Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Louboutin Trademark Infringement May Not Stick in EU

Written by: John F. "Jack" Gross on February 09, 2018 | Category: Blog | Tags:

In a trademark infringement case against Van Haren Schoenen, a shoe retail outlet in the Netherlands, the European Union’s highest court recently announced that a trademark combining color and shape may be declared invalid. The case will go back to a Dutch court for final decision. This is a significant blow to the Christian Louboutin brand. Louboutin has sued several designers in recent years for trademark infringement of its famed red-soled shoes, including Yves Saint Laurent, Alba Footwear, and more. In the past, the designer has shown in U.S. proceedings that consumers associate the red sole with the Louboutin brand and other designers cause brand confusion by using the signature red sole on their shoes. It appears, however, that the protection for those famous red soles could be lost.

The EU ruling will not directly impact the U.S. trademark infringement rulings and settlements that currently protect the Louboutin red sole. But one has to wonder if the designer will be able to continue to demand the high prices (often more than $750 a pair) for his shoes if high-heels from other designers with similar red soles can be purchased from the EU at substantially lower prices.

Trademark infringement cases in the fashion industry are prevalent and can make for protracted disputes in the courts. From Louis Vuitton and Tiffany & Co., to Adidas and Converse, designers keep a sharp eye on potential infringements. The basic elements of an infringement case require a party to prove the validity of its trademark, that the mark was older than the other party’s mark, and that the other party’s use of the newer mark causes consumer confusion. Key factors the court considers in making its decision are the similarities between marks and the likelihood that the newer mark would cause consumer confusion. This latest EU case, however, relies on a different and EU-specific rule that trademarks may not combine both color and shape.

Attorney Jack Gross frequently counsels businesses on intellectual property matters including trademark, copyrights, licensing, and other issues related to brand protection.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog