• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Advocate General: collective mark must prove distinctive character

17. October 2019

In his today’s Opinion, the Advocate General confirmed that a collective mark must, under normal rules, have distinctive character. This is a setback for Cyprus in the trade mark dispute over Cypriot Halloumi cheese.

HalloumiHalloumi cheese as a protected designation of origin?

Cyprus and the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi have been trying since 2014 to achieve a protected designation of origin for the well-known Halloumi cheese that would be reserved for Cypriot producers. At the same time, various procedures are underway to prevent Cyprus from using the Halloumi designation under trademark law. Cyprus experienced a setback only a few months ago when they lost trademark protection for Halloumi cheese in the UK – we reported.

HALLOUMI protected as collective trademark

However, since July 2000 the Foundation has been the proprietor of the collective word mark HALLOUMI for goods in Class 29 described as ‘cheese’. In the Union Trade Mark Regulation, the collective mark is defined as a mark which “may serve to distinguish the goods and services of the members of the association who are proprietors of the mark from those of other undertakings” (Article 74 UMV). Producers of goods or services protected as a collective mark belong to a particular association and as such are entitled to use the mark.

In the present case, the Foundation filed an opposition against a trade mark application by a Bulgarian company for a figurative mark containing the word element BBQLOUMI (also for cheese). As a result, the Foundation requested the highest European court (ECJ) to annul the previous refusal of its opposition. The Advocate General delivered his Opinion on this matter today. Incidentally, the Court ruled a first case relating to the collective mark HALLOUMI in 2013 with legal effect against the Foundation (order of 21 March 2013, Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM (C-393/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:207)). The designation HALLOUMI has only a low distinctive character, the ECJ had ruled, and excluded a likelihood of confusion with the word mark HELLIM.

Collective mark guarantees collective commercial origin

The Foundation takes the view, however, that a collective mark necessarily enjoys increased protection, which the Court of First Instance did not take sufficient account of. Increased protection is associated with lower requirements for proof of distinctive character.

However, that is not the case, the Advocate General made it clear in his Opinion today that the distinctive character of collective marks must also be assessed on the basis of the general rules. Thus, since a collective mark, like any other registered mark, is intended to guarantee collective commercial origin, the registration of a collective mark, like the registration of other marks, presupposes its distinctive character. However, it is more difficult to answer the question whether the distinctiveness of geographical collective marks under Article 66(2) of the Trade Mark Regulation can be assessed on the basis of the general criteria, the Advocate General stated.

Geographical collective mark DARJEELING

He recalled that there had already been an important judgment on collective geographical marks, the collective mark DARJEELING. This is the name of a city and a district in India on the one hand and the well-known name for a well-known special black tea grown there on the other. The Court of Justice confirmed the application of the general principles to geographical collective marks (EU:C:2017:702) with the judgment on the geographical collective mark DARJEELING 2017.

However, unlike DARJEELING, HALLOUMI does not designate a specific place, but is associated only with one place, Cyprus, explained the Advocate General. In addition, this cheese is often used under the same or similar names in other countries of the region.

The Advocate General therefore recommends that the Court uphold the previous rejection of the Foundation’s objection. The aim pursued by the Foundation to strengthen its HALLOUMI mark could not be achieved by automatically granting geographical collective marks greater distinctiveness, the Advocate General stated. Consumers would still not perceive the geographical indication as an indication of the collective commercial origin of the product.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand name?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. If you are interested, please contact us – we look forward to hearing from you!


 

 

Sources: 

Today’s Opinion of Advocate General “Halloumi” EU:C:2019:881

Image:

Stones / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconAdvocate General,  BBQLOUMI,  Bulgaria,  collective geographical mark,  Cyprus,  DARJEELING,  Halloumi,  Halloumi cheese,  likelihood of confusion,  opinion

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.