YSL's formal response to Louboutin's Jan. 25th letter to the Court: you saw it here first (unless you're REALLY into PACER)

Posted by Charles Colman

Why is LAW OF FASHION posting random letters now, you ask?  Because this letter is part of the ongoing fashion-law-case-of-the-decade, of course. For background information, and to read the earlier correspondence to which the letter in question refers, see LAW OF FASHION's last post on the Louboutin v. YSL dispute.

YSL's 2/8/13 letter (embedded below and also posted at Scribd) explains, in part: "The modification [to the USPTO trademark registration on the fraught 'red sole'] proposed by Louboutin should be rejected for several reasons.  Most fundamentally, it would confer rights that find no support whatsoever in this Court's opinion . . . .  Louboutin's suggestion [that] the term 'upper' be deleted and replaced with the far broader phrase any visible portions of the shoe . . . would be contrary to the Court's clear direction and intent [and] would have serious anti-competitive effects."

In a later passage, YSL reminds the Court that the evidentiary record in the case "included several prior models of YSL monochromatic red shoes with non-red ornamentation" that were deemed non-infringing by the Court, and yet might be deemed "uses" of Louboutin's trademark, should the Court and/or the USPTO adopt Loub's proposed revision of its trademark registration language:

LAW OF FASHION's favorite passage, however, is this gem:

But LOF will leave you to pick your own favorite passage.  Here's the complete letter: