:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_63b422c2caee4269b8b34177e8876b93/internal_photos/bs/2025/m/E/KSpcbDSfuiMH8XiMKpDw/foto15leg-101-ab3-e1.jpg)
Louboutin Secures Exclusive Red Sole Rights in Landmark São Paulo Ruling
São Paulo, Brazil – A São Paulo court has granted Christian Louboutin exclusive rights to its iconic red shoe soles, marking a significant victory for the luxury brand in a trade dress case against Brazilian footwear company Bruna Silverio. The ruling, lauded by Louboutin’s legal team as a recognition of the “blatant” nature of the infringement, establishes a precedent for protecting distinctive brand elements in the Brazilian market.
The case centered on bruna Silverio’s production of shoes featuring red soles, prompting Louboutin to seek legal protection for its signature design. While some legal observers believe the court should have commissioned an independent expert evaluation given the technical complexities of trade dress law, Louboutin’s lawyer, Mr. Tinoco, argued that the distinctiveness of the red sole rendered expert testimony needless. “the innovation in this ruling is the judge’s recognition that the violation is so blatant, and the red sole so distinctive, that expert evidence isn’t needed, even in a trade dress case,” he stated.
The swift decision, Mr.Tinoco added, reflects a broader trend within São Paulo’s business courts to expedite high-quality rulings and provide “timely and effective judicial protection.” He emphasized that replicating the red sole creates consumer confusion, as it is “a distinctive sign that plays a key role in linking the product to its manufacturer.”
Trade dress – the overall look and feel of a product – is formally registrable in countries like the United States, according to Lea Vidigal, partner at Lea Vidigal Advocacia. “It’s a way of presenting a product that incorporates elements of brand identity, like Tiffany’s blue bags or Coca-Cola’s bottle font. These sensory features connect people to a product or brand,” she explained.
Vidigal acknowledged that Louboutin met the key criteria for trade dress protection – distinctiveness and potential for customer diversion – but cautioned against overly broad enforcement of rights over unregistered elements, warning it “can stifle creativity and innovation, especially when a product becomes so iconic that it reshapes how an entire market presents itself.”
However, Vidigal also raised questions about actual competitive harm, noting the significant price difference between Louboutin’s R$6,000 stilettos and Bruna Silverio’s similar styles retailing around R$500.”There may be no real competitive harm here. A Louboutin buyer is not the same as someone buying from Bruna Silverio. The copy may even benefit the brand, turning it into a broader cultural reference and reaching markets that wouldn’t or else access it,” she said.
The ruling sets a notable precedent for brand protection in Brazil and underscores the growing importance of trade dress law in safeguarding brand identity in a global marketplace.
