Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

European Union
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99)
Judgment
The fourth question
Findings of the Court
77

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99)

law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-299-99/para_77@2026-11-13

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

History · 1 version

18 Jun 2002Reading

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Full Court
Case: C-299/99 · ECLI:EU:C:2002:377
Decided: 18 Jun 2002
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
Defendant: Remington Consumer Products Ltd
Rapporteur: F. Macken
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 10 judges
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, C.W.A. Timmermans
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61999CJ0299

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

77The various grounds for refusal of registration listed in Article 3 of the Directive must be interpreted in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (see, to that effect, Windsurfing Chiemsee, paragraphs 25 to 27).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Judgment of 18 Jun 2002

Connections

Interprets 1: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
Cited by 20: Lami Packaging (Kunshan) Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-104/25)2 provisions; Kct GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/25); Plusmusic AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-344/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-545/21); Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-809/19); Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (C-237/19); Sky plc and Others v Skykick UK Limited and Skykick Inc (C-371/18); Rubik's Brand Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-601/17); Roxtec AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-261/18); Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-117/18, T-118/18, T-119/18, T-120/18, T-121/18)2 provisions; adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17); Textilis Ltd and Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag (C-21/18)2 provisions; Pirelli Tyre SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-447/16)2 provisions; Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-44/16); Basic Net SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-612/15); Flamagas, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-580/15); Tractel Greifzug GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/15); Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-112/13); Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-30/15 P)2 provisions; Zuffa, LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-590/14)
Cites 7: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger (C-108/97, C-109/97); Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc. and Rado Uhren AG (C-53/01, C-54/01, C-55/01); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97); Frits Loendersloot, trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others (C-349/95); Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers and Brunhilde Schrage (C-270/97, C-271/97); Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt - Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung (C-210/96)