Brand Protection: A Lesson from Louboutin

In todays’ consumerist day and age, the brand value of a company is key to its profits. It takes years to set up a unique brand that appeals to consumers and becomes a leader in its sector of the economy. Various factors such as intensive research and development, smart marketing and, publicity contribute to building a brand’s reputation and make it sought-after. A higher value of the brand also allows the company to charge more for its products.

The counterfeiting conundrum

However, today’s markets are also rife with counterfeit products that rip off the characteristics, designs and logos of high-end brands and sell them at extremely cheap rates. Most of these products come from China and Hong Kong. India is the 6th biggest origin destination for these products. According to a report published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in April 2016, the estimated value of cross border trade in fakes is close to $461 billion a year or about 2.5% of global imports.This is harmful for the original brand’s revenue, reputation and relationship with consumers. Sometimes, even designer brands can copy local brands without any permission such as the dispute between Christian Dior and People Tree, an Indian brand. But, brands can protect themselves by seeking protection of Intellectual Property (“IP”) Rights. They can enforce the trademarks and copyrights associated with the products to make the infringers compensate for their wrongdoing.

 Louboutin: The Red trademark battle

The latest landmark trademark case was fought between famous designer shoe brand Louboutin and vanHaren, a Dutch company. The case was with respect to Louboutin’s demand that its signature red soles (Pantone 18-1663TP) be protected from all copycats. It involved European trademark law, specifically Article 3 of Directive 2008/95 and whether a trademark that consists of a colour applied to a shoe consists exclusively of a shape and thus cannot be protected as a registered mark or whether it was a position mark. A position mark is basically the specific way in which the mark is placed on the product.

The European Court of Justice finally ruled in favour of Louboutin. The ECJ stated that, “In that regard, it must be noted that, while it is true that the shape of the product or of a part of the product plays a role in creating an outline for the colour, it cannot, however, be held that a sign consists of that shape in the case where the registration of the mark did not seek to protect that shape but sought solely to protect the application of a colour to a specific part of that product…..the mark at issue does not relate to a specific shape of sole for high-heeled shoes since the description of that mark explicitly states that the contour of the shoe does not form part of the mark and is intended purely to show the positioning of the red colour covered by the registration.”

This ruling shows that Courts are refusing to let counterfeit products continue to thrive. Additionally, the affected brands are willing to take legal action or settle out-of-court (as done recently between People Tree and Christian Dior). But for this, it is necessary that companies are aware of the value of their brand and the importance of managing a strong IP portfolio to strengthen protection.

Author: Aparajita Kaul, Legal Intern,  at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010