ilikekicks Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 "NEW YORK – A US federal judge denied Christian Louboutin SA's request to halt sales of red-soled shoes made by rival Yves Saint Laurent (YSL), saying Louboutin would not likely be able to prove that its own ever-present red soles deserve trademark protection. Louboutin filed suit in federal court in Manhattan earlier this year alleging some YSL shoes featured soles in shades of red that were the same or similar to its own, which are protected by a 2008 award from the US Patent and Trademark Office. Louboutin sought a preliminary injunction to prevent YSL from selling the shoes while the suit is pending. The judge, however, concluded that Louboutin is not likely to win its central claim and denied the injunction as a result." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500190678090656.html REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTATIVE, INSULTING AND RUDE. BANNED FOR LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky909 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Interesting. I've been seeing a lot of red-soled heels all over the place on TV nowadays and they're beautiful heels, but they're quite a bit more than "a little out of my price range." Personally I'd say it should be Trademarked though... The red sole is THE icon of Louboutin's heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve63130 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I agree. The red sole is indeed a registered trademark and should be protected. I think the judge was wrong. When I worked for Owens-Corning Fiberglas 30 years ago, the company successfully won a trademark for the color pink for building insulation (and also hired the Pink Panther as its spokesanimal - a brilliant marketing move). No other company could make their insulation that color. The trademark has withstood the test of time, as far as I know, and I think Louboutin's trademark should follow that precedent. No, I don't even play a lawyer on TV...and therefore I can't afford a pair of his very expensive shoes! LOL Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trolldeg Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Judge was absolutely right! You can't trademark a color. And Louboutin was not the first one to make shoes with red soles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin gig Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/judge_stomps_on_louboutin_xwEPZOXiYQIdntYGpyGWlM it looks like the judge might have something to say about this.... if you ask me it means a lot of Sub par shoes trying to cash in on CL.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikekicks Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 YSL was making red soled shoes 30 years ago. Where was CL then? REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTATIVE, INSULTING AND RUDE. BANNED FOR LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin gig Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Thats a good question.. but i guess it took some thinking to "trademark" a color.. and do you know what? it worked... i wonder who outsells who.... are they not roughly in the same price range? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikekicks Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Price range. Depends where you look and who you ask. http://www.yslshoesbuy.com/christian-louboutin-heels-c-81.html 123$ ? I can guarantee they are imitations. Who outsells who(m). Good question. YSL offers more products outside of shoes. Their cosmetic line sold by L'Oreal made over 500 million$ USD this past year. http://english.alrroya.com/content/loreals-ysl-brand-aims-14bn CL's for his shoes? "The judge said Louboutin sells about 240,000 pairs of shoes in the United States each year. Revenues for 2011 are projected at about $135 million." Thats only US revenues, just 1 market of many. http://news.yahoo.com/judge-steps-louboutin-bid-protect-red-soles-172544551.html YSL is a much larger company then CL is ( or so it would seem ). YSL's cosmetics division probably generates more then CL could in a year. Factor in YSL also makes clothes, bags, shoes, cosmetics, household goods ( Silverware, Rugs, Statues, Clocks ), Jewelry.. I think it would be a fair comparison to say the revenues between CL and YSL are on totally different playing fields. Probably a 10:1 to 15:1 total annual sales ratio. I have seen YSL shoes with Yellow bottoms, Red Bottoms, Black and normal ' leather ' as well. The junkie I inherited the shoes I have.. that was 3 years ago.. some have red bottoms.. this isnt a ' recent ' event by any means. Mary Kay, a cosmetics company had their own shade of ' pink '. GM leased a bunch of Caddies and Tahoes to them that were painted the color called ' Mary Kay Pink ' to them for their sales people. Upon the leases expiring, Mary Kay then tried to sue GM for ' selling our trademark color '.. Can anyone see how completely STUPID it is to try and have a company ' own ' a color '?!? GM had to paint all those cars before they could be sold.. well.. the US taxpayers bailout helped them do it.. What this is all about is frivolous lawsuits. If I went and ' trademarked ' a color called ' deep black patent ', could I then Sue YSL AND CL for infringement? I mean, clearly, CL isnt the first person to make red soled shoes and I wouldnt be the first person to make a pair of deep black patent colored shoes.. same principles with the facts.. Its stupid. REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTATIVE, INSULTING AND RUDE. BANNED FOR LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trolldeg Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Here's a pair of Charles Jourdan heels from the 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin gig Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/louboutin-loses-to-ysl-in-battle-of-red-soles-2524924/#photoViewer=12 more on the subject.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin gig Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Ilikekicks, thanks for the reply.. I included some more on the subject. I dont remember seeing scarlet soles on YSL's ever... I am told that they used to back in the day. I'll bet it was brought back to clearly compete with CL. it is not hard to see from My Posts that i am in the CL camp... I will also say that YSL does have some Sexy models too... either way.. we all win.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikekicks Posted August 13, 2011 Author Share Posted August 13, 2011 My whole point being is since when does an arrogant frenchman get to capitalize on a ' color ' ? Thats the bottom line on this. Tossing all the other fan-bases bias aside, since when it is one person can dictate to the masses? I believe its all about ' prestige '. If people want to spend 1000$ on a pair of shoes, so be it. Its their money. On the flip side, those same people shouldnt feel so inferior or offended when a ' lesser ' ( face it folks, be truthful, thats how this is being viewed ) company or knock-off from China comes out with the same color on their bottoms. I think the CL crowd is worried their shoes wont be seen as a ' status symbol ' anymore. So what? They wont have Ferraris or Lambo's on their feet anymore.. Cry me a river! This past month Ive watched riots all over England on TV and looked at the aftermath of an idiot with a gun going to town on a Kids Camp. The courts are looking at shoe colors? Should anyone really give a rats ass about some pompus frenchmans shoe sole color? F-him, theres more important things in life then what hes sueing for. ( Seriously! ). Im a VERY practical guy. Im seeing the court system that needs to be processing criminals and other more important things then being logged with garbage cases by someone sueing over shoe sole colors? Even though evidence by a poster here shows shoes from the 1960's, 50 years ago, already using such coloring? *( thanks for the pics Trolldeg! ) Its beyond ridicules and I think the US Courts should charge CL for the wasted tax payers money on his even filling for something so frivolous. REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTATIVE, INSULTING AND RUDE. BANNED FOR LIFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pussyinboots Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 This entire episode is a perfect example of the pathetic depths that humans have descended to in their pursuit of greed. Whoever heard of someone claiming 'rights' over a colour...?? Goodness Gracious me...!! "Good Girls keep diaries....Bad Girls just don't have the time...!:icon_twisted:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts