The dispute between Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent, on appeal at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was one of the most watched trademark cases of 2012. And as of last Friday, it is finally over. As I noted in a post just a few weeks ago:
In September, the Second Circuit issued a widely anticipated opinion regarding in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. The opinion has been summarized already by many trademark scholars. In short, the appeals court found that Louboutin has rights in a red sole when the remaining colors of the shoe are in contrast to the red sole. And as applied to the dispute with YSL, who’s shoe is monochromatic, the Second Circuit found that YSL was technically not using the Louboutin trademark and was not a mark confusingly similar to it, thus finding that a trademark infringement claim could not be sustained. (Though some have wondered why Louboutin wasn’t given the chance to show why the all red design may have caused actual confusion in the marketplace with their contrasting color design.). For a far better and more detailed summary, see Rebecca Tushent’s 43(B)log post.
And the parties at that time were disputing how the case should be closed and resolved regarding the claims and counterclaims and issues of dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice.
Finally, the parties and the District Court have come to a conclusion:
- Louboutin acknowledged that it has no claims against YSL’s red monochrome shoes; and
- several of YSL’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
For more details, see the full order from the District Court below.