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
Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01)
Judgment
The first question
25

Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01)

Judgment of 11 Mar 2003law://eu/cjeu/2001/c-40-01/para_25@2026-11-10

25It is necessary as a preliminary matter to determine whether, in relation to situations such as that in the main proceedings, the concept of ‘genuine use’ in Articles 10 and 12 of the Directive is to be interpreted uniformly within the Community legal order.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice
Case: C-40/01 · ECLI:EU:C:2003:145
Decided: 11 Mar 2003
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Ansul BV
Defendant: Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV
Rapporteur: J.-P. Puissochet
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 10 judges
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001CJ0040

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

History · 1 version

11 Mar 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 25: Implementing Technologies, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-545/24); Implementing Technologies, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-544/24); Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-77/25); MAX magazín s. r. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-114/25); Mostostal S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-663/24); Viva Credit IFN SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-72/25); Heinz Thomas Altendorfer v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-297/25); Land Oberösterreich v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-46/25); Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-564/24); Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-563/24); Centex SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/25); Siemens Healthineers AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1175/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-340/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-390/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-31/24); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-32/24); Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-301/24); Kartroi LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1/24); Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-404/24); Noster Finance SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-263/24); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1103/23); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1104/23); Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-402/24); K-Way SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-372/24); Nio Holding Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-598/23)
Cites 6: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Zino Davidoff SA v A & G Imports Ltd and Levi Strauss & Co. and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd and Others (C-414/99, C-415/99, C-416/99); Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (C-355/96); Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster (C-287/98); First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark