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

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

European Union
Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00)
Judgment
The first question
Findings of the Court
54

Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00)

Judgment of 12 Dec 2002law://eu/cjeu/2000/c-273-00/para_54@2026-11-10

54Finally, the object of the representation is specifically to avoid any element of subjectivity in the process of identifying and perceiving the sign. Consequently, the means of graphic representation must be unequivocal and objective.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice
Case: C-273/00 · ECLI:EU:C:2002:748
Decided: 12 Dec 2002
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Defendant: Ralf Sieckmann
Rapporteur: F. Macken
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 10 judges
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62000CJ0273

Topics

Approximation of laws Trade marks

History · 1 version

12 Dec 2002Reading

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: Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1172/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1170/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1171/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1173/23); Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-652/22); Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-487/21); Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-193/18); inMusic Brands, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-687/19); CEDC International sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-796/16)2 provisions; Sky plc and Others v Skykick UK Limited and Skykick Inc (C-371/18)2 provisions; Alliance Pharmaceuticals Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-279/18); AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-541/18); adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17); Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-223/18 P); Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-217/17 P); Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-68/16)2 provisions; Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-101/15, T-102/15)3 provisions; M/S. Indeutsch International v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-20/16); Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-16/16); Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-629/14)
Cites 5: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Frits Loendersloot, trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others (C-349/95); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99); Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers and Brunhilde Schrage (C-270/97, C-271/97); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97)