[1. JAKL, L. (2003) Evropský systém ochrany průmyslového vlastnictví a jeho vliv na vývoj v České republice. Praha: Úrad průmyslového vlastnictvi, 2003.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. LOCHMANOVÁ, L. (1997) Práva na označení: obchodní jméno, ochranné známky, označení původu výrobku. Vyd. 1. Praha: Orac, 1997, ISBN: 8090193838, 213 s.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. MARUNIAKOVÁ, I. et al. (2012) Komentár k zákonu o ochranných známkach. Banská Bystrica: ÚPV, 2012. 305 s. ISBN 978–80–88994–79–4.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. ONO, S. (1999) Overview of Japanese trademark law. <http://www.iip.or.jp/translation/ono/ch2.pdf>.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. PIPKOVÁ, H. (2007) Ochranná známka spoločenství a ochranná známka v evropském společenství. Praha: Aspi, 2007. 376 s. ISBN 978–80–7357–265–5.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. WIPO. (2005) Trademarks Past and Present. In: WIPO Magazine, 2005, č. 2 <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/02/>.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. The Office of the Industrial Property of the SR. 2018. Methodology of Procedures in the matter of trademarks. Banska Bystrica: UPV, 2018. 65 ps.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Judgment of the Court of 5 May 1982 Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Roosendaal Case C–15/81.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Judgment of the Court of 17 October 1990 SA CNL–SUCAL NV v HAG GF AG Case C–10/89.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Judgment of the Court of 29 September 1998 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation Case C–39/97.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Judgment of the Court of 4 May 1999 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions– und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots– und Segelzubehor Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger Joined cases C–108/97 and C–109/97.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1999 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV Case C–342/97.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Judgment of the Court of 18 June 2002 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd Case C–299/99.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–363/99.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Judgment of the Court of 4 October 2001 Merz & Krell GmbH & Co Case C–517/99.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–265/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2002 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent– und Markenamt Case C–273/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003 Linde AG (C–53/01), Winward Industries Inc. (C–54/01) and Rado Uhren AG (C–55/01) oined cases C–53/01 to C–55/01.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Judgment of the Court of 6 May 2003 Libertel Groep BV versus Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–104/01.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex Case C–283/01.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case–456/01 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Joined cases C–468/01 P to C–472/01 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2004 Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH Case C–49/02.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) v Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH Case C–64/02 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2004 SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–329/02 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2004 Nichols plc v Registrar of Trademarks Case C–404/02.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–447/02 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2005 BioID AG, en liquidation v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–37/03 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–24/05 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–25/05 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–398/08 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–48/09 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) v BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG Case C–265/09 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–51/10 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 19 June 2012 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trademarks Case C–307/10.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–126/13 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 July 2014 Netto Marken–Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent– und Markenamt Case C–420/13.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 Société de Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd Case C–215/14.]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–421/15 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin Sas v van Haren Schoenen BV Case C–163/16 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–26/17 P.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2002 Eurocool Logistik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–34/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 Procter & Gamble v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–129/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2002 KWS Saat AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–173/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2002 Viking–Umwelttechnik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–316/00.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 DaimlerChrysler Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–128/01.]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2005 Citicorp v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–320/03.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2005 Eden SARL v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–305/04.]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 Cain Cellars, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–304/05.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 IVG Immobilien AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–441/05.]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–234/06.]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–298/06.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–302/06.]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–23/07.]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 February 2011 Paroc Oy AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–157/08.]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) Joined Cases T–331/10 RENV and T–416/10 RENV.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 Getty Images (US), Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–338/11.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–625/11.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Common Communication on the Common Practice on the General Indications of the Nice Class Headings (20th November 2013).]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Common Communication on the Common Practice on the General Indications of the Nice Class Headings (28th October 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Common Communication on the representation of new types of trademarks. 2018 <https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel–web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/about_euipo/who_we_are/common_communication/common_communication_8/common_communication8_en.pdf>.]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 August 2003. The Office for harmonisation in the internal market. R 120/2001.]Search in Google Scholar
