Tom on This Week in drumpf

 I read an interesting story in the NY Times today that Trump branded properties are trading at a discount to other similarly situated properties, both in the codo and the rental markets.  The studies were conducted by academics whose methodology seems sound.  One of the studies went out of its way to be sure of comparing:  "...apples to apples...'''.  The example used in the article compared a 3 bedroom condo in a doorman building that bore the Trump name with a similar building that didn't have the Trump brand, but was similarly sized and appointed.   The Trump branded dwellings traded at a significant discount to the unbranded buildings.  In one study, the discount was 23%, and in another study, using slightly different methodology, the discounted value was 17%.  I think that this comparison surprised most folks.  It certainly surprised me... 

Trump unveiled a new line of gold "Never Surrender '' sneakers for $400 the pair at the Sneaker.com convention in Philadelphia the other day.  According to the story in the 'Guardian", the room in which Mr. Trump's announcement took place stank of weed, and Mr. Trump was booed by many, who tended to skew younger than his usual audience.  Also being touted on this new website are bottles of "Victory '47" cologne and perfume at $99 a bottle.  God only knows what it smells like.  I can only imagine that the perfume smells like a common nightwalker after a hard night's work, while the male cologne smells like an old man's testicles.  If I'd read about this in 'The Onion', I'd think that it was a joke.  But, alas...

Mr. Trump may have inadvertently triggered another legal problem for himself, because if you examine the gaudy and overpriced high-top sneakers closely, you'll notice that the sneaker has a red sole, in keeping his 'Red, White and Blue' theme, (Don't forget the gold, for all things Trump must contain some gold).  Red soles on  footwear produced by the designer Christian Louboutin are a trademark that has been robustly defended by lawyers in the employ of Mr. Louboutin.  Since anyone who has ever seen me in the flesh knows that I am no slave to fashion, I had to check one of my trusted websites, FashionLaw, for guidance. What I found was that the iconic red sole on Louboutin footwear is protected under the legal concept known as "Trade Dress' ', a concept that is based in design, rather than function.  Put simply, you can't trademark a shoe, but you can trademark, (as is the case here), some unique aspect of the shoe that is an unmistakable identifier, such as Louboutin's red soles.  Trade dress can be anything, from the characteristic appearance of children's clothing to the design of a tonic bottle, (While you can't chaim trade dress protection for the contents of a bottle of Coca-Cola, but you can't claim trade dress protection for the universally identifiable borrl that it comes in). Even such mundane products as insulation can be protected by trademark trade dress laws.  Owens-Corning. one of the largest players in that. industrial segment, sought and received trademark protection for the characteristic pink color of its insulation products some years back, (you may recall seeing ads that featured the cartoon character, 'The Pink Panther' as the Owens-Corning product.  Sad to say, I live for this sort of thing:)