"(...) a genuine reputation of the sign has not been proved. In particular, the opponent did not file any documents from independent sources, such as for example market surveys carried out by third specialised companies. The Annual Report comes from the opponent itself, and the Wikipedia extract cannot be properly considered as an "independent source", taking into account that it is an online encyclopaedia open for editing to everyone, collaboratively written by many of its readers."

"Most of the internet references are connected to the applicant (firms that use CFROI with the applicant's consent) or of uncertain reliability, such as Wikipedia (an online encyclopedia that any person can edit) ..."

"The defence has applied for a permanent stay of proceedings on the ground of irremediable prejudice such as would preclude the accused having a fair trial on the charge preferred against him. Essentially the defence admission is that the 'ubiquity and pervasiveness' of the accused's reputation as a serial killer is such that no fair trial can now be had."

"Whilst Wikipedia and the web site which is the subject of the present application which is a branch of Wikipedia may loosely be described as an 'information source', the unreliability of that information for the reasons given renders it an irrelevant source. By relying upon it the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error."

"After repeating the goods of the conflicting trade marks in issue, the Opposition Division defined the term 'building materials'. It referred to a definition taken from some 'Wikipedia' page which seems to be excessively broad, which nevertheless remained uncontested by the parties."

"The Tribunal identified the independent information to which it had regard and the source of that information. It was not confined to material obtained from Wikipedia. It included information from various other human rights sources..."

"In the case at hand, to prove the higher degree of distinctiveness, the opponent merely submitted an excerpt from the online encyclopaedia "Wikipedia" to show that the opponent's company is the third largest mobile operator in Germany with more than 8.5 million subscribers as of 2004. The Office points out that this kind of evidence alone is not at all sufficient to prove a higher than normal degree of distinctiveness."

"However, Wikipedia is an open-source website, where anybody may submit information for publication. It is not reviewed and cannot be considered as a definitive guideline."

"Regarding the fame of the applicant, the scant evidence therefore is a very short extract from the unsubstantiated website Wikipedia, stating that the applicant 'hopes to be active as a fashion designer'. The Office, in accordance with its usual practices, cannot consider this to be adequate evidence that the applicant is 'well-known' as claimed."

As to the third article, cited by the opponent, the board has a more favorable view: "An article from Wikipedia is submitted, concerning family names in countries all over the world. It shows that there are so many differences between linguistic practices that it is obvious that one name can only be very common in one country."

An appeal (T-0212/07) against the decision before the Court of First Instance is pending.