RSS
Appeals Court Says That You Can Trademark Red Soled Shoes
from the the-man-with-one-trademarked-shoe dept
Last year, we wrote about how high end fashion shoe designer Christian Louboutin* had lost a trademark lawsuit concerning the company's attempt to block other shoe makers from making high heel shoes with red soles. Louboutin is apparently famous for its red soled shoes, but the judge in the case pointed out that this was silly and the company never should have received the trademark in the first place:
Rebecca Tushnet does her customarily comprehensive breakdown of the insane parts of the decision, pointing out that "it's notable just how many contradictions the court has to swallow" to come out with the ruling it does. It basically sidesteps key questions, dances around the caselaw, and figures out a way to back into the conclusion it was comfortable with issuing, while avoiding some larger questions. As a result it's a bit of a mess, but shoemakers be forewarned: apparently red soles on other color shoes is the sole domain of one shoemaker.
* As we wrote in our last post on this case: for reasons that go way beyond my understanding, it seems that one of (if not) the largest comment spammers we get are people trying to sell (probably counterfeit) Christian Louboutin shoes. Talk about bad targeting by spammers. This is not exactly a Louboutin audience. However, we get hundreds of such comments a day. Our spam filters use a few heuristics to determine what is spam and what is not and while it's not definite, there's at least a high likelihood that if you mention "Louboutin" in your comment that it will be held by the spam filter. We'll endeavor to free this as quickly as possible. Or just don't mention it in your comment at all, and hopefully it'll get through...
“Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition,” Judge Marrero ruled, “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 protection in the market to have secondary meaning.”Unfortunately, on appeal, the 2nd Circuit has disagreed and said that the lower court erred -- though with a specific condition. It claims that Louboutin's red soled trademark is legitimate if and only if it's on shoes with a different color. If the shoe itself is completely red, then others can have a red sole (which was the situation in this particular lawsuit). Still, this seems troubling, as it seems to flat out limit reasonable design choices that other shoemakers might choose to make. The court goes through the caselaw history on colors as trademark, and the question of whether or not a color is "functional" or not (trademarks can't be functional). While the court admits that "aesthetic function and branding success can sometimes be difficult to distinguish" you'd think it would be careful not to overprotect, but the court comes down on the other side here, mainly because it says Louboutin's red soles have created a "distinctive" mark that identifies such shoes as Louboutin's. While I can see where the argument comes from, precluding other designers from offering red soled shoes seems pretty excessive.
Rebecca Tushnet does her customarily comprehensive breakdown of the insane parts of the decision, pointing out that "it's notable just how many contradictions the court has to swallow" to come out with the ruling it does. It basically sidesteps key questions, dances around the caselaw, and figures out a way to back into the conclusion it was comfortable with issuing, while avoiding some larger questions. As a result it's a bit of a mess, but shoemakers be forewarned: apparently red soles on other color shoes is the sole domain of one shoemaker.
* As we wrote in our last post on this case: for reasons that go way beyond my understanding, it seems that one of (if not) the largest comment spammers we get are people trying to sell (probably counterfeit) Christian Louboutin shoes. Talk about bad targeting by spammers. This is not exactly a Louboutin audience. However, we get hundreds of such comments a day. Our spam filters use a few heuristics to determine what is spam and what is not and while it's not definite, there's at least a high likelihood that if you mention "Louboutin" in your comment that it will be held by the spam filter. We'll endeavor to free this as quickly as possible. Or just don't mention it in your comment at all, and hopefully it'll get through...
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Who Are App Developers?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Simplicity plus...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just another way of playing monopoly
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A touch of green or blue?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gonna go get my spray paint can now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, that's silly. Hah hah! How about red-orange?
Hmm. What if I mix in a little more red... then a little more... how close to pure red can I get before I'm in violation?
What happens when all three primary colors have been trademarked? How about the secondary colors? Exactly how much of the color wheel has been locked up?
I want a DEFINITIVE answer. "Red" can mean so many things...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So much for me being clever. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm trademarking blue. Guess we're one step closer to finding out!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Prior Art
Eat your heart out!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The way it was explained to me many years ago is that not only is the Louboutin red not functional, it's dysfunctional; it actually makes scuffs and minor sole damage more obvious, can leave marks on certain surfaces, and (the finish to make the red more obvious, not the red itself) can make you more likely to slip.
And this is on purpose. It's deliberately wasteful extravagance, conspicuous consumption.
Dunno ... maybe that pushes it so far down into non-functionality that it becomes functional again.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
COME AT ME BRO!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fifty Shades of Red?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Red?
And how DARE anyone make crimson soled shoes... and if those Louboutin shoes get soiled and the red appears to be crimson... I'm cashing in!
So... if I buy black soled shoes and set in red paint... am I violating trademark?
STOP... THE... INSANITY!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Red!Red! I want red, there's no substitute for red.
Red is dead!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
soles
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment