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
Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-238/06 P)
Judgment
The appeal
37

Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-238/06 P)

Judgment of 25 Oct 2007law://eu/cjeu/2006/c-238-06/para_37@2026-11-11

37As a preliminary point, it is necessary to examine whether the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement and the Paris Convention are directly applicable in the context of the present proceedings.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Eighth Chamber
Case: C-238/06 P · ECLI:EU:C:2007:635
Decided: 25 Oct 2007
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Develey Holding GmbH & Co, Beteiligungs KG
Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: E. Juhász
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Bench: 3 judges
G. Arestis, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Juhász
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62006CJ0238

Topics

History · 1 version

25 Oct 2007Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Judgment (T-122/25); Judgment (T-124/25); Judgment (T-123/25); Heinrich Sieber & Co. GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-641/24); Devin EAD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-351/24); Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-582/24); Impossible Foods Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-67/24); 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); OMV AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-38/24); Visable v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-323/24); ITB GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-470/24); Lotus Bakeries v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1096/23); VistaJet ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-195/24); Doorinn GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-147/24); Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-20/24); Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH - Glashütte/Sa. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1163/23); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-568/23); Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-343/23); Cellphenomics GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-512/23); Listan GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-501/23); European Union Intellectual Property Office v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (C-382/21 P); Timothy Jacob Jensen Studios A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-92/23); IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-188/23)
Cites 18: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); 94/800/EC: Council Decision (of 22 December 1994) concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994); Parfums Christian Dior SA v TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-300/98, C-392/98); Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-173/04 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-24/05); Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-129/04); Eurocermex SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-286/04 P); Portuguese Republic v Council of the European Union (C-149/96); Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-473/01 P, C-474/01 P); Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA (C-421/04); F.lli Graffione SNC v Ditta Fransa (C-313/94); 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); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH (C-64/02 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Budĕjovický Budvar, národní podnik (C-245/02); BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-239/05); Mag Instrument Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-136/02 P)