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
Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-185/02)
Judgment
Substance
Second plea in law: breach of procedur…
Findings of the Court
31

Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-185/02)

Judgment of 22 Jun 2004law://eu/cjeu/2002/t-185-02/para_31@2026-11-12

31The object of the rule of law stated in Article 74(1) in fine of Regulation No 40/94 is to relieve OHIM of the task of investigating the facts itself in the context of proceedings between parties. That object is not compromised if OHIM takes well-known facts into account.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-185/02 · ECLI:EU:T:2004:189
Decided: 22 Jun 2004
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicants: Claude Ruiz-Picasso; Paloma Ruiz-Picasso and 3 more
Maya Widmaier-Picasso; Marina Ruiz-Picasso; Bernard Ruiz-Picasso
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Pirrung
Bench: 2 judges
J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002TJ0185

Topics

History · 1 version

22 Jun 2004Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: MAN Truck & Bus SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-108/25); Rigo Trading SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-215/24); AirPlus International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-407/24); Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (INAO) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-239/23); Techtex SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-327/24); AirPlus International GmbH, anciennement Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-241/24); Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH - Glashütte/Sa. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1163/23); Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Ruiz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1099/23); Väderstad Holding AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-361/23); Hanns Pfriem v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-316/23); Productos Ibéricos Calderón y Ramos, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-384/22); Tecnica Group SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-483/20); Healios KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-591/19); e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-834/19); Smiley Miley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-368/20); Nosio SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-300/20); Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-261/19); Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-859/19); Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-860/19); smart things solutions GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-48/19); Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-367/18); Oakley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-744/18); MAN Truck & Bus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-792/17); MAN Truck & Bus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-698/17); Andrea Incontri Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-197/16)
Cites 10: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (C-206/01); SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (C-251/95); Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-308/01); Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt - Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung (C-210/96); Chef Revival USA Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-232/00); Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-162/01); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-292/01)