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