Signature Red: Louboutin vs. YSL

For a while, it seemed like Christian Louboutin had achieved every legal fashionista's dream: transforming a style detail into an exclusive right . The red soles of his heels became a symbol of power, glamour, and... an international legal battle . And of course, the rival could be none other than Yves Saint Laurent . Prepare your espresso, wear something with personality, and come and understand the fashion splurge that became a legal thesis!

How it all began...

The story is almost poetic: Louboutin, inspired by an assistant who painted his nails, decided to apply red polish to the sole of a prototype of his creations. The result? Instant icon. But the designer went beyond aesthetics: he registered the red sole as a trademark , more specifically, a position mark . This means: "This color, in this place, is mine." And thus was born the most desired (and protected) red sole on the planet.

Yves Saint Laurent, with his signature couture style, launched a line of shoes entirely in red , including the soles, in 2011. Then, our beloved Louboutin went crazy with elegance and sued the house . The accusation? Trademark infringement. ( Translation: "He's wearing my red, even though the collection is... all red.")

The case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , which essentially said the following:

"Dear Louboutin, the red sole is yours, but only when it contrasts with the shoe. If the entire shoe is red, you can't monopolize the rainbow, right?"

The result? The brand was kept , but with limits . Nothing to stop the use of color in monochromatic shoes. And the fight? It's still high on heels!

Louboutin failed the Japanese dress code...

Although Japan, like Brazil, adopts a civil law legal system and has accepted the registration of non-traditional trademarks (such as color and position marks) since 2015, Louboutin's application was denied . According to the Japanese examiner, the use of red in soles was already common in the country even before the arrival of the French brand , and was considered merely an aesthetic attraction , not an identifier of origin .

Not even a survey of more than 3,000 Japanese women, in which more than 50% said they associated the red sole with Louboutin, convinced the responsible body. For them, the color alone was not enough to distinguish the house's shoes from its competitors , especially without the "Louboutin" name printed on them.

In 2019, the brand even tried to sue Japan's Eizo Collection Co. , which sold affordable shoes with red rubber soles. But the Tokyo District Court ruled there was no likelihood of confusion , as the products belonged to completely different market categories ( luxury vs. affordable ) and used different materials , such as leather and rubber. The result? Louboutin also lost. They appealed, but the decision was upheld in 2022. The moral of the story? In Japan, red soles are just another color, not a registered trademark .

In Brazil? INPI said: "Not here, dear"

In 2023, Louboutin attempted to repeat the feat in Brazil. He applied to the INPI (Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property) to register the red sole position mark. The answer: " No. With all due respect."

The INPI understood that color alone isn't distinctive enough ; simply applying red to the sole doesn't give you exclusivity here, and even cited pots and pans and coffee makers as examples of "non-registrable signs." Fashion has become utilitarian. It was an elegant but firm no.

While the United States, Europe, and other nations are still trying to decide whether or not the color red can be a fashion house's "property," Brazil has adopted a more down-to-earth stance. This decision reflects clear strategic choices: preventing foreign brands from dominating the local market, encouraging competition, and subtly but firmly asserting that not everything that shines in Paris needs to be protected in Brasília.

But why didn't he register it as copyright?

It might seem obvious that such an iconic red sole would be protected by copyright , right? But that's not quite the case. Copyright protects artistic works , such as drawings, illustrations, sketches, fashion shows, and campaigns, but it doesn't protect ideas applied to commonly used products , such as shoes. In other words, Louboutin could protect the heel design as an artistic drawing in a sketch, but it wouldn't be able to legally prevent other brands from using red soles in practice with copyright alone. Therefore, it chose to register a position mark , which protects not the entire shoe, nor the color itself, but the exclusive use of the color red in that specific part of the product . A legally sound branding strategy? We have it!

So what do we learn from this?

1) Style is power . And sometimes, power becomes monopoly .

2) Trademark rights do not protect beauty , they protect distinction .

3) Red can be passion, it can be scandal, but it can also be just an aesthetic detail, not a legal exclusivity.

4) You can't always beat the INPI with a stiletto heel. Period!

👠 Epilogue: Who owns the red?

Red remains on Louboutin's feet, yes (as long as it comes with contrast and the seal of distinction ). As for Brazil? It chose to let red be free, light and loose, for the sake of democratic fashion .

But what about you? Team Louboutin? Team YSL? Or do you just want to wear red without getting sued?

In the end, the heel may be high, but in the game of fashion and law, it is elegance with argument that leaves the mark.

Authorial material inspired by the monograph The challenges of registering position marks at the INPI: an analysis of the Louboutin case , by Carolina Turnes Moreira, PUC-Rio (2024) and also in the article “Trademark law and regulation: the Louboutin case” , by Henrique Porto de Castro (2023).