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
Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (C-353/03)
Judgment
The question referred
26

Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (C-353/03)

Judgment of 7 Jul 2005law://eu/cjeu/2003/c-353-03/para_26@2026-11-10

26In regard to acquisition of distinctive character through use, the identification, by the relevant class of persons, of the product or service as originating from a given undertaking must be as a result of the use of the mark as a trade mark (judgment in Philips, paragraph 64).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-353/03 · ECLI:EU:C:2005:432
Decided: 7 Jul 2005
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA
Defendant: Mars UK Ltd
Rapporteur: C. Gulmann
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
C.W.A. Timmermans, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann, P. Kūris, G. Arestis
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62003CJ0353

Topics

Approximation of laws System of property ownership

History · 1 version

7 Jul 2005Reading

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 24: Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-90/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-89/24); Piaggio & C. SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-19/22); Plusmusic AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-344/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-545/21); Beauty Biosciences LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-750/21); Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-175/22); Devin EAD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-526/20); The Bazooka Companies, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-273/21); Lemken GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/21); Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/22); VF International Sagl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-518/20); VF International Sagl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-517/20); Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-809/19); Galletas Gullón, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-677/18); Igor Zhadanov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-404/18); Igor Zhadanov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-492/18); Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-13/18); Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-117/18, T-118/18, T-119/18, T-120/18, T-121/18)2 provisions; adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17); Marriott Worldwide Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-28/18); Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-465/18); Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-466/18); Adapta Color, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-223/17)
Cites 3: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99); Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger (C-108/97, C-109/97)