Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ysl Memo in Opp to Louboutin

Ysl Memo in Opp to Louboutin

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,371 |Likes:
Published by mschwimmer
ysl reply memo to louboutin
ysl reply memo to louboutin

More info:

Published by: mschwimmer on Jul 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERN DISTRICTOF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xChristian Louboutin S.A., Christian Louboutin,L.L.C. and Christian Louboutin,Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants,vs.Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., Yves SaintLaurent America Holding, Inc., andYves Saint Laurent S.A.S., et al.,Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.:::::::- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xCivil Action Number 11-cv-2381 (VM)ECF Case
DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAWIN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLPDavid H. Bernstein (dhbernstein@debevoise.com)Jyotin Hamid (jhamid@debevoise.com)Jill van Berg (jvanberg@debevoise.com)Rayna S. Feldman (rsfeldman@debevoise.com)919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022Telephone 212-909-6696Dated: New York, New York 
Counsel to Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
July 12, 2011
Yves Saint Laurent America,Inc.,Yves Saint Laurent America Holding,Inc.,and Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S.
Case 1:11-cv-02381-VM Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 31
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT.........................................................................................................1FACTS...................................................................................................................................................3ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................................6I. Louboutin Cannot Show Irreparable Harm............................................................................6A. YSL’s Sales of Shoes With Red Outsoles in Seasons Prior to Cruise 2011Have Caused No Harm................................................................................................6B. Louboutin Inexcusably Delayed Seeking An Injunction..........................................7II. Louboutin Will Not Succeed On Its Trademark Infringement Claims.................................8A. Louboutin Lacks Valid Trademark Rights.................................................................81. A Red Sole Is Aesthetically Functional.........................................................92. The Red Sole Lacks Secondary Meaning....................................................14B. Consumer Confusion At The Point Of Sale Is Unlikely.........................................17C. Louboutin Will Not Prevail On Its Post-Sale Confusion Theory...........................19D. YSL Will Succeed On Its “Fair Use” Defense........................................................21III. Louboutin Will Not Succeed On Its Other Claims..............................................................23A. Louboutin Will Not Succeed On Its Federal Dilution Claim. ................................23B. Louboutin Will Not Succeed On Its State Law Claims. .........................................24IV. The Balance Of Hardships And The Public Interest Tip Against Entry Of APreliminary Injunction...........................................................................................................24CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................25
Case 1:11-cv-02381-VM Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 31
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESC
ASES
20th Century Wear, Inc. v. Sanmark-Stardust Inc
.,815 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1987).............................................................................................................14
 Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters,Inc
.,280 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................12
 American Footwear Corp. v. Gen. Footwear Co.
,609 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1979) ........................................................................................................19
 Brockmeyer v. Hearst Corp
.,248 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).........................................................................................20
 Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd 
.,35 F.3d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1994)...............................................................................................10, 11
Car-Freshener Corp. v. S.C. Johnson &Son,Inc.
,70 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................21, 23
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust,
756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985) ......................................................................................................7, 8
Conopco,Inc. v. Cosmair,Inc.
,49 F. Supp. 2d 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)...........................................................................................19
Cosmetically Sealed Indus.,Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond’s USA Co.
,125 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1997) ..........................................................................................................22
 Deere &Co. v. Farmhand,Inc.
,721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983).......................................................................................................11
 Dessert BeautyInc. v. Fox
,568 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).........................................................................................22
 Echo Design Group,Inc. v. Zino Davidoff S.A.
,283 F. Supp. 2d 963 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Marrero, J.)....................................................6, 8, 17, 24
 EMI Catalogue P’ship. v. Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc.,
228 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2000) ..........................................................................................................21
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP 
,423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................21
Case 1:11-cv-02381-VM Document 33 Filed 07/12/11 Page 3 of 31

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
EmiliaEmma liked this
EmiliaEmma liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->