In 1992, Christian Louboutin looked at a prototype shoe and decided it was missing something. He grabbed an assistant's red nail polish and painted the sole. The effect was instant — a flash of color that turned an ordinary heel into a signal. The red sole became his signature, and eventually one of the most recognizable design elements in all of fashion.
Then he tried to own it. And nearly failed.
Can You Trademark a Color?
The instinctive answer is no — colors feel like they belong to everyone. But U.S. law had already established that a single color can function as a trademark, if it has acquired "secondary meaning": consumers must associate that color, in that specific use, with one brand. Louboutin's red had exactly that. People saw a red sole and thought "Louboutin."
So he registered it. The trouble came when he tried to enforce it against Yves Saint Laurent, which had released an all-red shoe — red upper, red sole, red everything.
The detail that saved the trademark: In 2012, the Second Circuit ruled that Louboutin's red sole is a valid trademark — but only when the red sole contrasts with the rest of the shoe. A red sole on a black shoe is protected. A red sole on an all-red shoe is not, because the color is no longer acting as a distinctive identifier. YSL's monochrome shoe didn't infringe.
Why "Only on the Sole" Matters
Louboutin didn't trademark "red." Nobody can. He trademarked a specific shade of red, in a specific position, used in a specific way — a lacquered red on the outsole of a high-fashion shoe, contrasting with the upper. That precision is the entire point. A color trademark is never "the color." It's the color doing a particular job in a particular place.
The European Union reached a similar conclusion. In 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU confirmed that Louboutin's red sole could be protected, treating it as a position mark rather than a mere color claim.
The Lesson for Anyone Registering a Color
Louboutin's victory is the blueprint, and his near-miss is the warning. A color becomes registrable only when it stops being decoration and starts being identification — and even then, it's protected only in the precise context that gave it meaning. Define it too broadly and you get nothing (as Cadbury discovered with purple). Define it precisely — a shade, a position, a contrast — and you can own a flash of red that turns a shoe into a brand.
One assistant's nail polish, applied on impulse in 1992, became one of the most valuable color trademarks on earth. Not because Louboutin claimed a color — but because he claimed exactly the right slice of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you trademark a color?
Yes, but only if the color has acquired "secondary meaning" — consumers associate that specific color, in that specific use, with a single brand — and the color is non-functional. You can't trademark a color in the abstract; you trademark it as used in a defined way, like Louboutin's lacquered red on a shoe's outsole.
Why did Louboutin lose against Yves Saint Laurent?
Because the court limited the trademark to red soles that contrast with the rest of the shoe. YSL's shoe was entirely red, so the sole color wasn't acting as a distinctive brand identifier. The ruling upheld Louboutin's trademark in general while finding no infringement in that specific case.
Does Louboutin own the color red?
No. Louboutin owns a trademark on a particular shade of red applied to the outsole of footwear when it contrasts with the upper. Anyone can use red elsewhere, and anyone can make an all-red shoe. The protection is narrow and position-specific by design.
What is a position trademark?
A position mark protects a sign in a specific location on a product — such as a color on a shoe sole or a tab on a jeans pocket. The EU treated Louboutin's red sole this way, protecting the color only in its defined position rather than as a free-floating color claim.