• 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

HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute

20. January 2021

Cyprus loses again before the CFI in defense of its own Halloumi trademark against the Union figurative mark BBQLOUMI: consumers understand ‘Halloumi’ as a term for this type of cheese, but not as a reference to a certified Cyprus Halloumi cheese.

Unionsbildmarke BBQLOUMI
mark in dispute: BBQLOUMI

For years Cyprus has been fighting against similar trademark applications as Halloumi, but today in vain: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI.

Today’s judgment of the CFI focuses on the famous Halloumi cheese from Cyprus and a long-standing trademark dispute about it, which started rolling in 2014. Intervener M. J. Dairies EOOD (Bulgaria) had applied for the EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI in July 2014, inter alia also for cheese in Nice Class 29. Plaintiff Halloumi Foundation claimed likelihood of confusion with its own earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI against this trademark application for cheese.

TM dispute HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI already in court several times

In these proceedings, the Foundation from Cyprus lost in 2018 both before the Board of Appeal and the European Court of First Instance (CFI) (T:2018:594). However, the applicant from Cyprus was able to successfully challenge this judgment before the ECJ (European Court of Justice) in March 2020. For the CFI had started from the premise that if the earlier mark had a weak distinctive character, the existence of a likelihood of confusion could be excluded if the similarity of the marks did not lead to a likelihood of confusion.

However, the ECJ found fault with this, as there may well be a likelihood of confusion even in the case of weak distinctiveness in the examination of the overall circumstances. In addition, in 2018 the CFI had made findings on the degree of distinctiveness of both the earlier halloumi mark and the conflicting marks – but only with regard to the goods claimed, not with regard to consumers.

The ECJ therefore set aside the contested 2018 first-instance judgment and referred the entire case back to the CFI (EU:C:2020:170), where a new examination of the existence of a likelihood of confusion was to be carried out, now also taking consumers into account.

This has since been done, and today the CFI ruled: once again, the CFI dismisses the Foundation’s claim in Cyprus.

Cyprus loses again in Halloumi trademark dispute

The word halloumi is generally perceived as a cheese specialty, by many also as a cheese specialty from Cyprus. But the term ‘halloumi’ is used as a generic term for this type of cheese, but is not understood as a reference to a – as union collective word mark – certified cheese, the CFI explained today. But that – as the ECJ had also ruled – is the task of a collective mark. So even if one assumes, the ECJ had stated in its reasoning in March 2020, that the Union collective mark HALLOUMI implicitly refers to the origin from Cyprus, it must nevertheless fulfill its main function, and that is to distinguish the goods with respect to members of the association and the goods of other companies.

Therefore, the CFI today again found a weak distinctiveness of the union collective mark ‘Halloumi’.

Furthermore, the CFI today referred to the fact that the contested mark BBQLOUMI is registered as a figurative mark, whereas Halloumi is registered as a word mark. However, the figurative element in the contested mark shows a barbecue rather than a cheese made in a Mediterranean setting, and it does not explicitly mention halloumi cheese.

The court also submits that there is little similarity between the word elements. The word element “loumi” is the same in both marks, but the beginning is particularly weighted in word marks, the CFI emphasized. And the beginning is clearly different in the two marks.

No likelihood of confusion for consumers

Even taking consumers into account, there was no likelihood of confusion, the CFI ruled. Because even if consumers focus their attention on the word element “loumi,” which is identical in both marks, and even perceive the figurative element as a possible reference to grilled halloumi cheese, they will not make a connection between the two marks, the court found. This is because, overall, the conflicting marks have only a low degree of similarity and the earlier mark ‘halloumi’ is only associated with the type of cheese, namely ‘halloumi cheese’, but not with its origin.

Would you also like to protect or defend your trademark?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorized to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources: 

Press Release of European Court: ‘Zypern Halloumi’

Image:

GDJ | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconBBQLOUMI,  collective mark,  Cyprus,  distinctiveness,  ECJ,  Halloumi,  Halloumi cheese,  halloumi trademark dispute,  HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI,  likelihood of confusion,  Union collective

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.