The dispute escalated because the two sides claimed overlapping ownership of the same historical name. Shanghai Da Fu Rubber, the original Chinese manufacturer, maintained that it had produced Feiyue shoes for decades and that Bastian had obtained rights from a manufacturer rather than from the actual brand owner. Da Fu manager Liu Qinglong argued in 2017 that Chinese businesses were unfamiliar with commodity trademark law during the country’s transition from state-owned factories to more privatized commercial structures, allowing the French company to register the Feiyue trademark abroad before the Chinese manufacturer understood what had happened. Bastian disputed that interpretation and went further, calling the Chinese shoes “counterfeit” on the grounds that the American-owned company possessed the relevant registrations. He also acknowledged that, when he made the acquisition, he did not know exactly who owned the factory from which he believed he had purchased the brand.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
The Counterfeit Accusation at the Heart of the Feiyue Split
Shanghai Da Fu Rubber Co. and Feiyue International LLC / 2010s
The dispute escalated because the two sides claimed overlapping ownership of the same historical name. Shanghai Da Fu Rubber, the original Chinese manufacturer, maintained that it had produced Feiyue shoes for decades and that Bastian had obtained rights from a manufacturer rather than from the actual brand owner. Da Fu manager Liu Qinglong argued in 2017 that Chinese businesses were unfamiliar with commodity trademark law during the country’s transition from state-owned factories to more privatized commercial structures, allowing the French company to register the Feiyue trademark abroad before the Chinese manufacturer understood what had happened. Bastian disputed that interpretation and went further, calling the Chinese shoes “counterfeit” on the grounds that the American-owned company possessed the relevant registrations. He also acknowledged that, when he made the acquisition, he did not know exactly who owned the factory from which he believed he had purchased the brand.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.