The next step would be to discuss some simple statistics to drive the point further- that manufacture if simple pair of jeans leads to damage to the environment. Cotton uses 25% of the world’s pesticide population. A whole sea – the Aral Sea has disappeared due to our obsession with new jeans.

Now to individually discuss some aspects of fashion that damage the environment. –

Dyeing has a toxic history and in countries like Bangladesh where there are weaker regulations, toxic water is directly dumped into seas. The impact of denim in terms of dying pollution is another factor that needs to be – A pair of jeans, for example, needs up to n10,000 liters of water to be made. Azo dyes are a particular pollutant that are synthetic nitrogen-based dyes and have recently come under the scrutiny recently for the extra amount of damage that they put.

As per a united nations study, producing a single pair of jeans consumes around 7,500 liters (2,000 gallons) of water, from the beginning of the lifecycle, which is cotton, to the finished product.

Another statistic that showcases the fashion industry’s reality is that the industry alone accounts for 8-10% of emissions and 20% of waste water. 93 billion cubic metres of water is used by the fashion industry every year.

Waste is another problem in this industry. Fast fashion overproduces, and due to that, sales can never be enough. Landfills and exportation to developing countries is the only solution left for textile waste. But these solutions aren’t permanent and only create further issues. Textile waste, even if incinerated, is harmful. Chile’s the Atacama Desert is slowly becoming a dumping ground for fast fashion.

Excessive chemical usage 

Even in terms of finishing of products, there are various bleach type products that are harmful for even the workers of the industry.

Now that we understand that fashion, as beautiful it is, has a harmful and dangerous impact on nature and its components, what can we do to change that?

Some innovative changes can help recuperate the industry. Keeping all of this in mind the steps that we can take as global citizens –

1. Firstly, avoid hitting into every temptation – and buy less.

The less you buy, the less would this reckless lifestyle be promoted.

2. Reducing dependence on Fast fashion.
3. If giving into the thought of buying – pay careful attention to the kind of brand you shop from. Shop from sustainable brands.
4. New mechanisms show that the fashion industry is slowly changing – for example the companies which rent out clothes. Second-hand clothes and thrifted clothes also elongate the lifecycle of a dress.
5. There are hardly any legal measures and steps taken to put an end to such practises. Developing countries have fewer regulations and hence cannot control or prevent such situations. Specific organisations and countries, attempt to take cognisance of such situations. Sweden, a leader in terms of sustainable fashion, cancelled Stockholm fashion week, realising the impact that such extravagant events have on the environment. In 2009, the Sustainable clothing alliance created a HIGG index with more than 200 members to independently evaluate and quantify environmental and social sustainability in their supply chain. These are organisational and country-based changes.

Such initiatives from countries, organisations, and individuals can start to change the fashion industry which can help change the industry and make it sustainable. the Fashion industry uses water, pollutes water. Waste, chemical usage, and hazardous treatments are other forms of damage. Immediate attention is required to stop rivers, oceans and deserts’ depletion and destruction. Fashion shouldn’t cost us the whole planet. The environmental cost of simple clothing items like a pair of jeans is enormous, which highlights the cost of the fashion industry in general.

PETA (People for ethical protection of animals) requested all of Gucci’s customers and followers to ask Gucci to stop using wild animals in their photoshoots.

Carole Baskin, the founder of big cat rescue and animal rights activist also vehemently objected to Gucci’s use of tigers for the shoot. She stated that this projects the worst possible message internationally that wild animals are a ‘disposable product’. She further went on to say that tigers belonged in the wild within their natural habitat and not on pianos to be clicked by photographers. Gucci should have also considered that Tigers are categorised in the IUCN red list as endangered.

The main concern most people had with the ad campaign was that using a wild animal –
– intends to make tigers look like pets
– Reduces their magnificence
– is unnecessary
– uses a creature for trying to market their products

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Gucci Official (@gucci)

The pictures within the photoshoot show models on sofas and couches or next to a piano. While one to two tigers sit next to the models in each of these photos.

The picture caption on Instagram has now been edited to include the statements that wildlife and its creatures are extremely important to Gucci and hence in February 2020 Gucci made the decision to join the Lion Share fund that helps raise funds to protect endangered animals and their habitat. It was also added that the tigers were photographed in a separate safe environment due to Gucci’s policies on photo shoots.

The unfortunate bit of the news is that while Gucci has just edited the captions on Instagram to add various funds and mentions to American Humane society, it still hasn’t removed the campaign and its photos from Instagram.

It showcases how Gucci might still not be able to understand the harm that it has actually caused and only intends to pacify the anger of netizens and activists.

This is not the first time that Gucci has used various animals. It has used captive deer, owls, and skunks in one of the Gucci campaigns. It has also used Monkeys in its advertisements.

PETA has called this attribute of Gucci as a version of the wildlife selfie phenomenon. It is a part of the obsession to get clicked and snapped with real wild animals. As rightfully observed, such wild animals are taken away from their habitat and separated from their families, and are used for the purpose of human entertainment advertisement. Gucci should immediately remove the photographs from Instagram and further make a declaration to stop using wild animals in all of its shoots. PETA has also called for further action. 

]]> https://fashionlawjournal.com/gucci-is-under-fire-for-using-real-tigers-in-ad-campaign/feed/ 0 https://fashionlawjournal.com/fur-laws-an-international-comparison-of-laws/ https://fashionlawjournal.com/fur-laws-an-international-comparison-of-laws/#respond Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:43:17 +0000 https://fashionlawjournal.com/?p=2907 Fur laws have been a matter of a lot of speculation in the past. From companies’ self-regulating and deciding not to sell fashion products made from real fur to a country like Israel banning its use to from the country. In United States it was California which became the first country to ban fur. Various animals can and are used for their fur – Minks, Beavers, Chinchilla, Foxes, Raccoons, Rabbits, Raccoon Dogs, Seals, Dogs and Cats. Animal fur usually comes from two sources – either they are trapped in the wild and their fur is used. The second is fur farming where the animals are kept in painful conditions in farms where they are raised for fur. While fur farming constitutes

Aside from fur farming, a large number of animals are captured and murdered in the wild for their fur. The majority of wild-trapped animal fur comes from the United States, Canada, and Russia. Trapping killed almost 3 million animals in North America in 2017 for their pelts. Traps cause considerable suffering and pain to both the intended and unintended victims, such as pets and endangered species.

One of the main concerns for fur Farming are animal cruelty. Animals kept on these firms live in dirty mesh cages and sometimes they are even kept in barns which can lead up to ammonia build up which causes burns in eyes. There is no protection from rain or sunlight. The manner in which they are killed is even more disheartening. Sometimes they are skinned alive without any painkillers or they are electrocuted or gassed. Fur farming can also be a major concern to public health. Such farms act as a breeding ground for various diseases (zoonotic). Considering the lower levels of sanitations and conditions in such farms it is quite highly likely that they make lead to spread if diseases

Noticing how laws may take a while to change – numerous luxury brands are themselves taking a stand and coming out of fur. Most popular is when Donatella Versace said she couldn’t use fur to make fashion as harming animals shouldn’t be a part of fashion.[1] Coach Macy’s and Chanel have also decided to opt for fur free fashion.

EUROPE

It was the countries in Europe which began to ban Fur farming and United Kingdom was the first state to do so in 2000. Israel has adopted a ban on the sale of fur and become the first country to do so but countries in Europe have also been making various changes.[2] France has announced a ban on mink farming but with a five-year transition period. The import of cat fur was banned in terms of export, import and placing in EU in 2007.

Denmark is a major ground for fur farming and it has its own different set of laws and regulations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The care of fur animals is governed by very few federal laws.[3] While the Animal Welfare Act was meant to ensure that animals be treated humanely, it clearly exempts “animals utilised or intended for use as food or fibre.”[4] Similarly, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which mandates that livestock be slaughtered humanely to avoid “needless suffering,” excludes fur animals from protection. It’s not often apparent where fur animals fall under the law’s categorisation. Trapping and hunting rules are usually found in State Wildlife, Fish & Game, or Environmental Conservation Codes, whereas labelling laws are found in Trade Practice Codes, and cat and dog fur laws can be found anywhere between the Criminal Code to the Agriculture Code.

According to the Fur Commission USA, state agriculture departments regulate fur farms. [5] However, precise rules governing such regulation are few, and they mostly consist of categorising fur farming as a “agricultural pursuit” and classifying the animals as domestic or livestock.[6]

On an international scale, the majority of fur animals are either under protected or not protected at all. In 1999, the Council of Europe issued a recommendation on fur farming. However, it is completely insufficient in terms of animal welfare because it continues to allow animals to be kept in tiny cages. Wire-mesh floors are permitted, as are the lack of sites for climbing, digging, and bathing. There are no additional laws on fur production in several EU countries. Fortunately, an increasing number of countries are leading by example by enacting tighter national regulations or outright prohibiting fur farms. According to the International Fur Federation, fur appeared in nearly two-thirds of women’s fall fashion designs in 2016. This shows that even today fashion continues to rely on Fur. There should be an international law which stops fur farming and prevents setting up of farms in Asian countries.

Any animal welfare regulation has the purpose of preventing unnecessary suffering.[7] Fur farming, on the other hand, begins and ends for many animal supporters with the simple moral test of necessity: humans don’t need fur apparel and accessories, so fur farming for that purpose is wrong.[8] In the basic sense human beings can survive using faux fur. Sometimes real fur is sold with the tag of faux fur. For this purpose, labelling laws have been made for United States. It is interesting to notice that it is fashion Brands that are now regulating and taking the decision of not trading or selling in fur. If more companies follows the pattern it would help eradicate the usage of fur.

[1] Brooke Bobb, Donatella Versace Says Fur Is Over, VOGUE, (Mar 18, 2018), https://www.vogue.com/article/donatella-versace-fur

[2] Israel Has Become The 1st Country To Ban The Sale Of Most Fur Clothing, NPR, (June 14, 20212:45 PM ET) https://www.npr.org/2021/06/14/1006279660/israel-has-become-the-first-country-to-ban-the-sale-of-fur-clothing

[3] Brief Summary of Fur Laws and Fur Production, Lesley A. Peterson (2010),  https://www.animallaw.info/intro/fur-production-and-fur-laws#:~:text=There%20are%20some%20on%2Dpoint,Species%20Act%2C%20which%20works%20ton

[4] 7 U.S.C. § 2132 (2002) .

[5] Fur Farming in North America , Fur Commission USA, http://www.furcommission.com/farming/index.html#Anchor-Fur-Producing-49575 (last visited Sept. 5, 2010).

[6]  Wis. Stat. § 29.627 (2004) .

[7] Fur Farms Still Unfashionably Cruel, Critics Say, Rachel Balf, August 17, 2016, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wildlife-china-fur-farming-welfare

[8] Id

NFT’s have been taking over the fashion world. NFT’s stand for Non-fungible Fashion tokens. RTFKT, a virtual fashion brand has sold a digital jacket for over $125,000. The world of fashion NFT’s is still fairly new and is being tried out by various brands – like Gucci. Gucci’s first NFT was priced at 20,000 dollars. [1]

India is not one to stay behind and it is designer Manish Malhotra who brought NFT’s to the Lakme Fashion week. Manish Malhotra has yet again proved to be one of the Mavericks of the fashion industry because of the novelty in his collections. He has introduced one of the first fashion NFT’s in India.  For this marvellous feat, he had partnered with WazirX NFT Marketplace and FDCI x Lakme Fashion Week and created 5 exclusive fashion NFTs.

Manish Malhotra stated that he was inspired and intrigued by this form of digital creation and that’s what led him to create the Fashion NFT’s. While he was choosing what to create for this new form of digital art he browsed through pictures, videos and sketches of his old collections which have created the brand into what it is today.

Manish Malhotra believes that it heralds a new beginning and platform for new age artists, designers, illustrators, and digital content creators. The fashion NFT’s created by Malhotra included a sketch titled ‘memorable sketch’ featuring a sari from the movie Yeh Jawaani Hain Deewani.

Manish Malhotra was the designer for the famous movie and was responsible for all the looks in the film which all garnered a lot of public attention. But one of the most memorable was the sari worn by Deepika Padukone during the song Badtameez dil. The NFT has the hand-drawn sketch from 2013 of that very iconic look. It sold for 2200 WRX which equalled to 2677.4 USD.

The next piece was a custom-made sketch of the Lehenga created for megastar Kareena Kapoor Khan for the red carpet of HT’s Most Stylish Awards, 2019. The NFT is called illuminous showstopper and true to its name, the gif lights up beautifully. This particular gif sold out for a whopping 3000 WRX (3,603 USD)

The next Archival diaries which have the model Lisa rays gorgeous still from a Manish Malhotra vintage photo shoot in 1998. The stunning black and white photograph was sold for 1600 WRX (1,952 USD)

Reminiscing runways is a 38 second clip which shows Manish Malhotra wall down the ramp escorted by models wearing his collection for the 8th Caring with style annual fashion show. The show raised funds cancer patients in support of The Cancer Patients Aid Association at Cricket Club of India (CCI), Mumbai 2013.

The last but not the least showcases a part of India heritage – Indian textile heritage. Chikankari has been one of the oldest forms of art in India, an embroidery introduced by Nur Jahan. The particular sketch known as illustrious sketch was of a creation which has been adorned by Alia Bhatt in 2018. Its an ode to Indian craftsmanship and that’s what makes it one of the most beautiful NFT in the entire collection.

IMAGE SOURCE – Twitter/@WazirXNFT

The entire collection has brought the Indian fashion scene up to date the world of technological development. As for the physical fashion collection – its filled with stunning pieces with abundant use of glitter. The show was considered a phygital (a play on the combination of physical and digital keeping in mind COVID) show with showstoppers Kiara Advani and Kartik Aryan. The collections comprised of everything from kalidars, lehengas, jackets, gowns to blouses, kurtas, and shararas. The presence of Indian handiwork was a constant here too with intricate embroidery, color blocking techniques, and the indigenous Indian craftsmanship of zardosi work.[2] The collection was truly spectacular.

AMITABH BACHCHAN NFT COLLECTION

The craze of NFT’s has also touched Bollywood, now that the legendary actor Amitabh Bachchan becomes the first Bollywood actor to launch his own NFT’s with BeyondLife.Club.

Some of the NFT collections include – the star’s recital of poems from Madhushala renowned collection of poems by his father Harivansh Rai Bachchan, Anecdotes from his own career. Personally signed posters highlighting some of the biggest achievements and milestones in the star’s life. And rare digital collectibles from the past and present marked under undisclosed gifts.The other Bollywood stars entering the world of NFT’s are sunny leone who is to launch her own website for NFT’s. Diginoor which deals with NFT’s for movie collectables has announced NFT collectibles from Rajnikanth starrer Sivaji the Boss.

[1] Angelica Villa, Gucci Sells NFT Inspired by Latest Collection at Christie’s, ART NEWS,  (June 2, 2021 5:32pm) https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/gucci-nft-auction-christies-1234594632/

[2] Team, Manish Malhotra’s Latest Collection At The FDCI X Lakme Fashion Week 2021, I KNOCK FASHION, (MARCH 26 2021 https://www.iknockfashion.com/manish-malhotras-latest-collection-at-the-fdci-x-lakme-fashion-week-2021

Engagement rings, fancy jewelry and Tiffany Blue.

One of the world’s most iconic jewelry brand, Tiffany and Co is associated and identified by a single colour, colloquially called Tiffany blue. Today the colour Tiffany blue is protected in almost all countries and anyone can get sued for attempting to use the colour.

A colour trademark is a non-conventional trademark where at least one colour is used to perform the trademark function of uniquely identifying the commercial origin of products or services.[1] It was in 1845, when Jeweller, Charles Lewis Tiffany, chose the light medium tone of Robin Egg blue for the packaging of the brand’s jewelry. Today, the brand’s visual identity is based on this shade of blue. The shade is Tiffany blue 1837 as per the Pantone chart and is not available commercially as the colour has been successfully trademarked since 1998 when they filed for the trademark with the federal government.

In the case of Qualitex, the Supreme court, and in his opinion that favored Qualitex, who ultimately won the case, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.”[2]

The thing that needs to be understood is that Tiffany & Co only owns the colour in certain cases, when it can be confused with its brand usage. Tiffany only owns “robin’s egg blue” for its boxes and bags.

INTERNATIONAL OPINION ON SINGLE COLOUR TRADEMARK

Different countries have different opinions on single colour trademark. For example, Argentina doesn’t allow single colour trademarks cannot be protected, whether the colour is the natural (or intrinsic) colour of the products or a colour arbitrarily applied thereon.[3] However, when   shape   and   single   colour   are   combined   with   sufficient   distinctive   capacity, comprising a series of elements that add origin to the sign, these may be registered. On analysis, Argentinean law allows —

(1) that it is an arbitrary colour to distinguish the product;

(2) that this colour is applied restrictively in a manner such that there is a combination of distinction from the colour’s originality and the arbitrary character of the shape; and

 (3) that the colour is exactly specified, for instance, through the identification of the pantone codes.[4]

On analysing such a system, Tiffany blue can protect the colour on its boxes which is the main purpose. Tiffany Blue on its packaging is an arbitrary colour which is used to distinguish the product, which is jewellery in this case. The colour is also Pantone Code identified as Blue 1837, which commemorates the brands birth year.

Australian laws are more inclusive when it comes to trademark protection. As per Section 6, Australian Trade Marks Act 1995, the definition of a ‘sign’ includes any letter, word, name, heading, label, ticket, aspect of packaging, signature, numeral, device, brand, shape, color, sound, or scent. [5] It includes the combination of the above list or any item in the above list. All that is required for a color to be registered as a trademark is that it be inherently adapted to distinguish the goods or services of the owner. Single colors mostly possess lower levels of distinguishability.

In Europe, originally single colours couldn’t be trademarked. As per, EUTMIR, Article 3(3)(f) colour marks are either single colour marks without contours or a combination of colours without contours. Normally, as per C-104/01, Libertel, A colour is not normally inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of a particular undertaking thus they aren’t distinctive except under exceptional circumstances.[6]

The colour exhaustion theory is present and kept in mind while granting companies the right to trademark single colours. [7]Courts need to recognise that in the Fashion industry the importance of colour surpasses that of any other industry. The colour depletion theory is a strong reason to prevent giving single colour trademarks to Fashion Brands. Fashion Industry has a unique case and considering the importance if colour if all shades begin to get trademarked it could limit the creativity of newer companies and their products.

SHADE CONFUSION DOCTRINE AND OTHER CHALLENGES

The doctrine has to be considered before making it the norm to grant single colour trademarks. The doctrine is based on the belief that courts would have a hard time discerning between different shades of a particular colour and this would lead to confusion. It is also called the likelihood of confusion test in most jurisdictions in America. This problem can be sorted if the shade is protected and registered with an authority like Pantone.

Another problem with granting single colour trademarks is that even if one country or region grants the trademark, internationally other countries may reject the appeal. As is seen with Christian Louboutin which fights for trademarks on the colour red in various countries.

The consideration before granting single colour trademarks internationally should be based on distinctiveness. If a colour is associated with a particular brand beyond recognition, to the extent that any consumer who thinks of the product automatically thinks of the colour, in such cases single colour trademarks should be granted.

One more thing that needs to be understood that no company intends to trademark the entire colour. Rather the only intention is to trademark a colour for a particular usage. Christian Louboutin is only for the sole of shoes and Cadbury purple is used only for packaging. The usage of the colour is in a particular and limited form. This argument was given by the amicus curie briefs given by INTA [8]and Tiffany and Co[9] in support of Christian Louboutin for their request to be granted a single colour trademark. Tiffany and company expressed concerns and stated that denying protection to a single colour when the colour has achieved a secondary meaning is unfair and unacceptable. [10]Tiffany and co has also showcased the argument that Fashion items need separate protection.

CONCLUSION

We identify brands on the basis of their logos. When we think of Apple we think of a bitten- apple and Starbucks with a green mermaid logo. Similarly certain brands are entirely identified based on a single colour. Protection of single colour trademarks have begun from 1990’s and the conversation needs to go on, especially for the Fashion industry. Fashion industry and colour are interconnected and if a brand is recognised through a single colour, they deserve protection Internationally.

[1] Debbie O’ Connor, White River Design,  https://www.whiteriverdesign.com/brand-and-trademark-colours/

[2]  Alina Cohen, How Tiffany and Co. monopolized a shade of blue, https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-tiffany-monopolized-shade-blue

[3] Argentinean Law no. 22.362 (section 2, subsection d)

[4] Branden Copeland, April 11, 2017, Single Colour Trademarks, https://silo.tips/download/single-colour-trade-marks

[5] Australian Trademarks Act, 1995, Section 6.

[6] C-104/01 – Libertel.

[7] Gorman, Danielle E., Protecting Single Color Trademarks in Fashion after Louboutin (April 2, 2012). Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Forthcoming, Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2033880

[8] Brief for International Trademark Association (INTA) as Amici Curiae

[9] Brief for Tiffany as Amici Curiae

[10] Issues surrounding registration of colour trademarks, JEKATERINA KUDRJAVCEVA, 2012, RGSL RESEARCH PAPERS

Colour trademarks count as non- conventional trademarks and hence there are various challenges towards registering them in various countries. It is well-established that a colour trademark can never be inherently distinctive, but that it can become protectable on proof of having acquired secondary meaning or distinctiveness.

The question before discussing whether Christian Louboutin can trademark a single colour is whether colours can be trademarked or not?

COLOR DEPLETION THEORY V. SECONDARY MEANING

The most conclusive judgement on the matter of colour trademarks came through the US SC which rejected all arguments given for a ban of registration of single colour trademarks. The colour depletion theory which has been rejected by the US Supreme Court in the Qualitex Case talks about all the colours getting trademarked and new companies having no colours to work with. On analysis also this is a rather odd theory as in general companies like Christian Louboutin use a particular shade (in this case Pantone e Pantone 18-1663 TPX “Chinese red”) of Red when, in general there are 100’s of shades of red.

The debate regarding whether a single colour can be trademarked or not, internationally ranges from the colour depletion theory to the source of product being identified as the colour takes on a second meaning. The colour depletion theory is based on the belief that there are limited colours in the palette and effectively if all of them get trademarked one by one, it would hinder competition. If we analyse the colour depletion theory, we can realise that it is never possible for colours to get exhausted because colours will only be given trademark if they get so popular that the product itself gets identified due to the distinctive colour. Now it is rather rare and cannot be an everyday occurrence for brands to become that popular that the colour used for their packaging or on their product is an identity on its own. Colour itself lacks the capacity to be distinct and rather there needs to be checked on how customers perceive the color and the product. There is still no test on how to prove or disprove if a colour that a brand is using has achieved the status. Cadbury tried to trademark the colour purple and initially won a case which would prevent other rival companies from using the colour purple, but Nestle filed an appeal against this order and won the appeal. On one side competition can get adversely effected and on the other hand companies may benefit from another rival company’s position by making deceptively similar products with the same colour and this poses a dilemma.

The most followed case in the history of fashion is the Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc. – 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012) it was clearly held that in this case Louboutin’s red can be trademarked and deserves protection. While it excluded shoes monochrome shoes where the entire shoe is red and the shoe’s upper part had to be a different colour.

INDIAN POSITION ON SINGLE COLOR

The Indian stance on whether a single colour not in combination is extremely confusing, especially because it goes back and forth on the same subject and gives different rulings.

The Indian case of the single colour trademark and the red sole was even more turbulent. The case was dealt by Delhi HC which gave different opinions in all its three judgements. In the first order, the court recognised the evident trademark while in the following order the judge held that there can be no such rights given to Louboutin as a single colour is incapable of being a trademark as per the act which governs trademarks in India.

Yet brands in India and outside have managed to register single colours as trademarks. It is harder to trademark single colours as the general principle of a colour never being inherently distinctive comes into play. The third order in 2017 issues by the court that Louboutins rights were recognised and further Louboutin received $30,000 dollars from Adra steps and Kamal Family Footwear. Deere & Company & Anr. vs. Mr. Malkit Singh & Ors and Christian Louboutin Sas vs. Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors both held that Christian Louboutin has the rights. In the second case it was held that Louboutin had the exclusive ownership of the trademark of red colour on the soles of its ladies’ footwear.

The case of Christian Louboutin v Abu baker, in 2018 held that a single colour isn’t a combination of colours and hence doesn’t qualify as a mark and can’t be trademarked. The Indian court also rejected the position of Qualitex and held that the court will only give ruling based on trademarks act 1999 and not on basis of a foreign case. The case even rejected the position set in Deere & Company & Anr. vs. Mr. Malkit Singh & Ors and Christian Louboutin Sas vs. Mr. Pawan Kumar & Ors.

The distinctive blue colour of Parachute oil bottle has been given protection by the Delhi high court. Victorinox and Telekom also have their representative colours registered and the Christian Louboutin v Abu baker judgement even raises questions on the already trademarked and protected colours. The entire jurisdiction of single colour trademarks is complicated.

As Christian Louboutin wins and loses court cases and rights for trademark in several countries – the question arises whether single colours can be trademarked or not, especially in the fashion industry, realising the importance of colour in the industry has still been left unanswered. The test of secondary meaning is one of the valid tests which can be used to see if a company or designer can trademark a colour. In the fashion industry tiffany blue is another popular shade which has been trademarked and has protection on the other hand Burnt orange is trademarked for the university of Texas. Monopolising on the colour spectrum may also affect creative choices and artistic expression which is one of the reasons the trademarks should be granted carefully after thorough analysis. Christian Louboutin shoes is also often called red soles or popularly referred to as red bottoms and has even made its way to popular songs with a reference to the colour red which shows that there is a distinct link between the product and the colour.