The red Louboutin sole is synonymous with the label, but according to Judge Victor Marrero of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, not in any legal sense.
In January this year, Yves Saint Laurent released shoes with the iconic coloured soles in its 2011 resort collection and Christian Louboutin saw red, filing for a preliminary injunction to stop their sale and suing for $1m for an alleged infringement of trademark. He officially trademarked the red sole in the US in 2008.
Marrero dismissed the request, stating that “Because in the fashion industry colour serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the court finds that Louboutin is unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning.”
Though the case continues, it’s doubtful Louboutin can win. Furthermore, this ruling means that Louboutin essentially has no claim over the coloured sole at all, and really, anyone can use it. And now, they know that. Check and mate.
Really though, why would you, if you were Stefan Pilati, head designer of one of the great luxury houses, commission shoes using the unofficial trademark of another label? “The red sole,” says Louboutin, “has become widely recognised as the distinct sign of my brand in the eyes of women all over the world.” It’s true. I hate to agree with anyone litigating over a colour, but when I see a red sole on the street (and I am not the only one), I either get jealous, clutch my hands to my heart and winsomely gasp, “Oh, Louboutins!” or just chuckle and mutter, “Louboutin knock-offs.”
Way to dilute both your branding while pulling a bit of a dick move, YSL.
