The saga of the red-soled shoes continues. First Christian Louboutin accused Yves Saint Laurent of mimicking the scarlet signature of his famous shoes (and the court battle rages on), then Jessica Simpson was under attack for copy-catting Louby's designs before Zara was taken to court for doing the very same thing. Eeep. But now, WWD reports, a French court have ruled in favour of the high street chain over the right to sell the red-soled shoes.
The case began back in 2008 when Louboutin sued Zara France for selling an open-toed shoe similar to the Yo Yo creation, which retailed for 49 euros (that's a purse-friendly £40). Zara filed an appeal on the grounds that there was no proven risk of confusion between Louboutin’s shoes and its pair and guess what? The court agreed. Yup, the Cour de Cassation have sentenced Louboutin to cough up approximately £2,000 as compensation. Ouch.
Alexis Mourot, general manager of Christian Louboutin, said the footwear company would continue to defend its sartorial signature. As the shoe maestro said himself while in conversation with Grazia's Paula Reed, he has made shoes with scarlet soles since 1992 after seeing an assistant painting her nails red. An official trademark for the red sole was awarded in 2008 with the brand arguing that customers should not be put in the potentially befuddling position of not knowing whether a shoe is a genuine Louboutin or not.
During the YSL case, however, Judge Victor Marrero argued that no one designer should place a colour off limits for other brands. Comparing the rival shoemakers to artists Picasso and Monet, he said, 'every painter and designer in producing artful works enjoys equal freedom to pick and choose colour from every streak of the rainbow.'
So what are your thoughts? Is there room in the marketplace for more than one brand of shoes with red-coloured soles? Let us know below...