Some intellectual property disputes do more than determine who wins in court. They challenge existing assumptions, clarify the boundaries of IP rights, and reshape how brands approach protecting and enforcing their intellectual property in a permanent way.
For IP lawyers, in-house legal teams, and brand owners, understanding these influential cases can provide useful context for the challenges facing rights holders today. While the disputes explored here span different industries and forms of IP protection, each was significant because it changed, challenged, or helped solidify how intellectual property could be used to protect a brand’s commercial value.
This article explores five cases that have helped shape modern brand protection, including:
- Apple vs Samsung and the value of combining multiple IP rights to protect innovation
- LEGO vs Mega Bloks and the importance of planning for the lifecycle of intellectual property
- Christian Louboutin vs Van Haren and the new understanding of non-traditional trademarks and distinctive brand assets
- L’Oréal vs eBay and the evolution of online marketplace enforcement
- The recent Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea dispute and the future of trademark protection
1. Apple vs. Samsung
Relevant IP rights: Design patents, utility patents, and trade dress
What happened
The long-running dispute between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics began in 2011. It became the most prominent battle in the smartphone industry’s so-called “phone wars” — a series of high-profile IP disputes between competing manufacturers. Apple alleged that Samsung had infringed a range of utility and design patents, including the iPhone’s distinctive rounded-corner design and user interface features such as pinch-to-zoom functionality.
Litigated across multiple jurisdictions, the dispute resulted in a series of landmark decisions on the scope of design patent protection. After years of appeals, Samsung agreed to pay Apple hundreds of millions of US dollars in 2018 to resolve the remaining claims.
Beyond the courtroom, the litigation came to symbolise the growing rivalry between Apple’s iOS ecosystem and Google’s Android platform. It cemented the smartphone industry’s division into two competing ecosystems, a dynamic that continues to shape the market today.
What changed
The case challenged the perception that valuable innovation lies solely in how a product works. It demonstrated that protection can extend beyond technical functionality to the design choices that make products distinctive and valuable.
The Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling also had implications beyond the dispute itself. By confirming that a component of a larger product could qualify as the relevant “article of manufacture” for design patent damages, it provided an important framework for subsequent design patent disputes involving complex products.
More broadly, the dispute reinforced the importance of viewing IP rights as a portfolio rather than in isolation. Apple relied on multiple forms of protection to support its claims, including utility patents, design patents, and trade dress, demonstrating how complementary rights can work together to protect a single product.
Key takeaways
- Build IP protection around every distinctive element of a product, from technical functionality and design to branding and user experience.
- Consider how different IP rights can work together to create a stronger protection and enforcement strategy, rather than relying on a single form of protection.
- Rights holders should identify valuable assets early, before infringement occurs, to ensure there are clear routes for enforcement if competitors attempt to replicate a successful product.
Want to know why protecting distinctive visual design is becoming more crucial than ever? Read our article on brand trade dress.
2. LEGO vs. Mega Bloks
Relevant IP rights: Patents, trademarks, and product design
What happened
The dispute between LEGO and Mega Bloks centred around one of the most recognisable product features in the toy industry: LEGO’s interlocking brick system. After LEGO’s original patents covering the brick design expired, competitor Mega Bloks began producing compatible construction bricks, leading to a series of legal disputes over whether LEGO could continue to protect elements of its iconic product.
After the patents expired, LEGO attempted to rely on various forms of intellectual property protection, including trademarks, designs, and copyright, to prevent competitors from replicating the distinctive features associated with its brand. However, courts in several jurisdictions found that some elements of the brick design were functional, and therefore could not benefit from indefinite protection through trademark law.
What changed
The dispute became one of the clearest demonstrations of how different forms of IP protection have different lifespans. While patents can provide strong protection for technical innovation, they are time-limited by design. Once those protections expire, businesses must consider how other rights, such as trademarks and branding, can help preserve commercial value.
The case also reinforced the importance of distinguishing between what makes a product function and what makes it recognisable. While companies cannot use trademarks to permanently protect functional product features, they can protect distinctive elements that consumers associate with their brand.
Key takeaways
- Consider the full lifecycle of a product when developing an IP strategy. Different rights may become valuable at different stages, from protecting initial innovation through patents to safeguarding long-term brand assets.
- Understand the boundaries of each IP right and where protection may end, particularly when dealing with functional product features.
- Protecting a successful product requires more than legal rights alone. Businesses must identify the elements that create consumer recognition and ensure those assets are protected appropriately.
Want to dive deeper into protecting innovations in the toy market? Download our free toy industry guide.
3. Christian Louboutin vs Van Haren
Relevant IP rights: Colour marks and non-traditional trademarks
What happened
Christian Louboutin’s signature red-soled heels have become one of the most recognisable features in luxury fashion. To protect this distinctive element, Louboutin secured trademark protection for the red sole in several jurisdictions, arguing that consumers associate it with the brand.
In 2012, Dutch retailer Van Haren sold high-heeled shoes featuring a red sole, leading Louboutin to bring trademark infringement proceedings. The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled that a colour applied to a specific part of a product was not automatically excluded from protection. The decision allowed Louboutin’s red sole trademark to remain enforceable.
What changed
Louboutin vs Van Haren demonstrated the value of non-traditional trademarks, showing that distinctive elements such as colours, shapes, and other visual cues can serve as powerful indicators of brand origin.
At the same time, the case highlighted the importance of carefully defining the boundaries of trademark protection. While businesses can protect distinctive elements that consumers associate with their brand, trademark law cannot be used to create indefinite protection over features that are purely functional or necessary for competition.
Key takeaways
- Look beyond traditional trademarks like names and logos when assessing what makes a brand distinctive. Visual elements can become valuable assets where consumers associate them with a particular brand.
- Consider whether distinctive brand features could qualify for protection and strengthen a wider IP portfolio.
- Assess the limits of protection carefully, ensuring that claimed brand assets function as indicators of origin rather than attempting to protect features that are purely functional.
4. L’Oréal vs eBay
Relevant IP rights: Online marketplace enforcement, trademarks, and counterfeiting
What happened
L’Oréal brought proceedings against eBay after discovering that counterfeit L’Oréal products, as well as genuine goods intended for sale outside the European Economic Area, were being sold through the online marketplace. The cosmetics company argued that eBay should do more to prevent infringing listings appearing on its platform.
The dispute was referred to the European Court of Justice, which considered the extent to which online marketplace operators could be held responsible for trademark infringement committed by their users. In 2011, the court ruled that while platforms are not automatically liable for every infringing listing, they may be required to take action where they have knowledge of unlawful activity, and to implement measures that help prevent similar infringements from recurring.
What changed
The decision helped define the responsibilities of online marketplaces in relation to IP infringement, recognising that effective enforcement requires cooperation between rights holders and the platforms that host third-party sellers.
It also marked a significant shift in how brands approach online enforcement. Rather than relying solely on removing individual listings, rights holders increasingly adopted proactive monitoring and intelligence-led strategies to identify repeat infringers.
Key takeaways
- Online brand protection requires continual monitoring, not just reactive takedowns after infringing listings appear.
- Effective enforcement depends on combining legal rights with evidence-based monitoring to identify repeat offenders and emerging infringement trends.
- Working collaboratively with online platforms can strengthen enforcement efforts and help reduce future infringements.
At SnapDragon, we find counterfeit listings on online marketplaces every day, and the beauty industry is particularly vulnerable. Visit our beauty guide to download a free fact sheet exploring the rise of dupe culture in beauty, and watch our webinar with TikTok Shop, where we discuss the challenges beauty brands face and the steps they can take to stay ahead.
5. A contemporary case: Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea
The recent trademark dispute between Louis Vuitton and Chinese tea chain Molly Tea has attracted widespread attention for the questions it raises about the future of trademark and trade dress protection. Although the businesses operate in entirely different sectors, the case is demonstrating how strong brands can become vulnerable to imitation far beyond their traditional markets.
As cross-industry collaborations become increasingly common, courts may also need to take a broader view of consumer confusion. The case suggests that distinctive branding, store design and other visual elements can carry significant commercial value, even when used outside a brand’s core industry.
While it is too early to know whether Louis Vuitton vs Molly Tea will become a landmark decision, it reflects the evolving challenges facing rights holders. Protecting a brand today means looking beyond counterfeit goods and direct competitors to identify unauthorised use of brand identity wherever it appears.
Looking ahead
The cases explored in this article span two decades, multiple industries, and a range of IP rights, yet each one demonstrates how brands must adapt their approach to protecting intellectual property as the threats they face evolve.
A brand’s defence strategy is not something that can be decided once and left unchanged. As markets, technology, consumer behaviour, and infringement tactics evolve, effective IP protection requires an intelligence-led, multi-layered approach that can adapt to new risks. Understanding which assets are most valuable and worth protecting is a key part of that strategy.
At SnapDragon, we work with brands and legal teams to build and support these evolving protection strategies. By combining online monitoring, infringement intelligence and global enforcement support, we help rights holders identify emerging risks, prioritise action and protect the commercial value of their intellectual property.
The threats facing brands are constantly changing. For a closer look at how counterfeiters are adapting their tactics in 2026, read our article on strategies for combating the evolving counterfeit landscape.
Want to see how SnapDragon’s AI can protect your brand?
If you would like to explore how SnapDragon can accelerate your online brand protection, safeguarding your brand’s Intellectual Property, then get in touch to schedule a demo.
We would love to hear from you, show you what’s possible, and get you protected.
Get in touch today.
