Prohibition Van Haren for stiletto heels with red sole

Christian Louboutin has caused a revival of the stiletto heel. His shoes are easily recognizable by its red sole (and the 500.- to 1,000.- Euro price tag). Because of its stark contrast with the rest of the shoe, the red sole is stand out feature on all designs since 1992. It is an exclusive brand that celebrities such as Emma Stone and Jessica Alba swear by. To protect his rights Christian Louboutin filed an image of the shoe as a trademark.

The shoes are an international success and in order to ensure her interests Louboutin protected its red soles, not only to act against pure counterfeiting, but also against coat tail riding. Van Haren introduced black stiletto heels for 50.- Euros, which prompted Louboutin to act immediately.

The Court in The Hague agreed with Louboutin that Van Haren infringed her trademark rights. The red sole is not a decorative element, but a trademark through acquired distinctiveness. The fact that the general consumer sees the red sole as a trademark is confirmed by the widespread counterfeiting on the market.

Van Haren’s shoe is visually similar to such a degree that a consumer may assume it is a Louboutin. Consequence: prohibition on sale of this shoes on penalty of 500,- per pair.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?