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
The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-416/04 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
44

The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-416/04 P)

Judgment of 11 May 2006law://eu/cjeu/2004/c-416-04/para_44@2026-11-12

44It follows that it is for the proprietor of the earlier trade mark who has given notice of opposition to furnish proof that he consented to the alleged use of that trade mark by a third party.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-416/04 P · ECLI:EU:C:2006:310
Decided: 11 May 2006
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: The Sunrider Corp.
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: M. Ilešič
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs
Bench: 5 judges
P. Jann, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, M. Ilešič
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62004CJ0416

Topics

History · 1 version

11 May 2006Reading

Connections

Cited by 23: Vitabalans Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-410/25); Mostostal S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-663/24); Heinz Thomas Altendorfer v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-297/25); Athom Holding BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-618/24); Lavrentios Lavrentiadis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-515/24); Centex SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/25); Homestar sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-611/24); Confrasilvas - Construções S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-557/24); Vinatis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-86/24); JSherwood sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-448/24); Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-404/24); Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-121/24); Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-128/24); AirPlus International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-407/24); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1104/23)2 provisions; Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1103/23)2 provisions; Laura Food Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-95/24); Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-679/20); Unite Network SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1186/23); e-dialog GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1075/23); Rosalia Vila Tobella v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-118/24); Tes Electrical Electronic Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-517/23); Tecom Master, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1053/23)
Cites 12: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; The Sunrider Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-203/02); La Mer Technology Inc. v Laboratoires Goemar SA (C-259/02); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark; Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-206/04 P); Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-361/04 P); GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-308/01); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97); BioID AG, en liquidation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-37/03 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01)