Lovelyish

i’m kind of torn :O about 3/4 of me is thinking that yes, red should be a louboutin-only thing, because if i ever get enough money to buy a pair, i want people to be like ‘damn, guuurl is classy!’ (haha). but the other 1/4 is thinking that it is kind of ridiculous, and that a color is an element of aesthetics, and louboutin doesn’t have a trademark over it…

Last time I checked, YSL had yellow soles? Well, that was only for one or two pairs of shoes but still. Anyways, I love the fact that Louboutins all have the red soles. It definitely is their trademark, officially or not. It won’t be as special if another (extremely well known) brand has it. But what can you do? =/ 

Honestly, if I paid as much as I did for Louboutin’s, I’d want someone to tell right away if I’m wearing them.  Then again, if it’s YSL that has red soles too, those come with a hefty price tag as well, so it’s not like people will be thinking you have cheap knockoff’s.

@eomona@xanga - Agreed, I was going to edit in my post that the red sole is their trademark, whether it’s legally said so or not.

It’s a color. o_0  Unless they can prove it’s actually trademarked, they need to quit whining. It’s not like celebrities and rich folk are going to stop buying their shoes over this. If I saw a good quality black heel with a red sole, you bet I’m snatching it up. And definitely not paying the price tag for a pair of Louboutins.

I can understand both sides, but ultimately I’d side with Louboutin just because I think YSL’s intentions are sinister.  Anybody in that industry knows that the red soles are Louboutin’s unspoken trademark – to copy that for an entire line of shoe is unoriginal and tasteless, even if it’s technically “legal”.  It just doesn’t do much for anyone’s opinion of the YSL company.

Louboutin will always be recognized for their famous red sole heels <3
Back off YSL

I didn’t realize just how much Louboutins cost but HOLYSHIT. If I was paying that much for designer shoes, you bet your ass I would want Louboutins to be the only designer to have red soles. It’s the only surefire way of being able to recognize the designer. 

…. Paris Hilton shoes have a red sole. How come she isn’t being sued??

It’s not a trademark, it’s a fucking status symbol.  “Look at me, look at me, I can afford to spend a moronic amount of money on shoes.”  I think Louboutin is just being bitchy, but then again this is the fashion industry and I’ve never seen, let alone touched, a real pair of Louboutins in my life so maybe my opinion doesn’t really count.

i feel like louboutin is correct in this matter

@needmoreink@xanga - Agreed. Maybe it’s just me, but if a designer label gets a reaction out of me in any way, it’s probably less along the lines of “Damn, those are some nice shoes” and more like, “Wow, I’m glad I’m not a consumer whore!” 

I want to say YSL shouldn’t be allowed to have red soles because i find it louboutin’s thing. 

but then again, it’s JUST a color under the sole. 

@needmoreink@xanga - @shpadoinkle12@xanga - Looking at someone with that view who wears fine clothing is just as snobby as someone in fine clothing looking down at the wardrobe of a middle/lower-income person. Not all wearers are label-hungry consumption whores.

I’ve worn Louboutins. Although they can be both comfortable and not, how they transform the look of your feet/legs is astounding. It’s a very high-quality, sturdy shoe that will last you for many, many years. There is a certain kind of powerful woman who wears the shoe and it is that same woman who wouldn’t be herself in a $90 pair. I will own a McQueen suit one day because the hardness of his clothing turns a woman fierce. There is just something in the craftsmanship of both designers that takes it up many notches. Also, when you make a minimum of $250,000 a year, an $800 shoe is nothing. Why buy much cheaper shoes that will wear down quicker when you don’t need to? There’s nothing wrong with liking the attention they bring you, either. Just like you don’t shimmy into a hot LBD to sit at home and watch TV, you wouldn’t wear Louboutins when you want people to avert their eyes.

It is sad that YSL won, even though I understand that a colour cannot be trademarked. Louboutins earned their red-sole reputation and no one else should be infringing upon it. YSL is expensive, but not as much, so we will be seeing a lot of mixes on the sidewalk.

Like others have said, part of me wants to agree with Mr. Louboutin, the other just sees it as a color.

Maybe if he uses a specific “Louboutin Red” on his shoes (Like Tiffany Blue or something) that was trademarked, and YSL used it, then I suppose I could see it.

I agree that Louboutins should be the only one with red soles.. they started the red sole trend and a lot of girls work hard (like me) to one day own Louboutins. It’s one of those products that say.. she is wearing Louboutins.. It is a symbol of a high quality brand. . keep us posted on the case

A lot of these comments say that they’re upset because now people won’t be able to tell they’re wearing Louboutins. That right there says that a lot of people (not necessarily the ones that commented, but it made me think of this) are buying these shoes purely for the label.

I can understand if you’re buying it because you like the design. Or because it makes you look really good. But if all you care about is the name, and you’re spending this kind of money when you don’t care as much about quality, is ridiculous.

@eomona@xanga - About 6 months ago, or maybe more CL put out yellow-soled shoes.  I almost died of longing.

if one of them produces white heels with pink soles, I might buy it. I don’t like the color red. no trademark proof = lawsuit thrown out

How does one trademark a color of a sole? It’s not a design, but it is. Kind of a gray area. 

i think ysl sucks anyways…why would you go and take someone’s trademark??? i still love louboutins!

Why should it matter? Get the shoes because of the quality not because people will automatically be able to recognize the designer. If people care, they will probably spot the design itself on spot anyway. Yeah I think it’s neat that all the shoes have red soles but Louboutin does not own the color red. Let other designers do the same if their aesthetics say to. It’s not like the actual designs are being stolen.

I think that it should be the only one

@babixling@xanga - theyre actually pink.

Of course it should. This is so moronic. It’s a color. And just be happy that everyone will think the YSL shoes are yours anyway. It’s like free advertising for YOU.

yes

this reminds me of when levi tried to sue a tshirt company for using a number on their shirts. the number was the record of a cricket player’s runs, but levi had used the same number previously for their jeans. they tried to sue but were promptly told (in words of much higher caliber) that they couldn’t trademark a fucking number. 

what a bummer for Louboutin! At least I know that when I can afford them, I’ll be happy to say that my red sole heels will def be from Louboutin and i will strut it out with confidence. Who cares if others aren’t as loyal!

So people are afraid that someone will think they’re wearing knock off shoes? Geeze, get your priorities straight.

If Louboutin wants to trademark the red heel then Chanel should trademark the LBD. Fair much?

Why the hell would you be able to trademark a color?  They’re found in nature and should be filed under common knowledge.  Therefore not something you should be able to trademark or copyright for a company.  The fact that this is even being taken seriously is idiotic….

who cares?  People are so ridiculous about so many things!

The answer to that question? No. But Louboutin should be the only designer allowed to have that particular hue of red on their soles. 

i fucking loveee my louboutinss i think that man should be allowed to do whatever he wants =]

This whole conversation fascinates me… 

@littlexs@xanga - Crayola once sued roseart for using the name “macaroni and cheese” for a color of crayons. 

I think anyone should produce shoes with soles any color they want.   Of course I always thought it was Louvoutin.  So, what the hell do I know?

I think it is CRAZY that YSL will be allowed to have red-soled shoes.  As far as branding goes, Louboutin owns red-soled shoes in the mind of the consumer.  IMO, Louboutin should have officially gotten it trademarked to protect themselves but really, if YSL ends up selling these red-soled shoes…I wonder if it will just help to sell more Louboutins in the end.  They are basically doing free advertising for Louboutin, even if it will dilute Louboutin’s brand equity.

I think patenting a color is insane.  It’s like making a blue car and saying “no, we patented it, you can’t make a blue car”.

A lot of people here are confused about this case. The red sole on the ysl heels is meant to simply match the rest of the red shoe. http://oi53.tinypic.com/16bllxi.jpgThey have the shoes in all green with a green sole, all purple with purple sole etc. YSL should be allowed to have the red sole for their all red shoe. It’s not like they’re trying to knock off louboutin’s.