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
L'Oréal SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-112/03)
Judgment
Law
The first plea in law: infringement of…
Findings of the Court
26

L'Oréal SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-112/03)

Judgment of 16 Mar 2005law://eu/cjeu/2003/t-112-03/para_26@2026-11-11

26However, genuine use of the earlier mark is a matter which, once raised by the applicant for the trade mark, must be settled before a decision is given on the opposition proper.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-112/03 · ECLI:EU:T:2005:102
Decided: 16 Mar 2005
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: L'Oréal SA
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Meij
Bench: 3 judges
J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij, I. Pelikánová
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62003TJ0112

Topics

History · 1 version

16 Mar 2005Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Savencia SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-481/24); 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); People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-279/24); People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-278/24); People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/24); People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-281/24); IServ GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-15/24); IServ GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-16/24); Fidia farmaceutici SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-497/23); KHG GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-608/22); Vobro sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-29/23); Arkadiusz Chmielarz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-557/22); Zalina Tavitova v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-662/22); Sebastiano Gioioso v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-423/21); ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-288/21); Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-357/21); Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-210/21); Degode-Dermago Development GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-715/20); Team Beverage AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-359/20); Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-353/20); Xiuling Guo v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-505/20); Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-817/19); Enoport - Produção de Bebidas Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-811/19); Almea Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-190/20)
Cites 12: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-292/01); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark; Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-308/01); El Corte Inglés, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (T-183/02, T-184/02); Jean-Pierre Koubi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-10/03); Robert Bosch GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-79/01, T-86/01); Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-162/01); Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-6/01); 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; Streamserve Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-106/00)