cardinale – Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

Tyga’s “Wavy Baby” sneaker collaboration with MSCHF in 2022 was one of the year’s hottest shoes. A trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Vans against MSCHF within days of the collaboration’s release banned Tyga’s sneaker from being released because it was a parody of the classic Old Skool shoe. After a two-year legal battle, Vans and MSCHF settled on Tyga’s collaboration in federal court on August 21.

Attorneys for both parties informed a federal judge that they had resolved the lawsuit. As part of the agreement, MSCHF acknowledged that the “Wavy Baby” sneakers infringed on Vans’ trademarks and agreed to halt any future sales of the shoe. The details of the settlement, including any financial terms, remain confidential. Both Vans and MSCHF declined to comment.

In 2022, Vans responded with a lawsuit after media outlets reported that Tyga’s shoe resembled the company’s vintage design. Vans argued that the sneakers could confuse consumers into thinking they were an official collaboration with Tyga. The “Rack City” hitmaker, real name Michael Stevenson, was never named in Vans’ lawsuit. 

MSCHF admitted in the “Wavy Baby” case that Tyga’s collaboration was inspired by Vans. They argued that its design was a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. 

MSCHF claimed the sneakers were a commentary on the consumerism embedded in sneaker culture and the trend of sneaker companies collaborating with celebrities for clout and profit. Judge William F. Kuntz rejected these arguments, issuing a restraining order that prohibited further sales of the Wavy Baby. In his April 2022 ruling, Judge Kuntz noted that the shoes failed to convey a clear satirical message.

“Whatever the artistic intent behind the Wavy Baby shoes, they do not meet the legal standards for a successful parody,” the judge wrote. “While the manifesto accompanying the shoes may express protected speech, the shoes, and their packaging do not effectively communicate the satire.”

A federal appeals court later upheld the ruling, further solidifying Vans’ victory in the case.