White Mountain International LLC vs Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc - Memorandum and Order (September 4, 2024)

Aug 24, 2026

Federal court memorandum and order addressing Birkenstock’s claims against White Mountain International LLC and American Exchange Time LLC over alleged copying of “knock-off” sandals and clogs. The plaintiffs assert design patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement, while the defendants move to dismiss most claims for failure to state a claim. The court allows dismissal only as to the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H statutory claim, which is unopposed, and otherwise denies dismissal for the remaining claims after a hearing.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Background

Birkenstock’s Products

Arizona sandal

Boston clog

Mayari toe-loop sandal

Bone-Pattern Mark and related filings

Case 1:24-cv-10610-PBS Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) BIRKENSTOCK US BIDCO, INC . , ) BIRKENSTOCK USA, LP , and ) BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH , ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action v . ) No . 24-cv-10610 ) WHITE MOUNTAIN INTERNATIONAL LLC ) and AMERICAN EXCHANGE TIME LLC , ) ) Defendants . ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 4 , 2024 Saris, D .J . INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc . , Birkenstock USA, LP, and Birkenstock IP GmbH (collectively, “Birkenstock”) bring this action against Defendants White Mountain International LLC and American Exchange Time LLC (collectively, “White Mountain”) , alleging that White Mountain has copied and produced “knock-off”versions of its sandals and clogs . In its amended complaint, Birkenstock asserts design patent , trademark, and trade dress infringement claims . White Mountain now moves to dismiss most of Birkenstock’s claims for failure to state a claim . After hearing, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss Birkenstock’s statutory Case 1:24-cv-10610-PBS Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 19 claim under Mass . Gen . Laws ch . 110H , which is unopposed . The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to all other claims . BACKGROUND Birkenstock alleges the following facts in its first amended complaint (Dkt . 6), which are accepted as true for purposes of White Mountain’s motion to dismiss . I . Birkenstock’s Products Birkenstock sells footwear products --most notably sandals and clogs -- across the United States and worldwide . The Birkenstock products pertinent to this matter are the Arizona twostrap sandal (“Arizona”), the Arizona Big Buckle sandal (“Arizona Big Buckle”), the Boston clog (“Boston”), the Mayari toe-loop sandal (“Mayari”), and the Buckley clog (“Buckley”) . Birkenstock introduced the Arizona sandal in 1973. The Arizona includes at least the following features , as described in the complaint: [A] footbed, with an exaggerated defined rim, that appears wider and more sunken at the heel and tapers so that the front portion appears thinner; with an outsole having sides with a rutted, irregular appearance; a raised wishbone-shaped strip in the front portion of the footbed; and an upper composed of a medial and a lateral pattern piece, each pattern piece sandwiched between the outsole and the footbed on each side of the foot, covering the midsole, with a sharp angle in each piece from the middle of the heel to the top of the instep, where the pattern pieces collectively form two robust straps, one strap across the instep and one strap across the forefoot, where the strap portions of the medial pattern piece are longer, having punched holes and rounded, angled edges, and the strap portions of the Case 1:24-cv-10610-PBS Document 46 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 19 lateral pattern piece each having a flat buckle, such that when the straps are fastened, the upper forms a substantially rounded-rectangle cutout in the middle of the forefoot . Dkt . 6 at 6 (“Arizona Trade Dress”) . In the past decade, Birkenstock has sold more than 36 million units of the Arizona in the United States . Birkenstock introduced the Boston clog in 1976. The Boston includes at least the following features , as described in the complaint: [A]n exposed deep-heel section with an embellished defined edge; an open-edged upper with a curved upwardsloping appearance enclosing the forefoot and affixed to the shoe between the footbed and the sole and curved Ushaped cutouts forming an elongated flap-like tongue with vertical parallel cutouts; and a strap with an overall rectangular appearance overlapping the upper and threaded through the vertical parallel cutouts in the tongue, with one end having punch holes affixed to the outside of the shoe by a buckle . [Id.](Id. at)[ at](Id. at) 7 (“Boston Trade Dress”). In the past decade, Birkenstock has sold more than 4.8 million units of the B

FAQs

What claims does Birkenstock bring against White Mountain?

Birkenstock alleges design patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement based on alleged copying and production of knock-off sandals and clogs.

How did the court rule on White Mountain’s motion to dismiss?

The court allowed dismissal of Birkenstock’s statutory claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, which was unopposed, and denied dismissal as to the remaining claims.

Which Birkenstock products are central to the dispute?

The memorandum focuses on several footwear models, including the Arizona sandal, Arizona Big Buckle sandal, Boston clog, Mayari toe-loop sandal, and Buckley clog, along with the relevant claimed designs and marks.

Aug 24, 2026

Upload by Theodore