EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0089
Case T-89/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
Case T-89/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
Case T-89/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
OJ C 134, 16.4.2018, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.4.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 134/29 |
Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
(Case T-89/18)
(2018/C 134/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO
Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 105 985
Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1095/2017-4
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded. |
|
— |
Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6/105/985 CAFÉ DEL SOL, filed by the German company GASTRO & SOUL GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded. |
|
— |
In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1095/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-548/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute. |
Plea in law
|
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |