I'd have argued that the red soles were indeed intended to be for identification only. Anything else is a function of people's perceptions (e.g. beauty is in th

I'd have argued that the red soles were indeed intended to be for identification only. Anything else is a function of people's perceptions (e.g. beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) Lest we argue that red soles are aesthetically functional as well, regardless of the designer's intent, let's consider the possible repercussions of pink insulation when applied inside transparent walls. Or perhaps the calming effect the color has on installers. Now, the pink is functional. Does that make it less able to be protected? I really think it goes back to the intent of the creator/designer/architect of the product. The designer of the shoes seems to have argued the aesthetic qualities of the color on the sole and therefore nullified his ability to claim the use of color was not "functional." If he'd held out with the argument that his intent was identity, he may have won.