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
Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01)
Judgment
The questions referred for a prelimina…
Preliminary considerations
33

Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01)

Judgment of 6 May 2003law://eu/cjeu/2001/c-104-01/para_33@2026-11-10

33It follows that filing a sample of a colour does not per se constitute a graphic representation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Full Court
Case: C-104/01 · ECLI:EU:C:2003:244
Decided: 6 May 2003
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Libertei Groep BV
Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau
Rapporteur: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Advocate General: P. Léger
Bench: 8 judges
M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, F. Macken, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001CJ0104

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

History · 1 version

6 May 2003Reading

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 24: OMV AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-38/24); Visable v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-323/24); Lotus Bakeries v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1096/23); Chiquita Brands LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-426/23); Väderstad Holding AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-361/23); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-568/23); Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-652/22); BIW Invest AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-747/22); BIW Invest AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-746/22); bet365 Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-764/22); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/22); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-276/22); Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland and Guangdong Camel Apparel Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-562/21); Lemken GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/21); Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-168/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-278/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-279/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-280/21); Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-669/20); Hasbro, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-663/19); Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-193/18); CEDC International sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-796/16)2 provisions; Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-187/19)
Cites 13: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; 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); 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); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97); LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (C-291/00); SA CNL-SUCAL NV v HAG GF AG (C-10/89); Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v Ronald Karel Deenik (C-63/97); Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB (C-329/95); The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen (C-292/89)