Can Christian Louboutin patent red soles?

[alphax]

EU Court of Justice says no.  US Federal Appeals Court said yes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/christian-louboutin-shoes-red-trademark.html

 

[Shyheels]

It seems a stretch to allow anyone to trademark a colour. Perhaps Monsieur Louboutin will have to focus his effort more on quality and uniqueness of design rather than just the colour of his soles to set his shoes apart from the herd. Hire more designers, fewer lawyers and get back to the workbench.  

[Steve63130]

Back in the 1970s and early 80s I worked for a fiberglass company who made insulation for buildings. They successfully trademarked "pink" color and surprised the world. So there is precedence for trademarking color.

Steve

Edited February 16, 2018 by Steve63130

[Shyheels]

Yes, and Cadbury has trademarked the particular shade of purple they use as packaging - but I believe the trademark extends only to the use of that particular shade in association with chocolate products. There were limits. Claiming an entire range of the spectrum - which frankly, depending on the eye the beholder could stretch from orange-red to purple-red - as exclusively 'yours' when it comes to shoe soles is rather sweeping.     

[alphax]

I think CL has a good case for patenting that shade of red on their soles. 

I had never heard of such a thing before they started doing it. 

Unless someone can show "prior art" i.e. somebody else put red soles on high heeled shoes, then they should be allowed to say that this is their trademark. 

[Shyheels]

Louis XIV had red soles on his high heels....he mandated red as the colour in fact.

[alphax]

According to the articles I've googled up, Louis XIV made red heels a privilege for the monarchy and their friends.  Heels only, it's unclear what color their soles were.

http://www.thefashionhistorian.com/2010/11/red-heels.html

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/emjl45ghf/louis-xiv-of-france-posing-in-red-heeled-shoes/#6c091a097a02

But traditionally in fashion, features can't really be patented. A new design trend like peplum skirts or shoulder pads can be copied by anyone else.

It's more like you can patent a logo like Nike's swoosh, or Louis Vuitton, or Tommy Hilfiger's logos.

Allowing patents on color or color scheme would be like saying Body Glove could patent day glo green or yellow and black swimwear.

[Shyheels]

Damn! And here I was all set to patent the two-sleeve shirt and the five-finger glove and make a fortune licensing out my patent.  Well, there goes another money-making winner out the window. This is all so unfair...

 

[MackyHeels]

 Found the different Louboutin pointy toe styles to be a bit confusing to differentiate in the beginning, so I thought maybe this would help.  I have done a little comparison between the Pigalle, Pigalle Follies, and So Kate, and I'll let you know which one my favourite is.

 

 

 

 

 

• The Pigalle is the "original" Louboutin style with a chunkier heel and shorter toe box and comes in 100 and 120mm.  
• Then the So Kate came out which has a more slender heel that tapers a little, and a slightly longer toe box.  It only comes in 120mm.  
• The Pigalle Follies is like a hybrid between the Pigalle and the So Kate style.  It has the front smaller toe box of the Pigalles, and the back slender heels of the So Kate.  It comes in both 100 and 120 as well.

I think it's very hard to differentiate between the So Kate and Pigalle Follies 120.  Next to each other, I'd be able to tell the difference by looking at the toe box.  But if I were just to look at one pair alone, I'm not sure I'd be able to tell which one it is!

 

So, I haven't tried on the Pigalle or Pigalle Follies 120, but the So Kate 120 is not that comfortable lol.  I can't imagine that the Pigalle or Pigalle Follies 120 would be much better.  I think there's just a huge difference between 100 and 120 even though 20mm sounds like such a small amount.  

 

Pigalle 100 and Pigalle Follies 100 fit very similar, so it's a matter of aesthetic which one you prefer.  I like both of them, to be honest.  I feel like the Pigalles are sturdier, but I love the ultra skinny heel of the Pigalle Follies.  I

Edited May 20, 2018 by MackyHeels

[at9]

There's some confusion in this thread between patents and trademarks. Intellectual property is a complex field with much scope for interpretation. Here's a reasonable introdcution: https://yourstory.com/2016/06/difference-trademark-copyright-patent/

A red sole cannot be patented. It might be possible to make it a trademark but courts have disagreed.

[CrushedVamp]

As a creative person myself who makes income using intellectual property I understand the need to protect that, but to me this seems more of an arrogancy thing then true creative genius. I mean do they think they were the only designers ever to put red soles on shoes? It would be like me coming up with a cool title of a novel and then trying to copyright the title, and suing anyone else who tries to use it. Is it a creative title? Sure, but it does not mean someone else has not came up with the idea before me.  You can't copyright titles for that very reason and CL should not be able to Trademark a primary color like red on the sole of a shoe. What is next, them claiming they should get Trademark rights to black pumps?

The litmus test should be probability. It is highly likely some Cartwright made shoes with contrasting colors at some point, like red soled shoes. Now if CL had made a Red and green chevron pattern or their soles or something, that might be different, it is less likely someone else came up with that design, but the use of a primary color just seems like arrogancy to me. Like some grade school kids arguing on the playground they did something first when there is no proof of it.