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

European Union
Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-361/04 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first part of the plea in law
Findings of the Court
21

Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-361/04 P)

law://eu/cjeu/2004/c-361-04/para_21@2026-11-13

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-361/04 P · ECLI:EU:C:2006:25
Decided: 12 Jan 2006
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicants: Claude Ruiz-Picasso; Paloma Ruiz-Picasso and 3 more
Maya Widmaier-Picasso; Marina Ruiz-Picasso; Bernard Ruiz-Picasso
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: K. Schiemann
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 5 judges
P. Jann, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62004CJ0361

Topics

History · 1 version

12 Jan 2006Reading

Connections

Cited by 23: European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (C-328/18 P)3 provisions; Sergio Rossi SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-344/23); Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Ruiz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1099/23); Sandhold BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-540/23); Michal Darila v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-101/23); Rada Perfumery SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-439/22); FF IP Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-23/20); Smiley Miley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-368/20); Isaline Grangé and Alizée Van Strydonck v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-442/20); Capella EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-286/20); Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-284/20); Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-186/20); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini and J.M. EV e hijos SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-449/18); Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-135/19); IAK GmbH - Forum International v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-497/18); WhiteWave Services, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-176/17); MAN Truck & Bus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-792/17); MAN Truck & Bus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-698/17); Marriott Worldwide Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-28/18); Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-554/14); holyGhost GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-439/16); Hotelbeds Spain, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-346/17); Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-412/16)
Cites 6: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (C-206/01); SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (C-251/95); First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-185/02)

Judgment of 12 Jan 2006

21As OHIM rightly maintains, such a finding is, in this case, entirely part of the process designed to ascertain the overall impression given by those signs and to make a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion between them.

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