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
Isdin SA v Bial-Portela & Cª SA (C-597/12 P)
Judgment
The appeal
Findings of the Court
25

Isdin SA v Bial-Portela & Cª SA (C-597/12 P)

Judgment of 17 Oct 2013law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-597-12/para_25@2026-11-11

25It follows from the Court’s case-law that an examination of the grounds for refusal must be carried out in relation to each of the goods or services for which trade mark registration is sought (see, to that effect, Case C-239/05 BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy [2007] ECR I-1455, paragraph 34).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Seventh Chamber
Case: C-597/12 P · ECLI:EU:C:2013:672
Decided: 17 Oct 2013
Procedure: Action for annulment
Ruled invalid: 62011TJ0366
Applicant: Isdin SA
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: A. Arabadjiev
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 3 judges
G. Arestis, J.‑C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0597

Topics

History · 1 version

17 Oct 2013Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Bial-Portela & Cª, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-366/11)
Cited by 24: Visable v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-323/24); Schweppes International Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1066/23); Vinatis v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-605/23); Quality First GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-243/23); Zoubier Harbaoui v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-569/21); Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-669/20); Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-153/20); Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-157/20); Kerangus Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-882/19); Volkswagen AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-42/19); Hästens Sängar AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-658/18); Reaktor Group Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-650/18); ABB AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-373/18); Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-804/17); achtung ! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-832/17); Perfect Bar LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-758/17); Perfect Bar LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-759/17); Volkswagen AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-623/16); Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-339/15); Repower AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-727/16)2 provisions; Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-457/16); Alessandro La Rocca v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-755/16); Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-182/16); Sata GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-214/16)
Cites 11: Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (C-251/95); Société des produits Nestlé SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-193/06); Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-552/09 P); BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-239/05); Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-282/09); Bial-Portela & Cª, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-366/11); Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v UniCredito Italiano SpA (C-317/10 P); Fidelio KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-87/11); A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA v European Commission (C-320/09); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (C-334/05 P)