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
BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH v Bodo Scholz (C-20/14)
Judgment
Consideration of the question referred
23

BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH v Bodo Scholz (C-20/14)

Judgment of 22 Oct 2015law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-20-14/para_23@2026-11-11

23First, the absolute grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95 and the relative grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 4(1)(b) of that directive pursue different aims and are intended to protect distinct interests.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-20/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:714
Decided: 22 Oct 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court, Germany)
Applicant: BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH
Defendant: Bodo Scholz
Rapporteur: A. Borg Barthet
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi
Bench: 5 judges
A. Tizzano, F. Biltgen, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits, M. Berger
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0020

Topics

Approximation of laws Trade marks

History · 1 version

22 Oct 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 25: European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (C-328/18 P); Casa Ermelinda Freitas - Vinhos, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-71/25); Eti Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-83/24); Eti Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-92/24); Eti Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-91/24); Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-11/24); House of Prince A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-118/23); CFA Institute v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-561/22); Medspa Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-508/23); Sophienwald AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-597/22); SkinIdent AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-665/22); mBank S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-261/22); Dr. Spiller GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-6/20); Team Beverage AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-359/20); Unimax Stationery v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-591/20); Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-429/20); Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-436/20); Xiuling Guo v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-505/20); West End Drinks Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-31/20); China Construction Bank Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-115/19 P); IAK GmbH - Forum International v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-497/18); Marriott Worldwide Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-28/18); Patent-och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson (C-705/17); EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-583/17); Holzer y Cia, SA de CV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-3/18, T-4/18)
Cites 11: Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Société des produits Nestlé SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-193/06); Aceites del Sur-Coosur, anciennement Aceites del Sur v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-498/07); Alfred Strigl — Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt and Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-90/11, C-91/11); Eurohypo AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-304/06); Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-591/12 P); Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (C-120/04); ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-23/09); AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-425/03); BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft Wirtschaft mbH v Bodo Scholz (C-20/14); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (C-334/05 P)