Chiristian Louboutin famous for his red-soled shoes has lost a lawsuit against Zara, and has been ordered to pay $3,600 (£2000) to the high street retailer. According to Grazia, Louboutin filed a lawsuit against Zara in 2008 claiming Zara sold a pair of slingbacks that were far too similar to a Louboutin design. The Zara version cost around $70 (£40) , while the Loubs cost nearly $700 (£400). Louboutin won the suit, but Zara, not one to give up easily, fired back with an appeal in 2011, citing there was no way that a customer would confuse the two. Now France’s final court of appeal Cour de Cassation has ruled in favour of Zara and has fined Louboutin. First Christian Louboutin accused Yves Saint Laurent of mimicking the scarlet signature of his famous shoes (and the court battle rages on), then Jessica Simpson was under attack for copy-catting Louby’s designs before Zara was taken to court for doing the very same thing. Who do you side with? Do you think Zara are trying to get customers confused by using the red sole as well? I personally do not care. Louboutins have always had a signature red sole. Would Zara detract from that signature with this move? Definitely. But it doesn’t change the fact, I’d buy a Zara shoe any day but never because of its red sole. Would you still buy a Louboutin shoe for a fortune or would you settle for the more affordable, high street yet red-soled Zara?