Law and high fashion met last week when the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the French show designer
Christian Louboutin has an enforceable trademark for the use of red outsoles
when the shoe’s upper is a contrasting color.
For those unfamiliar with Louboutin’s creations, they have
become the “it” shoe among celebrities from Sarah Jessica Parker (whose Carrie
Bradshaw character made the shoes a household name on “Sex and the City”), to
Jennifer Lopez, who released a single named after the designer shoes,“Louboutins,” in 2009. First popularized
by Princess Caroline in Monaco in 1991, the shoes currently retail for between 500
to 6,000 dollars a pair.
Louboutin is far from the first to popularize red heels and
soles for high end shoes. According to
Phillip Mansel’s Dressed to Rule
(available at the M.D. Anderson library, GT1754 .M36 2005), Louis
XIV favored the color as well, even passing an edict forbidding all but the noble-born
from wearing red heels. As a painted sole will wear and scuff easily should it
interact with dirt or pavement, its fragility makes it an enduring symbol of
wealth and luxury.
In the case before the Second Circuit, Christian Louboutin
first sought to enjoin Yves Saint Laurent from selling its monochrome line of
heels in red (also available in purple, green, and yellow). The red Yves Saint
Laurent shoes were accused of infringing on Louboutin’s mark, which protects “a
lacquered red sole on footwear” according to its trademark filed with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. The district court denied the injunction on
finding that color was protectable only when it “acts as a symbol that
distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any function.” In fashion, the court explained
“single color marks are inherently ‘functional’ and that any such registered
trademark would likely be held invalid.” Christian
Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Holding, Inc., No. 11-3303-cv, 2012 WL
3832285, at *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2012).
The Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s
decision. In its analysis, the court
examined (1) whether or not the mark is distinctive; and (2) if distinctive,
does the defendant’ use of a similar mark cause confusion? While the color red
is not inherently distinctive, when used in the context of a shoe’s outsole, it
came to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. The
court found that Louboutin’s mark was distinctive, as it had acquired a
secondary meaning “as a distinctive symbol that identifies the Louboutin
brand.” Christian Louboutin, at *12.
But, the court further found that the mark only extends to uses where the red
sole is used on a non-red shoe. The distinctiveness of Louboutin’s mark is
dependent on the “pop” of color that comes from the contrast between the sole
and the upper. Since the Yves Saint
Laurent shoes in question were completely monochromatic, red from upper to
sole, they did not infringe on the Louboutin mark, so the issue of potential
confusion was not reached.
Of course, a distinctive mark that identifies a luxury brand
will often be copied by counterfeiters, and the simplicity of Louboutin’s mark
is easy to copy. Just in August, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection confiscated 20,457 pairs of
counterfeit Christian Louboutin shoes at the Los Angeles/Long Beach
seaport. And at least one company offers a way for less well-heeled customers
to “Louboutinize” their heels, with red
adhesive stickers that you can fit to your shoes for that signature trademark look.
For more about trademark law, here a just a few of the
resources available at the O’Quinn Law
Library:
Gilson on
trademarks / Anne Gilson Lalonde ; Karin Green; Jerome Gilson.
KF3180.G542
Intellectual
property : patents, trademarks, and copyright in a nutshell / by
Arthur R. Miller, Michael H. Davis.
Internet
domain names, trademarks and free speech / Jacqueline Lipton. K564.C6L57 2010
McCarthy
on trademarks and unfair competition / J. Thomas McCarthy. KF3180.M29 1996
New practitioner's
guide to intellectual property / David R. Gerk, John M. Fleming. KF2979.G47
2012
Understanding
trademark law / Mary LaFrance. KF3180.L34 2009
Cinnamon buns,
marching ducks and cherry-scented racecar exhaust: protecting nontraditional
trademarks / by Jerome Gilson, Anne Gilson LaLonde. KF3180.G529 2005
Comments
Post a Comment