Source: https://www.lrrc.com/Are-Brand-Owners-Seeing-Red-Louboutin-and-Yves-Saint-Laurent-and-the-Ongoing-Battle-Over-Aesthetic-Functionality-04-01-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:11:43+00:00

Document:
At the intersection of patent and trademark law is the functionality doctrine and its much maligned derivative–aesthetic functionality. Over the past decade, this doctrine has been largely dormant. Like fashion, the doctrine cycled back into style in 2011 and was considered by many to be one of the hottest intellectual property topics of the year. This increase in popularity was due in large part to a legal battle involving women’s shoes.
The controversy pitted two fashion powerhouses against each other. On one side is Christian Louboutin (“Louboutin”), an iconic footwear designer who has a federally registered trademark for his shoes’ signature lacquered red sole. On the other side is fellow fashion giant Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. (“YSL”).
YSL counterclaimed seeking cancellation of Louboutin’s federal registration on grounds that Louboutin’s red sole is: not distinctive; is ornamental and functional; and was secured by fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office2. With that, the battle commenced.
The Louboutin decision was met with harsh criticism. Within two months, lawyers for Louboutin appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The crux of the appeal is that the District Court made “errors of law in determining that Louboutin’s red outsole mark was likely invalid.”15 Louboutin’s appeal garnered support from trademark practitioners and brand owners alike.
The International Trademark Association (INTA) and Tiffany and Company (owners of the “robins-egg blue” color for use in connection with jewelry, tableware and other goods) have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Louboutin’s appeal. The briefs focus on: 1) the lower court’s error in failing to give Louboutin’s registration the presumption of validity it is entitled to as a federally registered trademark and 2) the overarching concern that the Louboutin decision expands the scope of an already highly controversial doctrine.16 Currently pending on appeal, the trademark community is concerned about the impact the Louboutin decision may have on the protectability of colors and other features in the fashion world and beyond should the Second Circuit uphold the District Court’s decision.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that because Betty Boop was a prominent feature on the T-shirts and handbags at issue in the case and was visible to others when worn, it was an aesthetically functional feature of the product and therefore was not protectable under trademark law. The court’s application of aesthetic functionality was a far departure from the Ninth Circuit’s 2006 decision in Au-Tomotive Gold v. Volkswagen of America, in which the Ninth Circuit held that an aesthetic feature of a product that serves a “significant” non-trademark function was protectable as a trademark, unless granting such protection would severely impact competition.
The Au-Tomotive court severely limited the application of the doctrine (or so it would seem), even going so far as to acknowledge that aesthetic functionality had a “somewhat checkered history.”24 Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Fleischer Studios was that the parties had not even briefed the issue of aesthetic functionality.
Although the Ninth Circuit attempted to clean up the issue of the applicability of aesthetic functionality in the Betty Boop case, only time will tell who will win the battle in Louboutin. One thing is clear: the uncertainty about how courts will view and apply the doctrine of aesthetic functionality will continue to contribute to the doctrine’s controversial status in the trademark community.
1778 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
3See, e.g., Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 164, 115 S. Ct. 1300, 1304 (1995) (citations omitted) (“It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting investors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time . . .”).
4Id. at 165 (citations omitted).
6Id. at 159 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 17 cmt. c, at 175-176).
8See J. Thomas McCarthy, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION §7:63 (4ed 2011).
9Id. (referring to the aesthetic functionality as “potent public policy”).
10778 F. Supp. 2d at 447-448.
15See Brief for Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants at 20, Christian Louboutin, S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., No. 11-3303-CV (2d Cir. October 17, 2011).
16See Brief of Amicus Curiae, International Trademark Association, in Support of Vacatur and Remand, 11-3303-CV (C.A.2 November 14, 2011), Christian Louboutin, S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., No. 11-3303-CV.
23457 F.3d 1062, 1064-74 (9th Cir. 2006).
24457 F.3d 1062, 1064-74 (9th Cir. 2006).
25Brief of Amicus Curiae, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant's Petition for Panel Rehearing or, in the Alternative, Rehearing En Banc, 2011 WL 3281853, p. 8 (CA.9, Mar. 21, 2011), Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., DBA Art & Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency, et al., 636 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2011).
26Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying the petition as moot, and without any mention of aesthetic functionality, remanded the trademark infringement claims to the district court).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 17
 §7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.