14 novembre 2023
Brands Update - November 2023 – 2 de 6 Publications
In a long-running dispute, the EU General Court has held that there is no likelihood of confusion between HALLOUMI and GRILLOUMI. This decision reaffirms that the test for likelihood of confusion for certification marks is the same as that for individual marks.
Had Cyprus relied on its protected designation of origin for HALLOUMI (registered in 2021), the outcome of the case might have been different.
In 2016, Fontana Food AB filed an EUTM for the word GRILLOUMI, covering services for providing food and drink, coffee-shop services and restaurants in class 43.
The Republic of Cyprus opposed the application based on two of its earlier Cypriot certification word marks for XAΛΛOYMI HALLOUMI in Class 29, one for 'fresh halloumi’ and the other for ‘mature halloumi’.
The opposition was based on various grounds but the current decisions related only to Article 8(1)(b) of the EUTM Regulation (EUTMR). This states that "Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered:… if, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected…".
The opposition was rejected by the Opposition Division since the goods/services in question were not deemed similar. In some circumstances, goods/services can be deemed similar if they are complementary in nature. Here, there was deemed to be an insufficient ‘complementary connection’ between the goods and services of the respective marks (halloumi and restaurant services), prompting Cyprus to file an appeal with the EUIPO Board of Appeal.
The Board of Appeal dismissed Cyprus' appeal. The Board acknowledged the possible complementarity between the goods and services but ruled that such a connection had not yet been determined for cheese and restaurant services. It took the view that the goods and services covered by the marks were not similar and so no likelihood of confusion could exist.
Cyprus sought to annul this decision and, as a result, filed an appeal before the General Court.
In contrast to the Board of Appeal, the General Court held that (as established by case law) goods like cheese are necessarily used in the serving of food and drink, and so a ‘complimentary link’ must be presumed to exist. As a result, the Board had erred in finding that the goods and services were dissimilar, and the case was remitted back to the Board of Appeal.
The General Court also confirmed that the test for likelihood of confusion for certification marks is the same as that for individual marks.
Despite the goods/services in question now being deemed similar (albeit to a low degree), the Board still found no likelihood of confusion between GRILLOUMI and HALLOUMI. It did so because of the low degree of similarity between the goods/services, low degree of inherent distinctiveness of the HALLOUMI marks, lack of evidence of acquired enhanced distinctiveness through use and below-average degree of similarity between the marks.
In the latest General Court decision, Cyprus contested the following points:
The Board had failed to consider that, in the context of certification marks, a 'specific comparison' between the goods and services was required. The Board of Appeal's claim that the similarity between the goods and services was low was wrong.
The General Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
When determining the likelihood of confusion, the essential function of a certification mark must be understood and applied. As previously held by the General Court, likelihood of confusion, in the context of certification marks, means the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services covered by the later mark originates from persons authorised to use the certification mark by the proprietor, or from undertakings economically linked to those persons or that proprietor. Therefore, the Board of Appeal had applied the correct criterion and was entitled to rule that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks.
In view of these considerations, it concluded that the Board of Appeal had acted within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) and the decision was to be upheld.
Critically, the General Court's ruling dispels any uncertainty around the criteria to be applied in determining likelihood of confusion where a certification mark is concerned. It also indicates that certification marks that are descriptive will be given a narrower scope of protection.
This article was primarily authored by Emily Hufford.
14 November 2023
par Louise Popple
10 November 2023
par Louise Popple
14 November 2023
14 November 2023
par Louise Popple
14 November 2023
par Munir Suboh, Louise Popple
par Louise Popple
par Louise Popple
par Louise Popple