Christian Louboutin has landed a new victory in a case that centers on its famous red sole. A São Paulo court ruled in favor of the French footwear brand, reinforcing protection for one of fashion’s most recognizable marks. The ruling comes amid ongoing debates about the scope of protection for non-traditional trademarks and reflects growing judicial willingness to safeguard visual identities that have acquired global distinctiveness. At the same time, it also places Brazil in line with other jurisdictions that have recognized Louboutin’s red sole as a protectable indicator of source.
The Background in Brief: Christian Louboutin SAS filed suit against Bruna Silvério Shoes and Facebook Serviços Online do Brasil in a business court in São Paulo, accusing the Brazilian footwear company of making and selling unauthorized reproductions of its red-soled heels and the Facebook subsidiary of hosting content that featured the allegedly infringing products.
In its defense, Bruna Silvério Shoes (unsuccessfully) argued that Louboutin lacks the requisite trademark rights for its red sole in Brazil, where red-soled shoes are common, and that its inclusion of its own trademark on its red-soled shoes removes the risk of consumer confusion. It also maintained that it was offering up shoes that bore a different Pantone red hue than Louboutin’s and that the luxury footwear brand does not maintain exclusive rights on red soles broadly.
Louboutin prevailed before the Appellate Court of Sao Paulo in March 2023, with the court affirming the preliminary injunction previously put in place by the lower court, prompting an appeal by Bruna Silvério Shoes.
When a Color Becomes a Signature
In a decision on September 25, Judge Gustavo Cesar Mazutti of the 1st Business and Arbitration Conflicts Court in São Paulo ruled in favor of Louboutin, ordering Bruna Silvério Shoes to immediately cease the manufacture and sale of infringing products and to remove related content from its website. He also ordered Facebook to permanently remove infringing content hosted on its platforms.
Judge Mazutti’s decision goes beyond a simple question of color as a trademark. Pointing to Brazil’s Industrial Property Law, the judge held that Louboutin could enforce its rights even without a finalized registration, since its red-sole mark – an application for which was filed in Brazil in 2009 and still under administrative review – had already become a distinctive and internationally recognized source identifier. More importantly, the judge framed the dispute as a trade dress-centric – or “the peculiar way in which a product presents itself, the ‘clothing’ or ‘uniform’ through which consumers recognize its origin,” thereby, recognizing that a product’s overall visual presentation can identify its source.
The court compared Louboutin’s red sole to other iconic designs such as the Coca-Cola bottle and the Toblerone bar. Through decades of use and worldwide marketing, the red sole has acquired a secondary meaning that links it unmistakably to Christian Louboutin, Judge Mazutti confirmed.
>> In short: The court acknowledged that while Louboutin’s application for trademark registration of the red sole was rejected by Brazil’s IP office, decades of consistent use and global recognition give the design protection under trade dress principles. The court was also clear that Louboutin does not own the color red in the abstract, but rather the configuration of the red sole as a distinctive indicator of origin.
Against that background, Judge Mazutti stated that the similarity between Louboutin and Bruna Silvério Shoes’ products “is such that it may cause confusion among consumers, as these are products that reproduce a feature widely recognized as the ‘signature’ of the plaintiff companies: the red sole applied to high-heeled shoes.” At the same time, while Brazilian jurisprudence often requires expert evidence to confirm trade-dress infringement, Judge Mazutti ruled that none was necessary here. The similarity between Bruna Silvério’s products and Louboutin’s designs was, he said, apparent at first glance. To require expert testing would “shield the infringer” and risk normalizing parasitic imitation, according to the court.
The Bigger Picture
The ruling not only strengthens Louboutin’s hand in Brazil but also signals to the wider market that Brazilian courts will apply robust unfair competition standards to protect distinctive brand identifiers, even where formal trademark registration is lacking.
RNA Law, which represented Louboutin, underscored the doctrinal weight of the decision. Partner Karlo Tinoco noted that Article 130 of Brazil’s Industrial Property Law safeguards a mark’s material integrity and reputation once it has acquired distinctiveness, closing the gap between Brazilian law and international precedent. Fellow RNA lawyer Rob Rodrigues added that the decision “is not simply about a color or an aesthetic choice; it rests on a sophisticated analysis of unfair competition,” stressing that courts will not allow parasitic exploitation of globally recognized marks.
For brands, the ruling provides reassurance that distinctive visual identities – whether or not formally registered – can be shielded from imitation under Brazil’s unfair competition framework. For consumers, it preserves the integrity of one of fashion’s most iconic signifiers: the red sole that has, for over 30 years, functioned as shorthand for luxury, status, and craftsmanship.
The case is Christian Louboutin SAS v. Bruna Silvério Shoes, São Paulo 1st Business Court (Sept. 26, 2025).
Share
