Tokyo court dismisses Louboutin ‘red sole’ suit
Christian Louboutin failed to convince a Tokyo court that a Japanese shoe company infringed its distinctive trademarked red sole.
The decision, made last month by the Tokyo District Court, dismissed Louboutin’s case that Eizo had infringed its IP and violated unfair competition law.
The court also ruled that the red sole did not carry satisfactory secondary meaning to fulfil distinctiveness requirements to act as a trademark.
In a press release by Marks IP—first spotted by The Fashion Law—the Tokyo District Court denied a certain degree of reputation and population of the red soles to warrent protection.
The court ruled that red was a “commonly used colour” on heeled footwear and that the two decades of use and advertisement was “insufficient” to constitute Louboutin as the “source indicator” of red soles in Japan.
It also said that Louboutin could not prove a likelihood of confusion between the two shoes given that Louboutin’s shoes cost upwards of JPY80,000, meaning consumers would be far more attentive to the branding of the shoe.
This means that consumers would more readily notice Louboutin’s shoes stylised “Louboutin” mark on the soles and be unlikely to confuse with Eizo’s “Eizo” wordmark.
Also, the court added that the difference in respective materials on the soles resulted in a distinction in “texture and lustre” to the extent that consumers could “easily distinguish” the quality of the respective goods.
Finally, the court disregarded a consumer interview submitted by Louboutin as evidence of the shoe’s reputation. Despite the fact that 65% of 3,149 respondents identified a drawing of a red sole heel as Louboutin, the court noted that the interview did not show consumers Eizo’s shoe so it was irrelevant for proving the likelihood of confusion.
Louboutin has taken legal action in multiple countries to protect its red sole mark. In 2018 the CJEU ruled, on request from a court in the Hague, that the distinctive red colour of the sole qualified it as eligible for registration, as the mark does not consist exclusively of the “shape” of the product.
Louboutin went on to win a case brought against Dutch retailer, Van Haren.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
