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
Biofarma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-154/03)
Judgment
Law
Findings of the Court
50

Biofarma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-154/03)

Judgment of 17 Nov 2005law://eu/cjeu/2003/t-154-03/para_50@2026-11-11

50Furthermore, the intervener's argument that the products, being administered differently, are not similar must be rejected. That difference is of less significance in the present case than the fact that the products concerned have a common nature and purpose.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · First Chamber
Case: T-154/03 · ECLI:EU:T:2005:401
Decided: 17 Nov 2005
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Biofarma SA
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Trstenjak
Bench: 3 judges
J.D. Cooke, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Trstenjak
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62003TJ0154

Topics

History · 1 version

17 Nov 2005Reading

Connections

Cited by 13: Weinart Handelsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-302/23); Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-490/22); Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-724/18, T-184/19)2 provisions; Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-254/15); Kitzinger & Co. (GmbH & Co. KG) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-249/10); Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-1/09); Kureha Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-487/08); Bayer Healthcare LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/08); GlaxoSmithkline SpA and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-493/07); Hipp & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-221/06); Ercros, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-315/06); Sanofi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-146/06); Armour Pharmaceutical Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-483/04)2 provisions
Cites 5: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Samar SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-115/03); 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)