morethan181472198
Curioso / Shutterstock.com
30 September 2014TrademarksErmioni Pavlidou

Distinctive character: more than just a trademark battle?

Garmo AG, on October 24, 2005, filed an application to register the word mark ‘Hellim’ (hellim is the Turkish word for halloumi). The applicant sought protection under Class 29 of the Nice classification and the description of the goods and services of the mark included “milk and milk products”.

Organismos Kypriankis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias filed a notice of opposition against the registration of the above mark based on its own earlier and fully registered Community collective trademark ‘Halloumi’ (CTM 1082965). The opposition was based on the likelihood of confusion (now Article 8[1][b] of regulation No 207/2009).

The opposition was dismissed on March 10, 2010 despite the fact that the goods concerned were identical and/or similar. It was held that there was no visual or phonetic similarity between the two marks. In support of the finding of “no likelihood of confusion”, the decision also went on to say that the ‘Halloumi’ CTM had a weak distinctive character in Cyprus as the term halloumi designated a specialty cheese from Cyprus.

OHIM’s Boards of Appeal

This decision of the opposition division was appealed against pursuant to Articles 58 to 64 of the regulation but the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Board of Appeals of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

It was held that from the mere fact that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was a collective mark, it does not follow that it is of average, and not of a weak, distinctive character. So the board held that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was of weak character and in effect in connection with the low visual similarities, there was no likelihood of confusion, despite the fact the marks shared similar and/or identical goods.

Conceptually it held, in paragraph 23 of the contested decision, that Turkish was not an official language of the EU, with the result that if the possible meaning of the word ‘hellim’ in it were to recognise the designation of a specialty cheese from Cyprus, this would have no impact as it had a purely descriptive meaning and could not be used as a basis for comparison of the signs.

European General Court

The applicant filed for an order at the European General Court (EGC) for the above decision of OHIM’s Boards of Appeal (BoA) to be annulled.

It was held that the BoA acted correctly in reaching the conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion. The applicant did put forward an argument that the mark was at least of average distinctiveness due to its collective status. This argument was rejected by the court which held that the mere fact that ‘Halloumi’ is a collective mark does not automatically make it a mark of great or even average distinctiveness.

To quote: “It is true that Article 66(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 allows registration of collective marks, notwithstanding the fact that they could fall within the scope of Article 7(1)(c) of that regulation, the second sentence of Article 66(2) states expressly that a collective mark cannot entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, such signs or indications, on condition that that third party uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; in particular, such a mark may not be invoked against a third party who is entitled to use a geographical name.”

"As many may say that halloumi is to Cyprus what feta is to Greece, doesn’t this show a lack of means to protect geographical indications/heritage?"

The BoA took a different view. In paragraph 23 of its decision it held that the conceptual comparison was neutral. The BoA took this view and said that as Turkish is not an official language of the EU, the possible meaning of the word ‘hellim’ in Turkish is not conclusive for purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Paragraph 46 of the Judgment of the EGC (Eighth Chamber) elaborates on the matter:

“In paragraphs 25 to 27 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found, in essence, that the distinctive character of the earlier mark was diluted by the descriptive meaning of the word ‘halloumi’, with the result that the earlier mark described the product in question, that is to say, cheese.

“That sign describes, according to paragraph 27 of the contested decision, ‘the nature and type of cheese thus designated and not its geographical origin or other characteristics marked by regional particularities’. Therefore it is vital to examine the likelihood of confusion (phonetic & visual).”

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the court found that there was a degree of conceptual similarity. By quoting a few cases, the EGC said that, conceptually, the Turkish translation of the Greek word ‘halloumi’ is ‘hellim’.

Therefore in this view and in contrast with the BoA’s analysis, it cannot be disputed that the average consumer in Cyprus, where both Greek and Turkish are official languages, will understand that the words ‘halloumi’ and ‘hellim’ both refer to the same specialty cheese from Cyprus.

The judgment was delivered on June 13, 2012 by the EGC.

European Court of Justice

An appeal was filed at the ECJ. The grounds on which the appeal was based were:

1. The fact that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was a collective mark was not taken into consideration to the extent that it should have been and thus the conclusion that the mark was of a weak character was unsafe; and

2. That the court of first instance infringed Article 8 1(b).

The appeal was dismissed and ‘Hellim’ has been approved for registration.

Therefore, it may not be wrong to say that halloumi is something more than just a generic name but it is true that it constitutes a part of a country’s historic background, which is definitely worthy of protection.

Considering the above decision, it is useful to note that Greece had to struggle for ten years to be granted the exclusive right to use the mark ‘feta’ in association with cheese. As many may say that halloumi is to Cyprus what feta is to Greece, doesn’t this show a lack of means to protect geographical indications/heritage?

So, if Greece had to go through ten long years of battle to protect its heritage and as Cyprus did not even manage to secure the exclusive use of its own mark of geographical indication and lost this battle, does that show a weakness in the law governing this?

Should it be possible for anyone to argue, based on minor visual differences, that an entity should be able to register a mark which is in the end based upon the geographic indication/heritage of another?

Wouldn’t that mean that one may be able in the end to unfairly and unjustly take advantage of someone else’s heritage?

Ermioni Pavlidou is head of the IP department at Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC. She can be contacted at: ermioni@kyprianou.com.cy

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk