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 62022TN0415

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.
Top