“While ordinarily Christian Louboutin does not comment directly on pending matters, we are making an exception in this instance to correct what appears to be misleading reports of the opinion of M Szpunar, advocate general, which is seen to impact our trademark adversely. We disagree,” the brand said in response to Szpunar’s suggestion that Louboutin’s trademark protection rulings on the shade of red, which date from 2010 and 2013, might be invalid.
“Advocate general Szpunar states that ‘The concept of a shape which ‘gives substantial value’ to the goods… relates only to the intrinsic value of the shape, and does not permit the reputation of the mark or its proprietor to be taken into account,” the company, according to WWD, continued.
“Applying Mr Szpunar’s opinion to our case supports the validity of our trademark since the shape of the outsole to which the red colour is applied is not intrinsically valuable,” the brand added. “As for Christian Louboutin’s red colour, the only reason it has value is because of our marketing efforts as well as the public’s association of such colour applied to a women’s heeled shoe outsole with Christian Louboutin.”
It then declared that the “opinion is not a blow or a setback in Christian Louboutin protection of its famous red sole mark but is ultimately reinforcing our rights.”
Louboutin awaits ruling on the brand’s case against Dutch high-street chain Van Haren, which dates back to 2012 when the brand released a line of Louboutin lookalikes. At the time, the District Court in The Hague agreed that Van Haren’s shoes infringed the Christian Louboutin trademark, and ordered Van Haren to stop producing shoes with red soles. Van Haren appealed against the decision and in 2014 the case was referred to the ECJ for "clarification". The ECJ’s new statement is likely to be highly influential on the judge's decision on Louboutin’s intellectual property rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment