Reports of Cases

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

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• Directive 2008/95 : paragraphs 20, 22
• Directive 2008/95 -A02 : paragraph 3
• Directive 2008/95 -A03 : paragraph 4
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT3 : paragraphs 1, 17 - 19, 23, 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -201/13 -N19 : paragraph 20

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT3

Opinion 1

• Directive 2008/95 : points 5, 25, 32
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03 : point 4
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LB : point 27
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LE : points 1, 22, 27, 28, 46 - 50, 52, 55, 58 - 60, 64, 65
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT3 : points 16, -18, 66, 67, 73
  
• Regulation 207/2009 -A07P1LE : point 5
  
• Directive 2015/2436 : points 8, 64
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -A04P1LE : point 61
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -A04P1LEPT3 : point 5
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -C13 : point 62
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N76 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 : points 28, 43, 47, 56
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N48 : point 20
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N49 : point 20
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N53 : point 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N54 : point 46
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N55 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N60 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N61 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N62 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N63 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N64 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N65 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N66 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N67 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N68 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/02 -N39 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -447/02 -N79 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/06 -N25 : point 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/06 -N26 : point 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/06 -N27 : point 70
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/09 -N52 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/09 -N68 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/09 -N69 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/09 -N70 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/09 -N72 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -337/12 -N54 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N31 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N32 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N33 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N79 : point 71
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N80 : point 71
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N18 : point 53
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N20 : point 53
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N21 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N31 : point 68
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N32 : point 68
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N34 : point 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -205/13 -N35 : point 69
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -30/15 -N49 : point 34
  

Opinion 2

• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A23 : point 8
  
• Directive 2008/95 : points 9, 23, 35, 51, 54
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LB : points 57, 65 - 66
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LE : points 38, 41, 48, 57, 60
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT1 : points 50, 52
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT2 : points 50, 52
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEPT3 : points 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 23, 27 - 29, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 65, 67
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A04P1LEPT3 : points 27, 32
  
• Directive 2008/95 -A06 : point 37
  
• Regulation 207/2009 -A07P1LEPT3 : point 27
  
• Regulation 1001/2011 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (2012) -A60P3 : point 3
  
• Directive 2015/2436 : points 39, 42
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -A04P1LE : point 41
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -A04P1LEPT3 : point 35
  
• Directive 2015/2436 -A14 : points 37, 38
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 : points 25, 26
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 -A03P3 : point 33
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 -A03P3LC : point 31
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 -A03P3LD : points 24, 28 - 31, 34
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 -A03P3LF : point 31
  
• Regulation 1431/2017 -A03P4 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N83 : point 50
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -53/01 -N43 : point 9
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N47 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N53 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N54 : point 60
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/02 -N30 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/02 -N31 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/04 -N28 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/04 -N31 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -429/10 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 : point 9
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N89 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N90 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N91 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -205/13 -N92 : point 48
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -421/13 : point 9
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -163/16 : point 4
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 21/03/2016

Date of the Opinion

• 22/06/2017

• 06/02/2018

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

12/06/2018

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 276 from 06.08.2018, p.2

Application: OJ C 211 from 13.06.2016, p.30

Name of the parties

Louboutin and Christian Louboutin

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Schmitz, Philip: EuGH: Eintragungshindernis „wertbestimmende Form" erfasst nicht Schuhsohlenfarbe, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht PRAX 2018 n°13 p.301 (DE)
2. Uphoff, Boris: Postionsmarken, die die Position einer bestimmten Farbe an einer bestimmten Stelle der Ware bezeichnen, sind nach der Markenrechtsrichtlinie grundsätzlich eintragungsfähig., Betriebs-Berater 2018 N°33 p.1870 (DE)
3. Ruess, Peter: Auf roten Sohlen – Formal Form oder Position. Zugleich Besprechung von EuGH „Louboutin/Van Haren, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2018 p.898-901 (DE)
4. Teilmann-Lock, Stina ; Brun Petersen, Trine: Louboutin's red sole mark and the logics of fashion, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2018 Vol. 13 nº 11 p.890-895 (EN)
5. Gommers, Carina ; De Pauw, Eva ; Mariano, Matteo: Louboutin v Van Haren: white flag for red soles or provisional truce?, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2018 Vol. 13 nº 11 p.909-916 (EN)
6. Teunissen, P.: Vormen, Kleuren en kenmerken onder de oude en nieuwe Merkenrichtlijn, Berichten industriële eigendom 2018 n°5 p.209-214 (NL)
7. Basire, Yann: Directive 2008/95/CE, art. 3 § 1 e) iii) - Signe constitué exclusivement par la forme - Couleur - Valeur substantielle du produit, Propriétés intellectuelles 2018 n° 69 p.63-64 (FR)
8. Dulkowska, Natalia: Kolor i kształt jako przedmiot ochrony znaku towarowego, Prawo Europejskie w praktyce 2018 Nr 11/12 p.31-36 (PL)
9. Brancusi, Lavinia: Trade marks' functionality in EU law : expected new trends after the Louboutin case, European Intellectual Property Review 2019 Vol. 41, Issue 2 p.98-106 (EN)
10. Janssens, Marie-Christine: Merkenrecht - Kleurmerk -Positiemerk - Uitsluiting voor vormen - Overgangsrecht, S.E.W. : Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 2019 n.1 p.42-47 (NL)
11. Wojewόdzka-Gielecka, Joanna: Czerwony kolor podeszwy szpilek jako znak towarowy Christian Louboutin, Monitor Prawniczy 2019 Vol. 6 p.340-344 (PL)
12. Millisits, Endre: Egy „talpalattnyi” védjegy – az Európai Bíróság ítélete a Louboutin-ügyben, Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle 2019 3. szám p.71-80 (HU)
13. Sztobryn, Karolina: Czy kolor może być kształtem? - glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 12.06.2018 r., C-163/16, Christian Louboutin i Christian Louboutin Sas przeciwko van Haren Schoenen BV, Glosa : Przegląd Prawa Gospodarczego 2019 Vol.1 p.86-93 (PL)
14. Berendschot, Huib ; Janssens, Karel: On the question of whether the restriction on registering shapes as trade marks may also apply to shapes combining three-dimensional features of a product with other properties such as colours – Case, Landmark IP Decisions of the European Court of Justice (2014-2018) (Larcier) 2019 p. 233-238 (EN)
15. Űstűnkaya, Tomruk: Fashion law: an exploration of trade marks and passing off : Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV (C-163/16), European Intellectual Property Review 2021 p. 181-193 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Rechtbank Den Haag - Netherlands

Subject-matter

• Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  
• - Trade marks
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Convention Benelux en matière de propriété intellectuelle (marques et dessins ou modèles) (25/02/2005), art. 2.1, par. 2

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Juhász

Advocate General

Szpunar

Szpunar

Language(s) of the Case

• Dutch
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French