Louboutin tries to bring YSL to heel over red-soled shoes
Somewhere Joan Rivers and the rest of the fashion police are aghast. Louboutin SA has turned to the 2nd Circuit to stop Yves Saint Laurent America from selling red-soled shoes, which the designer claims violates its trademark.
January 25, 2012 at 06:53 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Somewhere Joan Rivers and the rest of the fashion police are aghast. Louboutin SA has turned to the 2nd Circuit to stop Yves Saint Laurent America (YSL) from selling red-soled shoes, which the designer claims violates its trademark.
Christian Louboutin's company feels as if it took a stiletto heel to the throat after U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero rejected its claim that YSL's shoes are identical to its own in August 2011. Louboutin also asserted that YSL's red-soled shoes “threaten to mislead the public.” According to the suit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Louboutin a trademark for the iconic red soles in 2008.
In a Walt Whitman-inspired response, Marrero concluded that Louboutin had not established a likelihood that it will succeed on its claims that YSL infringed the “Red Sole Mark” to warrant the relief that it seeks.
“Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, 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 public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning,” Marrero wrote.
Before the appeals court judges yesterday, Louboutin's lawyers clarified its claim.
“We don't claim shades of red,” Louboutin lawyer Harley Lewin said, according to a Bloomberg report. “We don't claim anything but the mark as registered.”
YSL, however, claims it began selling shoes with red soles “long before” Louboutin began selling them in 1992.
“Our concern is, as a fashion house making monochromatic shoes, we should be able to continue doing that,” YSL lawyer David Bernstein said in court yesterday, according to the report.
The three-judge panel said it would rule on the case at a later date.
Somewhere Joan Rivers and the rest of the fashion police are aghast. Louboutin SA has turned to the 2nd Circuit to stop Yves Saint Laurent America (YSL) from selling red-soled shoes, which the designer claims violates its trademark.
Christian Louboutin's company feels as if it took a stiletto heel to the throat after U.S. District Court Judge
In a Walt Whitman-inspired response, Marrero concluded that Louboutin had not established a likelihood that it will succeed on its claims that YSL infringed the “Red Sole Mark” to warrant the relief that it seeks.
“Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, 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 public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning,” Marrero wrote.
Before the appeals court judges yesterday, Louboutin's lawyers clarified its claim.
“We don't claim shades of red,” Louboutin lawyer Harley Lewin said, according to a Bloomberg report. “We don't claim anything but the mark as registered.”
YSL, however, claims it began selling shoes with red soles “long before” Louboutin began selling them in 1992.
“Our concern is, as a fashion house making monochromatic shoes, we should be able to continue doing that,” YSL lawyer David Bernstein said in court yesterday, according to the report.
The three-judge panel said it would rule on the case at a later date.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
- 2Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
- 3Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here
- 4AI Poisoning: A Novel Cybersecurity Option
- 5The Expanding Universe of Attorney Cyber Liability
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250