Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Louboutin’s trademark for its red lacquered outsole high heels was valid
• explaining that a mark must be “distinctive” in order to be protectable under the Lanham Act
• explaining that plaintiffs must establish causation for the withholding exception to apply
• explaining that in a trade dress claim a mark must be “distinctive” and not “generic” in order to be protectable, either by being inherently distinctive or by “‘acquir[ing]’ distinctiveness by “developing ‘secondary meaning’ in the public mind”
• reciting standard, quoting Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 52-53 (2d Cir.2010)
• considering whether secondary meaning had been achieved “in the specific context of the fashion industry”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).