The cheap Louboutin shoes had a profound influence in the fashion domain. The red soles became such a huge hit that Christian Louboutin Australia went on to the extent of trade marking his red sole heels in the U.S.A. in 2007 so that no other company could make and sell it. Apart from his trademark stilettos and red soles he also let his imagination fly and went on to try new and innovative things like he came up with an entire range with transparent heels in which it seemed that flower petals were floating. The brand is the most fiercely desired shoe wears among the ladies with having a great celebrity clientele. He says that a woman’s feeling in his shoes fascinates him and gives him a reason to design shoes for them. According to him, woman want to look sexy for other, more than themselves, and this feeling gives them self confidence. Another unique feature of his shoes is that it is entirely hand-made and customised, to the extent that even the trademark is etched without any intervention of machines. The impact is very well testified by the fact Jeniffer Lopez released a song called Louboutins sydney.
Last year, we wrote about how high end fashion shoe designer Christian Louboutin* had lost a trademark lawsuit concerning the company’s attempt to block other shoe makers from making high heel shoes with red soles. Louboutin is apparently famous for its red soled shoes, but the judge in the case pointed out that this was silly and the company never should have received the trademark in the first place:
Unfortunately, on appeal, the 2nd Circuit has disagreed and said that the lower court erred — though with a specific condition. It claims that Louboutin’s red soled trademark is legitimate if and only if it’s on shoes with a different color. If the shoe itself is completely red, then others can have a red sole (which was the situation in this particular lawsuit). Still, this seems troubling, as it seems to flat out limit reasonable design choices that other shoemakers might choose to make. The court goes through the caselaw history on colors as trademark, and the question of whether or not a color is “functional” or not (trademarks can’t be functional).
there’s at least a high likelihood that if you mention “Louboutin” in your comment that it will be held by the spam filter. We’ll endeavor to free this as quickly as possible. Or just don’t mention it in your comment at all, and hopefully it’ll get through…