By the 2010s, Feiyue had split into two commercially distinct products: the original Chinese shoes made through Da Fu and related manufacturers, and a thicker-soled, fashion-oriented French-American version promoted internationally through collaborations and celebrity exposure. Da Fu retained the Feiyue trademark in China, while Feiyue International controlled trademark, trade-name, and trade-dress rights across multiple foreign markets, including France, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan. Da Fu sued Feiyue International over rights in France but lost, leaving the overseas company legally positioned to market its redesigned shoes under the same name. The physical differences made the dispute especially visible: Chinese models traditionally used thin canvas and lightly padded soles favored by martial artists, often marked by a green triangular sole seal, whereas the Western versions used thicker materials, heavier padding, and a red circular marking for lifestyle wear. The result was an unusual case of brand fragmentation in which consumers could buy two shoes bearing the same historic name, each side claiming authenticity and accusing the other of misappropriating—or falsely reproducing—the heritage of a famous Chinese brand.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
Two Feiyues, One Name: The Court Fight Over China's Iconic Kung Fu Sneaker
Shanghai Da Fu Rubber Co. and Feiyue International LLC / 2010s
By the 2010s, Feiyue had split into two commercially distinct products: the original Chinese shoes made through Da Fu and related manufacturers, and a thicker-soled, fashion-oriented French-American version promoted internationally through collaborations and celebrity exposure. Da Fu retained the Feiyue trademark in China, while Feiyue International controlled trademark, trade-name, and trade-dress rights across multiple foreign markets, including France, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan. Da Fu sued Feiyue International over rights in France but lost, leaving the overseas company legally positioned to market its redesigned shoes under the same name. The physical differences made the dispute especially visible: Chinese models traditionally used thin canvas and lightly padded soles favored by martial artists, often marked by a green triangular sole seal, whereas the Western versions used thicker materials, heavier padding, and a red circular marking for lifestyle wear. The result was an unusual case of brand fragmentation in which consumers could buy two shoes bearing the same historic name, each side claiming authenticity and accusing the other of misappropriating—or falsely reproducing—the heritage of a famous Chinese brand.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.