The Devil Wears Solely Louboutin. The Red Sole as a Trade Mark in Light of the Rulings of CJEU and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2019.03.01.02Keywords:
Christian Louboutin, red sole, trade mark protection, non-traditional trade marks, absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity, functionality doctrine, aesthetic functionalityAbstract
The iconic red sole of the high-heeled shoes designed by legendary French shoemaker Christian Louboutin is considered not only as a beautiful decorative element of the shoe but also a Louboutin signature. To protect his brilliant idea of lacquering a shoe outsole with the Chinese Red colouring the designer had pursued a trade mark protection for his red sole in many countries which resulted in many court battles with his competitors and trade mark invalidation attempts around the world. The aim of this article is to present and compare results of such battles in the US and before the CJEU with particular emphasis on considerations of applying the doctrine of aesthetic functionality to the red sole mark in both legal systems. The author has conducted her research using mostly the dogmatic method and the comparative method.
Downloads
References
Doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wrocław and trainee attorney-at-law at Kancelaria Prawna VenaGroup in Wrocław. Her main scientific interests focus on intellectual property law, fashion law and law and technology.
University of Wrocław, Poland, Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics
AG Szpunar Opinion of 22 June 2017, Louboutin v. Van Haren Schoenen BV, C-163/16, EU:C:2017:495.
Brancusi, L. (2019a). Alternative products as a factor to determine the functionality of trade marks – How the criteria from the US functionality doctrine could be applied in the EU law. W S. .Frankel, Is Intellectual Property Pluralism Functional? (pp. 178-205). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brancusi, L. (2019b). Trade Marks Functionality in EU law: Expected New Trends after the Louboutin Case. European Intellectual Property Review(2), pp. 98-106.
Carreon, B. (2014, July 30). Christian Louboutin Launches Red Nail Color. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bluecarreon/2014/07/30/christian-louboutin-launches-red-nail-color/
Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin SAS v. Van Haren Schoenen BV, C-163/16, EU:C:2018:423 (Court of Justice of the European Union June 12, 2018).
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 445, 451, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York August 10, 2011).
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 228 (2d Cir. 2012) (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit September 5, 2012).
Collins, L. (2011, March 21). Sole Mate. Retrieved from The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/03/28/sole-mate
Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 June 2011 in Case R 2272/2010-2.
Dinwoodie, G. B. (1999). The Death of Ontology: A Teleological Approach to Trademark Law. Iowa Law Review, pp. 611-752.
Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 336, 23.12.2015, p. 1–26).
Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, p. 25–33).
EUIPO. (2017, May 19). Temporal scope of the application of the new grounds for refusal of EUTMR. Retrieved from euipo.eu: https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/AlicanteNews/MAY_2017_ALCNEWS_EUTM_ANNEX.pdf.
Furi-Perry, U. (2013). Seeing Red: The Battle Over Your Sole . In U. Furi-Perry, The Little Book of Fashion Law (pp. 33-42). Chicago IL: American Bar Association.
Gambino, D. C., & Bartow, W. L. (2013). Trade Dress: Evolution, Strategy, Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gorman, D. E. (2012, July 1). Protecting Single Color Trademarks in Fashion After Louboutin. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 390.
Hellyer, I. (2017, March 9). who owns the red sole? christian louboutin can't convince swiss courts he does. Retrieved from i-D: https://i-d.vice.com/en_au/article/mbvd5p/who-owns-the-red-sole-christian-louboutin-cant-convince-swiss-courts-he-does
Inwood Labs. v. Ives Labs., 456 U.S. 844 (1982) (Supreme Court of the United States June 1, 1982).
Kur, A. (2011, September 28). Too Pretty to Protect? Trade Mark Law and the Enigma of Aesthetic Functionality. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 11-16, 1-22.
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2011), Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System.
McCarthy, J. T. (2009). McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. St. Paul MN: West Group.
Pagliero v. Wallace China Co., 198 F.2d 339, 343 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit July 1, 1952).Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court of the United States March 28, 1995).
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1–99). (n.d.).
Szczepanowska-Kozłowska, K. (2017). Bezwzględne przeszkody rejestracji znaku towarowego [Absolute Grounds for the Refusal of Trade Mark Registration]. In R. Skubisz (Ed.), Prawo własności przemysłowej. System prawa prywatnego t. 14b (pp. 639-721). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Sztoldman, A. (2012). Ochrona prawna formy towaru lub opakowania znacznie zwiększającego wartość towaru [Legal Protection of the Form of the Goods or Packaging which Gives Substantial Value to the Goods]. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego(3), pp. 51-58.
The Benelux Convention of Intellectual Property (Trade Marks and Designs) (publication address in the Netherlands: Trb 2005, 96, as amended).
The Trademark Act of 1946 (Pub. L. No. 79-489, 60 Stat. 431, as amended (the Lanham Act).
Thurmon, M. A. (2004, April). The Rise and Fall of Trademark Law's Functionality Doctrine. Florida Law Review, pp. 243-371.
Tischner, A. (2015). Kumulatywna ochrona wzornictwa przemysłowego w prawie własności intelektualnej [Cumulative Protection of Industrial Design in Intellectual Property Law]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Veerasamy, V. (2017, March 22). Examining Christian Louboutins’ Red-Hot Marketing Strategy. Retrieved from ReferralCandy: https://www.referralcandy.com/blog/louboutin-marketing-strategy/
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court of the United States March 22, 2000).
Wojcieszko-Głuszko, E. (2017). Pojęcie znaku towarowego. Rodzaje oznaczeń. Kategorie znaków towarowych [The Concept of a Trade Mark. Types of Signs. Categories of Trade Marks]. In R. Skubisz (Ed.), Prawo własności przemysłowej. System prawa prywatnego, t. 14b (pp. 470-556). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Martyna Mielniczuk
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. License to all its content published from 2023 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to all its content published from 2017 to 2022.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
