Louboution vs YSL

A brand is a name or logo – a marketing identity – that sets a product apart from competitors products. It protects and promotes the identity of the product. Branding is a key marketing tool because it promotes the concept of brand loyalty. Consumers by the chosen brand because it provides a perceived reliability, special features or added value which makes it special in the eyes of the consumer.

A brands USP - unique selling point - can be extremely important in the brand's recognition and makes it distinguishable from other items. The red sole found on Louboution's have become their USP but have recently been involved in a dispute with YSL who also used the red sole in their new collection.

article below from the Mail Online:

The company was seeking more than $1million damages claiming another luxury designer was 'copying' its shoes’ most distinctive characteristic - the red sole. But last month in the case of Christian Louboutin vs Yves Saint Laurent, the plot thickened when it emerged that YSL had decided to counter-sue Louboutin stating that the French designer had no right to monopolize a colour. Now it seems that the judge has sided with Louboutin refusing to accept arguments submitted by YSL as the two fashion labels battled it out in a New York courtroom last week.

Both parties submitted documents stating their position with YSL additional articles - including a chart depicting its red-soled shoe designs since 2004 - which the presiding judge Victor Marrero, deemed invalid. Lawyer, David Bernstein also raised smiles as he argued that his client, YSL had been using red as a signature colour since it began in 1962 and that even King Louis XIV of France and Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz had worn red-soled shoes. 

But Louboutin's lawyer argued these were unreliable findings and judge Marrero agreed. Louboutin was originally seeking an injunction to stop YSL producing red-soled shoes for its 2011 cruise collection. But the French label fought back stating that Louboutin - which claim to have been awarded an official trademark for the red sole in 2008, - have no right to monopolize a colour for their product.  The lawyer for YSL, David Bernstein had said: ‘Louboutin’s trademark should have never been granted.

‘We just don’t think that any fashion designer should be able to monopolize any colour.’
YSL alleges that Mr Louboutin was fraudulent in his trademark application claim that he had 'exclusive' use of the red sole. The luxury shoe makers responded, saying it is only one specific shade of red that they are claiming the rights to. A spokesman said: ‘Unless you are living in a cave, the consumer most definitely recognizes a red-soled shoe as a Louboutin. We are not claiming to own every red under the sun. There’s a particular red that Christian uses on his shoes, a bright, lacquered red 'We aren’t saying burgundy or orange-red, we aren’t saying pink. We don’t own any other red but that red.’

According to court papers filed last month, Christian Louboutin had also obtained evidence from a private investigator stating that Christian Dior was planning to launch a collection of red shoes with red soles. A Dior spokesperson denied these claims telling WWD: 'Christian Dior does not manufacture and sell any shoes with a red sole.' It is not known when a verdict on the case will be reached as judge Victor Marrero has asked for more time.

even if the red soles were not invented by Louboution, for most people its synonomous with the designer brand's shoe collections. it has even been patented by Louboution so have a valid reason for the infringement of their trademark. only time will tell how YSL rescue the situation!