Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2017:765

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

12 October 2017 (*)

(Reopening of the oral part of the procedure — Holding of a hearing)

In Case C‑163/16,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court, The Hague, Netherlands), made by decision of 9 March 2016, received at the Court on 21 March 2016, in the proceedings

Christian Louboutin,

Christian Louboutin SAS


Van Haren Schoenen BV,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, L. Bay Larsen, T. von Danwitz, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, E. Levits and C. Vajda, Presidents of Chambers, E. Juhász (Rapporteur), J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, S. Rodin, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe and C. Lycourgos, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Szpunar,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following


1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

2        The request has been made in infringement proceedings between Mr Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin SAS, on the one hand, and Van Haren Schoenen BV, on the other, concerning the marketing by the latter company of footwear that could infringe the trademark registered by the applicants to the main proceedings with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property.

3        On 28 February 2017 the Court decided to refer the case to the Ninth Chamber. The hearing was held on 6 April 2017, the Advocate General delivered his opinion on 22 June 2017, then the oral part of the procedure was closed.

4        Taking the view that the case raised issues of principle involving Union law on trade marks, the Ninth Chamber decided, on 13 September 2017, to refer the case to the Court for the purposes of its reassignment to a formation composed of a greater number of judges, pursuant to Article 60(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.

5        Subsequently, the Court decided to reassign the present case to the Grand Chamber.

6        Therefore, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, after hearing the Advocate General, it is therefore necessary to order the reopening of the oral part of the procedure and to request the parties to attend a new hearing.

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders:

1.      The oral part of the procedure in Case C163/16 is reopened.

2.      The date of the hearing will be set at a later stage.

3.      The costs are reserved.


*      Language of the case: Dutch.