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-25/05)
Judgment
The appeal
The second ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
52

August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-25/05)

Judgment of 22 Jun 2006law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-25-05/para_52@2026-11-10

52In that regard, an applicant for a trade mark against whom OHIM relies on such well-known facts may challenge their accuracy before the Court of First Instance.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-25/05 · ECLI:EU:C:2006:422
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 62005CJ0025

Topics

History · 1 version

22 Jun 2006Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-432/24); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-305/24); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-304/24); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-306/24); AirPlus International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-407/24); 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); VistaJet ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-195/24); Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-82/24); Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Ruiz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1099/23); Väderstad Holding AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-361/23); Bartex Bartol sp. z o.o sp. k. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-473/23); Apart sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-638/21); Apart sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-591/21); Emmentaler Switzerland v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-2/21); Perfetti Van Melle SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-199/22); Beauty Biosciences LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-750/21); Lemken GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/21); Gameageventures LLP v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-776/21); Voco GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-700/21); Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/22); F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-338/21); Funline International v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-680/21); Tecnica Group SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-483/20); Think Schuhwerk GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-298/19)
Cites 15: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (C-41/00 P); 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); Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger (C-108/97, C-109/97); Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mars UK Ltd (C-353/03); Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (C-208/03 P); Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission of the European Communities (C-352/98 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-402/02); 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); 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