Louboutin Versus Van Haren

[yozz]

I just read in the Dutch news:

"Schoenenwinkel Van Haren mag geen blauwe of zwarte schoenen met rode zool verkopen. De pumps uit de Halle Berry-collectie van de Nederlandse schoenenverkoper lijken te veel op de schoenen van de Franse ontwerper Christian Louboutin.

Louboutin spande een kort geding aan tegen Van Haren en eiste dat het bedrijf zou stoppen met de verkoop van de hooggehakte schoenen. De rode zolen zijn een belangrijk kenmerk van de Franse ontwerper en daarom liet hij ze als merk registreren.

De rechter geeft Louboutin gelijk. Van Haren mag geen enkel paar zwarte of blauwe pumps met rode zolen meer verkopen.

Als het bedrijf zich niet houdt aan de uitspraak van de rechter, krijgt Van Haren een boete van 20.000 euro per dag of 500 euro per verkocht paar schoenen, afhankelijk van de wens van Louboutin. Een paar echte Louboutins kost honderden euro's en de pumps van Van Haren slechts 40 euro.

De rode variant met rode zool uit de Halle Berry-collectie mag nog wel worden verkocht. Van Haren gaat in hoger beroep tegen de uitspraak."

Translation:

"Shoe shop Van Haren is not allowed to sell more blue or black shoes with red soles. The pumps from the Halle Berry-collection of the Dutch shoe seller look too much like the shoes of the French designer Christian Louboutin.

Louboutin took van Haren to court and demanded that the company would stop the same of high heeled shoes. The red soles are an important property of the French designer and hence he had them trademarked.

The judge agreed with Louboutin. Van Haren is not allowed to sell black or blue pumps with red soles.

If the company does not comply with the judgment, Van Haren faces a fine of 20000 Euros per day or 500 Euros per pair of shoes sold, depending on the wish of Louboutin. A pair of real Louboutins costs hundreds of Euros and the pumps of Van Haren only 40 Euros.

The red variety with red sole from the Halle Berry-collection can still be sold.

Van Haren appeals the decision."

So, how many colors are there to be trademarked?

Y.

[Impala]

Isn't Christian Louboutin already rich enough? You can clearly see those shoes aren't louboutins, the sole is only partially red and the heel is too low to be a real louboutin. I agree with Van Haren.

[Heeleddude]

There has been a case on the red soles before. Christian lost. He can't claim the red soles as something unique to his brand.

[Curt]

Why buy louboutins when there are others similar.

[ilikekicks]

This is why I wont spend any cash on CL products. Its not a quality thing, but they are a status symbol of a pompus ass/arrogant frenchman. That dumbass believes he can have the rights to a color off the light spectrum that nature/science created. He had NOTHING to do with its creation and hes not entitled to the force/means to remove others from using it.

[JeffB]

Whoa! I didn't know Eddie and Alex had gotten into designing women's shoes! I guess rock and roll doesn't pay like it used to! Oh! Van HAREN! Silly me! But seriously, if Louboutin has a patent on red soled shoes, then he's well within his rights to initiate legal action against anyone who even remotely infringes upon said patent. The guy didn't get to be filthy rich by being a dumbass. Is that fair? Nope, but it's just business.

[PatsyCline]

Christian Louboutin sued Yves St. Laurent over YSL selling red soled shoes. I haven't read the entire decision, but the judge ruled that YSL could only sell red soled shoes if the entire shoe was red.

[Steve63130]

Louboutin isn't the first to trademark a color. Back in the 1970s Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. trademarked the color pink for its fiberglass building insulation. It wanted to prevent other insulation manufacturers from using that color for their insulation, because Owens-Corning felt that its pink color was distinctive and had a marketing edge by presenting a "warm" color. There is nothing wrong with Louboutin trying to trademark a red sole as his. If its approved by the country's patent and trademark office, it should hold up in court if its challenged, but it isn't guaranteed. Judges could rule otherwise and disallow it. Steve

[StacyMann]

Christian Louboutin just lost a similar case in Spain.

[yozz]

If you can trademark a color, the first question that arises would be "how many colors are there?" Of course there are very many, but `a color' would be a color range and hence there is only a finite number. If all the colors would be taken, nobody else could make any shoes any longer. This cannot possibly be right. In my eyes this whole stuff of trademarks and patents etc needs to be revised. In the past IBM did a lot of research in superconducting computers. Not to make them, but to have the patents and thereby preventing others from making them. Also people take patents on things that are rather obvious, and then threaten to sue people who think this stuff up themselves. Even if the patent would not hold up in court, it would take you of the order of $100000 in legal fees to get that far. Hence many companies just pay a fee to these people. I consider this gross abuse of both the patent and the legal system. And then we have not yet talked about software patents. With those active you would need a lawyer, each time you produce some code. Great. Fortunately I have published my software, so nobody can patent all those tricks.... (I hope). Y.

[Prue]

I don't think he trademarked the color red. Maybe he can trademark red soles in some countries, in others he will only be able to trademark complete designs. The main question is "can you mistake a shoe for a louboutin" which is realy arguable, so louboutin will try it again and again. I think compared to the fight between apple and samsung this isn't so extreme

[Shafted]

If he didn't have the foresight to create a proper trademark, that's his problem.

[Dr. Shoe]

You can't patent a colour but you can patent a process to produce a colour that would be impossible otherwise. You can claim a trademark but you would have a problem doing this with a sold colour but you can with a combination lke the Coca Cola white stripe on a red background.

[Cl0setheels]

Little side-information, Van Haren is the dutch counterpart of "Rack Room Shoes" in the US. Which in turn all are part of the German "Deichmann".

[Gudulitooo]

If you can trademark a color, the first question that arises would be "how many colors are there?"

Of course there are very many, but `a color' would be a color range and hence there is only a finite number.

If all the colors would be taken, nobody else could make any shoes any longer. This cannot possibly be right.

Take land for comparison and try to apply your thoughts :

If you can own a "land", how many lands are there ?

'a land' would be a certain surface of the ground, hence there is only a finite number of lands.

If all the land would be taken, nobody else could live on the earth. Do you think that makes sense to question this ?

Trademarks and patents only extend the range of possible things we self appropriate to ourselves. The question is : who can decide to grant these things ? God ? Or humans that other humans fear / respect ? Is it only a human thing ?

Monkeys can also have a 'land concession authority' that can grant other monkeys the right to own part of the land. And they overlap with the human's one.

Same for bugs, etc.

When the humans disappear during the next global extinction, things will reset, that's all.

[luxxyheels]

Apple patented a rectangle, so I guess Louboutin can patent a color.

[Puffer]

There is a danger of confusion of intellectual property here, although terminology and categories do vary between countries.

A patent relates to some special solution to a problem in the manufacturing process or function of a tangible article. So, 'patent leather' (properly so called) qualifies as a product but the colour or appearance of a shoe sole does not.

A registered design relates to some unique aspect of the appearance of a product. So, Mr L's red soles could possibly be protected in this way to stop imitations.

A registered trade mark (or service mark) is a distinctive symbol or device (and/or a form of words) that identifies a specific supplier or its 'brand' of product or service (but not just the product itself). So, the Coca Cola logo cannot be used by anyone else. The oldest UK trademark is the very basic solid red triangle used by Bass (the brewer) - there is nothing special about the triangle or its colour but its use in relation to the supply of beer is protected. Mr L did not (and probably could not) claim that a red shoe sole is a trade mark, although he could devise a company logo based on a red sole that is a trade mark (but this would not stop other shoes from having red soles).