Christian Louboutin’s red sole, known for its distinctiveness, has faced legal scrutiny across the globe. This analysis focuses on cases resolved in Japan and France, as well as the key ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), where courts evaluated whether the red sole should be recognized as a trademark or function merely as a decorative element. These rulings highlight the challenges of protecting non-traditional trademarks and the differing standards jurisdictions apply in assessing distinctiveness and consumer perception.
Japan’s Verdict: Cultural Context vs. Brand Identity
In Japan, the Tokyo District Court dismissed Louboutin’s claim against Eizo Collection, a local footwear company. Louboutin argued that Eizo’s use of red rubber soles on high heels, introduced in 2018, infringed on its brand identity, misled consumers, and diluted the exclusivity of its lacquered red soles. The luxury brand sought damages for 42 million yen ($270,000), relying on Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Law to assert its rights.
Eizo countered that red was no more exclusive to Louboutin than cherry blossoms are to spring festivals, referencing the long history of red in Japanese footwear design, including traditional lacquered clogs. The court sided with Eizo, ruling that Louboutin’s red sole was not widely recognized in Japan as a brand indicator. It also noted key differences; Louboutin’s soles are glossy, lacquered leather, while Eizo’s are matte rubber.
The court emphasized local consumer perceptions rather than global brand recognition. It further pointed out that Louboutin’s high-priced luxury shoes, starting at 80,000 yen ($500), cater to a market unlikely to confuse them with Eizo’s lower-cost products. For the court, this red sole exclusivity argument seemed out of step with local realities.
France’s Ruling: Trademark Precision Matters
In 2000, Christian Louboutin registered a French trademark for the red sole of a shoe. Nearly a decade later, Zara, a fast fashion retailer, introduced shoes with red soles, including a design resembling Louboutin’s Yo-Yo shoe. Louboutin sued Zara for counterfeiting and unfair competition.
The Paris Court of First Instance ruled partially in Louboutin’s favor, ordering Zara to pay damages. However, it dismissed the trademark infringement claim, citing no likelihood of confusion between Louboutin’s red soles and Zara’s products. The court pointed to the substantial price difference between the brands and their distinct markets.
Zara appealed, and the appellate court identified a key flaw in the original registration: the description failed to specify whether the protection applied to the inner or outer sole. Additionally, inconsistencies in the shades of red submitted for registration raised questions about whether Louboutin sought to trademark the color red itself or struggled with maintaining uniformity. The court deemed the red sole a functional and aesthetic choice rather than a badge of origin, firmly rejecting Louboutin’s unfair competition arguments.
The French Supreme Court upheld the appellate ruling but permitted Louboutin to file a revised trademark application. This application would require a precise Pantone shade and detailed three-dimensional specifications. Until then, Zara’s red-soled shoes remain beyond Louboutin’s control.
The CJEU’s Influence
In Louboutin v. Van Haren, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided a ruling that impacted Louboutin’s position. The case centered on Louboutin’s trademark claim over the red soles of its high-heeled shoes. The CJEU ruled that a combination of color and position, such as the red sole, could be registered as a trademark. This decision confirmed that Louboutin’s red soles were protectable as a color applied specifically to the sole of a shoe, but not to the shape of the shoe itself.
This ruling granted Louboutin exclusive rights to Pantone 18-1663TP, the red color used on the soles of its shoes, strengthening the brand’s legal position in France and the EU. It also shows the potential for protecting color and position-based trademarks in the fashion industry, providing strong support for brand identity.
The Red Sole Debate: Universal Icon or Just Design?
Louboutin’s effort to protect its red sole has encountered ongoing challenges, highlighting the risks of pushing intellectual property law to its limits. The brand continues to refine its arguments in an effort to regain control over this signature element. In Japan, Louboutin’s attempts have hit a slippery patch, with courts rejecting its claims, but in Europe, the CJEU’s ruling has provided renewed support. This decision confirmed Louboutin’s exclusive rights to its red sole across the European Union, strengthening its trademark protection and solidifying its legal position within the Union.
The red sole remains a contentious issue. What Louboutin views as a signature element, others see as simply red soles, elegant but hardly exclusive.
Sources:
.https://blog.marks-iplaw.jp/2022/03/13/louboutin-red-soles/
https://www.avocats-mathias.com/propriete-intellectuelle/cjeu-exclusivity-red-sole-louboutin
Note: The article has been updated with more information for better clarity.
Leave a Reply