13 Sep 2012
Christian Louboutin sees red over Yves St Laurent's use of its colour trade mark
Christian Louboutin had established reputation in its red sole as a trade mark but only in relation to shoes with a contrasting coloured upper, not monochromatic red shoes.
Colour trade marks are back in the spotlight – or should that be "on the catwalk"? – with the recent dispute between Christian Louboutin and Yves St Laurent.
Christian Louboutin, the high-end fashion shoe brand known for its trade marked red sole, sued Yves St Laurent in New York for infringing its registered trade mark after Yves St Laurent produced a totally red shoe, including a red sole (Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., US 2nd Circuit 11-3303-cv).
Yves St Laurent counterclaimed that Christian Louboutin's registration for the red sole mark was not validly registered under US law.
Prêt-à-porter: The trial
A number of other parties appeared making representations to the court on the issue of validity including the International Trademark Association, Tiffany & Co and a law professor from Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
At trial, the judge held that single colours operated functionally in the fashion industry and lacked any trade mark character, which meant that Christian Louboutin's registration was likely invalid.
The September Issue: the Appeal Court's findings
The Appeals Court held that a close examination was required of how colours were used in the relevant trade. There was no reason why trade reputation or "secondary meaning" could not develop in a red sole indicating a unique trade source.
On the facts, Christian Louboutin had established reputation in its red sole as a trade mark but only in relation to shoes with a contrasting coloured upper, not monochromatic red shoes.
The Appeals Court modified Christian Louboutin's trade mark registration and this allowed Yves St Laurent to avoid a finding of infringement.
The position in Australia
In Australia, the Christian Louboutin application for registration of the red sole trade mark has been accepted on the provision of evidence of distinctiveness/secondary meaning, but without any restriction in relation to the colour of the rest of the shoe.
Australian Trade Mark 1352410 (International Registration 1031242)
It will be interesting to see if the Registrar will consider revising the scope of Christian Louboutin's Australian application in the light of the US decision.
In my view, there is not any valid reason why secondary meaning/reputation should be required, since there is no convention that shoe soles be coloured red, and no reason for other traders to do this in order to engage in legitimate competition.
You might also be interested in ...