Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 12, 2012


The battle of the red sole, between the world famous Christian Louboutin and another world renowned fashion label- Zara has been decided. CL had gone to court seeking to stop Zara from infringing on his trademark (the use of the red sole) on some of their shoes.

But the court has come out to say- that Zara's cut-price shoe could not be confused with that made by the high-end designer. This was the initial verdict of the court in 2008. The world renowned shoe designer, not satisfied with the outcome then took the case to a higher court- Cour de Cassation, which is the final court of appeal. The higher court just last week upheld the lower court's decision and even awarded a compensation of 2,000 Pounds to Zara!

CL had initiated a similar case against YSL last year also, which has not yet been decided.

Hear Mr. Louboutin on why the cause is important for him and his brand identity and that he is aware he cannot monopolise a colour. CL said -

'I understand that, but it is a red in a specific context, there is Ferrari red [and] Hermès orange.
'Even in the food industry, Cadbury recently won a lawsuit against Nestlé for using purple packaging.
'All this proves that the colours play a part in a brand's identity. I'm not saying that red usually belongs to me - I repeat that this is about a precise red, used in a precise location.'

Louboutin said that he came up with the idea for his red sole heels, which are favoured by celebrities including Sarah Jessica Parker and Victoria Beckham, nearly 20 years ago, when he painted red nail polish on the black soles of a pair of women's shoes.





Kanyinulia said...

I still dont understand how someone will customise a color...This world

Felani said...

How is that shoe " a Zara copy?" The styles, apart from being open-toe, are different. And besides, if he feels that all he has going for his shoes are the red soles, then i wonder why people bother paying that amount for it. Surely there should be some other quality that he needs to harp on.

MAMA PUT said...

I work in PR and I agree with Mr. Louboutin. His line has a wide range of styles and looks but his trademark is the red sole. He was the first to do this and does it with every single pair. It is synonymous with his brand that has been going strong for over 20 years. When you see red soles, you think Louboutinsa. So, apart from the red soles, all his shoes have great quality and what not but what ties them together is the red sole. So, it's not like he has nothing else going for him but that's just his brand identity and trademark. Do you get?

Anonymous said...

You've made some decent points there. I checked on the internet to learn more about the issue and found most individuals will go along with your views on this website.
Here is my web page ... Wedding Photography York

Anonymous said...

Kanyinulia; why not? Mama Put has said it; trademark.

Mama Borngirl said...

I also respect brand trademarks. CL is kinda right here!

Okiki said...

But red soles dates back to the 15th century in France, and that was what Zara and YSL argued and what the court agreed with. Louboutin was DEFINITELY NOT the first to make red-soled shoes. As far back as the 1600s, Charles II of england wore red-soled shoes. So did Louis XIV of France. Neither Zara nor YSL is claiming their shoes are CLs but they are just using a color that had been used on shoe soles even centuries ago.

Anonymous said...

Okiki; the difference here is again "trademark." They are doing it so people will think their shoes are CL.
Mama born girl; yes with your IC i bet you are all about the labels.