- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-615/22: Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Cemet (Halime)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0615
62022TN0615
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.11.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 432/38
(Case T-615/22)
(2022/C 432/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and C. Milbradt, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cemet Oy (Helsinki, Finland)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Halime — Application for registration No 18 241 593
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 121/2022-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order that EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO (should it take part as intervener) each bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
Pleas in law
—The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) by ignoring the fact that the earlier marks were certification marks, not individual marks;
—The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council in its analysis of the likelihood of confusion;
—The Board of Appeal erred under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when analysing the distinctiveness of the earlier certification marks;
—The Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by carrying out an erroneous comparison of the respective goods and services.
Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.