Louboutin claims New York retailer infringed red sole trade mark

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Louboutin claims New York retailer infringed red sole trade mark

Shoemaker Christian Louboutin is once again suing for trade mark infringement over his red-soled shoe, less than nine months after his infamous suit against Yves Saint Laurent was decided

On Friday, the French designer filed a complaint with the District Court for the Southern District of New York against Alba Footwear and unidentified customers of the US retailer.

The complaint included sample photographs of two pairs of Alba shoes that, while clearly bearing the Alba logo, utilised red soles and contrasting uppers.

Louboutin made headlines after suing fashion rival YSL for infringing the red sole mark with a monochromatic red shoe. YSL counterclaimed that the mark should be invalidated, and in August 2011 District Court Judge Victor Marrero agreed, concluding that “a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants”.

But in September last year, a panel of judges from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the decision. The appellate court resurrected the red sole mark, but limited it to shoes featuring red soles and contrasting uppers and ruled that YSL’s all-red shoe did not infringe.

The ruling was welcomed by brand owners and industry organisations including Tiffany and INTA, both of which filed amicus briefs in support of Louboutin.

In Louboutin’s latest lawsuit, the designer claims Alba imports and sells copies of the Louboutin shoes. According to the complaint, authentic Louboutin shoes sell for up to $6400 a pair.

Louboutin is suing for trade mark infringement, counterfeiting, trade mark dilution, unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and New York State law.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article