This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0060
Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
OJ C 112, 25.3.2019, p. 44–45
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.3.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 112/44 |
Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
(Case T-60/19)
(2019/C 112/54)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276
Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 2296/2017-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision; |
|
— |
order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law
|
— |
The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion; |
|
— |
The Board of Appeal failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks. |