Round one:
Christian Louboutin
"I have the biggest respect for the house of Yves Saint Laurent. Having discussed the matter with them and not been able to reach an agreement, we have had to take this to court. My company has a trademark on the red sole and if we don't enforce it this would leave the door open for other brands to copy us while jeopardising the identity of the Louboutin red sole. No one before me has ever used a coloured sole to define a brand's identity. The red sole has become widely recognised as the distinct sign of my brand in the eyes of women all over the world."
Round two:
YSL
"Red outsoles are a commonly used ornamental design feature in footwear, dating as far back as the red shoes worn by King Louis XIV in the 1600s and the ruby red shoes that carried Dorothy home in The Wizard of Oz," court papers filed by YSL read. "As an industry leader who has devoted his entire professional life to women's footwear, Mr Louboutin either knew or should have known about some or all of the dozens of footwear models that rendered his sworn statement false."
Round three:
TBC.
I have to say, it would be the end of an era if Louboutin were to lose his red sole trademark. The outcome looks pretty bleak though. In court this week, although apparently Louboutin had a positive start, the designer is reportedly unlikely to win the injunction against YSL, due to the inability to back up the trademark.
The first thing I thought when I read through the Vogue article was, " Why would YSL feel the need to imitate that which is so iconic to another brand?" because surely, if you were to see any shoe with a red sole, the first thing you would think is "Louboutin", not "YSL".
Or maybe this was YSL's aim- to cause a media stir and potentially knock Louboutin off their red-soled perch? And in doing so creating an even more iconic it-shoe, that which changed shoe history. Which would beg the question, "Why?". YSL are by far the bigger brand, are they really this worried about the (non) competition?
Whatever their reasoning, Louboutin must be worried. If the trademark is set to be nulled, what's to stop all designers getting out the red paint? How will we distinguish Louboutin's from Littlewoods?
In any case, the shoes are off (see what I did there?) as Christian Louboutin's lawyer insists the designer will "fight like hell" to protect his brand's iconic feature.
In my (ridiculously) humble opinion, why as a society we feel the need for what we wear to be instantly recognisable is beyond me. The red sole on the Louboutin does not make the shoe- the fit and design do. In fighting so publicly about this, Louboutin is, as far as I'm concerned, detracting from the brand by insinuating that the red sole is the main USP for his shoes. Perhaps it might have been more dignified for him to let this one slide, firm in his belief that his shoes are more than just a red sole.
Which also begs the question, are his shoes more than just a red sole? Call me practical/boring, but if the designer of the shoe is more worried about the colour of the sole than the design and fit, I for one will be looking for a new shoe lust.
L.
