Tiffany & Co. Files Brief In Support Of Christian Louboutin

We tend to get lost when reading legal jargon, but we put in our best effort when the case is about fashion. Case in point: the never-ending Yves Saint Laurent vs. Christian Louboutin saga, which has given the famous red soles more air time than in "Sex And The City 2."

The case started when Louboutin claimed Yves Saint Laurent was wrong in using a red sole on one of its shoe styles, arguing that it violated the brand's trademark on the red sole that it acquired in 2008.

But instead of winning the case, New York Judge Victor Marrero turned the tables on Christian Louboutin, questioning the validity of a trademarked hue.

And that has made Tiffany & Co. nervous. Women's Wear Daily reports that the famed jewelry brand has thrown in its two cents, filing a "amicus curiae" brief focusing on the ability to trademark a color. Tiffany has a stake in Louboutin's case, because if the famous red sole's signature is unprotected, Tiffany's robin's egg blue could be next.

As WWD reports, Tiffany & Co.'s brief supports Christian Louboutin’s appeal to "reverse an earlier decision that denied the brand a preliminary injunction" and seeks to back Louboutin in its quest for protected color status.

Yves Saint Laurent, we're guessing, wishes Tiffany would just mind its own beeswax.

Read more about Tiffany's "amicus curiae" move at WWD.com and get some background on the case here.

Comments

[Maria Orfan]

03:36 AM on 10/26/2011

Can't we all just get along.

[cooper8318]

06:38 PM on 10/25/2011

I have dog poo on the bottom of my shoe...

[oceanview136]

05:47 PM on 10/25/2011

I can't imagine any other company using that "little blue box", like the one that has ALWAYS been associated with Tiffany and Company !!!!!!

[wendygoerl]

03:05 PM on 10/25/2011

Doesn't Owens-Corning have a trademark on their "Pink Panther" insulation color?

[Jeffin90019]

02:11 PM on 10/25/2011

I don't see how anyone can copyright a color. But then I can't understand what compels an otherwise intelligent women to spend upwards of $900 on a pair of shoes.

[wendygoerl]

03:05 PM on 10/25/2011

The same way Facebook can copyright "Book" and "Like"

[Paige Stewart]

08:58 PM on 10/26/2011

I can't understand what compels an intelligent person to pass judgement on what other people do with their money but it happens everyday. There's nothing we can do about. Shoulder shrug.

[RosieRetro]

01:51 PM on 10/25/2011

I love how some women are determined to spend money on designer shoes and purses with outrageous prices that are being made by cheap Chinese labor.

I stopped buying some designer purses like Coach, due to their "Made in China" tags. Coach used to be made in New York until it packed up its manufacturing operations and moved to China, thus resulting in New York losing jobs.

Designer goods are not worth the prices unless the product is actually being made by crafters in the designer's country of origin. Stop paying rediculous prices for cheap designer assembly-line output.

[clyogi]

03:12 PM on 10/25/2011

Coach probably would have kept their factories in the USA, but for the high rent and labor costs. They would have had to raise their prices to levels where people like RosieRetro would have said the product was too expensive to buy. Why do you think Americans stopped buying American made cars (of course, the fact that American labor wanted top pay for shoddy quality also contributed to the fleeing from our shores)? Rosie, you cannot have it both ways. If you want American made goods, prepare to pay (substantially) more!

[my1success]

06:04 PM on 10/25/2011

Corporate greed is why retailers go to China to make their products. Making 10-25% profit on something is sooo 60s. NOW companies expect to make a 2,000% profit so they go to poor countries like China and India where they can pay the people pennies day.

[JoJoRae]

05:12 AM on 10/26/2011

Yeah, that chinese made cloth bag covered in C's should really cost $450.

[Hardyman1966]

11:38 AM on 10/25/2011

All this fuss over a hooker color on the BOTTOM of a shoe.

[Kitten Kramer]

03:19 AM on 10/25/2011

Seems like YSL wants to invade someone else's territory and that is a big no no. I love CL shoes, red soles and all, that is the only way to go.

[Kay Nicks]

08:33 PM on 10/24/2011

I love my red soled Yves Saint Laurent shoes...

[Dede Eagleburger]

11:30 PM on 10/24/2011

shoes...shoes...love those shoes...what's the story about again?

[Kay Nicks]

11:46 PM on 10/24/2011

LoL @ Dede! Speaking of shoes.....picked up 2 pair this past weekend! ;)
They are soooo dang cute!

[Stand Up for your Belief]

06:28 PM on 10/24/2011

I am with them, YSL is so wrong and it makes them seem like they can't create their own signature style! The blue box is TIFFANY & CO and red soles are CL. Period. Out of all of the colors YSL could choose, they want RED! Why not blue?!?!? I love that color. lol

[Vanessa1129]

10:25 AM on 10/25/2011

Cosign!

[Dede Eagleburger]

11:31 AM on 10/25/2011

Vanessa!! Love your new avatar!!! :)

[Lena Collins]

12:23 PM on 10/26/2011

Do you know anything about the reason behind the red sole on the YSL shoes? YSL made three colored shoes-red, blue, and green. The red shoe had a red sole. The blue shoe had a blue sole. The green shoe had a green sole. That is the only shoe in the YSL collection that has the red sole. YSL is not making it a habit of putting red soles on all of their shoes just the one pair.