The Second Circuit did not rule on the ultimate question of whether Louboutin's red-sole mark is aesthetically functional. What do you think? Is the red-sole mark like the Louis Vuitton handbag print, in that the only significant reason for other companies to copy it is to pretend to be the original? Or are there "significant non-reputation-related" reasons why consumers might want a red-soled shoe, and hence why shoe companies would want to sell such shoes?

In formulating your response, consider these two quotes from Christian Louboutin himself. The second quote describes how Louboutin came up with the idea for the red soles. Do these quotes help or hurt his cause?

"The shiny red color of the soles has no function other than to identify to the public that they are mine," Louboutin told The New Yorker. "I selected the color because it is engaging, flirtatious, memorable, and the color of passion."

"My sketches were not reproduced exactly as I had designed them, and I couldn't figure out why. The two-dimensional sketch was so powerful on paper, but when turned into a three-dimensional object, it was somehow lacking energy. Frustrated after having tried different things to liven up the design, I spontaneously grabbed my assistant's red nail polish and painted the sole. I instantly knew that this would be a success!"

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The issue of whether Louboutins redsole mark is aesthetically functional is a complex one While the Second Circuit did not rule on this question we ca... View the full answer