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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Halloumi vs Grilloumi: Halloumi wins in trademark dispute

22. April 2021

The protective Foundation for Halloumi Cheese from Cyprus won before the CFI in a trademark dispute over two EU word marks: Halloumi v Grilloumi. The focus was on the question of whether there was a complementary connection between the services claimed – in restaurants and cafés.

Grilloumi - Wortmarke für Leistung in RestaurantsOnce again, the Cyprus cheese Halloumi foundation took legal action against a trademark application, in this case the EU word mark Grilloumi, filed in 2016 by intervener Fontana Food AB (Sweden) – for “services for providing food and drink; coffee shop services; restaurants” in Nice Class 43.

Word mark Grilloumi – for services in restaurants

The Foundation from Cyprus filed an opposition against this trade mark registration, relying on its own earlier EU word mark Halloumi, protected as a collective word mark since July 2000 for the product “Cheese” in Nice Class 29.

The Opposition Division and also the Board of Appeal rejected the opposition, mainly because the services claimed by the word mark Grilloumi could possibly be considered similar to foodstuffs, but this had not been proven in relation to cheese.

Complementary connection between the services claimed?

In this respect, the main issue before the European Court of Justice (CFI), before which this case has now been decided, was also whether there was similarity based on their complementarity between grilloumi and halloumi – and not on factors such as their nature, intended use or method of use.

According to case-law, goods and services may be complementary if there is a close connection between them in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other (see Hartmann v OHIM – Protecsom (DIGNITUDE), T-504/11).

And it is precisely such a connection between grilloumi and halloumi that has now been confirmed by the CFI.

Cheese (Class 29) also in restaurants/cafés (Class 43)?

On the one hand, cheese could be offered to the clientele of many restaurants or also of cafés – namely as an ingredient in dishes – and, on the other hand, it could be sold in its unaltered form, even without being processed as an ingredient, in particular also in restaurants.

Therefore, contrary to the Board of Appeal’s view, the complementary link between cheese and services for the provision of food and drink, restaurant services and coffee shop services must be presumed to exist.

Therefore, the CFI held, there was a certain degree of similarity between, on the one hand, ‘services for providing food and drink; coffee shop services; restaurants’ in class 43 covered by the mark applied for and, on the other hand, ‘cheese’ in class 29 covered by the earlier mark.

The CFI therefore upheld the action from Cyprus and annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus called Halloumi and Fontana Food AB.

Comparison to the Halloumi case against BBQLOUMI

The Foundation for the Protection of Halloumi Cheese from Cyprus repeatedly takes legal action against trade mark registrations. Unlike the case against the trademark registration of BBQLOUMI, which the Cyprus Foundation lost, in this case the CFI ruled in favour of the plaintiff from Cyprus.

The court even referred to the BBQLOUMI case itself, pointing out that at the time the Cyprus Foundation had not challenged the same Board of Appeal’s finding that there was no similarity between ‘restaurant services; fast food services; cafeterias; catering’ in class 43 on the one hand and ‘cheese’ in class 29 on the other. However, the CFI emphasised that this had been decided on the case at hand and had no impact on the present case. Like the registrability of a sign as an EU trade mark, the comparison between the goods and services covered by competing rights must be assessed exclusively on the basis of the EU Regulation and its interpretation by the courts of the European Union, the CFI stated – and not on the basis of a previous practice of the Boards of Appeal.

Do you also want to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!


 

 

Sources: 

Judgement Halloumi v Grilloumi, EU:T:2021:204

Image:

Free-Photos | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconhalloumi wins,  judgment,  complementary connection,  word mark,  complementarity,  CFI,  Grilloumi,  Cyprus,  Halloumi,  collective mark,  halloumi v grilloumi,  word mark trade mark dispute

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

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

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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