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
GfK AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-135/04)
Judgment
Merits
The first plea, alleging an infringeme…
Findings of the Court
40

GfK AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-135/04)

law://eu/cjeu/2004/t-135-04/para_40@2026-11-14

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: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-135/04 · ECLI:EU:T:2005:419
Decided: 24 Nov 2005
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: GfK AG
Defendants: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); BUS — Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs GmbH
Rapporteur: Vadapalas
Bench: 3 judges
H. Legal, P. Lindh, V. Vadapalas
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62004TJ0135

Topics

History · 1 version

24 Nov 2005Reading

Judgment of 24 Nov 2005

40Concerning, lastly, the black square in the form used, which is absent in the registered form, it is a basic geometrical figure and, for that reason, has no distinctive character. That conclusion is not influenced by its position in the form used.

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

Connections

Cited by 24: Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-340/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-31/24); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-390/23); Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-32/24); Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-860/19); Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-859/19); Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-78/19); Massive Bionics, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-223/16); Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-637/15); hyphen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-146/15)2 provisions; Menelaus BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-361/13); Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-215/13); Sabores de Navarra, AIE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-46/13); Hipp & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-41/09); New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-415/09); Epcos AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-132/09); Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-482/08); Esber, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-353/07); Hipp & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-221/06); Zero Industry Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-400/06); Orsay GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-378/04); Orsay GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-39/04); Gateway, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-434/05); NV Marly SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-57/06)
Cites 13: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (C-251/95); Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-292/01); New Look Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-117/03, T-118/03, T-119/03, T-171/03); Unilever NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-194/01); Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-308/01); Ampafrance SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-164/03); Mystery drinks GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-99/01); Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-296/02); Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-156/01); 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); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark