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
Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-236/16)
Judgment
Law
Admissibility
Evidence presented in the annex to the…
19

Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-236/16)

Judgment of 22 Jun 2017law://eu/cjeu/2016/t-236-16/para_19@2026-11-10

19Such unsupported allegations referring to purely internal problems, in relation to a company with its own legal service, moreover, cannot be considered to justify late submission of the evidence in question.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Ninth Chamber
Case: T-236/16 · ECLI:EU:T:2017:416
Decided: 22 Jun 2017
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: S. Gervasoni
Bench: 3 judges
S. Gervasoni, L. Madise, R. da Silva Passos
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62016TJ0236

Topics

History · 1 version

22 Jun 2017Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: Iran Air - The Airline of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran Air) v Council of the European Union (T-676/24); Raquel Maresma Bernal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-411/25); LG Electronics, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-252/24); Devin EAD v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-351/24); Claims Balkans d.o.o. Beograd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-582/24); Lunar Outpost Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-513/24); Gianfranco Emanuele and Dorte Hansen v European Parliament (T-228/24); IN tIME Express Logistik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1100/23); Fachverband Eisenhüttenschlacken eV v European Commission (T-560/22); Sports Group Denmark A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-566/22); Kaufdas.online sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-488/22); Groz-Beckert KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-276/22); Apart sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-591/21); Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-315/22); Apart sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-638/21); Sanrio Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-43/22); Bora Creations, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-738/21); uwe JetStream GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-14/22); Sandra Paesen v European External Action Service (T-88/21); 6Minutes Media GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-521/21); dennree GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-641/21); Qualcomm, Inc. v European Commission (T-235/18); Team Beverage AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-113/21); Timo Beelow v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-702/20); ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission (T-561/18)
Cites 25: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Republic of Cyprus v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-292/14, T-293/14); MacLean-Fogg Co. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-339/05); MasterCard Inc. and Others v European Commission (C-382/12 P); Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-238/06 P); Indorata-Serviços e Gestão Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-212/07); Exalation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-85/08); Laverana GmbH & Co.KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-571/14); The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-124/02, T-156/02); Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-304/06); Procter & Gamble Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-383/99 P); Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-214/05); CEDC International sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-449/13); Kenzo v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-528/13); Masafi Co. LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (T-248/14); Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-452/15); BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-239/05); Paul de Hoe v Commission of the European Communities (T-85/92); Ellos AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-219/00); 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); Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (C-191/01 P); Mundipharma AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-256/04); Joseba Larrañaga Otaño and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-458/13); DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-104/00 P)