United States: The Katten Kattwalk – Spring 2013

Last Updated: June 25 2013
Article by Karen Artz Ash and Bret J. Danow

Questions Left Unanswered by Louboutin Case

The most highly anticipated case in the fashion world in 2012 was Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent, in which footwear designer Christian Louboutin sued design house Yves Saint Laurent over footwear incorporating a red sole, claiming that it infringed Louboutin's trademark registration covering a lacquered red sole on footwear.

An April ruling by the USPTO finally put an end to this case, the net impact of which may be more noteworthy not for the questions it answered but for the questions that it left open.

As part of its ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the USPTO to modify Louboutin's trademark registration to narrow its scope. In April, the USPTO issued a corrected certifi­cate of registration that revised the coverage from a "lacquered red sole of footwear" to a "red lacquered outsole on footwear that contrasts with the color of the adjoining ("upper") portion of the shoe." The revised scope of Louboutin's trademark had the dual result of preserving Louboutin's trademark rights while ensuring the shoes sold by Yves Saint Laurent did not infringe.

Therefore, the court's decision left both Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent claiming victory. For Louboutin, victory was achieved through the court's recognition that its designs of a red lacquered outsole on footwear when such outsole contrasts with the upper portion of the shoe were deserving of trademark protection, pro­tecting Louboutin's brand. For Yves Saint Laurent, victory can be claimed because its shoes were not deemed to be infringing since such shoes were red all over.

Similarly, while the court recognized that a fashion house, just like companies in other industries, can obtain exclusive rights to use a single color, its holding may not apply to future plaintiffs seeking to establish exclusive rights in a color. Specifically, the court's narrowing of Louboutin's trademark eliminated the dispute but did not address the issue of whether Louboutin's mark was aesthetically functional or whether there was any like­lihood of confusion.

While the court's decision can, on the one hand, be viewed as a victory for fashion designers since the ruling established that a single color can serve as a source identifier in the fashion industry, its holding was relatively fact-specific and does not provide any assurances to other third parties claiming exclusive rights in a single color.

Despite all the publicity and hype, Louboutin did not provide a road map for the next fashion designer who decides to become a plaintiff in a case involving claims of infringement in a single color mark. It will be interesting to see whether fashion designers are emboldened by the Louboutin holding. It may not be long before the issue of trademark protection for a fashion designer in a single color mark comes before the courts again.

Supreme Court Rules on Covenant Not to Sue

The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Already v. Nike which may have a large impact on how trademark owners handle enforcing their proprietary rights and how those accused of trademark infringement defend themselves.

In the summer of 2009, Nike filed a complaint against Already alleging that a line of shoes infringed Nike's federal trademark registration covering the trade dress of its Air Force 1 shoe. Already responded by filing a counterclaim seeking a declaration from the court that Nike's trademark registration was invalid. Following the counterclaim, Nike decided that the matter no longer warranted the time and expense associated with litigation and issued a unilateral covenant not to sue in an attempt to walk away from the matter. The covenant not to sue was broadly worded and promised that Nike would not make any trademark or unfair competition claims against Already or its affiliates based on any of Already's existing footwear designs or any future designs that constituted a "colorable imitation" of Already's current products.

Following the issuance of the covenant not to sue, Nike moved to dismiss its own claims with prejudice and to dismiss Already's declaratory judgment counterclaim on the grounds that the covenant not to sue rendered the matter moot. The District Court dismissed the case, finding that the issuance of the covenant not to sue meant that there was no longer a justifiable controversy, a holding that was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

However, even though Nike had completely backed down, Already continued to want a determination that the trademark registration was invalid and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, holding that the counterclaim was moot since the language of the covenant not to sue eliminated any scenario under which Nike would assert such claims of infringement against Already.

The Supreme Court's decision seems to support the ability of a trademark owner to avoid a declara­tory judgment claim for invalidity and have both claims and counterclaims dismissed by unilaterally preparing and executing a broadly worded covenant not to sue.

The key component for the trademark owner is to ensure that the covenant eliminates any possibility of a future threat to the other party.

There are, however, several risks for a trademark owner to bear in mind when considering this strategy. Issuing a covenant not to sue may allow the party receiving such covenant a broader ability to use the trademark than the original use objected to by brand owner. Similarly, the covenant may potentially be deemed a naked license and result in the forfeiture or unenforceability of the trademark. Finally, there is a risk that the covenant may render the initial litigation abusive, creating liability for the accused party's attorney's fees. Moreover, while the issue of invalidity may no longer be heard by a court, it may not prevent the filing of a cancellation action before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Accordingly, while a covenant not to sue would appear to provide a trademark owner with a convenient way out of litiga­tion, consideration should be given to the risks and other possible consequences.

Anonymous Comments Allowed as Evidence of Confusion

The expansion of consumer review websites and social media has brought with it a broadened ability for individuals to express their thoughts and opinions while remaining anonymous. Anonymous online reviews are commonplace and it was only a matter of time before they worked their way into the court's analysis of trademark infringement claims.

The test for trademark infringement is whether there exists a likelihood of confusion between two marks. Although this test does not require evidence of actual confusion, the existence of actual confusion is a factor that courts consider as part of their likelihood of confusion analysis. Indeed, many courts have held that there can be no more substantial proof of the likelihood of confusion than incidents of actual confusion in the marketplace. With this in mind, in February a US federal district judge relied on an anonymous posting on an online business review site as evidence in support of a finding of likelihood of confusion.

The owner of a chain of health clubs that operates under the mark YouFit filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent a rival health club from using the name Fit U. In reaching its decision to issue the preliminary injunction the judge relied, in part, on an anonymous posting that was made on the website Yelp.com indicating that the reviewer was confused about the differences between the two clubs.

Yelp.com is a website that allows users to rate local businesses. Yelp.com does not require that users fully identify themselves when posting reviews and there is no process to verify that a user is, in fact, a real person.

In fact, some studies have estimated that as many as one third of online postings are fake.

Interestingly, the court did not address whether the online review at issue was real or that an actual person posted it. Nevertheless, the District Court decided to give weight to the Yelp.com posting as evidence of actual confusion.

The court also held that the online review did not constitute hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the review but only to demonstrate the reviewer's confusion and the then-existing state of mind of the reviewer.

The court did, however, acknowledge that the online review may not have been admissible evidence when considering whether to issue a permanent injunction but that consideration was appropriate given the character and objectives of the preliminary proceeding.

While it remains to be seen how the courts will treat the authen­ticity issue of online postings, this case demonstrates that courts are willing to consider such postings as part of the likelihood of confusion analysis. Therefore, when contemplating litigation asserting a claim of trademark infringement, trademark owners would be wise to keep records not only of instances of confusion which they hear directly from customers but also any examples of confusion that are posted on review sites such as Yelp.com and any other sites that allow for the posting of comments.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions