Trademark
Right

Date
Case number

January 31, 2023
Court
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10089

Intellectual Property
High Court, Fourth
Division- A case in which, concerning a trademark that consists solely of a red color(PANTONE 18-1663TP) placed on the soles of women's high heels, the court
determined that it cannot be said that the trademark falls under a trademark which, "asa result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods orservices as those pertaining to a business of a particular person" as stipulated in
Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.
Case type: Rescission of Appeal Decision
Result: Dismissed
References: Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii), and paragraph (2) of the Trademark
Act
Related rights, etc.: Appeal against Examiner's Decision No. 2019-14379; Trademark
Application No. 2015-29921
Summary of the Judgment
No. 1

Outline of the case, etc.

The present case is one in which the Plaintiff, who filed an application forregistration of a trademark that consists solely of a red color (PANTONE 18-1663TP)
placed on the soles of women's high heels (Applied Trademark) (for details, refer to
Exhibit 1 of Judgment) with the designated goods of "women's high heels" in Class 25
and received a notice of decision of refusal from the JPO, and who filed an appeal
against an examiner's decision of refusal but received from the JPO a decisiondismissing the request for a trial (JPO Decision), sought the rescission of the JPO
Decision.
The ground for rescission of the JPO Decision, as asserted by the Plaintiff, is anerroneous determination as to the applicability of the Applied Trademark to Article 3,
paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.
No. 2
1.

Outline of the court's determinations
Applicability of a trademark, which consists solely of a single color, to Article 3,

paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act
The court's interpretation of the purport of the provision, which states that thetrademark listed in Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Trademark Act lacks therequirements for trademark registration, is as follows: Such trademark is a markindicating the place of origin, place of sale, quality, or other features, and it issomething which any person would desire to use as a necessary or appropriate
indication during transactions; as such, granting exclusive use thereof to a specificiperson should not be appropriate from the viewpoint of public interests, andfurthermore, such mark is widely used and often lacks distinctiveness, so that themark cannot serve the functions as a trademark.
Next, since it can be said that the color of goods is a feature of the goods, thecourt's interpretation is that such color falls under the provision that reads, "in thecase of goods ... [other] features" recited in the item (iii).

Since the color of goods

has long existed from ancient times, it should ordinarily be selected as appropriate inorder to heighten the image or aesthetics of goods.

In some cases, the color of goods

may have occurred naturally or may be necessary to ensure the functions of goods.
Given the foregoing, any person would desire to use colors as necessary or
appropriate indications during transactions.

As such, in principle, any person shouldbe allowed to make selections freely when using colors.

The court's interpretation issuch that, especially with regard to a trademark consisting solely of a single color, theaforementioned purport of the provision of item (iii) applies strongly.
On the other hand, Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act provides thateven if a trademark falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the same Act,
trademark registration can be granted irrespective of the provisions of the same
paragraph if, "as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize
the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person".
The purport of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act is as follows : Even
when a trademark falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the same Act, if a
specific person uses the trademark for goods or services pertaining to the person's
business over a long period of time, and if, as a result, the trademark comes to a cquire
the function as an indicator of source by establishing a close connection with thegoods or service concerned, then the exclusive use, by the specific person, of the
trademark concerned shall be approved as a case of exception although such exclusive
use had originally been considered inappropriate from the viewpoint of public
interests.
In light of the purport of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act as
described above, the following is true: In order for a trademark, which consists solelyof a single color and with respect to which it is acknowledged that the need forserving public interests is particularly strong for reasons such as the demand for the
freedom to make selections, to be considered as falling under a trademark which, "as aresult of the use of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods orservices as those pertaining to a business of a particular person" as stipulated in thesame Article and paragraph, it is necessary to interpret that said trademark hasiiacquired, as a result of its use, a level of distinctiveness or the like (applicability of
exclusive use) which is as high as to be acknowledged as a case of exception from theviewpoint of public interests.
2.

Applicability of the Applied Trademark to Article 3, paragraph (2) of theTrademark Act
The court acknowledges that sales records, advertisement, and the record of
winning awards and the like concerning the Plaintiff's high heels for women, which
use the Applied Trademark, show that the women's high heels, which use the Applied
Trademark, were recognized as goods indicating the Plaintiff's brand among certain
customers, mostly of whom consist of women interested in luxury brands.

However,when comprehensively considering the following factors; namely, that theconfiguration mode of the Applied Trademark is not unique, and that there is a logo of"Christian Louboutin" (with some of the letters designed) on the insoles of women's
high heels handled by the Plaintiff and that it cannot be denied that the source of thePlaintiff's high heels for women is recognized or likely to be recognized from theindication of these letters, and that in addition to various circumstances, including
multiple business operators other than the Plaintiff selling women's high heels using
red colors of the same type as the color of the Applied Trademark, the level ofrecognition of the Trademark, which can be presumed from the result of the Survey, islimited, it is clear that the Applied Trademark cannot be acknowledged as having
acquired a level of distinctiveness (having the applicability of exclusive use) which is
as high as to be acknowledged as a case of exception from the viewpoint of public
interests.
Based on the above, since it cannot be acknowledged that the Applied Trademark
has acquired a level of distinctiveness (having the applicability of exclusive use) as
high as to be acknowledged as a case of exception from the viewpoint of public
interests, it cannot be said that the Applied Trademark falls under a trademark which
can be recognized as a trademark which, "as a result of the use of the trademark,consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a businessof a particular person" as stipulated in Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.

iii

Judgment rendered on January 31, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10089 Case of seeking rescission of JPO decision
Date of conclusion of oral argument: November 30, 2022
Judgment
Plaintiff:

X

Defendant:Commissioner of JPO

Main text
1.

The Plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed.

2.

Court costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3.

An additional period of 30 days shall be set for the filing of a final appeal or apetition for acceptance of a final appeal against this judgment.
Facts and reasonsNo. 1 Claims
The decision rendered by the JPO on May 10, 2022 for Case of Appeal against
Examiner's Decision 2019-14379 shall be rescinded.
No. 2 Outline of the case1.

Background to the procedures, etc. of JPO (no dispute between the parties)(1)

On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for trademark registration(Trademark Application No. 2015-29921; hereinafter referred to as "Application") fora trademark which consists of color only and which is identified from the descriptionsof Exhibit 1 (1) "Trademark Seeking Trademark Registration" and Exhibit 1 (2)"Detailed Explanation of Trademark" with the designated goods of "women's highheels" in Class 25 (hereinafter referred to as "Applied Trademark"), but received adecision of rejection on July 29, 2019, and filed an appeal against the examiner's
decision of refusal on October 29 of the same year.
(2)

The JPO examined the above case as Case of Appeal against Examiner's

Decision No. 2019-14379 and on May 10, 2022, rendered the decision that "therequest for the trial of the present case has no grounds" (hereinafter referred to as"JPO Decision"), and a copy of the decision was delivered to the Plaintiff on June 7 of1the same year (by establishing an additional time frame of 90 days).
(3)

On August 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of the present case seeking

rescission of the JPO Decision.
2.

Summary of the JPO Decision(1)

Applicability to Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii)
The Applied Trademark is a trademark consisting only of a red color(PANTONE 18-1663TP) placed on the sole part of women's high heels (hereinafterreferred to as "Color"), and while the Color is indicated on a designated place (sole),
the Color is not a combination of letters or figures but consists only of a single color(red color) with no outline.
The red color is widely favored and adopted for use, in commercial
transactions in general, particularly in the field of fashion, to give color to goods andtheir packaging, as well as in advertisement and the like, so that it is a common color.
In the field of shoes, given the reality that a large number of business operators
manufacture and sell products (shoes) whose soles are colored in red, it can be said
that using a red color for the soles is a design technique that is commonly adopted intransactions and used for the purpose of improving the aesthetics of goods.
In that case, the Applied Trademark is a trademark indicating a common, single
color (red color) that is placed at a specific position (sole) within the scope of adesign technique that is commonly adopted and used in transactions for the purpose of
improving the aesthetics of goods, so that consumers and business operators relating
to the designated goods only recognize and understand the Applied Trademark as
consisting merely of an indication of the color of the goods.
Accordingly, the Applied Trademark is a trademark consisting only of a markindicating, in a common manner, a feature of the goods (color of the goods), so that
the Applied Trademark falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of theTrademark Act.
(2)

Applicability to Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act

A.

Since the color of goods has long existed from ancient times, it should

ordinarily be selected as is appropriate in order to heighten the image or aesthetics ofgoods.

In some cases, the color of goods may have occurred naturally or ma y benecessary to ensure the functions of goods.

Given the foregoing, any person would

desire to use colors as necessary or appropriate indications during transactions.

Assuch, in principle, any person should be allowed to make selections freely when us ing
colors.

This purport applies especially to a trademark consisting solely of a single

color.
2

Next, in order for a trademark, which consists solely of a single color as
stipulated in Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Trademark Act, to fall un derArticle 3, paragraph (2) of the same Act, it is necessary for said trademark to be
widely recognized among consumers, as a result of the use of the trademark, as anindication for the goods or services pertaining to a business of a particular person, a nd
the trademark must have acquired, as a result of its use, distinctiveness with regard to
the goods or services, and furthermore, in light of the purport of Article 3, paragraph(1), item (iii) of the Trademark Act, it is necessary that granting the exclusive use of
said trademark by a specific person is considered permissible even from the viewpointof public interest.
B. (A) The goods pertaining to "Christian Louboutin", a brand established by the
Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's Brand") (such goods include high heels
whose soles are colored in red; hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's Product") havebeen imported and sold in Japan for more than 25 years since 1996, and have madesales of around seven billion yen per year (approximately three billion yen or more forwomen's shoes, and approximately two billion yen or more for high heels alone) atshops and department stores located throughout Japan.

In magazines and books andon the Internet, various information and topics about the Plaintiff's Brand (including aconsiderable number of articles that stress the features (sole, red color) that
correspond to the Applied Trademark) are introduced and mentioned.

On the other

hand, according to a survey carried out by a third party at the Plaintiff's request(hereinafter referred to as "Survey"), approximately less than 50% of women wereable to recognize the Plaintiff's Brand from the Applied Trademark even though they
live in Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya, where shops of the Plaintiff's Brand are located,
and the rest of the women, who constitute at least half of the respondents, could not
relate the Applied Trademark to the Plaintiff's Brand.
In that case, although the Applied Trademark is recognized to a certain degree
as an indication for the goods pertaining to the business of a specific person among acertain percentage of consumers (women) related to the designated goods, it cannot be
acknowledged that the Applied Trademark has become widely recognized among
consumers in Japan.
(B)

In addition, given the reality of transactions in which the goods (shoes) whosesoles are colored in red and thus have the same feature as the Applied Trademark are
manufactured and sold by a large number of business operators, granting exclusive
and monopolistic use to a specific person for a trademark consisting of a single color
like the Applied Trademark (sole, red color) means unjustly restricting the use by a3

third party of the color (red color) which could be used freely to improve theaesthetics of goods.

As such, there is disadvantage from the viewpoint of public

interest as well (monopoly adaptability).
Furthermore, from among the consumers for the designated goods of the
Applied Trademark, even with regard to those who can recall the relationshi p between
the Applied Trademark and the designated goods, it is virtually impossible todistinguish the source of goods only from some features (color, position) pertaining to
the Applied Trademark without relying on the brand name and product name attache dto the Plaintiff's Product, in a market where a large number of goods that are equippedwith similar features (sole, red color) are distributed.
C.

Based on the above, the Applied Trademark has not become widely recognizedamong consumers for the designated goods as an indication that the goods pertain to
the business of a specific person (Plaintiff), and when taking into consideration thereality that the goods, which are equipped with similar features, are manufactured andsold by a large number of business operators, granting exclusive and monopolistic use
to a specific person (Plaintiff) is not only disadvantageous from the viewpoint ofpublic interest (monopoly adaptability) but it is difficult, practically speaking, for the
Applied Trademark to function as an indicator of source with regard to the specificperson's goods or other persons' goods.

As such, the Applied Trademark cannot

function as an indicator of source for the Plaintiff's Product or other persons' goods.
Accordingly, it cannot be acknowledged that the Applied Trademark, as aresult of the use of the trademark in relation to its designated goods, came to berecognized as goods pertaining to a business of a particular person, so that it does notmeet the requirement of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.
3.

Cause for rescission
Error in the determination of the applicability of the Applied Trademark to

Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.
(omitted)
No. 4 Judgment of this court
1.

Findings
In addition to the facts over which the parties are not in dispute, according to

the evidence (Exhibits Ko 6 through 10, 14, 16, 49 through 51, 53 through 63, 82, 83,
85 through 103, 120 through 123, 131 through 133, 167, 168, 191, 193, 195, 200, 206,
207, 209, 214, 215, 220, 246 through 252, 254, 255, 257, 259, 272 through 275, 277,
4

280, 281, 284 through 287, 289, 290, 293, 304, 305, 325, 329, 344, 345, 351, 353, 364,
366, 369, 372 through 380, 383 through 392, 404, 421, 449, 495 through 504, 507,
513, 514 through 518, 525, 527, 529, 530, 532 through 539, 541 through 548, 563,
567, 577 through 584, 591, 594, 599, 608, 614 through 617, 646, 647, 675, 681, 694,
695, 696, Exhibits Otsu 4 through 31, 39 through 42) and the entire import of the oral
argument, the following facts are acknowledged.
(1)

Establishment of the Plaintiff's Brand and its business development, etc.

A.

The Plaintiff is the representative of the Plaintiff's French corporation, which

was founded in the latter part of 1991 and which operates the business of designingand planning high-class shoes for women by using the brand name of the Plaintiff's
Brand, as well as men's shoes, handbags, wallets, and various other accessories, andmanufactures and sells these goods, and in November 1991, opened a directlymanaged store in Paris, and today, operates at least 170 shops worldwide, including
those in major cities in Japan (Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka).
B.

The goods handled by the Plaintiff's Brand include women's high heels(Plaintiff's Product) with lacquered red soles (the color identified as the color sample"PANTONE 18-1663TP" provided by Pantone LLC (Color)), and there is a logo of"Christian Louboutin" (with some of the letters designed) on the insole.

The

Plaintiff's Product, which constitutes women's high heels whose soles are lacquerfinished in red, is called by the name "Red Sole", and is recognized as therepresentative product of the Plaintiff's Brand.

All of women's shoes other than highheels, as well as men's shoes, have soles that are unified by the Color.
C.

As of 2018, the Plaintiff's Brand ranked ninth in the category of luxury brands

by the number of account followers on Instagram.

As of June 13, 2022, the numberof followers totaled 15,430,000.
(2) Sales records, etc. of the Plaintiff Brand in JapanA.

The Plaintiff's Product began to be imported and sold in Japan from around

1996.

The Plaintiff's Product is sold at roadside shops (Ginza Shop, Aoyama Shop),in upscale department stores (Isetan Shinjuku, Matsuya Ginza, Seibu Shibuya , Seibu
Ikebukuro, Sogo Yokohama, JR Nagoya Takashimaya, Daimaru Shinsaibashi, Hankyu
Umeda, Daimaru Fukuoka Tenjin), and at specialty boutiques which mainly handle
luxury brand goods, and it is sold at the price of around hundred thousand yen per pair.
B.

In 2009, the Plaintiff established the Plaintiff's Japanese corporation to be incharge of import and sale of goods in Japan as well as management of directlymanaged stores in Japan.
The gross sales of the Plaintiff's Brand since the start of import and sale in5

Japan is as shown in Exhibit 2, and in recent years, totaled around 6.5 billion yen peryear for 2015 (from 2015 to 2016), around 7.6 billion yen per year for 2016 (from2016 to 2017), and around 7.6 billion yen for 2017 (from 2017 to 2018).

Of t heforegoing, the amount of total sales for women's shoes was around 3.2 billion yen in2015, 3.3 billion yen in 2016, and around 3.1 billion yen in 2017, and the sales
amount of high heels (shoes with heels that are at least around 3.5 cm) totaled around
2.3 billion yen in 2015, around 2.4 billion yen in 2016, and around 2.1 billion yen in2017, and the sales of women's high heels comprised 70% to 80% of the entire sales
for women's shoes.
(3) Coverage of the Plaintiff's Product in magazines, etc., TV dram as and movies, etc.,
and advertisement and awards, etc. pertaining to the Plaintiff's ProductA.

Coverage in magazines and media, etc.

(A)

The Plaintiff's Product is covered in many articles in various magazines, books,

and on websites, etc., between 1992 and 2017 (with regard to the coverage, etc., asasserted by the Plaintiff, those earlier than 2000 and those in 2017 are attached to
Exhibit 3 as examples; the numbers of articles in 2011, 2012, and 2014 are high, eachexceeding 20).

In these articles, photographs, which are taken from angles that show

the red color of the soles, by turning over the shoes to the side or by suspending thesoles, are commonly used when introducing the shoes.

Also, in many magazines andmedia as well as fashion-related news sites, etc., the Plaintiff's Product is described as
being characterized by the "Red Sole".
(B)

The Plaintiff's Product was used in various TV dramas and movies, as asserted

by the Plaintiff, for costumes of characters.
(C)

The Plaintiff's Product, as asserted by the Plaintiff, is worn in public settingsby celebrities worldwide, not just celebrities and TV personalities in Japan, and theirappearances are covered in various magazines, etc.
B.

Advertisement
In advertisement, the Plaintiff does not employ the method of publishing ads on

TV and in magazines, etc. by payment of publication fees.

Instead, the Plaintiff

advertises by a method called "sample trafficking" (advertisement method by way ofrenting out the Plaintiff's Product, as may be requested by magazine editors, stylists,and celebrities, etc., so that they can use the Plaintiff's Product in magazine articles
and in media shoots, etc.).
The amount of sales of products sold by the Plaintiff's French corporation to
the Plaintiff's Japanese corporation for each year between 2010 and 2017 as products
for sample trafficking is approximately 116,000,000 yen.
6

C.

Awards, etc. won overseas
The Plaintiff has won a number of awards overseas for the high heels handled

by the Plaintiff, and recently won the 2019 Couture Council Award for Artistry ofFashion, which is awarded by the Couture Council of The Museum at FIT (MFIT)
each year.
D.

Contents of posts on blogs and Twitter pertaining to the Plaintiff's ProductIn blogs and on Twitter, there are many articles and posts that suggest thatwomen's high heels or shoes with red soles indicate that they are shoes of the"Louboutin" brand, including the following: "Is the brand for shoes with red soles'Louboutin'?"; and "If shoes have red soles, their brand is 'Christian Louboutin'".
(4)

Women's high heels, etc. whose soles are in a red color other than the ColorA.

Red colors that are similar to the Color have long been employed for various

fashion-related products in and outside Japan.

Even only with regard to the women's

high heels whose soles are in a red color similar to the Color, books and catalogues
prior to 1993, as asserted by the Defendant, indicate the following photographs.
(A)

In a catalogue for "TELLUS", in the issues of "Tellus collection 'Autumn

Winter 88 89'" and "AUTUMN WINTER COLLECTION 91/92 TELLUS", there arephotographs of women's high heels whose soles are in a red color similar to thePlaintiff's red color.
(B)

In a book titled "Shoe, Shoe PARADISE" (first edition published on February

20, 1991) written by Kisa Takada, a shoe designer, there is a photograph of women's
high heels whose soles are in a red color similar to the Plaintiff's red color as "1985
Christmas Product".
(C)

In the catalogue "CHARLES JORDAN 1991-2004", there is a photograph ofwomen's red high heels with red soles under "1993".
B.

As of September 2022, the following women's high heels with soles of a redcolor similar to the Color are sold or were sold at the following places: [i]Takashimaya online shopping site (brand name "ESPERANZA"); [ii] Washington
Shoe's online shopping site (brand name "INDIVIDUAL"); [iii] Online shopping site
called "I Need More Shoes"; [iv] Online shopping site for shoes called "LOCONDO"(brand names "attagirl", "ITALICO", "DEMETER", "maison de LATIR", "MELMO","repetto"); [v] Online shopping site for "PayPay Mall" (brand names "EIZO","menue"); [vi] Online shopping site for "SHOPLIST.com" (brand names "welleg","aquagrage", "Marilyn Monroe"); [vii] Online shopping site for "SHOES in KOBE"(brand name "7 styles"); [viii] Online shopping site operated by Marui Co., Ltd.
(brand name "METAL ROUGE"); [ix] Online shopping site operated by "BUYMA"
7

(brand name "CHARLES JOURDAN"); [x] Online shopping site of "Sugar" (brandname "an"); [xi] Online shopping site of "SHINfULIFE" (brand name "Sergio Rossi");[xii] Online shopping site of "LOCOLET" (brand name "Ferragamo"); [xiii] Online
shopping site of "LA VITA FELICE" (brand name "CHANEL"); and [xiv] Online
shopping site operated by "Salvatore Ferragamo".
(5)

Results of the Survey
The Survey ("Survey on Fashion") was carried out by NERA Economic

Consulting at the request of the Plaintiff, to verify whether the Applied Trademark is
recognized by consumers as the goods or services pertaining to any person, or i s
widely recognized by consumers as a result of use.

The method by which the survey

was carried out, and the results are as follows.
A.

Research subjects
The subjects consist, from among the online monitor members maintained by

GMO Research, Inc., of women who are aged 20 to 50, who live in Tokyo, Osaka, andAichi, and who purchased fashion items or goods in certain shopping areas ([i] in thecase of Tokyo, Ginza, Yurakucho, Marunouchi, Aoyama, Harajuku, Omotesando,
Roppoingi, Daikanyama, Shibuya, Shinjuku, Ikebukuro, Futakotamagawa, Jiyugaoka,
Kichijoji, [ii] in the case of Osaka, Umeda, Shinsaibashi, Namba, and [iii] in the caseof Aichi, Nagoya Station and its surroundings, the area around Sakae/Osu area,
Nagoya Port area), and who are in the habit of wearing high heels.

They are divided

into groups for the respective prefectures of Tokyo, Osaka, and Aichi, andadjustments are made so that each group has 1,000 individuals.

Next, each group isdivided into three subgroups that separate the women between 20 and 50 years old
into age groups by decades, and adjustments are made so that each subgroup has anequal number of individuals.

Samples of respondents are extracted, and collectedwith the aim of exceeding 1,000 individuals for each of the aforementio ned
prefectures, thereby gathering responses from 1,055 individuals for Tokyo, 1,041
individuals for Osaka, and 1,053 individuals for Aichi.
B.

Contents of the questions
The questions comprised the following: [i] (By showing the image of the

Applied Trademark), ask if they know of a fashion brand that sells high heels with redsoles as shown in the image (Q5); [ii] To those who responded "No" or "Undecided"in Q5, ask if they have ever seen high heels with red soles as shown in the image (Q5 1); [iii] To those who responded "Yes" for Q5 and Q5-1, ask which brand comes totheir mind when looking at high heels with red soles (free response) (Q6); To those
who responded that they cannot recall any brand name in Q6, ask them to select one
8from a list of brand names (Q7).

In Q7, the Plaintiff's Brand logo consists of thebrand name outlined in white inside a red circle, and only one brand out of the sevenbrand names, which are available for selection, uses red letters.
C.

Research results(A)

In Q5 (above [i]), those who responded "Yes" comprised 69.86% (average ratio

for the three prefectures; the same applies hereinafter), and those who responded "No"comprised 23.72%, and those who responded "Undecided" comprised 6.41%.
(B)

In Q5-1 (above [ii]), those who responded "Yes" comprised 32.56%, and those

who responded "No" comprised 67.44%.
(C)In Q6 (above [iii]), those who correctly recalled Louboutin and responded

accordingly comprised 42.43% (43.46% if including the responses in which
Louboutin was recalled with minor errors, and the responses in which Louboutin wasrecalled albeit with errors, and the responses in which Louboutin was recalled alongwith other brands), and those who recalled brands other than Louboutin comprised
4.48%, and those who responded that they cannot recall the brand name comprised
24.2%, and those who responded that they do not know the brand name comprised
7.56%, and those who responded that they have never seen such shoes comprised
20.32%.
(D)In Q7 (above [iv]), the percentage of those who gave the answer "Louboutin"

comprised 43.96%, and the percentage of those who selected a brand name other than
Louboutin comprised 34.78%, and the percentage of those who responded they cannot
recall the brand name comprised 21.26%.
(E)

As a result of amending the responses given in free response and multiple-

choice, the degree of recognition of Louboutin in Tokyo, Osaka, and Aichi comprised
51.6% of the entire samples, and 64.77% when confined to those who have seen highheels with red soles that are not limited to the Plaintiff's products.
2.

Applicability of a trademark consisting solely of a single color to Article 3,

paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act(1)

The Applied Trademark consists solely of the color identified in thedescriptions of Exhibits 1 (1) and (2), and has the composition of a red color(PANTONE 18-1663TP) placed on the soles of women's high heels.
As described above, the Applied Trademark is a trademark consisting only of asingle color, with the position to place color being identified as the aforementioned
part.
(2)

Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Trademark Act stipulates that any trademark

used in connection with goods or services pertaining to the business of an applicant
9may be registered, unless the trademark falls under the following, and in item (iii) of
the same paragraph, refers to a trademark that "consists solely of a mark indicating, in
a common manner", "in the case of goods, the place of origin, place of sale, quality,
raw materials, efficacy, intended purpose, shape (including shape of packaging), themethod or features including time of production or use, quantity, price".
The purport of the provision stipulating that the trademark listed in the above
item lacks the requirement for trademark registration is understood to be as follows.
Such trademark is a mark indicating the place of origin, place of sale, quality, andother characteristics, and any person would desire to use such mark as a necessary andappropriate indication in transactions, so that it is not appropriate in terms of public
interest to grant the exclusive use thereof to a specific person, and furthermore, suchmark being commonly used, it oftentimes lacks distinctiveness and cannot perform thefunction as a trademark (Supreme Court Judgment 1978 (Gyo-Tsu) 129; Judgment
rendered by the Third Petty Bench on April 10, 1979; Refer to Court Cases, Minji No.
126, page 507).
Next, since it can be said that the color of a product is a product feature, it isunderstood as falling under "in the case of goods ... [other] features" as stipulated initem (iii).

Since the color of goods has long existed from ancient times, it should

ordinarily be selected as is appropriate in order to heighten the image or aesthetics ofgoods.

In some cases, the color of goods may have occurred naturally or may benecessary to ensure the functions of goods.

Given the foregoing, any person would

desire to use colors as necessary or appropriate indications during transactions.

Assuch, in principle, any person should be allowed to make selections freely when using
colors.

This purport applies especially appropriately to a trademark consisting solelyof a single color.
On the other hand, Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act stipulates thateven in the case of a trademark that falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of
the Trademark Act, "if, as a result of the use of the trademark, consumers are able torecognize the goods or services as those pertaining to a business of a particularperson", such trademark shall be granted trademark registration notwithstanding theprovisions of the same paragraph.
The purport of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act is that even in thecase of a trademark that falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the same Act,if a specific person uses the trademark for goods or services for a long time inconnection with its business, and as a result, the trademark comes to have the function
as an indicator of source by being closely connected to the goods or service, the10exclusive use of such trademark by a specific person, which was deemed
inappropriate from the viewpoint of public interest, shall be approved as a case of
exception.
In light of such purport of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act, inorder for a trademark, which consists solely of a single color with respect to which itis acknowledged that the demand for public interests on the basis of the need for the
freedom to choose is particularly strong, to fall under the case of "if, as a result of theuse of the trademark, consumers are able to recognize the goods or services as thosepertaining to a business of a particular person" as stipulated in the above provision, it
should be understood that such trademark, as a result of its use, must have obtained
distinctiveness, etc. (monopoly adaptability) of a level that is as high as toacknowledge that granting exclusive use for such trademark to a specific person
should be allowed as a case of exception from the viewpoint of public interest.
Article 5, paragraph (3) of the Supplementary Provisions for Revision of Act
No. 36 of 2014, which protects the trademark registration of trademarks such as atrademark consisting only of color, stipulates that a person who has been using theregistered trademark, or a similar trademark, without the purpose of unfair
competition shall be granted the right to continued use.

However, the foregoing isonly applicable to a case wherein the person is "currently using the trademark at thetime of enforcement of the law and conducting business within a scope pertaining to
the goods", and the right is only granted for the use of the trademark pertaining to said
goods, etc.

As such, the fact that there is such provision in the Supplementary

Provision for Revision should not constitute grounds for not giving consideration to
the monopoly applicability of a color to a specific person in trademark registration ofa trademark which consists only of color.
3.

Applicability of the Applied Trademark to Article 3, paragraph (2) of theTrademark Act(1)

Acquisition of distinctiveness by the use of the Applied Trademark

A.

Composition of the Applied Trademark(A)

The Applied Trademark has the composition described above in 2 (1), and thecolor is a single color, placed in a position specified as the sole part, but is not limited
to the figure that has the shape and outline indicated, in color, in Exhibit 1 (1).
The "red color", which is the color of the Applied Trademark, has long beenused as a "color showing power and vitality" (Exhibit Otsu 3), in addition to being
widely used not just in women's shoes but also in clothes and other items in the fieldof fashion (Exhibits Otsu 4 to Otsu 8).
11

The color of the Applied Trademark is

identified as "PANTONE 18-1663TP", from among the color samples provided by
Pantone LLC, but it is a "red color", which is one of the basic colors (Exhibit Otsu 2),
and is very common as a color, so that it cannot be considered a unique color.

Inaddition, the "red color" is one of the basic colors as described above, and as shownby the hues of "purplish red" and "yellowish red" being regarded as "red colors"(Exhibits Otsu 1 and 2), it is impossible to strictly distinguish the red color, which is
identified as "PANTONE 18-1663TP", from similar red colors (Exhibit Otsu 33).
Furthermore, while the position of placing the color that is identified by th e
Applied Trademark is the sole part of women's high heels, when considering that atleast from before the latter part of 1991, which is when the Plaintiff launched thePlaintiff's Brand, a multiple number of photographs were posted showing women's
high heels with red soles (above 1 (4) A (A) and (B)).

In addition, it seems unlikelythat there is some kind of hinderance to the very act of giving color to the soles.

Assuch, it cannot be said that the soles constitute a unique position wherein to placecolor.
As described above in No. 3-1 (2) A (C) b, the Plaintiff argues that there were
only three or four pairs of women's high heel shoes with soles that are colored in red,which the Defendant was able to point out, prior to the time when women's high heel
shoes bearing the Applied Trademark gained popularity, so that the composition of
the Applied Trademark is not a common design technique.

However, upondetermining the uniqueness in design technique, the number of publications is not
something that should be an issue, and as indicated above, there does not seem to be
any hindrance to the very act of placing a color on soles.

Furthermore, although thePlaintiff's Product had begun import and sale in Japan in 1996, if not earlier (above 1(2) A (B)), the sales volume in Japan (for the entire women's shoes) exceeded 100
million yen at the wholesale price and rose drastically from around 2004 or 2005
(refer to Exhibit 2).

When the foregoing is taken into consideration, it cannot be

declared absolutely that products that are similar to the Plaintiff's Product were hardly
distributed in the market earlier, or that products that are similar to the Plaintiff's
Product that were distributed at the time of the JPO Decision are products whichattempted to gain profit by taking advantage of the popularity of the Plaintiff's
Product (the women's high heels with red colors as indicated above in 1 (4) B are
diverse in terms of the sales price range and sales method, etc., and bear their own
brand names, so that they cannot be considered, at a glance, so-called counterfeit
products).

At the same time, it should be said that, when a trademark that falls under

Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Trademark Act has acquired distinctiveness12

as a result of use of said trademark, the burden of proof to show that the trademark
acquired distinctiveness lies with the Applicant, whereas the burden of proof to showsuch reality of distribution lies with the Plaintiff.

As such, it is invalid to criticize

the sales volume, etc. of the case presented by the Defendant.
(B)

Based on the above, the color of the Applied Trademark and the position toplace the color are both common or ordinary, and there is no uniqueness about thecomposition of the Applied Trademark.
B.

Mode of use, etc. of the Applied Trademark by the Plaintiff(A)

According to the findings of the above 1 (2) and (3), the Plaintiff founded thePlaintiff's Brand in the latter part of the 1991, and ever since establishing thePlaintiff's French corporation which engages in the manufacture and sale of high-classwomen's shoes, etc. that use the Plaintiff's Brand, has operated shops worldwide andsold high-priced women's high heels (Plaintiff's Product) that have the Applied
Trademark placed on the soles, and have been favored by a number of celebrities andTV personalities.

In Japan, the Plaintiff's Product began to be imported and sold inJapan since around 1996, and it has been sold at roadside shops and in upscale
department stores.

Even if confined to high heels, the sales exceeded two billion yen

in 2015 and thereafter, and photographs taken from angles that show the red color of
the soles, by turning over the shoes to the side or by suspending the soles, arecommonly used when introducing the shoes in a number of magazines and media, etc.,
wherein the Plaintiff's Product is described as "Red Sole", and the Plaintiff's Producthas also won awards, etc. overseas.

There are also blog posts, etc. mentioning thatthe brand of the shoes with red heels is the Plaintiff's Brand.

As such, it can be said

that certain consumers, most of whom are women who are interested in luxury brands,
are aware that women's high heels with "red soles" indicate the Plaintiff's Brand.
(B)

On the other hand, the Plaintiff's Product has the logo of "Christian Louboutin"(with some of the letters designed) on the insoles of women's high heels handled by
the Plaintiff (above 1 (1) B), and it cannot be denied that such indication of theseletters causes one to actually recognize, or makes it possible to recognize, the sourceof the women's high heels of the Plaintiff.
In addition, in Japan, women's high heels with red soles, other than the
Plaintiff's Product, are more or less distributed (above 1 (4) B), so that it cannot be
acknowledged that the shape of goods with a red color placed on the soles has beenused exclusively by the Plaintiff.
As described above in No. 3-1 (1) B above, the Plaintiff argues that it is not
appropriate to give consideration to the demand for public interest, given the "reality
13

of transactions" pertaining to similar goods other than the Plaintiff's Product.
However, at least as indicated above in 2 (2), in order to determine whether or not a
trademark has acquired the level of distinctiveness that is as high as to be ap plicable
to a case of exception from the viewpoint of public interest (as having monopoly
adaptability), it can be said that it is a matter of course to consider the existence oftransactions pertaining to similar goods other than the Plaintiff's Product and theconditions of such transactions as factors for consideration, and the fact that it cannot
be acknowledged that there are special circumstances, as suggested by the Plaintiff, tothe reality of transactions of such similar goods, is as explained abov e in A.

As such,the Plaintiff's above argument cannot be adopted.
C.

Results of the Survey
As described above in 1 (5), the Survey targeted women who live in Tokyo,

Osaka, and Aichi, and who purchase fashion items or goods in certain shopping areas,
and who are in the habit of wearing high heels and are in the ages of 20 to 50.
According to the Survey results, only around 51.6% of all respondents, after the freeresponses and multiple choice were amended, could recall that the Applied Trademark
is the Plaintiff's Brand, including those who have never seen high heels with red soles.
It can be said that the demographic of the consumers of women's high heels aremostly women in the ages of 20 to 50 nationwide.

Although the Survey targeted

women who are reasonably interested in fashion and who live in major cities, and whopurchase fashion items, etc. in certain areas, only around half of the entire
respondents recognized the Applied Trademark.

If the target demographic is

extended to all consumers nationwide, it is easily presumable that the level ofrecognition of the Applied Trademark would fall below the level.
In that case, without having to determine other matters relating to whether or
not it is appropriate to objectively measure the level of recognition pertaining to theApplied Trademark based on the Survey results, it must be said that the level ofrecognition of the Applied Trademark by consumers, as can be found from the Survey
results, is limited.
D.

Summary
As described above, according to the sales records, advertisement, and awards,

etc. pertaining to the women's high heels of the Plaintiff that use the Applied
Trademark, it is acknowledged that certain consumers, most of whom are womeninterested in luxury brands, recognize women's high heels using the Applied
Trademark as indicating the Plaintiff's Brand.

However, upon comprehensively

taking into consideration factors such as that it cannot be said that the composition of14

the Applied Trademark is unique, and that the insole of the women's high heels
handled by the Plaintiff bears the logo of "Christian Louboutin" (with some of theletters designed), and that it cannot be denied that the source of the Plaintiff's highheels for women is recognized or likely to be recognized from the indicati on of theseletters, and that there are multiple business operators other than the Plaintiff who wereselling women's high heels that use the red color, which is the same color as the colorof the Applied Trademark, and that it is presumed from the Survey results that thelevel of recognition of the Applied Trademark among the consumers is limited, it isclear, as indicated above in 2 (2), that the Applied Trademark cannot be
acknowledged as having acquired distinctiveness that is as high as to be applicable toa case of exception from the viewpoint of public interests (as having monopoly
adaptability).
(2)

Based on the above, since it cannot be acknowledged that the Applied

Trademark, as indicated above in 2 (2), has acquired distinctiveness that is as high as
to be applicable to a case of exception from the viewpoint of public interest (as having
monopoly adaptability), it cannot be said that the Applied Trademark falls under atrademark which can be recognized as constituting, "as a result of the use of th e
trademark, an indication for the goods or services pertaining to a business of aparticular person" as stipulated in Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Trademark Act.
None of the Plaintiff's arguments, based on what is explained so far, is suchthat it affects the conclusion described above.
4.

Conclusion
In conclusion, without having to determine other matters, the cause ofrescission as asserted by the Plaintiff has no grounds, and it cannot be acknowledgedthat the JPO Decision has any illegality due to which the JPO Decision must be
rescinded.

As such, the Plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Court renders a judgment as per the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Fourth Division
Presiding Judge: KANNO Masayuki
Judge: NAKAMURA Kyo
Judge: OKAYAMA Tadahiro

15

(Exhibit 1)(1)

Trademark Seeking Trademark Registration(2)

Detailed Explanation of Trademark
The trademark seeking trademark registration comprises a red color(PANTONE 18-1663TP) placed on the sole part of women's high heels.

The dottedline indicates one example of how the trademark will be used, and it is not acomposition factor of the trademark.

16

(Exhibit 2)[i]

Sales volume of women's shoes by Christian Louboutin SAS between 1996 and2000 (wholesale price)
Exchange rate
Wholesale priceSeason(Italian lira)(in units of 100 lire)

Wholesale price (yen)(Middle price as of theend of December)

1996
Spring/Summer

7,890,000

7.59

598,851

1996 Fall/Winter27,952,000

7.59

2,121,557

Total for 1996

2,720,408

1997
Spring/Summer

34,325,000

7.39

2,536,618

1997 Fall/Winter21,515,000

7.39

1,589,959

Total for 1997

4,126,576

1998
Spring/Summer

21,849,000

6.98

1,525,060

1998 Fall/Winter68,721,830

6.98

4,796,784

Total for 1998

6,321,844

1999
Spring/Summer

71,689,980

5.31

3,806,738

1999 Fall/Winter119,653,220

5.31

6,353,586

Total for 1999

10,160,324

2000
Spring/Summer

97,781,970

5.50

5,378,008

2000 Fall/Winter159,050,270

5.50

8,747,765

Total for 2000

14,125,773[ii]

Sales volume of women's shoes by Christian Louboutin SAS between 2001 and2015 (wholesale price)

Wholesale priceSeason(Euro)

Exchange rate
(Middle price as of theend of December)

17

Wholesale price (yen)2001
Spring/Summer
2001
Fall/Winter

2002
Spring/Summer
2002
Fall/Winter2003
Spring/Summer
2003
Fall/Winter2004
Spring/Summer
2004
Fall/Winter2005
Spring/Summer
2005
Fall/Winter2006
Spring/Summer
2006
Fall/Winter2007
Spring/Summer
2007
Fall/Winter2008
Spring/Summer
2008
Fall/Winter2009
Spring/Summer
2009
Fall/Winter127,403.78

116.51

14,843,814

228,810.05

116.51

26,658,659

Total for 2001

41,502,473

180,114.20

125.0822,528,684

254,238.94

125.0831,800,207

Total for 2002

54,328,891

270,579.43

133.7436,187,293

418,667.72

133.7455,992,621

Total for 2003

92,179,914

405,107.01

141.61

57,367,204

583,819.88

141.61

82,674,733

Total for 2004

140,041,937

1,001,034.51

139.83

139,974,656

1,269,216.34

139.83

177,474,521

Total for 2005

317,449,176

1,570,992.12

156.50245,860,267

1,613,524.16

156.50252,516,531

Total for 2006

498,376,798

2,017,118.23

166.66336,172,924

1,727,608.94

166.66287,923,306

Total for 2007

624,096,230

2,064,052.28

127.96

264,116,130

1,387,997.07

127.96

177,608,105

Total for 2008

441,724,235

1,634,478.17

132.00215,751,118

1,498,148.85

132.00197,755,648

18

2010
Spring/Summer
2010
Fall/Winter2011
Spring/Summer
2011
Fall/Winter2012
Spring/Summer
2012
Fall/Winter2013
Spring/Summer
2013
Fall/Winter2014
Spring/Summer
2014
Fall/Winter2015
Spring/Summer

Total for 2009

413,506,767

1,674,794.25

107.90180,710,300

1,387,711.55

107.90149,734,076

Total for 2010

330,444,376

1,486,184.00

100.71

149,673,591

1,536,995.00

100.71

154,790,766

Total for 2011

304,464,357

1,442,368.00

114.71

165,454,033

1,392,624.00

114.71

159,747,899

Total for 2012

325,201,932

1,026,866.00

145.05

148,946,913

1,056,335.00

145.05

153,221,392

Total for 2013

302,168,305

1,101,546.00

146.54

161,420,551

942,034.00

146.54

138,045,662

Total for 2014

299,466,213

131.778,243,531

Total for 2015

8,243,531

62,560.00

The above table seems to show that the sales in and after 2010 (wholesale
price) decreased or remained mostly level, but this is because Kabushiki Kaisha
Christian Louboutin Japan was established in 2009 and the sale was switched to direct
distribution by the company.

Sales by Kabushiki Kaisha Christian Louboutin after

its establishment (retail price) are as follows.
[iii]

Sales volume of women's shoes by Christian Louboutin Japan in 2009 andthereafter (retail price)

19

Grosssales
byChristian Louboutin
Japan

Sales of women's
shoes by Kabushiki
KaishaChristianLouboutin Japan

Sales of women's
high heels (*) by
Kabushiki Kaisha
Christian Louboutin
Japan

From
To

2009.9.15
2010.8.31

199,609,062 yen

174,444,306 yen

From
To

2010.9.1
2011.8.31

785,944,755 yen

652,049,249 yen

From
To

2011.9.1
2012.8.31

1,410,299,346 yen

1,110,728,750 yen

From
To

2012.9.1
2013.8.31

2,408,606,606 yen

1,895,335,700 yen

From
To

2013.9.1
2014.8.31

3,667,278,840 yen

2,509,047,140 yen

From
To

2014.9.1
2015.8.31

5,120,922,873 yen

3,070,954,000 yen

From
To

2015.9.1
2016.8.31

6,498,723,817 yen

3,215,733,000 yen

2,332,638,400 yen

From
To

2016.9.1
2017.8.31

7,576,080,061 yen

3,304,954,000 yen

2,443,047,200 yen

From
To

2017.9.1
2018.8.31

7,660,885,207 yen

3,125,151,207 yen

2,097,989,100 yen(*) "High heels" as referred to herein means those with heels of at least 3.5 cm.

20

(Exhibit 3)2000 or earlier
1.

In the February 1992 Issue of "Elle Japon", under the heading of "Christian

Louboutin's shoes that communicate 'LOVE'", women's shoes handled by the Plaintiff
are introduced.
2.

In the March 1992 Issue of "VOGUE JAPON", under the heading of"Louboutin's shoes are full of humor", the Plaintiff is introduced.
3.

In the June 1993 Issue of "25 ans", under the heading of "Louboutin's new

shoes with fresh designs, this summer's theme is Mediterranean Sea", women's shoes
handled by the Plaintiff are introduced.
4.

In the September 1995 Issue of "marie claire bis", under the heading of"Imagination is the key to creativity.

Shoes with playfulness that triggers women's

desires", the Plaintiff's success is introduced.
5. In the Issue No. 112 (June 5, 1997) of "FIGARO japon", under the heading of"Both [A27] and [A28] are crazy for stylish shoes!", women's shoes handled by the
Plaintiff are introduced with the words, "... Bright red soles being the trademark of
Louboutin".
6.

In the September 1997 Issue of "ZOLA", a model wearing boots with theApplied Trademark placed on the soles appears in a pose with her legs spread out infront, making the Applied Trademark noticeable".
7.

In the November 1997 Issue of "SPUR", women's shoes handled by the

Plaintiff are introduced with the words, "Red soles being the mark".
8.

In the March 1998 Issue of "Miss Katei Gaho", the Plaintiff's second shop in

Paris and women's shoes handled by the Plaintiff are introduced, with the words,"Creates dazzling feet with deep red soles", "What is attractive about Louboutin's
shoes is that the soles are colored in bright red", and "Deep red soles are striking".
9.

In the May 1998 Issue of "Elle japon", under the heading of "Boasts a gorgeous

client list thanks to his unique shoemaking", the Plaintiff's second shop in Paris is
introduced, with the words, "His shoes with the trademark crimson soles, being
displayed on a shelf at the back of the shop, in sets of one or two pairs, remind us ofan art gallery".
10.

In the October 1998 Issue of "25 ans", women's shoes handled by the Plaint iff

are introduced, and the caption for a product at the center of the fifth picture reads:"Characterized by the crimson soles".
11.

In the issue of "Hanako" published on June 2, 1999, there are the words, "If

you come upon Christian Louboutin's shoes, you have to see the soles.
21

You may bea little surprised to find that they all have bright red soles".
12.

In the August 1999 Issue of "Elle japon", the Plaintiff is introduced with thecaption, "I decided to pursue this path at the age of ten", and there are the words,"Adores the Red Sole because he believes beige and black are boring.

He also does

not forget to be witty by saying, 'When a French man looks back at a woman, the redsoles can be a conversation starter'".
13.

In the August 1999 Issue of "High Fashion", the Plaintiff is introduced with thewords, "Customers who are enchanted by the bewitching Red Sole he creates ...".
14.

In the December 1999 Issue of "Miss Katei Gaho", under the heading of"<Christian Louboutin> Shoes at the head office in Paris", women's shoes handled by
the Plaintiff are introduced, with the words, "All soles being colored in bright red ..."and "Louboutin's shoes, when the wearer recrosses her legs, show the bright red soles,
capturing the attention of people".
15.

In the April 2000 Issue of "Vogue", women's shoes handled by the Plaintiff are

introduced with the words, "The red heels and soles are the key ...".
16.

In "High Fashion" (2000), there are the words, "Beautiful Christian Louboutin

shoes.

Turn them over, and the soles are all red".

2017
1.

In the issue of "KTOUCH" published on December 15, 2017, there are thewords, "The prestige of the Red Sole that invites women to a wonderful place".
2.

In the January 2017 Issue of "OTONA MUSE", women's high heels of thePlaintiff bearing the Applied Trademark are introduced with the words, "Sensual Red
Sole".
3.

In the October 2017 Issue of "GINGER", under the heading, "Why are we

attracted to Louboutin?", there are the words, "The 'woman' inside me being broughtout by the Red Sole" and "And for feet, Louboutin's Red Sole".
4.

In the joint issue of January/February 2017 of "Harper's BAZAR", there is aphotograph of the Plaintiff accompanied by the caption, "Give me a peek of the redsole".
5.

In the March 2017 Issue of "GQ", there are the words, "Christian Louboutin

who captivates women with bright red soles".
6.

In the February 2017 Issue of "Safari", the Plaintiff's Ginza Store is introduced,

with the words, "The birth of the Red Sole established his style for shoemaking" and"The 'Red Sole' which caught the eye of [A29] is one of the signature symbols of thebrand".
22

7.

In the October 2017 Issue of "GINGER", under the heading, "Story behind thebirth of the Red Sole", there are the words, "The Red Sole is the symbol of Louboutin
Shoes".

23