Louboutin Vs. Yves Saint Laurent: Case Study

I, Judge Anderson, concludes the case of Christian Louboutin versus Yves Saint Laurent find the defendant guilty of the charge of trademark infringement. I understand that Yves Saint Laurent is liable under the Lanham Act, meaning that they violated the likelihood of confusion, trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin, unfair competition, trademark dilution and two of the various forms of confusion. The factors that helped determine the likelihood of confusion are the proximity of the products, actual confusion, and the sophistication of the buyers. The two various forms of the products that were violated were Initial interest confusion and reverse confusion. The reasons why I agree that the YSL monochromatic …show more content…
YSL may have a point that their monochromatic red shoe isn’t really infringing on Louboutin products since it could be considered an ornamental design that can enhance the appeal of footwear. But what they failed to realize is that Louboutin always had the red sole design since the start of their production and that consumers could possibly fail to realize that the YSL red sole shoe isn’t the Louboutin shoe, causing confusion. This shows the reasons why I disagree with the counterclaim is simply because of the fact that Louboutin has been organizing this “red mark” style on his products since 1992. People today recognize are well known to the product with the red soles, unless they were new shoppers, and are most likely to be referring to Louboutin when looking for the “shoe with the red soles”. This also proves that the red sole products are representing a secondary meaning, causing the products to be eligible for trademark protection. If you look to the right for the following pictures, they show that Louboutin has a signature for the “red mark” and has been doing it from the start on their products. Products like heels, boots, wallets, purses, shoes and