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
W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH and Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse (C-689/15)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
Question 1
44

W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH and Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse (C-689/15)

Judgment of 8 Jun 2017law://eu/cjeu/2015/c-689-15/para_44@2026-11-11

44In that regard, the essential function of the mark should not be confused with the other functions, referred to in paragraph 42 of the present judgment, that the mark may fulfil, such as that of guaranteeing quality.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-689/15 · ECLI:EU:C:2017:434
Decided: 8 Jun 2017
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Applicants: W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH; Wolfgang Gözze
Defendant: Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse
Rapporteur: M. Ilešič
Advocate General: M. Wathelet
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, A. Prechal, A. Rosas, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015CJ0689

Topics

History · 1 version

8 Jun 2017Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 25: Audi AG v GQ (C-334/22); Fauré Le Page Maroquinier SAS and Fauré Le Page Paris SAS v Goyard ST-Honoré SAS (C-412/24); Land Oberösterreich v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-46/25); PMJC SAS v [W] [X] and Others (C-168/24); Verband der Islamischen Kulturzentren eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-377/24); Myforest Foods Co. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-107/23); DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-774/21); Apart sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-638/21); Rochem Group AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-546/21); Rochem Group AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-549/21); Rochem Group AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-548/21); Rochem Group AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-547/21); Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-306/20); Apple Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-26/21); Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-353/20); Dermavita Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-643/19); Dermavita Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-104/19); Maternus GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-321/19); Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-143/19 P); Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark v Gabriele Schmid (C-514/18); Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-13/18); Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-668/17 P); Patent-och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson (C-705/17); Fomanu AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-323/18); Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-321/18)
Cites 15: Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (C-206/01); Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc and Flowers Direct Online Ltd (C-323/09); Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (C-149/11); Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01); Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-234/06 P); Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (C-120/04); Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (C-259/04); Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Text with EEA relevance); L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd (C-487/07); Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH (C-409/12); adidas AG andt adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV and Others (C-102/07); Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH (C-87/97); Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günther Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH (C-278/08); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97)