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
Eurocool Logistik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/00)
Judgment
Law
The claim for annulment of paragraph 1…
The third plea, alleging infringement…
—Findings of the Court
39

Eurocool Logistik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/00)

Judgment of 27 Feb 2002law://eu/cjeu/2000/t-34-00/para_39@2026-11-10

39Finally, it is clear from the wording of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 that a minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient to render inapplicable the ground for refusal set out in that article.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-34/00 · ECLI:EU:T:2002:41
Decided: 27 Feb 2002
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH
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: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62000TJ0034

Topics

History · 1 version

27 Feb 2002Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Fisher Investments Europe Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-465/25); ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-471/25); MAN Truck & Bus SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-108/25); Loco-Soft Vertriebs GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-485/25); ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-131/25); Atlas Invest BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-117/25); LG Electronics, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-252/24); Frutaria Innovation SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-381/24); Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-582/24); Montres Tudor SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-444/24); Summer Fridays LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-472/24); Iceland Foods Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-106/23); Iceland Foods Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-105/23); Ardeshir Ghiassi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1153/23); Transport Werk GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-234/24); Shorts International Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-89/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-90/24); Victor Waskito Purwana v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-73/24); eBilet Polska sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-197/24); Washtower IP BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-376/23); Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-82/24); Erzeugergemeinschaft Winzersekt GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-470/23); Sophienwald AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-597/22); The Not Company SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-320/23)
Cites 9: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Procter & Gamble v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-122/99); Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-87/00); 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); 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); Transocean Marine Paint Association v Commission of the European Communities (C-17/74)