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
August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-24/05)
Judgment
The appeal
Fourth ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
62

August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-24/05)

Judgment of 22 Jun 2006law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-24-05/para_62@2026-11-11

62Therefore, not every use of the mark, a fortiori use of a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional mark, amounts necessarily to use as a mark.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-24/05 · ECLI:EU:C:2006:421
Decided: 22 Jun 2006
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: August Storck KG
Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: M. Ilešič
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 5 judges
P. Jann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, E. Levits
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0024

Topics

History · 1 version

22 Jun 2006Reading

Connections

Cited by 23: Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-89/24); Kapitan Navi Elżbieta Stramek i Waldemar Karpiński sp.j. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-90/24); Beauty Biosciences LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-750/21); Agrarfrost GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-553/21); Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/22); Galletas Gullón, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-677/18); Neoperl AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-669/18); Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-13/18)2 provisions; Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-465/18); Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-466/18); Lotte Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-459/18); Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-801/17); Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-802/17); Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-803/17); Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-93/16); Jumbo Africa, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-78/17); Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-412/16); Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-112/13); Australian Gold LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-611/13)2 provisions; Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-553/12); Germans Boada, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-25/11); August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-96/11); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-98/11 P)
Cites 13: 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; Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99); Mag Instrument Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-136/02 P); Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-173/04 P); Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01); Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (C-353/03); Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-361/04 P); Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA and Territorio Histórico de Álava - Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission of the European Communities (C-186/02 P, C-188/02 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-396/02); DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-104/00 P); Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-456/01 P, C-457/01 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark