Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

201807200332013482018/C 276/021632016CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO\_JUDICIAL201806122211

Case C-163/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product — Concept of ‘shape’ — Colour — Position on a part of the product — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 2 — Article 3(1)(e)(iii))

[Top](#document1)

C2762018EN210120180612EN00022121

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

(Case C-163/16) (
[1](#t-C_2018276EN.01000201-E0001)
)

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product — Concept of ‘shape’ — Colour — Position on a part of the product — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 2 — Article 3(1)(e)(iii))’

2018/C 276/02Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

Operative part of the judgment

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.

---

(
[1](#c-C_2018276EN.01000201-E0001)
) [OJ C 211, 13.6.2016](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2016:211:TOC).

[Top](#document2)