Louboutin loses exclusive right to sell its sole Owning a color is not a black and white issue. Women's shoe designer christian louboutin has been in a heated legal battle with fashion house yves saint laurent since april.At issue:Red-Sole shoes. Louboutin's lawyers argued that YSL's 2011 Cruise collection, which includedRed-Sole high heels, was infringing on a 2008 patent.However, a new york judge denied an injunction deals on tiffany charms saying,"Louboutin's claim to the 'the colorRed' is, without some limitation, overly broad and inconsistent with the scene of trademark registration. " The freakonomix blog notes,"[T]he general understanding in American law is that colors can only be trademarked if they serve-And only serve-To identify the source of a product.They cannot serve any other function. " This rationale allowed tiffany co.To own the color trademark of pantone 1837.Also known as tiffany blue, this color alone is known to make hearts stop and knees buckle. Champagne house veuve clicqout also owns the trademark for the orange color in its bottle labels. Color trademark matters are not limited to products that might appear on an episode of sex and the city.Owens-Corning owns a trademark for pink, the color of its fiberglass insulation products.You might remember their advertisements, which starred the pink panther. Back in 2007, oil behemoth bp tried to secure a trademark in australia for the color green.According to transcripts, the high court of australia and bp debated sale over whether the color green was misleading to customers.A judge asked: "What is nature and healthy about the production or consumption of petroleum products? "Bp's representative responded: "To the consumer in the context of oil, your honour, green indicates bp, not environmental friendliness. " The high court didn't buy Cheap Tiffany Jewellery that argument and rejected bp's application.Shortly after bp's 2010 oil spill in the gulf of mexico, the oil company's russian joint venture did away with the green colors.