Louboutin Fights for their Sole

Recently a New York judge denied a request from Christian Louboutin to legally prevent other brands, specifically fellow French competitor Yves Saint Laurent, from using the color red on the soles of their shoes. Louboutin argues that the red lacquered soles of their shoes are a feature of their trademark, which was granted in 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that Louboutin would unlikely be able to defend an "overly broad" trademark using an analogy that Picasso wouldn't have been able to legally prevent Monet from using a particular hue of indigo. Judge Marrero believes that granting Louboutin exclusive use of the color red would hinder manufacturers of other items. "Awarding one participant in the designer shoe market a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants," Marrero wrote. "Louboutin's claim would cast a red cloud over the whole industry, cramping what other designers do, while allowing Louboutin to paint with a full palette." 


This man obviously has no idea what the red sole means to the Louboutin brand. They are not trying to own the color red in shoe design. It's how the red is used in the design of the shoe. People know it's a Louboutin from across the room when they see the red sole. Similar to a brand logo or mark, the red sole says Louboutin. That's the definition of a distinctive brand and a successful mark. 


I am not a trademark lawyer or even know the specifics behind trademark law. I do know that when I'm dealing with naming a new company or product, the number one rule to remember when it comes to possible trademark infringement is that you can not create customer confusion in the same market. I have to believe that rule would be the same in this situation. If Yves Saint Laurent starts designing shoes with red soles, customers previously knowledgeable about Louboutin's identifiable red soles would be confused about the brand of the shoe. ***Side note: don't even get me started on the idea that an established brand with such a long history in fashion would even want to do this or any brand unless they are planning on selling the shoes off blankets on city streets and allies***


UPS legally owns the color brown when it comes to its trucks. They've been legally granted this right as an extension of their trademark. Isn't this the EXACT same situation? Adidas owns their three stripes. I think this is an even harder argument. How can you own something so universally used in design as a series of stripes? Well they do. So how can a judge deny Louboutin the right to protect their red soles? I really don't know other than he's not the least bit familiar with the fashion industry and how the red sole truly represents the Louboutin brand. If I were him, I'd grant Louboutin the exclusive rights to a specific color of red sole and encourage Yves Saint Laurent to use a different color or go crazy and design stripes on their soles...unless they use three stripes, because that would be illegal.