24.08

For those of you who are unaware of the YSL Vs. Christian Louboutin court case, Louboutin issued a court injunction in attempt to prevent YSL from producing shoes with red soles. However, as of Wednesday 10th August, the injuction was denied as "Judge Victor Marrero said Louboutin wasn't able to prove that its red soles deserve trademark protection."

Susan Scafidi, director of Fordham University's Fashion Law institute told WWD, "Louboutin stands to lose so much. This is identity theft for him. Those red soles are almost as recognisable as his name. The philosophical question is, if it doesn't have a red sole, is it a Louboutin? If the shoe has house designs on it, yes, but the question is, will the public see it that way?"

What do you think? Although its undeniable that Louboutin makes amazingly beautiful shoes, I think a significant percentage of the business must come from people who buy them purely for that famous red sole. The main thing that bothers me is that this is skirting on a very serious issue - can colour be 'owned'? If Louboutin loses this, what does that mean for other brand-colour associations - Tiffany Blue, Hermes orange, Dairy Milk purple? How will this hurt the heritage & integrity of the brand? You can read the full article at Vogue UK.