Louboutin isn't Louboutin without its red soles

Image created by the amazing Garance Dorè

If you are a woman, or have some interest in fashion, I'm sure just by looking at the red soles of these drawn shoes, you're already thinking Christian Louboutin. A shoe brand famous for its vibrant red soles. I once saw a program on TV about luxury shoes, where Mr. Louboutin was interviewed on where he came up with the idea to paint the soles of his shoes red -- he was sitting around with one of his friends, who was painting her nails, when he started to paint the sole of a shoe and fell in love with how the shoe looked from behind. Then the rest is history...well, until now.

Recently, Louboutin has taken YSL to court on the basis of trademark infringement,  as YSL is selling shoes with a red sole.  Unfortunately, the judge does not believe a designer can trademark a colour. In fact, he "has made up his mind that no fashion designer should be allowed a monopoly on colour because as artists they need to be able to use a full palette".

Personally, I think the wrong argument is being made here. Sure the colour is essential, but more importantly, it's the location of the colour -- on the sole of the shoe -- which makes it quintessentially Louboutin.  So rather than fighting so hard over a colour, Louboutin should be registering the design element of having a red sole as its trademark.

Frankly, I had no idea what the Louboutin logo looked like until a few years ago. Up to that point I only recognised the brand via the red soles. In fact, my friend, Jade, gave me a business card for her friend, who designed accessories for a shoe brand she couldn't remember the name of...this is the card she handed me:

I didn't need to turn the card over; I knew exactly what company she worked for -- Christian Louboutin!

If we're looking at this business card alone, it's clear that Louboutin considers its red soles a powerful trademark for its brand.  I would consider this an excellent example that brand identification lies beyond the logo.  Look at Apple, they even go as far to register all its products, from the shape of its iPad to its desktop icons and apps. We can also look at Coca-Cola and the original design of its glass bottles. The brief to design the Coca-Cola bottle was to create something that when held in your hand blind-folded you knew it was Coca-Cola, and when shattered into a million shards of glass you knew it was Coca-Cola.

This goes back to Martin Lindstrom's concept of smashability. The idea here, is that you should be able to take away the logo from the product and/or service, and instinctually know the brand it comes from. Louboutin clearly has this going for them just like Apple and Coca-Cola, maybe even more so, since Louboutin's logo seems secondary to its red soles.

I truly believe Louboutin must win this case over YSL selling red soled shoes. Simply for the fact that red soled shoes are a key brand identifier for Louboutin. And if we agree on the definition YSL's lawyer gives trademarks - "merely the right to indicate the origin of a product or service" - than Louboutin will win. Having said that, if they keep fighting for the colour rather than the combined power of the colour and its location on the shoe, they won't win this case. The power of the red sole, as a trademark for Louboutin, is not so much the colour as it is the location of the colour.