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
Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/15)
Judgment
Law
The plea in law, alleging an infringem…
The first part of the plea in law, all…
54

Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-9/15)

Judgment of 13 Jun 2017law://eu/cjeu/2015/t-9-15/para_54@2026-11-11

54Nevertheless, even assuming that EUIPO decided during the registration process to register the contested design as a group of cans, that position does not bind the Board of Appeal in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity of that design.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · First Chamber
Case: T-9/15 · ECLI:EU:T:2017:386
Decided: 13 Jun 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Rapporteur: E. Buttigieg
Bench: 3 judges
H. Kanninen, E. Buttigieg, L. Calvo‑Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015TJ0009

Topics

History · 1 version

13 Jun 2017Reading

Connections

Cited by 17: Lego A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-628/24); Heinrich Sieber & Co. GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-641/24); Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-550/24); Ningbo Vasa Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-554/24); Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-464/23); Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-25/23)2 provisions; Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-58/23); Athlet Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-650/22); L. Oliva Torras, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-652/21); Novelis Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-173/21); T i D kontrolni sistemi EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-503/20); Framery Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-373/20); L. Oliva Torras, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-100/19); Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-73/19); Gamma-A SIA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-353/19); Gamma-A SIA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-352/19); Visi/one GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-74/18)
Cites 14: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL (C-488/10); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 of 21 October 2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs; Grupo Promer Mon Graphic, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-9/07); Roca Sanitario, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-334/14); Bell & Ross BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-80/10); Danuta Budziewska v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-666/11); PepsiCo, Inc. v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (C-281/10 P); Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-231/10); Min Liu v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-813/14); Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) v European Commission (T-246/09); Beifa Group Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-608/11)