Hotly anticipated this summer is the outcome of a court battle between two high-end fashion houses, Yves Saint Laurent and Christian Louboutin. Today is the one-year anniversary of the decision in the case and now a decision on its appeal is awaited.

The southern district court of New York that issued the original decision on August 10, 2011, which dealt with the issue of use of a single color for shoe outsoles. It started when YSL released a line of monochromatic shoes, including the soles, as part of its Cruise 2011 collection.

Christian Louboutin first approached YSL regarding four models of monochromatic red shoes from the Cruise 2011 line. YSL refused to withdraw the questioned models from the market, so Louboutin decided to sue. He filed suit for trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition against YSL. Louboutin also asked for an injunction. An injunction would have the court order YSL to stop from manufacturing and selling any of the four red monochromatic shoes while all the above-mentioned claims are in the middle of litigation.

Judge Marrero of the southern district court of NY ruled against Louboutin on the matter of this injunction. Therefore, YSL can continue manufacturing and selling shoes with red soles.

One reason the court gave for denying Louboutin’s request for an injunction is color depletion. Color depletion theory addresses the concern that colors are limited, and to grant exclusive rights to colors is anti-competitive and would deplete the available stock of colors. They said that allowing Louboutin protection for the red sole would “cast a red cloud over the industry, cramping what other designers could do, while allowing Louboutin to paint with a full palette.” But this is inaccurate, because Louboutin’s trademark registration clearly limits the mark to “women's high fashion designer footwear.”

It would have been a valid cause of concern if, indeed, Louboutin was claiming ownership of the color red, instead of use of the color red for the outsole for high fashion designer footwear. If it were the former, then it would be anti-competitive for all kinds of companies and industries across the board, not only for the fashion industry where use of color is ubiquitous.

The court recognized that Louboutin’s red sole had acquired secondary meaning — that it served as an indicator of source of a product. But it was also decided that it did not matter.

Christian Louboutin testified in the injunction hearing and explained how the red sole came about. He chose red for the outer sole because of its energy. The court took that to mean that the choice of red for Louboutin soles is solely for an aesthetic, ornamental, non-trademark purpose and therefore non protectable as a trademark.

But what can be a stronger identifier of source than the red sole? You know it’s a Louboutin immediately, even from a distance, just by seeing the red outsole, than seeing the stylized “Louboutin” stamped underneath.

Last May, French Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France invalidated Louboutin’s red sole mark in France. It was hinged on a technicality where the registration lacked a specific Pantone color reference. Louboutin is re-filing for a trademark in France.

Louboutin is not the only luxury fashion house having trademark problems. Earlier this year, Hermes lost its suit against a Chinese clothing company that obtained a registration for a Chinese name very similar to how Hermes is pronounced in Chinese.

These setbacks cause damage not only to the companies that own the marks, but also highlight very thin intellectual property protection for goods in the fashion industry. Fashion designers usually look to trademark for protection, but decisions like the denial of Louboutin’s injunction further erode the little trademark rights fashion designers have.

We’ll have to wait and see until the New York appeals court decision on Louboutin’s appeal comes out and for the meantime, Tiffany's better watch its blue jewelry boxes and Hermes its signature orange.

Karla Aspiras is a Trademark Analyst at Interbrand NY.

Luxury and sustainability can appear paradoxical… but not so.

Invited to 1.618 (www.1618-paris.com) in Paris, it was impressive to see how it was rich in insights, content and innovation. With brands such as BMW and Foundation Jacques Rougerie participating, 1.618, named for Fibonacci’s Golden Ratio, is an annual public event held in Cité de la Mode et du Design. A hybrid of trade shows and contemporary art shows, the event’s focus is on Sustainable Luxury.

Particularly impressive was Osklen (www.osklen.com), a brand created following a trip with a group of Brazilian snowboarders, who set out to climb the Aconcagua in the Andes, the highest mountain in the Americas (6959m). Oskar Metsavaht, a sports medicine specialist who had been on the trip, seeing a need, created athletic clothing for extreme cold. Enjoying immediate success, he decided to launch the specialized jacket brand Osklen in 1989.

Rapidly the collections were adapted to the Brazilian climate. Oskar Metsavaht’s passion for surfing and snowboarding grew the product line to also include lifestyle-inspired clothes for these sports. Inspiration from the mountains and the sea was at the heart of the design, leading in 2002 to the launch of e-brigade and designing its collection from recycled materials.

The earth -- its movement, natural materials, sophistication -- is an endless source of inspiration for this strong brand. No doubt the original quest for adventure, lived in the waves and the snow, informed Osklen’s Winter 2003 Collection, for example, 'Surfing the Mountains.' The Surfing the Mountains Fashion Show highlights this spirit of adventure, available in several episodes. (Surfing the Mountains) Clearly a passion for natural experiences continually inspires Oscar Metsavaht to take a unique and fresh look at the world with all its subtleties and reinvent genuine luxury fashion.

In 2007, WWF-UK named Osklen a ‘Future Maker’ in its report, Deeper Luxury: quality and style when the world matters. The ‘Royal Black Spring/Summer 2012’ collection is indeed a perfect combination of luxury and sustainability, illustrating the primal futurism trend.

Awarded this year with the HEC 1.618 Sustainable Luxury Award 2012, an honor École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris, one of Europe’s premier business schools, and 1.618 initiated to honor innovators in the field of sustainable development. Osklen is definitely a brand to watch for merging sustainability and luxury.

The 2011 Best Global Brands features a British brand that was the biggest non-tech riser on the list: Burberry.

While this certainly isn’t new practice, there’s been a flurry of recent activity between fashion brands and wheels. Let me explain. First, we have luxury exercise bike manufacturer, Ciclotte, which is working with with Roberto Cavalli to produce a new collection of colorful (and of course, animal print-infused) bikes. At first glance it seems rather bizarre, but then digging deeper, it appears that this collaboration comes ahead of the designer’s upcoming gym wear collection. Ah, there’s the link. I was struggling there for a minute.

Next on the list comes the Gucci and Fiat 500 lock up. One could argue that the Fiat 500 / Gucci link seems to work as the 500 is steeped in Italian history and exudes a sense of Italian style, aspects that are mirrored in Gucci’s roots. What is critical though is the execution of the partnership. To what extent is a Gucci-clad interior plastered in the recognizable print possibly eroding the brand? If you ever wondered what it might be like to drive around in a Gucci handbag, now you can find out. Perhaps more discreet detailing could be more in keeping with maintaining quality and exclusivity, but then again if you are buying a Gucci branded car, your motivations are possibly not to keep it a secret.

Then we move on to Victoria Beckham and Range Rover – this is an interesting one. Of course Beckham has earned her stripes in the fashion world, but she has a certain marmite-ness about her. People love her or hate her. To what extent is it a risky strategy for such an established heritage brand to lock in with someone who creates divided opinion? That said this collaboration feels fresher than perhaps the Gucci/ 500 partnership, because as “creative director” the customer will start to discover infusions of her style through the partnership, as opposed to just wrapping the car in a brand à la Gucci style.

Collaborations and partnership strategies certainly require a great deal thought, careful execution, and ongoing management. Ultimately the underlining motivation for the tie up in the first place must be focused on increasing the value of the brands in question, as opposed to the lure of the short term sale. Approach is any other way, and it’s guaranteed to backfire.

By Paola Norambuena and Emma Cofer

lululemon athletica has a devoted following among yoga fanatics and sporty trendsters who value color and cut in their sportswear—but it also has a naming appeal that hooks everyday window-shoppers.

Let’s face it: the name is captivating. Even before you know what this brand is all about, you’ll pass a storefront and toy with the sound. Lulu. Lemon. L-L-L. The name trips lightly and playfully, infusing the brand with a delicate rhythm that seems oh-so-appropriate for the dually fashion- and Zen-savvy company. But its rationale was purely abstract. There’s a long version of the story involving the Japanese love of “L”s, which don’t exist in the language, but the short version is this:

“In essence, the name “’lululemon’ has no roots and means nothing other than it has 3 ‘L’s’ in it. Nothing more and nothing less.”

Thanks, lululemon.com, for getting right to the point. It’s all about the sound. But how far can the yogi retailer stretch our affection for this naming technique? Well, we’re about to find out.

In September ’09, the brand launched lululemon Lab, a joint retail store and design studio, in their home-base city, Vancouver. Newest L-count: four.

That same week, lululemon launched a line of activewear aimed at a younger generation—ivivva athletica. This name is more abstract, evoking the idea of life with a nod to “viva,” but the trope of letter repetition is again at the forefront.

Then, in related news, lulemon has a new partnership with YYOGA, a Vancouver “yoga and wellness destination,” to provide complimentary lessons in various YYOGA studios. This is neither a joke nor a jjoke. One must wonder whether the cause was inspired by a mutual love of LLs, VVs and YYs, or a mutual philanthropic goal (we suspect the latter).

There’s (literally) value in consistency, and lululemon athletica is a much-loved retailer that has earned market distinction with a catchy name and a strong brand. There’s also a consumer patience threshold for calculated cleverness.

What you think of their naming strategy. Are they at risk of exhausting this approach? Is it something consumers will notice?