A judge was recently asked whether or not a company had a right to a single color. The center of the case involved Louboutin, the famous high-end designer whose red soled heels have thrived under a patent that had been issued to them. However, a recent look at the patent itself by the court questioned whether Louboutin's red soles are essential in the function of the product.
The court deemed that they are not, citing that the red soles are nothing more than ‘expressive, ornamental, and aesthetic…’ The court came to this decision after comparing other cases that involve color: Owens-Corning’s pink fiberglass insulation, and John Deere’s green tractors and equipment. Whereas Owens-Cornings use of the color pink has no other use than to distinguish itself from its’ competitors, John Deere’s use of the color green is little more than functional, and doesn’t necessarily serve to distinguish the brand from others.
Much like John Deere’s use of color, Louboutin’s use of the color red serve the same purpose: an essential function and is an aesthetic decision, and can not be patented. “The [bottom] of a shoe…coated in a bright and unexpected color, the outsole becomes decorating, an object of beauty. To attract, to reference, to stand out, to blend in, to beautify, to endow with sex appeal-all comprise non-trademark functions of color in fashion."
This is an interesting and even entertaining case that highlights some of the nuances of patent law, and how it can be used and enforced. It also displays how patent law applies within a specific industry, and even an aspect of that industry (in this case, color.) Ultimately, the patent was deemed worthless, and even a mistake by the Patent and Trademark Office for granting the patent in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment