Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62022TN0168

Case T-168/22: Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

OJ C 207, 23.5.2022, p. 49–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 207, 23.5.2022, p. 34–34 (GA)

23.5.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/49

Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-168/22)

(2022/C 207/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 January 2022 in Case R 1612/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

allow the applicant’s appeal;

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

—

The Board of Appeal’s analysis of distinctive character erred substantially;

—

The Board of Appeal erred in failing to find a likelihood of confusion;

—

The Board of Appeal erred in failing to deliver to the applicant a fair trial on all of the issues.
Top