Christian Louboutin sues Yves Saint Laurent over shoe soles *Update* Loses

[Chanelcouture09]

^I strongly disagree, I think it's on the same level as Tiffany and their trademark color, it is Mr Louboutin's iconic color, if you see a red sole it is ultimately related to his product, other brands backed his case also.

 

[Spike413]

This has been going on for, what, about a year and a half now, and I'm still baffled by disparaging comments made towards Louboutin over his fighting to protect a concept that is his signature -- hell his logo really -- and now being vindicated for it.

It's not about whether or not I or any other fashion-type would know that the YSL shoes aren't Louboutins. It's about the fact that most people -- regardless of whether they can easily spot the differences between the two shoes and identify the respective brands -- will think of Louboutin upon seeing a red sole on any shoe. It's a brand identifier, just as Chanel's chain handles, Gucci's horse bits and Prada's silver triangle are. They aren't technically logos, but they're so closely linked with the brand that seeing something similar immediately draws a comparison. Besides, if Louboutin didn't pursue this it would have set a precedent. Anyone could then do a red sole -- whether it's another brand using it for visual interest or a knock-off company using it to look like the real deal -- and it would dilute the impact of Louboutin's signature touch.

I don't blame him in the least for working to prevent that and I'm honestly surprised that so many people do.

 

[GERGIN]

^I strongly disagree, I think it's on the same level as Tiffany and their trademark color, it is Mr Louboutin's iconic color, if you see a red sole it is ultimately related to his product, other brands backed his case also.

i'm referring to YSL's all red shoe...I mean I doubt it was YSL's decision to include a red sole because they wanted to copy Louboutins. I'm sure some designer has done a red sole shoe before Louboutin came along....

Edit: it's quite pathetic how Louboutin needs a red sole to make a shoe his own...

 

[TianSoFine]

I'm glad the trial turned out this way. Louboutin gets to keep the red sole trademark, which I think is pretty reasonable since consumers do identify red soles with Louboutin. YSL gets to keep making their red shoes, which I also think is reasonable because making an entirely red shoe is a pretty basic property. Trademarks become unreasonable when they deny other brands to using properties on such a basic level.

 

[Spike413]

^ Really GERGIN? Is it pathetic when other designers use signature flourishes to signify that a product is theirs, or is it just in this case because you disagree with it? And not to be rude but that's a pretty hollow attack on something that, frankly, nobody ever questioned before Christian Louboutin piped up to protect his use of something as a branding tool. Besides, there are plenty of other signature Louboutin flourishes; heel shape, hidden platforms, silhouettes.

And where in any of this has anyone stated that YSL's intent was to copy anybody? The intent isn't what's been argued. Nobody thinks that YSL attempted to slyly knock off Louboutin, it's that Louboutin clearly feels that the red sole is as much his logo as the famous "YSL" is to Saint Laurent, and wishes to protect that signature. Again, why is he wrong for that?

 

[Urban Stylin]

the shoe posted reads more YSL than Lomboutin despite the red sole, no one would ever think of it to be Lomboutin

 

[rosalynn]

I'm glad the trial turned out this way. Louboutin gets to keep the red sole trademark, which I think is pretty reasonable since consumers do identify red soles with Louboutin. YSL gets to keep making their red shoes, which I also think is reasonable because making an entirely red shoe is a pretty basic property. Trademarks become unreasonable when they deny other brands to using properties on such a basic level.

This is absolutely my opinion on the matter. I think the fact it became Louboutin vs YSL was really sad, and YSL have never used the red sole in the same way Louboutin do - it was obvious to me YSL used red soles with red shows because, aesthetically, it looks great, just like YSL use pink soles with pink shoes, blue with blue etc.

For me there's a clear and obvious distinction between designers using the red sole so as to imitate Louboutin, and using it because it looks nice artistically. Plus, there's the issue that YSL have been using red soles this way even before Louboutin (as has been discussed before). Same with designers like Alaia.

I think Louboutin is entitled to use the red sole as a trademark, but I agree with the judge that for shoes which are red all over YSL are entitled to use the red sole.

 

[GERGIN]

^ Really GERGIN? Is it pathetic when other designers use signature flourishes to signify that a product is theirs, or is it just in this case because you disagree with it? And not to be rude but that's a pretty hollow attack on something that, frankly, nobody ever questioned before Christian Louboutin piped up to protect his use of something as a branding tool. Besides, there are plenty of other signature Louboutin flourishes; heel shape, hidden platforms, silhouettes.

And where in any of this has anyone stated that YSL's intent was to copy anybody? The intent isn't what's been argued. Nobody thinks that YSL attempted to slyly knock off Louboutin, it's that Louboutin clearly feels that the red sole is as much his logo as the famous "YSL" is to Saint Laurent, and wishes to protect that signature. Again, why is he wrong for that?

I'm not saying he's wrong i'm saying he's stupid and pathetic. He should care about the real counterfeits of his shoes being produced and not the people who's intentions were to not counterfeit....sorry my opinion doesn't appeal to you, i'm obviously not a Louboutin fan if that wasn't made obvious to you, lol.

 

[LabelWhore4]

I'm not saying he's wrong i'm saying he's stupid and pathetic. He should care about the real counterfeits of his shoes being produced and not the people who's intentions were to not counterfeit....sorry my opinion doesn't appeal to you, i'm obviously not a Louboutin fan if that wasn't made obvious to you, lol.

I'm sure that his company can handle both problems and more. All brands take their trademarks and logos very seriously. YSL should have at least considered that something like this could happen... Or maybe they didn't care.

 

[Spike413]

I'm not saying he's wrong i'm saying he's stupid and pathetic. He should care about the real counterfeits of his shoes being produced and not the people who's intentions were to not counterfeit....sorry my opinion doesn't appeal to you, i'm obviously not a Louboutin fan if that wasn't made obvious to you, lol.

I'm guessing you'd feel quite differently if it was your signature flourish being discussed at the heart of these legal proceedings.

 

[softgrey]

i think the thread title needs an update...

 

[GERGIN]

I'm guessing you'd feel quite differently if it was your signature flourish being discussed at the heart of these legal proceedings.

I'm quite sure I would not as i'm not lazy enough to only use a certain color of red to distinguish myself from other designers, please .

 

[LabelWhore4]

Not lazy enough or ingenious enough?

 

[GERGIN]

Not lazy enough or ingenious enough?

I don't doubt myself, and you'll have to do better at attacking a forum member.

 

[TianSoFine]

^And you'll have to do better than calling a designer lazy for protecting his signature. Designers have their logos, trademarks, and signatures. That's just how fashion works. You can call him stupid and pathetic, but there's absolutely no way to refute that he's been really successful. Like Spike413 said, he has plenty of other signatures too. If you think that he can't have his success without the red heel, then it would only be stupid for him to stop using it, no?

 

[GERGIN]

^And you'll have to do better than calling a designer lazy for protecting his signature. Designers have their logos, trademarks, and signatures. That's just how fashion works. You can call him stupid and pathetic, but there's absolutely no way to refute that he's been really successful. Like Spike413 said, he has plenty of other signatures too. If you think that he can't have his success without the red heel, then it would only be stupid for him to stop using it, no?

Other signatures? Like what? He raised the height of stiletto heels? Ohhhhh yeah, that's so original. If anyone has looked at an encyclopedia of shoes and look at designers such as Roger Vivier, Manolo B & the forgotten Andre Perugia it's pretty fair to state that there's not anything else original about Christian Louboutin. His rise for fame was established by that of his networking with fashion socialites, having his name in trashy music lyrics and modelled by every real housewife who think Herve Leger dresses are hot S#!%. I give him credit for establishing himself one heck of a business but to only have a red sole to distinguish yourself from the rest is by far lazy & original. The YSL trial was not necessary and I am pleased that YSL did win that case & I hope that teaches Louboutin a lesson to not go after iconic businesses that are far more original than Louboutin could ever be.

 

[Jinadaze]

i think the thread title needs an update...

Indeed.

Yves Saint Laurent released a statement following the decision, emphasizing their victory when it comes to the all-red shoes. "The Court has conclusively ruled that YSL's monochromatic red shoes do not infringe any trademark rights of Louboutin, which guarantees that YSL can continue to make monochromitic shoes in a wide variety of colors, including red," said David H. Bernstein of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, YSL's rep on the case. He added, "YSL will continue to produce monochromatic shoes with red outsoles, as it has done since the 1970s."


huffingtonpost

 

[hautechild]

Well of course YSL should be legally allowed to continue to produce their shoes, as if it could be decided any other way. This entire thing was farcical and the way that Louboutin conducted itself completely unbecoming. I understand, and agree with, their desire to protect their brand from knockoffs, but YSL's shoe was clearly not, nor intended to be or even reference Louboutin in the slightest.

 

[TianSoFine]

The YSL trial was not necessary and I am pleased that YSL did win that case & I hope that teaches Louboutin a lesson to not go after iconic businesses that are far more original than Louboutin could ever be.

That is completely not my point.

 

[LabelWhore4]

I don't doubt myself, and you'll have to do better at attacking a forum member.

I didn't mean it in an attacking way. I was just saying that his trademark is pretty genius, especially from a marketing and branding standpoint. In fact I bet he is probably the only shoe designer whose shoes can be identified by a glance from someone not even into fashion.