This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0631
Case T-631/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)
Case T-631/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)
Case T-631/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)
IO C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 16–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.10.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 380/16 |
Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)
(Case T-631/14)
2014/C 380/21
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2014 in Case R 1591/2013-1 to the extent that opposition No B 1 9 22 890 is fully upheld and Community trade mark application No 008845539 is rejected; |
— |
in the alternative: annul the contested decision; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christian Louboutin
Community trade mark concerned: Other marks, which consist of a nuance of the colour red, which is applied to the sole of a shoe, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8845539
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roland SE
Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘my SHOES’, for goods in Class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law:
— |
Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |