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
Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH (C-49/02)
Judgment
The questions referred
27

Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH (C-49/02)

Judgment of 24 Jun 2004law://eu/cjeu/2002/c-49-02/para_27@2026-11-10

27The function of the requirement of graphic representation is in particular to define the mark itself in order to determine the precise subject of the protection afforded by the registered mark to its proprietor.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-49/02 · ECLI:EU:C:2004:384
Decided: 24 Jun 2004
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Rapporteur: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Advocate General: P. Léger
Bench: 4 judges
J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002CJ0049

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

History · 1 version

24 Jun 2004Reading

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 17: OMV AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-38/24); Lotus Bakeries v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1096/23); VistaJet ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-195/24); Chiquita Brands LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-426/23); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-568/23); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/22); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-276/22); Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-168/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-280/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-278/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/21); Daimler AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-279/21); 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); Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-187/19); Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-124/18 P)9 provisions; adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17)
Cites 7: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Hermès International (a partnership limited by shares) v FHT Marketing Choice BV (C-53/96); Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01); Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-363/99); The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen (C-292/89); Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB (C-329/95); Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00)