“Louboutin and Christian Louboutin”

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Jul 2018

1. 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not consist exclusively of a ‘shape’, within the meaning of that provision.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-018-0743-x.pdf

“Louboutin and Christian Louboutin”

EC, Arts. D E C I S I O N T R A D E M A R K L A W European Union Christian Louboutin Christian Louboutin SAS v. Van Haren Schoenen BV Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity; 3D mark; Colour; Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product; Red sole; High-heeled shoe - Available at http://curia.europa.eu.


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-018-0743-x.pdf

Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin SAS v. Van Haren Schoenen BV Directive 2008/95/EC, Arts. 2, 3(1)(e)(iii). “Louboutin and Christian Louboutin”, IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2018, 1-1, DOI: 10.1007/s40319-018-0743-x