Drip Footwear Trademark Heads to Auction as Liquidation Raises Questions Over Brand Structure and Ongoing Sales

Drip Footwear (Pty) Ltd — once one of South Africa’s most influential township-born sneaker brands — is officially being liquidated, and its trademark will be sold in a major online auction at the end of November. Listed under Master’s Reference Number G1040/2024, the auction includes the Drip Footwear trademark as well as large volumes of stock pulled from Drip stores across the country. But as the liquidation proceeds, confusion has emerged around what exactly belongs to the liquidated entity, what Lekau Sehoana still owns, and why Drip-branded shoes are still being sold by him despite the official auction.

The auction, facilitated by Bidders Choice, will run from 28 November to 2 December 2025, with viewing set for 1 December in Equestria and Kameeldrift East. The asset list includes the core Drip Footwear trademark, combined lots of stock and IP, and inventory from Drip stores in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape, and more. Registration requires a R20 000 fee, FICA documents, and the standard 10% buyer’s commission plus VAT.

Where things become complicated is in the brand structure behind the scenes.

It increasingly appears that Lekau registered more than one Drip-related entity and brand, specifically:

• Drip Footwear (Pty) Ltd, which is the company currently in liquidation.
• Drip Sportif, a separate brand or entity that Lekau still controls, and from which he continues to sell products.

Drip Sportif has been active on social media, issuing updates and apologies to customers about delayed deliveries. One post stated:

“We’d like to apologise for the delayed deliveries of the DRIP Sneakers… We have stopped sales on our online store to allow the process of the backlog to finish.”

Lekau then added further clarification in his own post:

“Thank you for your patience. Orders have started being delivered to our DRIP Customers. The delay only affected DRIP. The KITE SA customers can still get their products on time.”

This indicates that Drip Sportif is operational, fulfilling orders and selling sneakers — even those resembling Drip Footwear designs — while Drip Footwear (Pty) Ltd is being liquidated.

What makes this even more intriguing is that Lekau has continued promoting sneaker sales under posts such as:

“Finally, you can come and buy the Likwidz physically at Workpods (CoSpace) in President Park Midrand. This coming Friday.”

These “Likwidz” sneakers appear similar to Drip Footwear products, adding another layer to the already complex situation.

Given this structure, a clearer picture emerges:

• Drip Footwear (Pty) Ltd — the original retail company whose trademark is going on auction — is what the liquidator controls.
• Drip Sportif — a separate brand Lekau still owns — appears to be selling some of the remaining Drip Footwear stock or designs, independent of the liquidation process.

This division means that the Drip Footwear trademark currently being auctioned may not be the same trademark used by Drip Sportif, even though the public often sees both as “Drip.” If a new buyer acquires the Drip Footwear trademark at auction, that buyer would obtain rights over the brand name associated with the liquidated company — but Lekau may still legally operate under Drip Sportif, which could allow him to continue selling similar products under a related but distinct brand identity.

The result is a situation where:

• The auction buyer could own the Drip Footwear trademark,
• While Lekau could continue trading under Drip Sportif,
• Creating two brands with overlapping identity, history, and product similarity.

For consumers and investors, this dynamic raises important questions about the future of the brand: Will the auctioned trademark allow a fresh new owner to revive Drip Footwear? How will Drip Sportif position itself after the auction? And how will intellectual property boundaries be enforced if both parties continue selling similar sneaker lines to the same market?

As the auction draws closer, clarity around these trademark distinctions will be crucial — because whoever buys Drip Footwear’s trademark may be stepping into a marketplace where the founder himself is still operating a parallel identity that looks and feels remarkably similar to the brand being liquidated.