Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 March 2018

Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Case T-629/16


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
06/04/2018 Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:T:2018:108
01/03/2018 Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:T:2018:108
01/03/2018 Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
Application (OJ)
14/10/2016 Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Regulation 2868/95 : paragraph 123
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R3P5 : paragraph 119
  • Directive 2008/95 -A05P2 : paragraph 214
  • Regulation 207/2009 : paragraphs 1, 53, 123
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P1LB : paragraphs 8, 11
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P2 : paragraph 23
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P5 : paragraphs 2, 8, 11, 17, 21 - 25, 29, 32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 54, 58, 66, 80, 113, 114, 129, 135, 147, 148, 151, 168, 200
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A41 : paragraph 6
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A65P6 : paragraph 102
  • Regulation 1431/2017 : paragraph 123
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -251/95 : paragraph 135
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/97 : paragraph 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -372/97 : paragraph 101
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -375/97 : paragraphs 25, 26, 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : paragraph 29
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -442/03 : paragraph 101
  • General Court - Judgment T -31/03 : paragraphs 32, 33
  • General Court - Judgment T -215/03 : paragraphs 24, 29, 41
  • General Court - Judgment T -29/04 : paragraph 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -67/04 : paragraph 40
  • General Court - Judgment T -256/04 : paragraph 31
  • General Court - Judgment T -477/04 : paragraphs 25, 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/05 : paragraph 53
  • General Court - Judgment T -181/05 : paragraphs 62, 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -488/06 : paragraph 135
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -252/07 : paragraphs 39, 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -252/07 : paragraphs 30, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 51
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -301/07 : paragraph 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/07 : paragraphs 29, 35 - 37, 43, 44, 46 - 48, 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -498/07 : paragraphs 32, 34
  • General Court - Judgment T -402/07 : paragraph 102
  • General Court - Judgment T -547/08 : paragraph 123
  • General Court - Judgment T -262/09 : paragraph 102
  • General Court - Judgment T -301/09 : paragraphs 32, 33
  • General Court - Judgment T -373/09 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Judgment T -32/10 : paragraph 31
  • General Court - Judgment T -332/10 : paragraph 39
  • General Court - Judgment T -369/10 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -65/12 : paragraphs 53 - 57, 61
  • General Court - Judgment T -131/12 : paragraph 28
  • General Court - Judgment T -288/12 : paragraph 31
  • General Court - Judgment T -331/12 : paragraph 123
  • General Court - Judgment T -455/12 : paragraph 107
  • General Court - Judgment T -480/12 : paragraph 39
  • General Court - Judgment T -518/13 : paragraphs 58, 61 - 63
  • General Court - Judgment T -624/13 : paragraph 45
  • General Court - Judgment T -71/14 : paragraph 31
  • General Court - Judgment T -145/14 : paragraph 13
  • General Court - Judgment T -201/14 : paragraph 52
  • General Court - Judgment T -692/14 : paragraph 107
  • Court of Justice - Order C -396/15 : paragraph 15

Operative part

Information not available

Opinion

Information not available


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 01/09/2016

Date of the Opinion

Information not available

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

01/03/2018


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 142 from 23.04.2018, p.45

Application: OJ C 402 from 31.10.2016, p.53

Name of the parties

Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Böker, Ulrike: EuG: Keine Positionsmarke für zwei parallele Streifen auf Schuhen, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht PRAX 2018 p.188 (DE)
  2. Sitko, Joanna: „Wszystkie pasy nasze są” – spór dotyczący czerpania nienależnych korzyści z renomy znaku towarowego, Glosa : Przegląd Prawa Gospodarczego 2018 Vol. 3 p. 57-67 (PL)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on substantive grounds
  • Actions for annulment : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility

Formation of the Court

neuvième chambre (Tribunal)

Judge-Rapporteur

Kowalik-Bańczyk

Advocate General

Information not available

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

    Information not available