From Bottega Veneta's trademarked Intrecciato to the US patent office's rejection of Naghedi's weave

Naghedi, the US-based bag brand founded by Sara Naghedi in 2016, and the Kering-owned Italian label Bottega Veneta, renowned for its Intrecciato motif, represent two landmark cases in intellectual property.

In 2025, Bottega Veneta celebrated the 50th anniversary of Intrecciato, the craftsmanship that defines the brand founded in Vicenza in 1966. The Intrecciato technique uses long strips of leather woven diagonally across a leather base, rather than a standard vertical pattern, resulting in a more supple structure. In its early advertising campaigns, Bottega Veneta stated: “people recognise a Bottega as soon as they see it. That is why we only put our name inside the bags”.

Naghedi woven neoprene bags

Naghedi bags feature woven neoprene. Part of the reason these bags have achieved cult status is their variety of styles. They offer a range of silhouettes including shoppers, hobo bags, crossbody bags, clutches, and beauty cases. Many iconic models, such as the St. Barts and the Tulum, are available in petite, small, medium, and large versions, alongside a wide range of vibrant colours and playful double-weave patterns. Prices for the bags range from 284 euros for the Soho Envelope crossbody model to 294 euros for the Gramercy bucket.

The difficulty in distinction comes when addressing intellectual property. The Bottega Veneta weave has been a registered trademark since May 2013. The registration for Class 18, specifically covering bags and leather goods, was formalised on May 13, 2014. Naghedi has not yet achieved this. In contrast, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected Naghedi’s application to register its woven neoprene pattern.

Experts from the Lux Juris platform note that both brands rely on weaving as a central element of their visual identity, building recognition through texture, repetition, and material consistency. "Different outcomes reflect a core principle of trademark doctrine: design is only protected where consumers perceive it as an indicator of the origin of the goods, and not simply as part of a brand's aesthetic," Lux Juris emphasised.

Bottega Veneta’s Intrecciato consists of a precise configuration of thin leather strips, woven at a specific angle and applied consistently across all the brand's leather products. In this instance, the weave is not accompanied by logos or wordmarks but functions as an independent visual identifier. To provide an indication of pricing, the Bottega Veneta Giorno crossbody bag costs 2,900 euros, while the small Andiamo model with a chain costs 4,300 euros.

The USPTO initially treated Bottega Veneta's Intrecciato as ornamental and raised concerns about “aesthetic functionality,” based on the fact that woven leather is a common design technique. On appeal, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board accepted that, in the context of actual market use, the Intrecciato had acquired the ability to function as a source-identifying mark.

This conclusion, Lux Juris experts added, was supported by several factors, including: the consistent use of the same Intrecciato across all product lines; recognition by the press and industry of the weave as a distinctive feature of Bottega Veneta; marketing materials positioning the weave as a central brand element; and the limited use of the same configuration by competitors. Together, these elements supported the idea that the weave had gone beyond mere decoration to operate as a trade dress capable of functioning as a trademark.

Naghedi's woven neoprene pattern is formed by thin, uniform straps on its bags. Although it is central to the brand's products, it could not be demonstrated that it functioned as a source identifier.

The USPTO concluded that consumers would likely perceive the pattern as a decorative surface design rather than an indicator of origin. “This assessment was influenced by the prevalence of similar woven neoprene designs across the market, which made it difficult to treat the pattern as visually exclusive,” explains Lux Juris.

Trademark law does not protect design for its own sake, it protects design only insofar as it operates as a sign of origin.

The Office identified several factors relevant to its assessment, including the generic nature of the weaving technique, its widespread use by third parties, and the absence of a sufficiently distinctive configuration that specifically linked the pattern to Naghedi. In this context, the design was characterised as ornamental rather than distinctive for the purposes of trademark registration.

Furthermore, the drafting of the application played a role in determining the examination's outcome. Bottega Veneta's registration was based on a narrowly defined description of the weave, specifying the orientation and interlacing method. This allowed the USPTO to assess the mark as a specific configuration rather than a general design concept.

Naghedi's application, according to Lux Juris, claimed a broad, repeating woven pattern without clearly identifying distinctive structural features. This made it more difficult to distinguish the claimed design from common woven styles on the market. In general, broad claims on widely used design elements are more likely to face objections based on ornamentality and lack of distinctiveness.