After news broke yesterday that the Louboutin vs Yves Saint Laurent red-sole saga has been reignited, the fashion industry is once again up in arms over trademark infringements.

Louboutin's infamous suit against fellow designer YSL was thought to have been settled last October, but the residing judge's decision has been questioned by other officials. At a court hearing yesterday, three appeal judges denounced Judge Merrero's ruling, claiming there was no systematic evidence for dismissal of Louboutin's suit.What made it all the more controversial amongst industry insiders, and a captive public, was the presence of CFDA President, Diane von Furstenberg, at Louboutin's side.

For those of you who aren't as familiar with the case, it all began last April when YSL featured red-soled shoes as part of their Resort 2011 collection. While this may sound relatively minor, Louboutin has had red soles trademarked since 2008. Aside from the legal technicality, the red sole is an integral part of the Louboutin brand, with many celebrities keen to be seen in red-soled shoes nowadays, merely for the prestige attached to a Louboutin shoe. When asked why the matter was so important to him, Louboutin replied that "to me it is very personal: After all, this is an intrinsic part of my life and my company, which bears my name — and which I have built over the past 20 years and still independently own. This is why I had to be there in person" (Fashionista).

If Judge Merrero's ruling is overturned, YSL and Christian Louboutin must return to court in the coming months. With the support of the CFDA's President as well as Tiffany and Co. - the iconic jewellery company have expressed their allegiance in legal documentation as their trademark blue is deemed to be at risk if Louboutin's trademark is denied - it looks like this landmark case will run and run.

Amid widespread claims of copyright infringement amongst designers of late - both Topshop and Forever 21 have been accused of creative infringement in the last few weeks - our question is why do designers knowingly copy seemingly trademarked items, fully aware that in doing so there will be negative consequences? For the publicity, perhaps? In which case, nothing but negative publicity has been attained from such actions, bringing formerly respected companies into disrepute.