Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Roland v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe)

(Case T‑631/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe — Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 20, 21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe and figurative mark my SHOES (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34, 75-77)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 51, 58, 69, 72)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Figurative marks — Phonetic comparison (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2014 (Case R 1591/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Roland SE and Christian Louboutin.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Roland v OHIM — Louboutin (Nuance of red on the sole of a shoe)

(Case T‑631/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe — Earlier international figurative mark my SHOES — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 20, 21)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Mark consisting of a nuance of red on the sole of a shoe and figurative mark my SHOES (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34, 75-77)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 51, 58, 69, 72)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Figurative marks — Phonetic comparison (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2014 (Case R 1591/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Roland SE and Christian Louboutin.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;