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
Roxtec AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-261/18)
Law
Substance
64

Roxtec AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-261/18)

Judgment of 24 Sept 2019law://eu/cjeu/2018/t-261-18/para_64@2026-11-11

64In the light of all the foregoing, it must be held that neither the distinctive character of the elements of a sign nor the distinctive character acquired through the use of a sign are relevant in determining its essential characteristics for the purposes of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001.

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

Key facts

Court: General Court · Second Chamber
Case: T-261/18 · ECLI:EU:T:2019:674
Decided: 24 Sept 2019
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Roxtec AB
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: E. Buttigieg
Bench: 3 judges
M. Prek, E. Buttigieg, B. Berke
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62018TJ0261

Topics

History · 1 version

24 Sept 2019Reading

Connections

Cited by 16: Empreinte v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-437/25); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1172/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1170/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1173/23); Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1171/23)2 provisions; Desimo, Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-607/23); Peikko Group Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-192/23); BB Services GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-297/22)2 provisions; BB Services GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-298/22); International Masis Tabak LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-44/22); Purasac Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-543/21); Établissement Amra v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-264/21); Lea Nature Services v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-196/21); Lea Nature Services v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-197/21); Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-574/19); Euroapotheca UAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-686/19)
Cites 11: Regulation (EU) 2017/10012 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Pi-Design AG and Others and OHIM v Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (C-337/12); Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-48/09 P); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (C-299/99); Peri GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-656/14); Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-44/16); GeoClimaDesign AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-280/16); Lego Juris A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-270/06); Kicktipp GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-135/14); Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation (C-39/97)