We would like to introduce to you the curious case of Pocket Socks, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton and Pharrell Williams. Or, as we like to call it, the tale of “Wait, are those my socks?”
It all began with a European vacation. Not the Griswold kind with lederhosen and driving disasters; though, to be fair, there may have been a pickpocket or two involved. Evan Papel, the ever-resourceful entrepreneur behind Pocket Socks, came home with a great idea and probably a slightly lighter wallet. Determined to avoid such travel tragedies in the future, he invented a sock with a zippered pocket. The result was clever, functional, and oddly endearing. Finally, a place to stash your cash that no one would dare rifle through unless they had suspicious interests in ankles.
Pocket Socks soon hit the market for under fifty dollars and were marketed to travelers, hikers, and people who actually read the safety card on airplanes. These were socks for real humans. The kind of people who unironically use packing cubes and know the thrill of finding a working airport outlet.
Then came Paris Fashion Week and, with it, Louis Vuitton’s runway reveal of their own pocket sock concept. Under the creative leadership of Pharrell Williams, LV introduced their version of the pocket sock. It came adorned with the iconic monogram, a tasteful pearl, and a price tag of five hundred sixty-five dollars. Apparently, the added luxury costs extra.
Naturally, Pocket Socks, Inc. was not amused. They filed suit in June 2024, calling it a David and Goliath story. They claimed that Pharrell and LV swiped their concept, used the same name, and presented it on the fashion stage without so much as a nod of credit. They said it was a textbook case of infringement and unfair competition.
But the court was not buying what they were selling. On April 29, 2025, Judge Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the case. The reasons were as crisp as a fresh pair of socks. First, there was no likelihood of confusion between a high-end luxury item sold to fashionistas and a practical travel item sold to people who know how to roll their clothes to save space in a suitcase. Second, the branding was totally different. Louis Vuitton stamped its logo front and center, making it very clear who made their socks. Third, Pocket Socks did not clearly define what made their trade dress protectable. It turns out, just saying “it has a zipper” is not quite enough to win in federal court.
Despite the loss, the court did leave the door open. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means Pocket Socks has the option to amend its complaint. Whether they will remains to be seen.
Now, full disclosure. I actually hate socks. Always have. Slippers, sandals, bare feet, anything but socks. And yet, somehow, these ones are adorable. Maybe it is the zipper. Maybe it is the tiny hidden compartment. Maybe it is just the sheer audacity of charging over five hundred dollars for something I normally avoid wearing. Whatever it is, I am unexpectedly charmed.
We are left with a story that is part cautionary tale and part marketing masterclass. Evan Papel gave us socks with secret compartments, and for that, backpackers and beachgoers everywhere are forever grateful. Pharrell gave us socks with pearl accents and a logo that screams wealth and whimsy. And in a world where fashion lawsuits are usually about handbags or sneakers, it is oddly refreshing to see socks getting their day in court.
As for what happens next, we will be watching. Maybe Pocket Socks will try again. Maybe Pharrell will launch a “Zippered Soul” capsule collection. Maybe we will all start hiding our valuables in our socks just out of spite.
Let us know where you stand. Are you team Evan, team Pharrell, or team I cannot believe I just spent half an hour reading about socks? Either way, it is a step forward in the wonderfully strange world of fashion law and frankly, I am all in.
