4.3.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/11


Appeal brought on 5 December 2018 by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-328/17: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO

(Case C-766/18 P)

(2019/C 82/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, M. J. Dairies EOOD

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Allow the appeal against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-328/17, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v. European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), EU:T:2018:594, and grant the appellant’s application for annulment;

Order the Office and intervener to bear their own costs, and pay those of the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

The General Court erred in failing to accord to the HALLOUMI Collective Mark the proper status and protection that the EUTMR requies for such collective marks, in infringement of Art 74 EUTMR;

2.

In particular the General Court erred in applying a completely unmodified approach to the assessment of the distinctiveness of the HALLOUMI Collective Mark contrary to Arts 8(1)(b) and 74 EUTMR;

3.

The General Court incorrectly appraised and applied the effect of this court’s decision in Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P, The Tea Board v. EUIPO (‘Tea Board’), and its reasoned order in C-392/12 P, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus Named Halloumi v. OHIM (‘HELLIM’), and failed to give proper effect to the judgment in C-196/11 P, Formula One Licensing v. OHIM, EU:C:2012:314 (‘F1’); and

4.

The General Court wrongly failed to remit the case to the Boards of Appeal for reconsideration in light of its finding that the 4BoA had made at least — even on the General Court’s view — two errors in their assessment of the likelihood of confusion. In so doing it infringed Art 8(1)(b) and/or Art 72(2) EUTMR.