|The Kat knows that something is a-foot ...|
In June 2011, the Cour d'appel found in favour of Zara on the ground that Louboutin’s trade mark registration was too vague in that it did not contain a Pantone colour reference for the red-soled soles. Louboutin appealed to the Cour de Cassation, which last week upheld the lower court's decision in favour of Zara and found that there was no legal or procedural error in the case. It also ordered that Louboutin pay Zara €2,500 (£2,000) in compensation.
|Spot the difference: Christian Louboutin v Zara|
'I understand that [that I cannot monopolise a colour], 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.'
For Louboutin v YSL see the AmeriKat’s Posts here and here.