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
European Union Intellectual Property Office v Celltech R&D Ltd (C-273/05 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The third ground of appeal
Findings of the Court
56

European Union Intellectual Property Office v Celltech R&D Ltd (C-273/05 P)

Judgment of 19 Apr 2007law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-273-05/para_56@2026-11-11

56Accordingly, the third ground of appeal appears to be directed against a ground of the judgment under appeal that was stated purely for the sake of completeness and, therefore, even on the assumption that it is well founded, it cannot lead to that judgments being set aside.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-273/05 P · ECLI:EU:C:2007:224
Decided: 19 Apr 2007
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Defendant: Celltech R&D Ltd
Rapporteur: M. Ilešič
Advocate General: E. Sharpston
Bench: 5 judges
P. Jann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, K. Schiemann, M. Ilešič
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0273

Topics

History · 1 version

19 Apr 2007Reading

Connections

Cited by 24: MAN Truck & Bus SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-108/25); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-306/24); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-305/24); sprd.net AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-304/24); Shorts International Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/24); Victor Waskito Purwana v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-73/24); Väderstad Holding AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-361/23); Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-343/23); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-277/22); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-276/22); Serge-Paul Corver v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-446/22); F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-338/21); MHCS v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-274/20); Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-96/20); Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v Distillerie Bonollo SpA and Others (C-461/18 P)2 provisions; Deza, a.s. v European Commission (C-813/18); Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-69/19); Oakley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-744/18); Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-113/18); Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-114/18); Andreas Hauzenberger v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-349/18); Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-93/16); SSP Europe GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-205/17); The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-673/15 P, C-674/15 P, C-675/15 P, C-676/15 P)
Cites 10: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-173/04 P); Celltech R&D Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-260/03); 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); Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-265/00); Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-363/99); 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; SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-329/02 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-25/05)