Choose the experimental features you want to try

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)

    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.


    Top