Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today given its judgment in relation to a key issue in one of the most hotly debated trade mark disputes in recent times. Should Louboutin’s iconic red soled high heels be afforded trade mark protection?
Luxury shoe designer Christian Louboutin sued Van Haren for infringement of its registered trade mark for the colour red (Pantone 18-1663TP) applied to the sole of a high heeled shoe. One of the challenges to the validity of the trade mark had to do with whether the mark consisted exclusively of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods. We reported on the opinion of the Advocate General back in February, and that review provided the context to this question. The Advocate General may have given Louboutin some cause for concern.
The CJEU has now given its judgment on this issue, in favour of Louboutin. It found that the particular colour red as applied to the soles of high heeled shoes does not consist 'exclusively' of a shape (rather, it protects the colour, as applied to a specific part of a product) and so the trade mark did not fall foul of article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95.
Louboutin has naturally welcomed this decision, as it takes the brand a step closer towards successful enforcement of its trade mark. The case now returns to the referring Dutch court for final judgment.
Following an MP debate on 5 November 2019, the government is due to release long-awaited guidance as to how it intends to protect workers in the retail industry against violence, harassment and abuse.
View blog
In Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Limited, the Employment Tribunal has considered the implications of dress codes on men.
In a lengthy majority judgment accompanied by two powerful dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court found yesterday that land acquired and held for statutory purposes cannot be registered as a village green where that registration is incompatible with the statutory purpose for which it is held.
Some commentators had anticipated that persisting retail sector challenges might disrupt more than the make-up of the high street or commercial property negotiations between landlords and tenants.
Partner
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up