Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/41 |

---

Action brought on 24 February 2022 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T-106/22)

(2022/C 165/49)

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: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 word mark BBQLOUMI — European Union trade mark No 12 898 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2021 in Case R 656/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO and the other party to each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment. |

Pleas in law

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal contravened the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the distinctiveness; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of appeal wrongly allocated a burden of proof on earlier registered mark holder, the applicant, to show a required level of distinctiveness; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal failed to give proper reasons for its core finding that the earlier collective mark lacked distinctiveness. |

---

[Top](#document1)