• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Louboutin victorious in the battle over the famous red sole

12. June 2018

Louboutin won today before the ECJ in the long-standing dispute over his famous high heels and the striking red shoe sole. The ruling is particularly important for trademark protection of combinations of shape and color, which is especially important for well-known brand names.

The ECJ answered the question referred by the Dutch court: Does the term “shape” in the EU Trademark Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC) also include properties which do not concern shape in the sense of three-dimensional structure, but, for example, the positioning of a certain colour in the trademark?

The background is the long-running legal dispute against Europe’s largest shoe retailer Deichmann over the use of red shoe soles. Van Haaren, a subsidiary of Deichmann, marketed a women’s shoe collection in 2012 called “5th Avenue – by Halle Berry”, which included black pumps with red soles. Louboutin was able to force a sales stop (we reported), but the dispute was not over. The Dutch court, before which Louboutin had brought an action against Vant Haaren, asked the ECJ for a precise interpretation of the term “form”.

ECJ sees shape as protection for position of colour

Louboutin red soleThe ECJ clearly affirms this question in the affirmative. “A trade mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is not covered by the prohibition on registration of shapes. Such a mark does not consist “exclusively of the shape” within the meaning of the Trade Mark Directive,” the European Court clarifies.

It does not follow from the usual meaning of the word “shape” that a colour per se may constitute a shape without spatial limitation, the Court held. However, the description of the mark expressly states that the contour of the shoe is not covered by the mark but serves only to show the position of the red colour covered by the registration. Therefore, the mark does not refer to a specific shape of the sole of high-heeled shoes, but the shape is intended to protect the application of a colour to a specific part of that product.

The Court thus confirmed at the same time that the fact that a colour is applied to a product, which thus in practice constitutes a spatial limitation of the colour, does not mean that the shape becomes part of the trade mark.

Furthermore, the Court held that a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as exclusively consisting of the shape if, as in the present case, its principal subject-matter is a colour determined according to an internationally recognised identification code.

Today’s Judgment contradicts the Advocate General’s Opinion

The court thus contradicted the opinion of his Advocate General (we reported: “Louboutins: Red sole is a Hallmark – but not a Trademark?! ). EU Advocate General Szpunar pleaded in 2017 and again in February 2018 for inadmissible trademark protection.
In his opinion, it could not be sufficient for trademark protection if colour and shape constitute the essential value of the product. The distinctiveness of colour marks is low, since consumers can hardly make a direct comparison with colour tones. That is even more so in the case of positional marks.

In fact, according to previous case-law, it is not the classification of the mark as a figurative, three-dimensional or positional mark which is relevant, but only the question whether it corresponds to the appearance of the product concerned. For the purposes of that provision, the term shape, which confers essential value on the product, concerns only the inherent value of the shape and does not allow the reputation of the mark to be taken into account.

 

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

ECJ C:2018:423 Louboutin vs. Van Haren Schoenen

Picture:

photosbylanty.com (Photos by Lanty) / Flickr.com / CC BY 2.0 (revised)

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag icon3D shape,  brand,  colour combination,  colour mark,  ECJ,  Form,  Louboutin,  positional mark,  Union Trade Mark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.