EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0415
Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Case T-415/22: Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
OJ C 326, 29.8.2022, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.8.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/23 |
Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-415/22)
(2022/C 326/31)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Republic of 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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2022 in Case R 1284/2018-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision; |
— |
order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment. |
Pleas in law
— |
The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly analysing the likelihood of confusion regarding certification marks; |
— |
The Board of Appeal further infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when it carried out an erroneous analysis of the similarity of goods versus services in this case; |
— |
The Board of Appeal also erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 when considering the role of distinctiveness as regards certification marks. |