Louboutin Red Sole (China):
what the record actually says
China's Trademark Law does not explicitly list colour among registrable signs. The record documents a Beijing Higher People's Court decision, affirmed by the Supreme People's Court in January 2020, holding that the omission does not categorically exclude single-colour marks — followed by a Beijing IP Court judgment in September 2022 awarding RMB 5 million for unfair competition. Registration and enforcement are separate questions and this record touches both.
Evidence grade C · Named secondary source
Litigated · China
The colour
The colour in this record
#BE132D
Colour identity: Editorial Estimate
Hex confidence: moderate
Jurisdiction of record: China
What this swatch is
This is a modern editorial estimate held in the Colour Memory archive, not a specification taken from
the registration or the judgment. No colour in this register was measured from a registered sample.
Do not treat it as the mark itself.
The record
What the archive documents
China's Trademark Law does not explicitly list colour among registrable sign types. In January 2020 the Supreme People's Court affirmed a Beijing Higher People's Court ruling that this omission does not amount to a bar, clearing the way for Louboutin's red sole. In September 2022 the Beijing IP Court used that footing to issue Louboutin its first trade-dress win in China, enjoining a domestic shoe seller and awarding roughly RMB 5 million (about US$722,000) in damages.
Primary source
Beijing Higher People's Court decision, affirmed by the Supreme People's Court of China, Jan. 2020 (holding single-colour marks are not categorically excluded under Trademark Law Art. 8); Christian Louboutin v. Guangdong Wanlima Industrial Co., Ltd., Beijing IP Court judgment, Sept. 9 2022 (unfair competition, RMB 5 million damages award)Evidence, separated
What is documented, what is inferred
Colour Memory keeps these three apart rather than blending them into one confident account.
Documented
- The Beijing Higher People's Court issued a decision affirmed by the Supreme People's Court of China in January 2020, holding that single-colour marks are not categorically excluded under Trademark Law Article 8.
- The Supreme People's Court's January 2020 affirmation cleared the way for Louboutin's red sole mark in China, addressing the absence of an explicit listing of colour among registrable sign types in China's Trademark Law.
- The Beijing IP Court issued a judgment on September 9, 2022, in Christian Louboutin v. Guangdong Wanlima Industrial Co., Ltd., finding unfair competition and awarding RMB 5 million in damages.
- The September 2022 Beijing IP Court judgment constituted Louboutin's first trade-dress win in China and included an injunction against a domestic shoe seller.
- China's Trademark Law does not explicitly list colour among registrable sign types.
Inferred
- The 2020 Supreme People's Court ruling provided the legal foundation upon which the 2022 Beijing IP Court trade-dress victory was built.
- The RMB 5 million damages award, noted as approximately US$722,000, reflects the exchange rate operative at or around the time of the 2022 judgment, not a fixed or current valuation.
Interpretation
- The identification of this colour with a specific hex value or Pantone-comparable red is an editorial and documentary convenience, not a legally operative or brand-authorised colour specification.
- Framing these court decisions as a landmark moment in Chinese intellectual property law for single-colour marks is a legal and cultural reading imposed on what are discrete judicial outcomes.
Archive confidence in this record: medium · source specificity: named archival source
Boundaries
What this record does not mean
- It does not mean the colour is protected everywhere. This record concerns China only, and colour claims are decided jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
- It does not mean all uses of the colour are restricted. Protection, where it exists, attaches to particular goods or services.
- It does not describe current legal status. The record documents a decision or filing at a point in time; later appeals, registrations, surrenders or expiries may exist and are not tracked here.
- It does not make the hex above the legal specification of the mark. The swatch is an editorial estimate.
Constraints carried by this record
- Do not claim this hex was measured from a physical historical object -- it is a computational editorial estimate derived from historical description.
- Do not treat a dE2000 of 0 as proof of physical colour accuracy -- it means the submitted hex matches the stored archive estimate only.
- Do not describe this as the exact or verified historical colour -- evidence grade is C (Named secondary source).
- Do not say this hex is Louboutin's current official sole specification -- it is an editorial estimate from public Pantone-to-hex conversions of a comparable Pantone red, offered for historical and documentary legal reference only, not usable brand guidance.
These are returned by the Colour Memory API with the record itself, as a do_not_say array.
Related records
Related cases in the register
Investigate
Check a colour against this kind of record
Colour Memory can measure how close a colour sits to others in perceptual terms and report what the archive
holds nearby. That is a research and design input, not a clearance search: it does not check live trademark
registers, and it does not tell you whether a mark is available or infringing. For that, instruct a
trademark attorney.
Use the colour MCP server
Back to the register