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
KWS Saat AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-447/02 P)
Judgment
The second ground of appeal
The first limb of the second ground of…
42

KWS Saat AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-447/02 P)

Judgment of 21 Oct 2004law://eu/cjeu/2002/c-447-02/para_42@2026-11-10

42In accordance with that provision, a Board of Appeal of the Office may base its decision only on matters of fact or of law on which the parties have been able to set out their views.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-447/02 P · ECLI:EU:C:2004:649
Decided: 21 Oct 2004
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: KWSSaat AG
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Advocate General: P. Léger
Bench: 4 judges
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002CJ0447

Topics

History · 1 version

21 Oct 2004Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Amphora Wineries AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-556/24); Centex SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/25); Rigo Trading SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-215/24); Giuliani SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-442/23); ZB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-507/23); ePlus Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-604/23); Schönegger Käse-Alm GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-161/23); Korres AE - Fysika Proionta v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-328/22); Ecoalf Recycled Fabrics, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-324/22); Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-477/21); Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-552/21); Pierre Lannier v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-530/21); Lemken GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/21); Think Schuhwerk GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-298/19); Collibra v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-128/20); Residencial Palladium, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-207/20); Skyliners GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-15/20); Novomatic AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-588/19); Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-157/20); Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-153/20); Hana Jareš Procházková and Antonín Jareš v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-656/18); BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-310/19); BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-309/19); Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-187/19); Koenig & Bauer AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-156/19)
Cites 10: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-74/00 P, C-75/00 P); Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB) (C-265/97 P); Biret International SA v Council of the European Union (C-93/02 P); KWS Saat AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-173/00); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Commission of the European Communities v Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's France SARL (C-367/95 P); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark; Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01)