gaijin gig Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/his_sole_at_stake_XDYlawWXtTwl2xhFIM9GcI old news, but i thought i would share. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roniheels Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Depending on patent and trademarks in place, Christian Louboutin definitely should at least try to file suit against YSL. Although, as the article stated, there are many "knock-offs" out there that seem to have dodged the bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin gig Posted April 10, 2011 Author Share Posted April 10, 2011 I thought so too. Here in the states i have seen many women wearing them(knockoffs)... I mentioned to one women i saw in the subway. that "i like your CL"s ( it was a sat nite every other woman i saw was dressed up to go out somewhere) she told me" you think these are real"? I made like i did not know any better. wish her a good evening.. This has me thinking every woman i see are they real or not? I'll bet the YSL'S that i see are not genuine either.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikekicks Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I'm betting if we went back in time and looked at all the shoe soles ever made, there would surely be red ones somewhere. This is actually laughable. Someone owns a ' color '? REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTATIVE, INSULTING AND RUDE. BANNED FOR LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkonit Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 This is actually laughable. Someone owns a ' color '? Actually the whole red soles thing is brilliant marketing by CL. Every knock off worn by any woman (or man) and every court cases only increases CL's exclusive brand name. It wouldn't surprise me much to hear CL and YSL set up the court case as a marketing ploy. "Any news is good news" right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Many things can become a trademark. See also: http://www.counterfeitchic.com/Images/Louboutin%202f%20statement%20in%20trademark%20application.pdf http://www.counterfeitchic.com/Images/Louboutin%20red%20sole%20in%20TM%20Official%20Gazette%207-10-07.pdf The trade is "knock offs" is also taking a hit: http://www.stopfakelouboutin.com/index.php/en http://www.stopfakelouboutin.com/index.php/en/Home/LIST-OF-THE-WEBSITES-SELLING-FAKES-WE-HAVE-IDENTIFIED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trolldeg Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Christian Louboutin definitely should at least try to file suit against YSL. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Why? Because the red sole is a trademark of the CL brand. Imagine the repercussions should you try to open a cafe and use a giant yellow M over the door... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkonit Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The list of brands using red soles is very long. There are knock-off copies as well as many reputable and designer brands using red soles. There is no way CL can sue them all. Its just a marketing tactic for CL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkonit Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Many things can become a trademark. See also: .... . Surely in reality the designers are happy with the counterfeit market. If your brand has become so desirable that it is being copied, then you have hit the big time. Counterfeits and the news surrounding them only makes the real brand more desirable. Those people buying the copies would never be able to afford the real item so the counterfeit arn't actually decreasing income. It would probably be a smart move for an exclusive designer company to release "counterfeits" onto the market to raise their own profile and raise their own profits. What about the stories of real "counterfeits" when the employees in third party factories supplying exclusive goods work the night shift to produce the same product but supply the "knock-off market?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trolldeg Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Because the red sole is a trademark of the CL brand. Many shoes have had red soles long before CL. And how could you possibly trademark a color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Surely in reality the designers are happy with the counterfeit market. The huge amount of website closedown orders, factory closures, counterfeit goods seizures and destruction orders instigated by CL and other brands in the last two years says otherwise. It's one thing for rival companies to bring out styles based on a designer label product. It's quite another thing to make low quality products and stamp the designer name on them or use an exact copy of a trademarked logo or feature and then try to pass them off as the real thing. The low quality products are often made by using child or slave labour in sweat shops with the revenue often funding terrorist activities and drug-related crime syndicates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wood&metal Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 This would be like GM claiming to own the color red, and suing Ford for producing red cars... Never frown because you never know who is falling in love with your smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roniheels Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Many shoes have had red soles long before CL. And how could you possibly trademark a color? If there are other shoes and shoe companies that have had red soles as their trademark, like CL, then no, CL probably doesn't have a case. I myself don't remember other shoe companies that "trademarked" their red soles like CL did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yozz Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 This case makes me think of something I read years ago. There was a woman with the last name Sony who had a shop in an American city. I think she was originally from the Philippines. Of course her shop had a big sign outside. The shop had nothing to do with electronics. Yet the Sony corporation tried to sue her. Eventually they must have seen that they could not win that and they paid her a lot of money that she would take that sign down. Lawyers can make a case out of anything though. Probably here it will boil down to whether there was an attempt to get benefit from someones reputation. As both are already famous I would think that is not the case, but considering how big a fee the lawyers on both sides are going to claim and how long this might go on there may well be a settlement eventually. Y. Raise your voice. Put on some heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkonit Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The huge amount of website closedown orders, factory closures, counterfeit goods seizures and destruction orders instigated by CL and other brands in the last two years says otherwise. . Interesting comment. I do not support conterfeits, and have no special knowledge of counterfeits, but I must say that all this action from CL acts as marketing for his brand. Surely better marketing than normal advertising. The low quality products are often made by using child or slave labour in sweat shops with the revenue often funding terrorist activities and drug-related crime syndicates. I've seen these claims as well. I wonder where this information comes from. Journalistic articles sponsored by designers perhaps. And what about "normal" non counterfeit brands, havn't they been accused of using child labour in sweatshops from time to time ? Sometimes I feel we are a bit naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts