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
Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-101/15, T-102/15)
Law
First plea in law, alleging infringeme…
First part, alleging infringement of A…
79

Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-101/15, T-102/15)

Judgment of 30 Nov 2017law://eu/cjeu/2015/t-101-15/para_79@2026-11-11

79As the Board of Appeal correctly found in paragraph 48 of the contested decisions, if a description is included in the application for registration, it must be evaluated in combination with the graphic representation.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Cases: T-101/15, T-102/15 · ECLI:EU:T:2017:852
Decided: 30 Nov 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Red Bull GmbH
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: B. Berke
Bench: 3 judges
M. Prek, E. Buttigieg, B. Berke
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015TJ0101

Topics

History · 1 version

30 Nov 2017Reading

Connections

Cited by 11: Judgment (T-123/25); Judgment (T-124/25); Judgment (T-122/25); ExactCut s. r. o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-280/24); e*Message Wireless Information Services GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-834/19); Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-193/18); CEDC International sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-796/16)2 provisions; Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission (T-564/15); Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-124/18 P)4 provisions; adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17)3 provisions; this act7 provisions
Cites 21: Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk (C-283/11); H. Jippes, Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (C-189/01); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-191/07); Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-404/09); BCS SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-137/08); Colin Joynson v Commission of the European Communities (T-231/99); Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-405/09); European Commission v Republic of Estonia (C-39/10); Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-430/16); Interkobo sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-523/10); Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-51/10 P); BioID AG, en liquidation v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-37/03 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark; Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01); Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH (C-49/02); Le Comptoir d'Épicure v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-405/13); Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-655/13); dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-36/09); Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00)