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
Ellos AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-219/00)
Judgment
Law
The first plea, alleging infringement…
Arguments of the parties
22

Ellos AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-219/00)

Judgment of 27 Feb 2002law://eu/cjeu/2000/t-219-00/para_22@2026-11-11

22The Office points out that assessment of ‘distinctive’ character must be carried out in an identical way for the products and services falling within the same sector and that that approach was confirmed by the Court in Case T-345/99 Harbinger v OHIM (TRUSTEDLINK) [2000] ECR II-3525, paragraph 39.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-219/00 · ECLI:EU:T:2002:44
Decided: 27 Feb 2002
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Ellos AB
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Mengozzi
Bench: 2 judges
V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62000TJ0219

Topics

History · 1 version

27 Feb 2002Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Verband der Islamischen Kulturzentren eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-377/24); Markt-Pilot GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-22/23); Canai Technology Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-25/22); Devin EAD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-526/20); Lotion LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-498/21); Standardkessel Baumgarte Holding GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-617/20); Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-60/20); Timo Beelow v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-702/20); Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-464/20); repowermap.org v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-872/16); Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-48/20); Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-809/19); Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-287/20); Daw SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-625/19); Daw SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-626/19); Off-White LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-133/19); Refan Bulgaria OOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-747/18); Boxer Barcelona, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-582/18); Porus GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-652/18); Fissler GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-423/18); Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-220/16); DeepMind Technologies Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-97/18); Arezzo Indústria e Comércio SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-256/18); Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-801/17); Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-803/17)
Cites 9: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Harbinger Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-345/99); Taurus-Film GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-136/99); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG (DKV) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-359/99); Taurus-Film GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-135/99); Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger (C-108/97, C-109/97); The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-24/00); Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH, formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-331/99)