I don't speak for everyone but the fuss for me is the cache around a pair of CL's, some people save up for a long time to buy them, some buy them out of love, for the beauty, for the quality, and for many other reasons. And it's for those reasons that Msr. Louboutin is so loved. If cheaper companies simply copy what is his signature trademark or his designs, what ends up happening is some people confuse the poor quality and lack of design detail for the real thing which is bad both for Msr. Louboutin and the people that buy his shoes because it decreases the exclusivity of the purchase and the mystique around his name.
Forever21 doing the red sole? Eeeek!
- Thread starter PrincessCayenne
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
I don't speak for everyone but the fuss for me is the cache around a pair of CL's, some people save up for a long time to buy them, some buy them out of love, for the beauty, for the quality, and for many other reasons. And it's for those reasons that Msr. Louboutin is so loved. If cheaper companies simply copy what is his signature trademark or his designs, what ends up happening is some people confuse the poor quality and lack of design detail for the real thing which is bad both for Msr. Louboutin and the people that buy his shoes because it decreases the exclusivity of the purchase and the mystique around his name.
Agreed but those shoes just have a red sole, they are not an imitation of any Louboutin design. As far as the red sole, I see everyone is conveniently ignoring the fact that Louboutin was NOT the first to do a red sole so in all technicality, he copied too.
Now, if these shoes were an exact replica of a Louboutin style THEN I'd think it's a huge deal and get upset. Red soles alone do not a Louboutin (or Louboutin knockoff) make.
As I said before, those shoes are ugly with or without red soles.
I honestly did not know he was not the first to do a shoe with the red sole.
He made it a point to use it on all his shoes. Red sole and I instantly think CL.
I don't think it's a big deal he wasn't the first, more that he built the recognition of the red sole.
I think it is an attempt to give an instant connection to high end shoes.
If this is the best they can come up with, it didn't work.
Originally Posted by laxnyvr
I don't speak for everyone but the fuss for me is the cache around a pair of CL's, some people save up for a long time to buy them, some buy them out of love, for the beauty, for the quality, and for many other reasons. And it's for those reasons that Msr. Louboutin is so loved. If cheaper companies simply copy what is his signature trademark or his designs, what ends up happening is some people confuse the poor quality and lack of design detail for the real thing which is bad both for Msr. Louboutin and the people that buy his shoes because it decreases the exclusivity of the purchase and the mystique around his name.
VERY very very well said! This is how I feel about the situation.
Plus one on Cesare, he was on board before Monsieur.
No, the red certainly isn't copyrighted (cannot, it's an actual COLOR that cannot belong to anyone), but what is ENGRAVED on that red makes all the difference, no?
Sorry you are incorrect here. The red sole is a registered trademark of Christian Louboutin. You can absolutely own a color, but it has to meet certain requirements. Ownership of a color only applies to your specific area of production; Louboutin's red only applies to soles of shoes. Period. Just as Tiffany blue is a registered trademark that only applies to their packaging. The point of a trademark is to protect a company from infringers who try, in bad faith, to essentially ride the coattails of a successful product.
I'll concede that it is possible that Louboutin may not have been the very first person to put red soles on shoes, however he is the one that was the most successful; so much so that his name has become synonymous with that particular product feature, which is required if you want to trademark a color. I think it shows a complete lack of creativity and ingenuity when a company blatantly copies another company's original idea, especially in relation to fashion.
Very nice trademark law answer. I'm actually working on my Trademark Law outline in preparation for my upcoming exam in two weeks. Don't forget the huge likelihood of confusion caused by Forever21's red soles. And the secondary meaning that Louboutin's red soles have acquired as increasing numbers of people on a global scale instantly recognize the red soles as being distinctive and attributable to Christian Louboutin.
However, I will point out that a copyright is not the same as a trademark. And copyright law has different statutes and regulations than trademark law. With that said, Christian Louboutin has a trademark in one shade of red on the soles of shoes, but Louboutin does NOT have a copyright in the red sole.
I feel kind of bad for Cesare Paciotti, who was the first shoe designer to use red soles regularly. He's probably wondering why his luxury shoes aren't nearly as popular as Louboutins. I also love Paciotti's shoes and his trademark silver dagger engraved on the red soles.
Last edited:
Being that their target consumer is probably females ages 13-25 why not be slightly more creative and use a fuchsia sole?
BTW that shoe is a hot steaming mess. And I do own a few pairs from Forever 21.
BTW that shoe is a hot steaming mess. And I do own a few pairs from Forever 21.
the heels look 'unstable'.
^^ I agree! I personally would not buy, hey, if anyone else wanted to buy them, who am I to tell them they're wrong for doing so? I'm not trying to get into all the politics behind it but I love all shoes, designer or non-designer. I don't condone fakes at all, but I don't think I would spit on the feet of those who are wearing them either. Every woman deserves to feel special in their shoes, and if Forever 21 shoes make them feel special, then so be it. Authentic CL's make me happy... and so do my Nine West shoes... and if I found a pair of old vintage no-name shoes that looked fab, I would be happy with them too. It's the honest truth. Just my 2 cents.
PARIS HILTON IS ALSO DOING A RED SOLE ON HER SHOE LINE!
This girl is such a copy cat. Why is it she can't find her own fashion sense and has to live by others
This girl is such a copy cat. Why is it she can't find her own fashion sense and has to live by others
My problem with ANY copying of designer goods is the fact that they are doing it to try to be like the designers product, instead of being hmmm, maybe original??? and coming up with their own design/style/colors. I was walking by a booth at a festival here a few weeks ago and people were gathered around a fake jewelry booth, where they have designs that look exactly like Yurman, Tiffany, etc. and are just selling for a cheaper price. Why cant these designers come up with something original to themselves? It bugs me all the way around.
I have actually used designers inspirations before in my own creations, whether it be a website I created, a room in my house, a craft project, etc. whatever the case may be, however it was just that...an inspiration to come up with my own that reminded me somehow of the designers product that they put the hard work into and came up with. I would never exactly imitate someone elses product/ trademark/ color, etc. and try to pass it off as my own. I think its tacky, unprofessional and overall in bad taste.
I have actually used designers inspirations before in my own creations, whether it be a website I created, a room in my house, a craft project, etc. whatever the case may be, however it was just that...an inspiration to come up with my own that reminded me somehow of the designers product that they put the hard work into and came up with. I would never exactly imitate someone elses product/ trademark/ color, etc. and try to pass it off as my own. I think its tacky, unprofessional and overall in bad taste.
When I said it has to meet certain requirements that included secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion. If you look up Louboutin's trademark registration on the USPTO, it only says RED, not a particular shade of red. If another designer used another shade of red, it would have to be determined by a court whether or not the two shades were similar and whether consumers would likely be confused as to the source of the product. At this point, I do not even think his color has a number on the Pantone scale, but I may be wrong.
Paciotti's red is not as bright as Louboutin's, and it is distinctive because of the dagger, and also most of the shoes that I have seen from him only have the red in the arch of the sole, not on the ball of the shoe. If the red soles aren't working for Paciotti, maybe it's time for him to change things up to make his designs more popular, that is what competition is all about: survival of the fittest.
Copyright does not apply here in any way shape or form. You can only copyright sound recordings, dramatic works such as dances, movies and other audiovisual works, pictorial, graphic or sculptural works, architectural works, musical and literary works. Color falls solely under trademark law and trade dress, not copyright.
Although Louboutin may want to try to obtain a copyright for his actual designs if Congress passes the Design Piracy Protection Act, to prevent companies such as Forever, Madden, Oh Deer! from blatantly copying. Although even though I am a diehard fashionista, I don't know if I necessarily agree with the Act in its entirety.