Home » Fashion Law

YSL Seeing Red

15 July 2011 3 Comments

The legal battle over whether YSL infringed on Louboutin’s red sole mark continues. On Wednesday YSL answered Louboutin’s complaint seeking a preliminary injunction. The issue stems from YSL’s red pump with a red sole, which CL argues infringes upon it’s red-sole trademark obtained in 2008. Next Friday’s hearing will determine whether or not stores can continue to sell YSL’s red pump. See original complaint here.

In it’s answer YSL, claims Louboutin can’t show irreparable harm or consumer confusion, which is important in obtaining the injunction. In addition YSL has filed its own counterclaims challenging the validity of Louboutin’s red sole trademark, arguing a fashion designer should not be able to monopolize any color and the Louboutin trademark should have never been granted. The attorney for CL notes they are not claiming ownership of all red soles but only a bright lacquered red.

YSL does raise an interesting point–should a designer be able to trademark a color? Some companies have trademarked colors for their product–think Tiffany blue, but the doctrine of aesthetic functionality may suggest otherwise for CL. Under the doctrine when an attractive product feature serves a purpose beyond identifying the source of a product as being sold by a certain company, the feature might not be protectable as a trademark. This is because it would interfere with legitimate competition by allowing the producer sole control of a useful product feature.

Does red envoke luxury or sexiness and therefore have a functional role? Arguably red soles have no purpose beyond identifying the source of the good but they are an important attribute in the commercial success of Louboutin shoes which sparked others to add color to their soles.

Check back for the ruling from New York’s Southern District.



Fashion Law Contributor

Source: WWD

Be Sociable, Share!
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)


  • Zinnia said:

    Can’t wait to see how this pans out. Great question raised on whether a company should be able to trademark a color.

  • Harris said:

    Trademarking single colors? That’s stupid. I can understand a certain pattern of colors being trademarked though, like Gucci’s green/red/green stripe, given that an actual pattern can represent a brand. A single shade of red doesn’t seem to make you think “oh, that’s a [insert brand] shoe” like that pattern stripe, for example, makes you think Gucci.

  • Sara said:

    Colors have been trademarked previously. One of the most prominent examples is Tiffany and Co.’s blue. That specific blue does, in fact, recall Tiffany’s elite brand status for many minds around the world.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.