While the score was 1-1 at half time for German-owned Dutch shoe chain Van Haren that had received advice from top experts that they would most probably win their case against French brand Louboutin with their trademarked red-lacquered sole, Van Haren has now lost their case at the European Court of Justice, making it a 2-1 victory for Louboutin.
A few years ago, German-owned Dutch shoe chain Van Haren was selling red-soled shoes that were very similar to Louboutin’s iconic high heels. Louboutin was not amused and took Van Haren to court. The European Court received advice from their top experts that ‘you can’t trademark a colour if it stops the competition from making wares with the same functionality, especially combined with the form’, and most folks thought that’s the way the ruling would go, but it didn’t.
Yesterday, judges rejected the official advice of their own top lawyer who said in February that the red soles could not be trademarked. Louboutin has faced a series of legal battles over its distinctive soles. A Paris appeals court in May ruled against the French shoe company Kesslord after it sold red-bottomed shoes and ordered it to pay 7,500 euro in damages to Louboutin.
(Link: phys.org, Photo of Louboutin shoe by Arroser, some rights reserved)
Tags: law suit, Louboutin, shoes
A few years ago German-owned Dutch shoe chain Van Haren was selling what appeared to be a nod to French brand Louboutin’s high heels, with their trademarked red-lacquered sole. Louboutin picked up on that and took Van Haren to court, and Van Haren lost.
The basic story was that the colour of the sole and the Louboutin brand were difficult to see separately because they used it on all their shoes. Even though a pair of Louboutins can cost up to a couple of months’ rent, the ones Van Haren sold cost 40 euro, but even though there was no comparison, it was all about the sole.
Van Haren decided to duke it out in the European Court, which received advice from their top experts that ‘you can’t trademark a colour if it stops the competition from making wares with the same functionality, especially combined with the form’. And usually the European Court sides with their advisors.
Sometimes, it’s ‘fake shallots’, this time it’s red soles.
(Link: rtlnieuws.nl, Photo of Louboutin shoe by Arroser, some rights reserved)
Tags: law suit, Louboutin, shoes
Even though Dutch-British food giant Unilever had dropped its case against American vegan mayo maker Hampton Creek for its eggless mayonnaise Just Mayo, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled that Just Mayo is not mayonnaise and is not ‘healthy for your heart’, either.
Mayonnaise has to contain eggs, so Just Mayo needs to change its name and probably its logo currently featuring an egg on it. As well, Just Mayo claims to be ‘healthy for your heart’, but apparently it’s mostly fat: a 14 g serving (one tablespoon) contains 90 calories, 75% of which is fat. In comparison a 13 g serving (one tablespoon) of Unilever’s Hellman’s Real Mayonnaise has 90 calories, 100% of which is fat, but doesn’t claim to be a good choice. The definition of tablespoon is still used in many countries and fluctuates, making calorie counting a pain.
Instead of Unilever getting bad publicity for bullying vegans and spending money to attack Hampton Creek, the FDA did their work for them.
(Link: nos.nl, Photo of Chick peas by abrunvoll, some rights reserved)
Tags: eggs, law suit, mayonnaise, vegan, veganism