Is Dr Martens’ Yellow Stitching Really That Distinctive? The Brussels Court of Appeal Thinks So

On 30 September 2025, the Brussels Court of Appeal handed down an important decision for trade mark law enthusiasts and brand owners alike, finding that the yellow stitching and sole pattern of Dr Martens boots are distinctive trade marks owned by Airwair International Ltd. The ruling comes after years of litigation with Retail Distributions Concepts BV (Redisco), which had been accused of selling lookalike footwear under the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP).

Dr Martens’ iconic design features, notably the yellow stitching and the unique sole pattern of its 1460 boot, have long been a focal point of its brand identity. Airwair holds multiple registrations in Class 25, including a shape mark for the yellow stitching, a position mark for yellow stitching on a black welt that is still under separate review, a shape mark for the sole pattern, and a figurative “resistance rectangle” mark. When Airwair discovered Redisco’s allegedly infringing footwear in 2020, it sought a cease and desist. Litigation followed, with Redisco challenging the validity and distinctiveness of Airwair’s marks, claiming their designs differed enough to avoid confusion.

The Court of Appeal recognised that while consumers do not usually perceive the shape of a sole as a trade mark, in this case Airwair’s advertising and longstanding use created an association strong enough for distinctiveness. Despite some visual differences between Redisco’s soles and Dr Martens’, the court held that these were not significant enough to escape notice, establishing a likelihood of confusion under Article 2.20(2)(b) BCIP.

Redisco also argued that yellow stitching is merely decorative and dictated by technical necessity under the Goodyear method. The court disagreed. Although stitching itself may be functional, Airwair’s long and intensive use of the contrasting yellow colour, supported by substantial marketing investment, had endowed the feature with acquired distinctiveness. The court found that even orange or white stitching could evoke Dr Martens’ branding in the minds of consumers, leading to a likelihood of confusion for certain shoes. Interestingly, other shoes with thinner or smaller stitches escaped liability, as the court considered the overall impression sufficiently different.

Finally, the court sided with Airwair once again regarding the figurative “resistance rectangle” mark, finding that Redisco’s use of a similar label featuring the words “oil, fat, acid, petrol, alkali resistant” created a likelihood of confusion, even though the words themselves might be descriptive. The Court emphasised that the configuration and presentation of those words were key to distinctiveness.

The decision raises an intriguing question: how can consumers be attentive enough to notice thread thickness but too inattentive to distinguish different sole patterns? The Court’s approach arguably lacks consistency. If Dr Martens’ yellow stitching is so distinctive that even nonyellow variants evoke it, it seems curious that thinner or smaller white stitching would avoid confusion. The reasoning also blurs the line between functional and distinctive elements, a recurring tension in trade mark law. Moreover, while the Court accepted the figurative mark’s distinctiveness without much linguistic analysis, one might question whether the English words “oil, fat, acid, petrol, alkali resistant” would be perceived as descriptive by Benelux consumers, potentially weakening the mark’s strength.

The Brussels Court of Appeal’s ruling underscores how consistent branding and extensive use can transform even functional design features such as stitching into distinctive trade marks. For brand owners, it highlights the value of acquired distinctiveness but also the unpredictability of consumer perception in shape and position mark cases. For now, Dr Martens can walk tall: its yellow stitching is officially distinctive, but the line between functionality, decoration, and distinctiveness remains as tricky as ever to tread.