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
The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-203/02)
Judgment
Law
Plea alleging infringement of Article…
The second part of the plea, alleging…
—Findings of the Court
41

The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-203/02)

Judgment of 8 Jul 2004law://eu/cjeu/2002/t-203-02/para_41@2026-11-11

41As to the extent of the use to which the earlier trade mark has been put, account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of the overall use, as well as of the length of the period during which the mark was used and the frequency of use.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-203/02 · ECLI:EU:T:2004:225
Decided: 8 Jul 2004
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: The Sunrider Corp.
Defendants: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); Juan Espadafor Caba
Rapporteur: Pirrung
Bench: 2 judges
A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002TJ0203

Topics

History · 1 version

8 Jul 2004Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Implementing Technologies, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-544/24); Implementing Technologies, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-545/24); 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); 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); 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-32/24); 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-390/23); Rústicas del Guadalquivir SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-301/24); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-340/23); Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-404/24); Kartroi LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1/24); Noster Finance SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-263/24); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1103/23); Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-402/24); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1104/23); K-Way SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-372/24); 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); Bella Tawziaa II, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1085/23); RTL Group Markenverwaltungs GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1088/23)
Cites 9: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-308/01); Scan Office Design SA v Commission of the European Communities (T-40/01); Jean M. Goulbourn v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-174/01); Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-39/01); 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; MFE Marienfelde GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-334/01); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark