经济学人下载:红底鞋之争

Louboutin sued YSL alleging that several of its rival’s shoes infringed Louboutin’s trademark on women’s shoes with a red outsole, which was granted to the company in 2008 by America’s Patent and Trademark Office. Louboutin identifies the shade it uses as “Chinese red”, but argues that any confusingly similar shade would infringe the trademark. YSL’s offending shoes are red all over.

美国专利商标局于2008年批准红底鞋为Louboutin专利，于是Louboutin因为伊夫圣罗兰侵犯其商标权出售红底高跟鞋而将后者告上法庭。Louboutin将其使用的红色定义为“中国红”，并表示其他公司使用任何一种与之相似，造成混淆的红色也会构成商标侵权。而伊夫圣罗兰的侵权高跟鞋从头红到尾。

In denying the request for an injunction the judge said that in the fashion industry colour serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, so Louboutin was unlikely to be able to prove that its brand was entitled to trademark protection. He acknowledged that courts had recognised the use of colour in trademarks in the fashion industry before, but only in patterns with multiple designs such as the Louis Vuitton logo or Burberry check. Trademarks have been given to single colours for industrial products, such as yellow for Post-it notes.

法官驳回了向伊夫圣罗兰下达禁令的请求，并说鉴于颜色在时尚界具有美观装饰的功能，以及对于竞争起到决定性的作用，，Louboutin难以证明红色鞋底应受到商标保护。他承认在这之前法院也认可过在时尚行业用颜色做商标，但是这些颜色必须和其他的设计元素搭配在一起，比如路易斯威登的标记或巴宝莉的格子图案。在工业产品中，某一种颜色也可以单独成为商标，比如便利贴就用黄色做商标。

Louboutin retorts that granting a trademark to one or several colours, such as Gucci’s stripes, is the same. Moreover, it maintains that Christian Louboutin was the first to use red outsoles. Not true, says its opponent, who claims that King Louis XIV had red-heeled dancing shoes in the 18th century and Dorothy danced in ruby slippers in “The Wizard of the Oz”.

Louboutin反驳道如可能认可几种颜色搭配在一起的商标，比如古琦的条纹图案，也应该认可单一颜色的商标。另外公司还坚持一点，Christian Louboutin是将红底运用到高跟鞋设计中的第一人。不过它的对手却表示并非如此。伊夫圣罗兰宣称早在十八世纪法国国王路易十四就拥有一双红跟舞鞋，多萝西也曾在电影《绿野仙踪》里穿着一双深红色的拖鞋翩翩起舞。

The judge has made up his mind that no fashion designer should be allowed a monopoly on colour because as artists they all need to be able to use the full palette. To make this point, he imagined Picasso taking Monet to court over the use of blue in his painting of water lilies, because it was the same or close to the distinctive shade of indigo, the “colour of melancholy” he used in his Blue Period. Moreover, unlike patent law, trademarks are never about granting monopolies, argues David Bernstein, a lawyer for YSL at Debevoise and Plimpton. Trademarks are merely the right to indicate the origin of a product or service.

法官似乎心意已决，他坚持认为时装设计师不可以用颜色来做专利，因为艺术家们要能利用调色板里的每一种颜色。为了说明这一点，他甚至做出一个假设：毕加索向莫奈宣称要将其告上法庭，因为莫奈在作品睡莲里使用了蓝色，这种蓝色和靛蓝色一样，或者相近，而靛蓝色正是毕加索的画作《忧郁的时光》里用来增加忧郁色彩的颜色。而且商标权与专利法不同，商标权从来和认可专利权没什么关系，伊夫圣罗兰的代理律师David Bernstein如是说道。所以商标权仅仅只是一权利，用来认定某种产品或机构的来源。

Susan Scafidi of Fordham University School of Law in New York says that the judge sidestepped the important question by boiling the argument down to aesthetic functionality. The true challenge of the case, says Ms Scafidi, is to determine when the use of colour on a portion of apparel is a design element and when it is a trademark. It will now be the job of an appeal court to rule on the matter. And if Louboutin loses again, the company says it will take its case all the way to the Supreme Court.

来自纽约福德姆法学院的Susan Scafidi表示，这位法官将这场争论归结到一个美观功能的问题上，实际上回避了很重要的一点。Susan Scafidi说这个案子真正的挑战是要确定红色是在何时作为一种设计元素出现在高跟鞋上，又是在何时红色成为一种商标的。这才应该是上诉法庭在决断这个案子时应该做的工作。如果Louboutin再次败诉，公司表示不会就此罢休，无论如何也要上诉到最高法院。