Sara Blakely, the self-made billionaire and founder of Spanx, is well-known for revolutionizing shapewear. Now, she is taking on the footwear industry with a new line of high heels called “SNEEX.” These shoes are designed to look elegant while feeling as comfortable as your favorite sneakers. Sounds promising, right? However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently refused to register her trademark. So, what’s the issue?
The USPTO Says “Not So Fast”
The USPTO had two main reasons for rejecting the SNEEX trademark.
First, they cited a likelihood of confusion with another registered mark. The office believes that “SNEEX” is too similar to an existing mark, “SNEAK,” which is owned by a UK company called Sneak Energy Limited. Although Sneak Energy Limited primarily sells energy drinks, they have also registered their brand for clothing and footwear. The USPTO is concerned that consumers might mistakenly believe the two brands are connected, which could create confusion in the marketplace.
Second, the USPTO feels that “SNEEX” might be considered too descriptive. Since it resembles “sneaks,” a slang term for sneakers, the USPTO believes it merely describes what the shoes are (comfortable, sneaker-like heels), rather than functioning as a unique brand name.
(Source: https://sneex.com/products/the-tepper?variant=49787999486261)
Can Blakely Bounce Back?
This isn’t the end of the road for Sara Blakely. Her legal team has several solid options to turn the situation around. Blakely could challenge the “SNEAK” trademark by arguing that Sneak Energy isn’t actively selling shoes in the U.S. under that name. They could push to cancel or narrow the trademark, asserting that Sneak Energy shouldn’t be able to block others from using similar names in categories where they are not actively engaged.
Another approach is for Blakely to negotiate with Sneak Energy. By reaching a mutual agreement, both companies could clarify what steps they will take to limit consumer confusion. The USPTO sometimes accepts such agreements as proof that these companies can co-exist.
Blakely might also argue that “SNEEX” is more creative than merely descriptive. While it sounds like “sneaks,” the unique spelling sets it apart, and the shoes are clearly high heels, not actual sneakers. If her team can show that the name suggests the comfort of sneakers without literally describing the product, they may still secure the trademark.
What’s Next for SNEEX?
Trademark rejections aren’t uncommon, even for established brands. What matters is how a brand responds. Blakely has built a successful empire from the ground up, so it’s reasonable to assume she won’t back down easily. With strategic legal maneuvers and possibly some compromise, she could still obtain the “SNEEX” trademark and bring her sneaker-like heels to market. In the end, innovation often faces challenges. But as Blakely has shown in the past, a little resistance can lead to significant breakthroughs.
Learn more about filing your own trademark application! Need assistance? Call or email us at (713) 364-4796 or admin@madan-law.com.