Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/38 |

---

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)

(Case T-615/22)

(2022/C 432/45)

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: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

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 figurative mark Halime — Application for registration No 18 241 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 121/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |

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 and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022432EN.01003801-E0001) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services. |

---

---

[Top](#document1)