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 KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-363/99)
Judgment
The sixth question
The Court's reply
70

Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-363/99)

law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-363-99/para_70@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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Sixth Chamber
Case: C-363/99 · ECLI:EU:C:2004:86
Decided: 12 Feb 2004
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV
Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau
Rapporteur: F. Macken
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 4 judges
C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61999CJ0363

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

History · 1 version

12 Feb 2004Reading

Judgment of 12 Feb 2004

70In particular, it is thus not open to the competent authority to conclude that a mark is not devoid of any distinctive character in relation to certain goods or services purely on the ground that it is not descriptive of them.

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

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 25: Fisher Investments Europe Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-465/25); Gianfranco Emanuele and Dorte Hansen v European Parliament (T-228/24); Lunar Outpost Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-513/24); Paul Hartmann AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-429/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-90/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-89/24); BIW Invest AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-746/22); BIW Invest AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-747/22); Biogena GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-87/23); Weider Germany GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-45/22); LG Electronics, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-741/21); Krematorium am Waldfriedhof Schwäbisch Hall GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-319/22); Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-168/21); Task Food s.r.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-686/21); Vitronic Dr.-Ing. Stein Bildverarbeitungssysteme GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-433/21); Skechers USA, Inc. II v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-598/20); Yadex International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-560/20); Yadex International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-559/20); repowermap.org v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-872/16); easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-858/19); Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken v Patent-och registreringsverket (C-456/19); Aldi GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-522/19); Clatronic International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-5/19); Isigny - Sainte Mère v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-546/19); Sky plc and Others v Skykick UK Limited and Skykick Inc (C-371/18)
Cites 10: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97); Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. (C-517/99); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99); Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger (C-108/97, C-109/97); Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (C-191/01 P); Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00); Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc. and Rado Uhren AG (C-53/01, C-54/01, C-55/01); Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex (C-283/01); Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01)