Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent. In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
12-13 May 2014 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Advertisements

Fashion Boutique v. Fendi USA The case of improper evidence supporting plaintiffs claims and their subsequent appeal of District Courts decision.
C&A v. G-Star. Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association COLOR TRADEMARKS CIPA/ITMA Meeting London, England Joseph A. Calvaruso Orrick, Herrington.
Patents, Trademarks & Copyright. Evidence for the case Queen - Under Pressure 1982 – YouTube Vanilla Ice Ice Ice Baby Vanilla Ice denies Queen rip off.
Excalibur Bakery V. Excellent Bakery The case of invalid trademark.
Welcome to the IEEE IPR Office Trademark Tutorial.
Genuine Use in inter partes cases 4th Liaison Meeting on Trade Marks June 2009.
Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.
Alberta printed circuits v. Canada Revenue Agency.
Vodafone Group Plc. v. Indian tax authorities. In 2007 Vodafone International purchased the Indian mobile telephony assets of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.
Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc.
WTO Dispute DS362 China vs. United States
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.. In 1994 Andreas, an artist, created an image that included the words, “most people don’t know that there.
IP Protection in Thailand
Endemol v. Abbot Reif Hameiri. The Dutch international television production and distribution company “Endemol” has filed a lawsuit against Israeli production.
Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, Incorporated.
Cody Driskill KING GAMES AND THE TRADEMARK CONTROVERSY.
Chapter 2.2: Civil & Criminal Trials
Several provisions of SOX have been adopted in countries worldwide, which lends credibility to SOX and its intended purpose of protecting.
Software Patents for Higher Education ICPL August 12, 2008.
Intro to Intellectual Property 05/13/2015. Exponential Inventor Intro to Intellectual Property 05/13/2015 Why is IP Important? Everyone makes a big deal.
Civil Law Resolutions to disputes between people..
WELCOME. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986 Consumer Protection Act 1986 Consumer is the purpose and most powerful motivating force of production Consumer.
Using UK Intellectual Property Office website and learning outcomes to structure brief but effective Intellectual Property Rights learning.
Remember Adam Smith and the pillars of a free market system?
Mattel, Inc. V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.. In 2004, MGA Entertainment’s Bratz range of dolls emerged on the market, they presented severe competition to.
AIM Legal Considerations for the Exporter
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) v. Canada revenue agency (CRA)
Cambrige University Press et al. V. Georgia State Univeristy.
Intellectual property Week 19 Tom Underhill. Intellectual property Patents Registered designs/design rights Case study/Questions/update (DA). Details:
Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement.
DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries V. Commissioner
1 SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS Managing Intellectual Property IP In China April 30, 2013 New York, New York.
EXCLUSIVE MARKETING RIGHTS & MAIL-BOX APPLICATIONS BY Manish Kumar Prusty T. Harish.
Unlicensed Builder Cannot Enter into Valid Construction Contracts Pd 7/8 Megan and Anna.
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Vs. Novo Nordisk The case of unclear and unfair patenting of generic drugs.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
Intellectual Property. Copyright The right to copy or reproduce a created work –federal legislation gives this right to author or owner and controls infringements.
Is Your Business Name Still Available?. Research Thorough Internet Search.
W.T.O TRIPs AND WIPO. Intellectual Property Imagination is more important than knowledge Albert Einstein.
Shonda Brown, et al. v. Ruallam Enterprises, Inc..
By: Christopher Tait, Leonard Froehlich, Rebecca Mendel, Mitchell Wolfe, Alex Zufelt, and Carmen Presser.
Veritas v. Commissioner. In November 1999, Veritas Software Corp. (Veritas US – now prt of Symantec Corp.) and its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Veritas.
Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office.
The Judicial System The Courts and Jurisdiction. Courts Trial Courts: Decides controversies by determining facts and applying appropriate rules Appellate.
Intellectual Property Basics: What Rules Apply to Faculty, Staff, and Student Work Product? Dave Broome Vice Chancellor and General Counsel October 15,
Civil Law U.S. Government Chapter 15 Section 2.  Why would someone bring a lawsuit against another person, a business, or an organization? List 2-3 reasons.
Patent Cases IM 350 Lamoureux & Baron Sept. 6, 2009.
Social Science.  The main purpose of civil law is to settle disagreements fairly  People file lawsuits, or cases in which a court is asked to settle.
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Contracts Claim against Government Managers for Bid Rigging Dismissed David Anderson Levenjewvongoldsteinberg.
Yves Saint Laurent Christian Louboutin La haute-couture Française.
LIBM 6320 Angela Teal Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic 54 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1453 (C.D. Cal 2000) Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011.
Government rules promote and regulate the actions of business. The laws influence the production, selling, and pricing of goods and services.
Trademark Agencies in China, Their Effectiveness for Trademark Protection Bai Gang Vice President of the Trademark Attorney Subcommittee of CTA, Executive.
Google v. Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton, which is part of the LVMH group of brands including Moet & Chandon and Dior, had argued that Google was acting.
Reviewing Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. and other select 2012 trademark cases of interest Garrett Parks Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Presented to the Alaska.
Article 4 [Obligations of Applicant] 4.1. As a sole and exclusive owner of the Application, Applicant warrants that.
Introduction to Business
Of Counsel Polsinelli, LLP
Civil Law U.S. Government Chapter 15 Section 2.
Civil Law U.S. Government Chapter 15 Section 2.
The Judicial System Structure.
Non-Traditional Trademarks
Intellectual Property Lawyers
Chapter 11.
Global Business & Legal Issues
Each state has its own judicial system that hears nonfederal cases
Supporting IPR protection of SMEs Recent Turkish Initiatives
Presentation transcript:

Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent

In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent, a subsidiary of the Gucci Group, over Louboutins trademark of red-soled high heel shoes. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Louboutin a registered trademark for the red soles in 2008 and are seeking an injunction against Yves Saint Laurent, as well as, payment for damages totaling $1 million. Case Overview

Louboutins Arguments: One of Louboutins lawyers, Harley Lewin stated that the red sole does warrant trademark protection as, "This is the lifeblood of this company, the red sole. When people see the red sole on the street they think Louboutin." Yves Saint Laurent's Arguments: YSL claims the reasons it seeks to use red on its outsoles includes to reference traditional Chinese lacquer ware, to create a monochromatic shoe, and to create a cohesive look consisting of color- coordinating shoes and garments. YSL also claims that the red sole mark does not warrant trademark protection. YSL claims that Louboutin has no monopoly over the red-colored shoe soles and that similar applications were commonplace before Louboutins use such as the ruby red shoes that carried Dorothy home in the Wizard of Oz. The Arguments

Central Dispute The central issue in this case is whether or not a designer should be able to trademark a color. In trademark law, you cannot protect something that is functional – Question arises, does the red sole serve a purpose in fashion?

Trademark Verbal depiction from USPTO – "The color(s) red is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a lacquered red sole on footwear. The dotted lines are not part of the mark but are intended only to show placement of the mark."

Court Decision In August 2011, the court denied the injunction to prohibit Yves Saint Laurent from selling the offending shoes – Judge Victor Marrero stated that "Louboutins claim would cast a red cloud over the whole industry, cramping what other designers could do, while allowing Louboutin to paint with a full palette." After the court decision, Christian Louboutin filed an appeal. The case is currently being tried at the U.S. Court of Appeals.

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.