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
Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-296/02)
Judgment
Findings of the Court
Substance
The goods in question
50

Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-296/02)

Judgment of 15 Feb 2005law://eu/cjeu/2002/t-296-02/para_50@2026-11-12

50Admittedly, sparkling wines, on the one hand, and the drinks covered by the trade mark application, on the other, have points in common as regards their basic ingredients and are often sold side by side both in shops and on drinks menus.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-296/02 · ECLI:EU:T:2005:49
Decided: 15 Feb 2005
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Lidi Stiftung & Co. KG
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Rapporteur: Meij
Bench: 3 judges
J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002TJ0296

Topics

History · 1 version

15 Feb 2005Reading

Connections

Cited by 19: Carmine Rotondaro v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-69/21); Sociedade da Água de Monchique, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-195/20)3 provisions; Nosio SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-300/20); Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-533/17); Asolo LTD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-150/17)2 provisions; Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-600/11); Mustafa Yilmaz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-584/10)2 provisions; Nordmilch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-546/10); Mustang - Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-379/08); Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-471/09); Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-213/09); 2nine Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-363/08); 2nine Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-364/08); Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-438/07); The Coca-Cola Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-175/06); Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-150/04)2 provisions; Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-28/04); Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-263/03); Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-351/04, T-352/04, T-350/04)2 provisions
Cites 9: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-104/01); 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); Institut für Lernsysteme GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-388/00); Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-308/01)