Louboutin vs. Yves Saint Laurent: The Legal Protections of Non-Traditional Trademarks
Christian Louboutin’s lawsuit against Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) in 2012 was a landmark case in the protection of non-traditional trademarks. Louboutin claimed that YSL’s use of red soles infringed on Louboutin’s distinctive red sole trademark, which had achieved secondary meaning in the luxury fashion market. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled partially in favor of Louboutin, affirming that the red sole had acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier, but limited the trademark protection to shoes with contrasting red soles.
Legal Takeaways:
Non-Traditional Trademarks: The Louboutin vs. YSL case demonstrates the legal viability of protecting non-traditional trademarks, such as colors, under the Lanham Act, provided that the trademark has acquired distinctiveness and functions as a source identifier.
Functionality Doctrine: The case also highlights the limits of trademark protection under the functionality doctrine, which prevents a feature that is essential to the use or purpose of the product or affects its cost or quality from being protected as a trademark.
Enforcement Strategy for Distinctive Marks: For legal departments, this case underscores the importance of robust evidence showing the use and recognition of non-traditional trademarks to support enforcement actions, particularly when those trademarks play a critical role in brand identity.
–Esraa Sadek, Nov.2024
Get in Touch
Let’s Protect Your Ideas