318:" scent, which the applicant had described "as balsamically fruity with a slight hint of cinnamon". The ECJ ruled that (a) a chemical formula depicting this scent did not represent the odour of a substance, was not sufficiently intelligible, nor sufficiently clear and precise; (b) a written description was not sufficiently clear, precise and objective; and (c) a physical deposit of a sample of the scent did not constitute a graphic representation, and was not sufficiently stable or durable.
22:
136:
230:
1. Article 2 of
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented
234:
2. In respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample or by a combination of those
43:
321:
The case illustrates difficulties with the graphical representation of scent marks, as the ECJ held that these representations, whether individually or collectively, could not satisfy this requirement.
366:
231:
graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
94:
66:
73:
80:
62:
113:
295:
308:
87:
47:
266:
361:
253:
32:
304:
51:
36:
371:
300:
240:
140:
381:
376:
186:
336:
331:
176:
299:(case C-273/00) issued on December 12, 2002, is widely recognised as a landmark decision of the
315:
261:
248:
346:
341:
355:
155:
337:
The opinion of Mr
Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 November 2001
21:
220:
Bundespatentgericht, Preliminary reference of 14 April 2000 (33 W (pat) 193/99)
289:
135:
15:
347:
Fresh version of Non-conventional trademarks directory
276:
239:
224:
216:
208:
200:
192:
182:
172:
164:
154:
147:
128:
63:"Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt"
160:Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
367:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
129:Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt
8:
50:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
114:Learn how and when to remove this message
125:
342:Non-conventional trademarks directory
7:
48:adding citations to reliable sources
303:on the graphical representation of
296:German Patent and Trademark Office
196:Reference for a preliminary ruling
14:
134:
20:
282:Interprets Directive 89/104/EEC
309:European Trade Marks Directive
1:
305:non-conventional trademarks
398:
267:Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
301:European Court of Justice
281:
272:
259:
246:
229:
141:European Court of Justice
133:
150:Decided 12 December 2002
254:Fidelma O’Kelly Macken
209:Nationality of parties
148:Submitted 10 July 2000
314:The case involved a "
277:Legislation affecting
44:improve this article
362:Trademark case law
217:Procedural history
187:ECLI:EU:C:2002:748
286:
285:
241:Court composition
124:
123:
116:
98:
389:
372:2002 in case law
316:methyl cinnamate
262:Advocate General
249:Judge-Rapporteur
138:
126:
119:
112:
108:
105:
99:
97:
56:
24:
16:
397:
396:
392:
391:
390:
388:
387:
386:
382:2002 in Germany
377:German case law
352:
351:
328:
265:
252:
233:
232:
149:
143:
120:
109:
103:
100:
57:
55:
41:
25:
12:
11:
5:
395:
393:
385:
384:
379:
374:
369:
364:
354:
353:
350:
349:
344:
339:
334:
327:
326:External links
324:
284:
283:
279:
278:
274:
273:
270:
269:
257:
256:
244:
243:
237:
236:
227:
226:
222:
221:
218:
214:
213:
210:
206:
205:
202:
198:
197:
194:
190:
189:
184:
180:
179:
174:
170:
169:
166:
162:
161:
158:
156:Full case name
152:
151:
145:
144:
139:
131:
130:
122:
121:
28:
26:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
394:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
359:
357:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
329:
325:
323:
319:
317:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
291:
280:
275:
271:
268:
264:
263:
258:
255:
251:
250:
245:
242:
238:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
157:
153:
146:
142:
137:
132:
127:
118:
115:
107:
96:
93:
89:
86:
82:
79:
75:
72:
68:
65: –
64:
60:
59:Find sources:
53:
49:
45:
39:
38:
34:
29:This article
27:
23:
18:
17:
332:The decision
320:
313:
294:Sieckmann v
293:
287:
260:
247:
110:
101:
91:
84:
77:
70:
58:
42:Please help
30:
177:62000CJ0273
356:Categories
307:under the
204:Full court
104:March 2010
74:newspapers
290:trademark
235:elements.
193:Case type
31:does not
168:C-273/00
212:Germany
201:Chamber
173:CelexID
88:scholar
52:removed
37:sources
225:Ruling
90:
83:
76:
69:
61:
292:law,
95:JSTOR
81:books
183:ECLI
165:Case
67:news
35:any
33:cite
288:In
46:by
358::
311:.
117:)
111:(
106:)
102:(
92:·
85:·
78:·
71:·
54:.
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
