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.