Recap:

Louboutin filed the trademark red sole in 2008.

Trademark “word, phrase, symbol, design or combination… that IDENTIFIES and DISTINGUISHES the SOURCE of the goods of one party from those of others”.

Louboutin files a trademark infringement suit against YSL in 2011 (in US). YSL, a household name, (known for its specific shape shoes) used the same Pantone-18, Chinese red shade as the one trademarked by Louboutin. Case is ongoing.

Louboutin sues ZARA (in France) in 2011. Initially court favours Louboutin; Zara appeals arguing that Louboutin’s trademark specifications were too vague (no mention of Pantone colour). Case just closed Zara 1 – Louboutin 0. The iconic red sole shoe designer house re-files for French trademark name to include Chinese red Pantone- 18.

When fashionistas/journalists/etc refer to the red sole, they mean Louboutin. Recognised or not in the eyes of the law the Chinese red sole is Louboutin, is who they have been, it is part of their identity… their brand. And as such, they have the right to and should continue to defend it. Every business owner knows that establishing a strong brand is vital for business success and protecting the brand is just as important. This is what Louboutin is doing, although it might seem to some as picking unnecessary fights.

What is not clear is what is a giant such as YSL doing by using the same red colour sole? By no means do I think that Louboutin should be the only shoes on planet Earth to have a red sole, I actually own a pair of Portuguese boots that have a red sole… Louboutin didn’t sue them! Why? Probably because it is not the same Pantone colour and the shoes could not be mistaken as being something they are not. On the other hand, Zara has made its ‘name and money’ by copying the fashion from the Paris/Milano/NY/London catwalk and coming out with the cheaper designs quickly after. However, this may be just a step too far, even though the French courts don’t seem to agree at the moment. We’ll have to wait for the next trial.

Just as Nike’s tick is recognised as Nike, so THAT red is a means to “distinguish and identify” as LOUBOUTIN. Of course there is much more to the shoes than the sole, the design, the material… and the real fashionistas will recognise the true ‘Cinderella’ shoe. However, this is an issue based on principles – why should others cash in on it?

On a different note, I am surprised to see that Louboutin made no reference to losing the case, either on Facebook or Twitter. I am even more surprised they said nothing since people have been posting articles from newspapers and magazines about the case and the result. If on social media, why not interact, small statement from the master himself… instead of pretending that nothing happened while others are posting not so great things linked to you on your wall…

The only Tweets that I found which could indirectly refer to the case (or not…) “Red is for stop. Red is for Power. Red is for Loubi.” “Louboutin 100% Red Soles”.