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
Société des produits Nestlé SA and Others v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd (C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P, C-95/17 P)
Appeals
Appeals in Cases C‑84/17 P and C‑95/17 P
Findings of the Court
82

Société des produits Nestlé SA and Others v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd (C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P, C-95/17 P)

Judgment of 25 Jul 2018law://eu/cjeu/2017/c-84-17/para_82@2026-11-10

82The same is true when, due to a geographic, cultural or linguistic proximity between two Member States, the relevant public of the first has a sufficient knowledge of the products and services that are present on the national market of the second.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Cases: C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P, C-95/17 P · ECLI:EU:C:2018:596
Decided: 25 Jul 2018
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA
Defendant: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd
Rapporteur: M. Vilaras
Advocate General: M. Wathelet
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, M. Vilaras
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62017CJ0084

Topics

History · 1 version

25 Jul 2018Reading

Connections

Cited by 25: European Federation of Financial Analysts'Societies (EFFAS) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-592/24); Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-432/24); Chiquita Brands LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-426/23); Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-652/22); Piaggio & C. SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-19/22); Glaxo Group Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-477/21); Casa International v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-650/21); Beauty Biosciences LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-750/21); Lemken GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-621/21); Gameageventures LLP v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-776/21); Louis Vuitton Malletier v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-275/21); Stryker Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-204/21); Tecnica Group SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-483/20); Société des produits Nestlé SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-616/20); Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland v European Commission (C-174/19 P); Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH v SevenOne Media GmbH and Others (C-555/19); Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P, C-604/18 P); Louis Vuitton Malletier v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-105/19); EC Brand Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Vestuário em Geral Ltda v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-532/19); Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-690/18); Igor Zhadanov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-492/18); Igor Zhadanov v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-404/18); Gruppo Armonie SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-264/18); Gibson Brands, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-340/18); adidas AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-307/17)
Cites 15: 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); Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union and Kingdom of the Netherlands v Stichting Al-Aqsa (C-539/10 P, C-550/10 P); Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Procter & Gamble Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-383/99 P); August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-25/05); mobile.de GmbH, anciennement mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-418/16 P); European Commission v Aer Lingus Ltd and Ryanair Designated Activity Company (C-164/15 P, C-165/15 P); Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-98/11 P); British Airways plc v European Commission (C-122/16 P); Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-112/13); Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co (C-12/12); Société des produits Nestlé SA and Others v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd (C-84/17); Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (C-149/11); DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (C-104/00 P)