What began as a viral social media moment has escalated into a full-scale legal confrontation between Saint Laurent and independent label Kandee Shoes, highlighting how quickly visibility can turn into vulnerability for smaller brands.
The dispute traces back to a widely shared post that went live on November 29, 2025 featuring independent brand Kandee Shoes’ Caviar Collection in a blackcurrant colorway, styled on a dramatic, exaggerated platform that drew comparisons online to a “Grinch-like” foot shape. The post rapidly gained traction, amassing over 1 million views, well beyond Kandee’s core audience. Shortly after the post went viral, Saint Laurent initiated contact.
According to documentation received December 1, 2025, Saint Laurent alleges that Kandee Shoes’ Caviar Leather Thong Sandals are nearly identical to two of its own designs: the Sue Mule from Spring 2026 and the Otero Mule from Summer 2025. The luxury house asserts that the similarities go beyond trend alignment, pointing instead to what it describes as a replication of distinctive design elements.
Saint Laurent specifically cites the minimalist thong mule silhouette, an elongated sharply pointed sole with a square toe, a Y-shaped strap between the toes, a slender stiletto heel, and a round gold metal plaque affixed to the bottom of the insole. Taken together, Saint Laurent argues, these elements form a recognizable and protectable design identity.
From Viral Visibility to Alleged Consumer Confusion
Beyond the physical similarities, Saint Laurent claims Kandee’s timing amplified the alleged infringement. The brand argues that Kandee’s products were released in overlapping colorways and sold concurrently with Saint Laurent’s own collections, increasing the likelihood that consumers could mistake Kandee’s sandals for Saint Laurent products or assume an association between the two brands.
Saint Laurent characterizes this as unlawful diversion of clientele and a misappropriation of its brand equity, framing the issue as one of identity dilution rather than isolated design overlap.
Cease, Desist, and Disclose
In its demands, Saint Laurent calls for Kandee Shoes to immediately cease producing, selling, or promoting the disputed products worldwide, including across online and social media channels. The letter further requests that Kandee stop using any elements Saint Laurent deems distinctive to its brand.
Most notably, Saint Laurent is demanding detailed commercial disclosures. Within seven days, Kandee Shoes is asked to provide written documentation outlining the number of allegedly infringing products manufactured, sold, and currently held in inventory, broken down by country. Saint Laurent states this information is required to assess damages.
The situation escalated further on social media. Kandee alleges that the design director overseeing men’s and women’s footwear at Yves Saint Laurent publicly commented on his viral post, writing, “You’re copying them.”
By December 17th, 2025 the Kandee instagram account was completely shut down on grounds of copyright infringement, abruptly cutting off the brand’s primary channel of communication and sales visibility.
“Waking up to find my entire Instagram gone overnight, after years of building it, was heartbreaking. I’ve barely slept since and feel completely devastated.” Shared the heartbroken brand owner.
On December 18, 2025, in response, the founder of Kandee Shoes, Joshua, addressed the situation directly on his personal social account, outlining what he says has unfolded behind the scenes. In the post, he described the sequence of events from the viral moment to the takedown demand and subsequent account suspension framing it as an example of how vulnerable independent brands can be when confronted by global luxury players.
In a screenshot received by Kandee, YSL’s design director again shared additional commentary via Instagram Stories sharing,“Before they copy than they say we attack them. What a shame.” For many observers, the decision by a senior executive at a global luxury house to publicly call out an independent founder intensified concerns about power imbalance, shifting the dispute from a private legal matter into a very public display of pressure.
Why Silhouettes Are Hard to Own
Generic footwear categories, such as mules, thong sandals, pumps, or loafers, are typically considered functional or historical forms. Legal protection usually applies only when a design includes distinctive, non-functional elements that clearly identify a brand, such as unique hardware, logos, protected ornamentation, or patented construction methods.
Because of this, many disputes never hinge on whether a shoe “looks similar,” but on whether a brand can prove specific, protectable features were copied. This legal ambiguity is why enforcement actions often stop at takedown demands rather than proceeding to court and why smaller brands can feel pressured even when ownership claims remain unsettled.
A Broader Industry Pattern
While the legal outcome remains to be seen, the case highlights a recurring pattern in fashion: viral momentum can trigger scrutiny, and visibility can invite enforcement. As silhouettes compress and trends circulate faster than ever, large luxury houses continue to leverage intellectual property claims as a means of protecting brand control, often placing smaller, independent brands in a defensive position.
“I built this brand from nothing, driven by a lifelong love of fashion and a dream of creating something of my own. To see my shoes chosen by people like Sabrina Carpenter, Khloé Kardashian, Doja Cat, Cardi B, and Jennie Kim meant everything to me.” Shared the founder.
This dispute also reflects a broader pattern that independent designers have been flagging for years. As competition intensifies amongst brands online and social platforms accelerate breakout viral moments, large brands have increasingly relied on bully tactics, legal pressure, takedowns and platform reporting to contain smaller, faster-moving labels.
In many cases, the new objective is not to litigate copyright and design claims in a court of law, but to impose enough friction such as cost, uncertainty, and business disruption that independent brands are forced to retreat or shut down completely. The result is an uneven playing field where market power, rather than creative merit, determines who survives.
For an industry that champions entrepreneurship and creativity, this dynamic continues to raise uncomfortable questions about whether intellectual property and copyright enforcement is being used as brand protection or as a tool to quietly eliminate the competition.
