Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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. |

---

[Top](#document1)