IP Law Daily, INDUSTRY NEWS: Quince sues the maker of UGG® boots for attempted monopolization, (Feb 25, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Quince accused Deckers of using “template” lawsuits about unprotectable UGG trade dress to suppress competition.

Last Brand, Inc. (Quince), which holds itself out as a marketer of “high-quality sheepskin casual footwear at radically lower prices,” has sued Deckers Outdoor Corp. (Deckers), the marketer of UGG® sheepskin- and shearling-lined casual footwear. Quince asserts a single claim for attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Quince alleges that Deckers used “objectively baseless threats” and lawsuits to make overbroad trade dress protection assertions about unregistered product-designs that, according to Quince, did not have clearly protectable features. Quince alleged Deckers deterred lawful competition in common product designs, raising rivals’ costs and reducing output. Quince is seeking damages and injunctive relief (Last Brand, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., No. 5:26-cv-01540-SVK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026)).

Quince alleged that litigation “exposed” the scheme on October 2, 2025, when the instant district court, in Deckers v. Last Brand, Inc. (the Quince action) became the first to evaluate Deckers’ product-design trade dress claims after full discovery. Quince said the Quince court found the Classic Ultra Mini boot and Tasman slipper trade dresses were generic and unprotectable.

According to Quince, Deckers responded to the Quince ruling by filing dozens of new lawsuits “recycling the same invalidated five-feature definition.” By asserting unprotectable, unregistered product design trade dresses at scale, Quince says Deckers sought improper control over the entire category of goods in the Sheepskin Casual Footwear Market. Quince contended that trademark rights in the UGG name and logo and design patent rights alone cannot give Deckers control over the category.

Each Deckers suit allegedly generated “dozens” of settlements that Deckers “packaged as validation for the next enforcement round.” According to Quince, Deckers proceeded this way despite receiving repeated and explicit notices from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that its trade-dress claims lacked merit. Quince contended that USPTO rejected registration of the Classic UGG boot design in 2015, and again in 2018, because the features Deckers claimed were, in Quince’s words, “so common in the marketplace that they could not serve as source identifiers.”

Quince alleged the filing of successive pattern or “template” lawsuits has disrupted competitors during critical sales periods. When the season ends, Deckers often settles or dismisses its cases, then cites the legal action as enforcement in subsequent disputes. Quince alleged Deckers repeats the process with “dozens” of defendants each year.

Quince described how Deckers allegedly files complaints in the form of a reusable template. Key features include: (1) a product-specific trade dress definition using ordinary footwear-construction descriptors; (2) a recitation of the “UGG Classic” heritage narrative; and (3) conclusory “inherently distinctive” and “non-functional” labels lacking design-specific consumer perception allegations. Quince said the template is “built to survive the pleading stage and to push the real fight into discovery and experts.” Deckers allegedly repeats the same story each time it files trade dress complaints without conducting a substantive review of common functional elements shared by other products. According to Quince, many matters end before there is any adjudication on the merits. Deckers then uses the accretion of outcomes and “negotiated recitals” as practical leverage in later disputes against the next seasonal wave of competitors. Quince said the program “operates as a litigation tax in a seasonal market.” Competitors allegedly must choose between absorbing the cost of litigation and channel risk or accept forward-looking restraints.

About a third of the 45-page complaint page count deals with the Quince version of Deckers’ litigation history dating back to 2008, as well as purported notice to Deckers of “definitional, evidentiary, and merits defects” in its “unregistered product-design trade dress campaign.” The latter includes a purported account of interactions with USPTO.

From there, the complaint makes allegations of sham litigation and Deckers’ subjective intent to use the litigation process itself, rather than the merits of claims, to restrain competition, including descriptions of seven “exemplars” of sham litigation, including a case involving the Tommy Hilfiger brand.

The complaint defined the relevant geographic market as the United States and the relevant product market as the Sheepskin Casual Footwear Market for sheepskin- and shearling-lined casual footwear. The complaint defined that to include boots, slippers, slides, and sandals primarily designed and purchased for warmth, comfort, and softness, and commonly worn casually both indoors and outdoors.

The complaint alleged that Deckers’ has substantial market power, with net sales of about $2.5 billion in 2025. Quince said it believes that Deckers has 50% or more market share in the Sheepskin Casual Footwear Market.

Alleged barriers to entry and expansion include seasonal demand concentration, long lead times for materials sourcing and production, the need for reliable sheepskin access in a constrained supply chain, and “legal risk created by Deckers’ litigation campaign.”

Price effects and consumer harm of the Deckers’ litigation “campaign” include output and choice reduction and a tendency to raise prices by increasing rival costs and inducing withdrawals from the market. Quince said Decker’s typically prices its products between 50% and 100% higher than competitors.

Attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act is the sole Quince claim for relief. Quince asked the court to enter judgment with the following relief:

(a) compensatory, treble, and punitive damages;

(b) attorney’s fees and costs;

(c) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;

(d) pre- and post-judgment interest, including under Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15; and,

(e) any other proper relief.

Quince said it specified injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 26 to prevent recurrence and to deter more of the alleged anticompetitive conduct by Deckers. Specific requested injunctive prohibitions include:

(a) filing or maintaining actions asserting the Tasman or Classic Ultra Mini Trade Dress;

(b) asserting that any Deckers product-design trade dresses are “inherently distinctive” in litigation or with threat of litigation;

(c) asserting unregistered product-design trade dress in litigation or with threat of litigation without identifying the specific accused product; the specific features alleged to be protectable; or the factual basis for claiming the feature list is nonfunctional, nongeneric, and has acquired secondary meaning.

Quince demanded a jury trial.

The Case is No. 5:26-cv-01540-SVK.

Judge: Keulen, S.

Attorneys: Xinlin Li Morrow (Morrow Ni LLP) for Last Brand, Inc.

Companies: Last Brand, Inc.; Deckers Outdoor Corp.

News: IndustryNewsTrends Trademark CaliforniaNews