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 Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (C-334/05 P)
Judgment
Merits
42

European Union Intellectual Property Office v Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (C-334/05 P)

Judgment of 12 Jun 2007law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-334-05/para_42@2026-11-12

42As the Advocate General pointed out in point 21 of her Opinion, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-334/05 P · ECLI:EU:C:2007:333
Decided: 12 Jun 2007
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62004TJ0007
Applicant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Defendant: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas
Rapporteur: Klučka
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
A. Rosas, J. Klucka, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh
Language: Italian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0334

Topics

History · 1 version

12 Jun 2007Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-7/04)
Cited by 25: Wazdan Innovations ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-673/25); Osculati Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-267/25); Kutxabank, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-105/25); Ecuphar v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-291/25); Pharma Green Holding SpA SB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-480/25); Groupvet EE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-403/25); Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-349/25); Laboratorios ACPG, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-52/25); Instanta sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-461/25); Vitabalans Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-410/25); Ionfarma, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-476/25); Team Beverage AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-17/25); Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-77/25); Dariusz Kowalski v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-301/25); Shenzen Smoore Technology Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-62/25); Pols Erm Tarim Anonim Sirketi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-106/25); PFP Monaco v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-298/25); Nutris We care about you, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-209/25); Médis - Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-142/25); Montepelayo, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-203/25); Universal Brand Group Pty Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-561/24); Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-43/25); Casa Ermelinda Freitas - Vinhos, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-71/25); Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal, Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-58/25); Freixenet, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-222/25)
Cites 10: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (C-342/97); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (C-120/04); Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-206/04 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-25/05); 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); Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-3/03); Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-7/04)