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
Pedro Díaz SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-85/02)
Judgment
Law
Findings of the Court
Likelihood of confusion between the tr…
44

Pedro Díaz SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-85/02)

Judgment of 4 Nov 2003law://eu/cjeu/2002/t-85-02/para_44@2026-11-11

44Those considerations suffice to show that the positive reputation of an earlier mark may, at least in some cases, contribute to the highly distinctive character of a trade mark and, therefore, may increase the likelihood of confusion between that mark and a mark applied for.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-85/02 · ECLI:EU:T:2003:288
Decided: 4 Nov 2003
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Pedro Díaz, SA
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Forwood
Bench: 2 judges
J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij
Language: Spanish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62002TJ0085

Topics

History · 1 version

4 Nov 2003Reading

Connections

Cited by 22: Yadex International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-209/23); LG Electronics, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-21/20); China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-665/17)2 provisions; M & K Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-171/17); Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-336/16); Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly Gat Microencapsulation AG) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-720/13); La Rioja Alta, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-489/13); Stayer Ibérica, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-254/13); Micrus Endovascular LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-218/12); Asos plc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-647/11); Genebre, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-520/11); Apollo Tyres AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-109/11); Paul Hartmann AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-504/11); Thomas Müller v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-662/11); HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-445/10); Conceria Kara Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-270/10); Giorgio Armani SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-420/10); Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-424/09); Chickmouza Chabou v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-323/10); PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-580/08)2 provisions; Lan Airlines SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-194/09)2 provisions; Icebreaker Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-112/09)
Cites 8: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-104/01); T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (T-1/99); 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; Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-237/01); Sykes Enterprises, Incorp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-130/01)