EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES THERE IS NO CONFUSION BETWEEN HALLOUMI AND BBQLOUMI

26.01.2021

The European Court of Justice General Court announced its decision about the likelihood of confusion between the collective mark HALLOUMI, reserved for the members of a Cypriot association, and the sign BBQLOUMI which serves to designate the products of a Bulgarian company.

Halloumi is a traditional cheese of Cyprus and it is an EU collective mark registered for cheese. In the present case, a Bulgarian company applied as an EU trade mark for cheese, meat extracts, cheese-flavoured food products and catering services. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), responsible for the examination of applications for registration of EU trade marks, decided that there was no likelihood of confusion, for consumers, between the figurative sign “BBQLOUMI” and   the   earlier   collective   mark “HALLOUMI”. The   association then brought proceedings against that EUIPO decision before the General Court.

After reviewing the case, General Court dismissed the Cypriot  association’s action by holding that EUIPO was correct in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue because:

1. The General Court stated that likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the marks at issue are identical or similar and that the goods or services which they cover are identical or similar. As regards the comparison of the goods and services, it finds that there is no likelihood of confusion in respect of the meat extracts and catering services covered by the mark applied for, since they are neither identical nor similar to the goods covered by the earlier mark. By contrast, as regards the other goods, such as cheese, which are similar to varying degrees to the goods covered by the earlier mark, the existence of a likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out from the outset.

2. Concerning the similarity of the signs in question,  the  General  Court  stated  that the  signs  at  issue  share  the  element  ‘loumi’  which  has  weak  inherent  distinctiveness  for  a  large  part  of  the  relevant  public  who  will  understand  it  as  a  possible  reference  to  halloumi  cheese. Relevant public will be drawn more to the initial  part  of  that  word  element,  the  part  ‘bbq’.

3. That figurative element relates more to the concept of barbecue than that of cheese produced in a Mediterranean environment since it is not possible to state categorically that the foods represented are pieces of halloumi cheese.

4. Lastly, the General Court examined the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier collective mark and notes that it is weak.  Consumers will not associate it with anything  other  than  halloumi  cheese,  having regard to the fact that it refers to the generic name of that type of cheese, rather than to the commercial  origin  of  the  goods  designated  by  it  in  so  far  as  they  originate  from  members  of  the Cypriot  association  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  from  undertakings  that  are  economically  linked  to  those members or to that association.

You can find the text of the General Court decision here.

Should you have any queries and/or remarks, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Kind regards,

Zumbul Attorneys-at-Law

info@zumbul.av.tr