Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by jillian, Feb 27, 2012.
I'm backing Louboutins! One must have one's trademark red soles! I'm right, aren't I, mo chara?
i think the southern district judge had no clue what thenature of the red soles is. the court seemed to ignore the registration of the mark, which generally carries great weight initially. they were also overbroad in defining what was being sought and seemed to think louboutin was trying to keep st laurent from using the color red. obviously, they need an education in shoes. if it were my case, i'd argue that the laquered red soles made louboutins instantly identifiable so had taken on a secondary meaning beyond the color. I would also point out that the use of laquered red soles by any company other than louboutin would totally and completely devalue the mark and the product carrying it.
clearly someone needs to educate DCJ Marrero that the shiny red soles need to be protected in the same way that coke and pepsi need their marks protected. if you notice, tiffany's filed an amicus on louboutin's side... can you imagine if every jeweler decided to use the baby blue box?
This thread needs an illustration!
it is most definitely not baby blue... it is robins egg blue..... please no disrespecting the blue.
Chicks and shoes...
Robins egg blue has nothing to do with shoes........
Yep, I just call it Tiffany blue... You think Robins might have a case?
nice! these are the ones I have.
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
Separate names with a comma.