CELEX: 62019TN0060
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

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.