A classmate sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal about trademark litigation regarding Christian Louboutin’s red soled shoes. The case is now on appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, who has to decide whether Louboutin may prevent other shoe companies from selling shoes with a red sole. In case you are not quite as obsessed with shoes as I am, you should know that Louboutin makes very expensive, beautiful shoes that all have one thing in common: a bright red sole. (Actually two things in common: the sole and the very high price.) Celebrities wear them all the time, and the sole is definitely an identifying characteristic of the shoe, in my opinion.
Here is a picture: 
Other companies, here YSL, another high fashion designer, argue that prohibiting a designer from using a color is too broad a use of intellectual property law. It is one thing to ban others from using a color to identify a brand (think Tiffany’s blue, Sweet & Low pink), but it is another to say that you can’t use the color in creating your product.
This case raises so many interesting business questions relating to intellectual property law. What is a brand all about? Without the ability to be the only one with red soled shoes, will anyone pay more for Louboutin’s? So much of branding in luxury goods is prestige: you want others to know that you have Louboutin’s, not some other pair of shoes. Shouldn’t they be able to protect that part of their brand?
If you are as excited about shoes as I am, let me know what you think.
20 Comments
Ting Ting Yang posted on January 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm
This is actually a very interesting case to me- I am also very obsessed with shoes. To me personally, I feel like Louboutin’s signature is the red sole. There is a story that accompanies with it and everything I think (how the designer painted the soles in nail polish first), and it is an essential aspect of its branding. When someone sees the red soles, they automatically attribute it to the brand. To exaggerate, it can be even compared to Louboutin’s logo to a certain extent. If it’s illegal to copy someone’s logo, then it should also be so for the red soles. I believe that they should win the case.
Nick Li posted on January 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm
From a guy who knows nothing about women’s fashion, I think this is a silly issue. Red soles may be associated with Louboutin by fashion aficionados but like mentioned by YSL, trademarking a color is way too broad. Besides, the people that care and pay attention to “trademark” red soles will probably realize that the other companies “stealing” this idea from Louboutin are just a bunch of copy-cats, therefore making their shoes inferior and undesirable to wear compared to the “original”.
Ryan Gee posted on January 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm
From a guy who loves shoes (but still knows nothing about woman’s shoes) I feel like he should win the case. As a shoe designer, creating the color scheme is as equally as important as the design itself, giving the shoe a distinctive look and attitude. However, I do not believe this red sole should apply to all shoes, just heels. For example, if Nike wanted to prevent other sneaker makers from using red soles because of a signature shoe, it should be allowed to…
Kathryn Chin posted on January 26, 2012 at 10:21 am
I agree that the red sole is Louboutin’s signature and that they should win the case. The red sole has gained a high level of public recognition and is a physical marker of the brand. Since the Tiffany blue and the colors of other brands have been trademarked, Louboutin should be granted the same protection. Allowing other shoemakers to have red soles, and without Louboutin being able to distinguish themselves, their prestige and notoriety would be diminished.
Yuchen Qin posted on January 26, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I agree with what Nick said. It is true that having a red sole is a unique character of Louboutin, but there must be some other aspects to make its shoes stand out, such as style, texture, prestige, etc. Just say Burberry, as an easiest example, the classic figure is argyle, the easiest thing to copy. However customers still by Burberry for its simple figure at expensive prices. People by the Louboutin’s shoes because they are Louboutin’s . Even if its color scheme is copied by other shoe makers, sharp customers will still be able to identify at a glance that’s Louboutin’s idea, and they won’t risk buying a “forgery”. We can not firmly say that it is banned to copy the idea of a red sole, because I think this is not against the trade mark law or market law.
Hope Blalock posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:03 am
As much as I would like to side with Louboutin (for the sake of both the producer and the consumer), I’m not sure that it is fair to tell the other companies that they can’t manufacture shoes with a red soles.
Part of my issue with this is that Louboutin has been around for years and personally, I’ve seen plenty of shoes with red soles (high-end or not) that aren’t Louboutin…So why is the company just now recognizing this as a problem? It’s not as if this issue just popped up. I’m very interested to see how this plays out.
Jinfeng Cai posted on January 29, 2012 at 11:17 am
Personally I would to like say this was a very sillly case. It’s reasonable that a company prevents its products from logo, appearance, design and so forth. As Nick mentioned before, trademarking a color is way too broad a use of intellectual property law. We have certain number of colors in our nature and designers design products based on these color. It’s logo, appearance, design that vary brands, not a single color (a red sole in this case). By the way, Louboutin is sooooooooo expensive!!!
Madeline Steiner posted on January 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
The article says that Louboutin is only asking that the specific color “China Red” be trademarked, not all shades of red. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to trademark a very specific color (like the exact Tiffany’s blue), but I don’t think it’s really going to stop imitators. People still imitate the Chanel crossed Cs and the Louis Vuitton symbols — a trademark like this will just make it easier for the Louboutin company to fight the inevitable copies and fakes in the industry. It will also be able to function as a “test” to see if the Louboutins are real if they match a specific color.
Jaclyn Sessel posted on January 31, 2012 at 12:29 am
A brand is simply all about the name. Without the title a brand is brandless. Louboutin’s brand isn’t famous only because of it’s red bottoms, it’s famous because the brand has been built up. The red color on the bottom of the shoe is clearly marked as a recognizable trait to Louboutin customers and admirers. If a brand like YSL were to come along and want to put the red color on the bottom of their shoes, instead of replacing Louboutin YSL would be labeled as a “fake Louboutin,” or worse a “wannabe.” For example, you can get a Coach purse from a guy in NYC, out of a trunk/trash bag for $35, obviously it’s a fake. Anyone can mock a brand in order to appeal to the crowds who don’t want to drop $300+ on a handbag.
I believe I should be able to get a pair of look-alike (cheap) Louboutins if I wanted to. Also, I do not think it is fair to trademark a color. In fashion it’s all about who gets there first and owns it first. Louboutin has nothing to worry about when it comes to YSL. They already “own” the red sole.
Chandler LoCascio posted on January 31, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I am obsessed with shoes. Personally, I feel that a company reserves the right to have a brand image, and Christian Louboutain’s is the red bottom of his shoes. I would compare a brand image to a patent or intellectual property, which under law is protected. I feel that the Louboutain brand should be able to protect its intellectual property. YSL has the wrong idea; Louboutain does not want to trademark a color, they want to trademark an essential brand image, which can be done. The brand image is the red bottom. If you notice, you can barely make out Christian Louboutain on the arch of the shoe, but by seeing the red, you automatically know what brand it is. As said above, Tiffany blue is a trademarked color, so as a matter of precedent, Christian Louboutain should be able to trademark their signature red soles. I strongly believe they should win the case.
Jose Garcia posted on February 1, 2012 at 1:36 am
I’ve seen this same case awhile ago. It’s pretty interesting, considering it is another offense, but by Yves Saint Laurent. http://www.economist.com/node/21526357 I find 5 Things wrong with this: 1) Like the judge said (in the included link), you should’t be able to trademark a color, and the Patent and Trademark Department must uphold this rule 2) The “knockoff” shoes are red all over, there’s no problem in that. 3) The design is,technically, not a “knockoff”, it’s from another high-end fashion line. 4) I’ve seen some of these shoes before at my cousin’s graduation, they look terrible. 5) All the way to the supreme court? You must be joking, I’m sure we have many more important cases on the agenda than shoes.
Matthew Costa posted on February 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm
The way I see it is, every other luxury brand in the world has a knock-off version. There is always some other identifying characteristic that makes the luxury brand slightly but noticeably different than the knock off brand. Every cheap manufacturing company in the world is trying to make their product more appealing and by using something that is identified with a luxury brand is a genius mind trick they play on customers.
In this specific case I agree completely with the fact that trademarking a particular color is too broad of a category for intellectual property and while the maker of the luxury shoes may feel like they are getting ripped off, it is just something they are going to have to deal with. Keep being innovative in your product creation and you can separate yourself from the knockoff brand and make sure your sales numbers do not decline.
Alexandria Chong posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:18 am
Hey guys,
I wrote about this for the BU Marketing Club blog if you guys want to check it out: http://bumkc.com/2012/02/03/louboutin-king-of-the-red/
Chin-Yi (Lucy ) Kuo posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I understand that the red sole is a signature thing for Louboutain; however, I agree with what YSL said about patenting the use of a color is too broad. Tiffany also has a signature color but it is never patented and people can still recognize that its the Tiffany blue. If Louboutain is allowed to patent the red sole, if will create a hassle of every brand patenting whatever color or style its using.
rspooner posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Just to clarify one point from Lucy (and others) – Tiffany Blue is trademarked, as are many other colors. So it is not without precedent to protect the color red that is used by Louboutin. The argument by YSL is that color is such an essential part of shoe design that you cannot limit its use. Tiffany Blue is not an essential part of jewelry design, so by trademarking that color you aren’t inhibiting the design of jewelry by its competitors. Not saying I agree, just clarifying the argument.
Yuting-Su posted on February 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm
I am also very obsessed with shoes, and I love Louboutin so much. Red sole is a trademarked of Louboutin. In China, we named it “hong di xie”, which means shoe with red sole. So people may do know what is Louboutin, but know the shoe with red sole. So I think red sole can be regarded as Louboutin’s logo.
I agree with YSL that color is an essential part of shoe design that you cannot limit its use. But lots of shoe companies did not care the design of the sole. Louboutin successfully connects red sole with sexy. It is a great design. The problem is not use red, but use it in a specific part. I think Louboutin should wiin this case.
Sophie Park posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Because Louboutin is already established as a luxury brand, I don’t see the point in trademarking the color red. I see other students pointing out that this would simply be trademarking the shade of “China Red,” but still the beauty of Louboutin is the high-quality nature of it. Also, you would be able to tell real Louboutins from the dozens of knock offs there are in the market.
People working in the fashion industry know by now that there are always going to be knock off of a luxury brand, and although Louboutin feels that he is being cheated of intellectual property, he is not going to be any less successful without this trademark.
isabel marant posted on October 7, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Awesome! Its truly awesome paragraph, I have got much clear idea about from this post.
nike free run 3 posted on November 23, 2013 at 1:15 am
Well, you better end up being, because following Thurs . night, just weren’t about to view the National basketball association for a time. After your 2013 National basketball association Finals that’s got stunning endings, remarkable works, old shows and amazing enactment by simply a pair of outstanding groups, we would not see golf ball this kind of good for your looooong time. Permits relish this, collectively, and deal to by having a Online game 7-appropriate quantity of inquiries to take into account planning in tipoff.
tandem kayak used posted on September 21, 2014 at 3:45 am
Thanks for another informative web site. The place else may I am getting that type
of info written in such an ideal way? I’ve a challenge that
I am simply now working on, and I have been on the glance out for such information.