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
MFE Marienfelde GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-334/01)
Judgment
Law
Merits
The plea alleging infringement of the…
—Findings of the Court
35

MFE Marienfelde GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-334/01)

Judgment of 8 Jul 2004law://eu/cjeu/2001/t-334-01/para_35@2026-11-10

35Concerning the extent of the use made of the earlier mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of all the acts of use on the one hand and the duration of the period in which those acts of use occurred, and the frequency of those acts, on the other.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-334/01 · ECLI:EU:T:2004:223
Decided: 8 Jul 2004
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: MFE Marienfelde GmbH
Defendants: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); Vétoquinol AG
Rapporteur: Pirrung
Bench: 2 judges
J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001TJ0334

Topics

History · 1 version

8 Jul 2004Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Viva Credit IFN SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-72/25); Centex SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/25); 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-340/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-32/24); Kartroi LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1/24); Noster Finance SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-263/24); Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-402/24); Nio Holding Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-593/23); Nio Holding Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-598/23); Sven Benschop v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-76/24); Airbnb, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-94/24); Airbnb, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1032/23); Bella Tawziaa II, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1085/23); e-dialog GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1075/23); Rosalia Vila Tobella v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-118/24); Tes Electrical Electronic Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-517/23); Lucien Haddad v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-538/23); ePlus Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-604/23); Georgi Kirov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-149/23); Dr. Neumann & Kindler GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-673/22); Dr. Neumann & Kindler GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-674/22); Quatrotec Electrónica, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-792/22); Noah Clothing LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-562/22); Olive Line International, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-52/23)
Cites 9: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Jean M. Goulbourn v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-174/01); Streamserve Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-150/02); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01); Streamserve Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-106/00); Kabushiki Kaisha Fernandes v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-39/01); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark; SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-323/00)