BREAKING - Louboutin case referred to CJEU: can a colour be a shape?

The shape colour red
Via a precious Katfriend who wishes to remain anonymous but nonetheless tweets as @TreatyNotifier comes the news that a new reference for a preliminary ruling in the area of trade marks has just been made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 

This is in the context of long-running litigation over the (in)famous Louboutin red soles.

The question for the CJEU to address is whether the notion of 'shape' within Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 is limited to three-dimensional elements of a product or can also include two-dimensional ones like, for instance, a colour.

Article 3 sets the absolute grounds for refusal of registration. Article 3(1)(iii) prevents registration of signs which consist exclusively of the 'shape' which gives substantial value to the goods.

This Kat understands that not all language versions of the directive speak of 'shape'. Indeed, the French version refers to 'forme', the German version speaks of 'form', and the Italian version speaks of 'forma'. In Italian a 'forma' is not necessarily three-dimensional, but can also be two-dimensional, and the same is true in French and German as well.

So is the English (and possibly Dutch?) version of the directive unduly restrictive?

As reported by IE Forum, this is question (in Dutch) that the Rechtbank den Haag has just referred to everybody's favourite court:

"Is het begrip vorm in de zin van artikel 3 lid 1e onder iii van Richtlijn 2008/95/EG (in de Duitse, Engelse en Franse versie van de Merkenrichtlijn respectievelijk Form, shape en forme) beperkt tot de driedimensionale eigenschappen van de waar zoals de/het (‘in drie dimensies uit te drukken') contouren, afmetingen en volume daarvan, dan wel ziet deze bepaling mede op andere (niet-driedimensionale,) eigenschappen van de waar zoals kleur?"

Stay tuned because as soon as further information becomes available, this blog will duly report.
[Originally published on The IPKat on 9 March 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more