The General Court of the European Union rejects the appeal of Cyprus for the registration of the word mark “GRILLOUMI” as unfounded, ruling, among other things, that the Appeals Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) correctly ruled that there was no risk of confusion of the brand with the halloumi.
The case concerns the registration in October 2016 by the Swedish company Fontana Food AB before the EUIPO of the word mark “GRILLOUMI” as an EU trade mark, for goods falling under class 43 for “Services provision of food and drink, cafeteria services, restaurants”.
In February 2017, Cyprus filed an opposition to the registration of the mark in question before the EUIPO, relying on the earlier word marks, “HALLOUMI/HALLOUMI”, which had been registered in June 1992 as goods in class 29 corresponding to the description “dairy – halloumi”.
On 8 May 2018, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO rejected Cyprus' request, and Cyprus appealed against the decision on 6 July. The appeal was rejected by the Fourth Appellate Division.
After an appeal by Cyprus, with the decision of 8 December 2021 Cyprus v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI) (T-556/19), the ECJ annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal and referred the case to the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
The ECJ held that the Fourth Appellate Division erred in holding that the goods and services covered by the conflicting marks were not similar. The Second Appellate Division in turn rejected Cyprus's request on the grounds that there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, as their degree of similarity was very low.
On July 4, 2022, Cyprus requested from the GDEE to annul the decision in question, arguing that an incorrect criterion was used to assess the likelihood of confusion, that there was an error in the assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier marks, and that there was an error in the assessment of the degree of similarity between the goods and services which are covered by the disputed marks.
In today's decision, the ECJ rejected the grounds on which Cyprus sought annulment of the decision, dismissing the appeal as unfounded in its entirety. It also ruled that with the contested decision, the Appeals Department rightly ruled that there was no risk of confusion.
As noted in the relevant announcement, Cyprus can request the annulment of the decision, within two months, only in relation to legal issues.
