Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:720
Date: 2016-12-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Spain

Action brought on 22 September 2012 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol) (Case T-548/15) Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish Parties Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany) Details of the proceedings before OHIM Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — Application for registration No 6 105 985 Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 2755/2014-5 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the contested decision and declare the admissibility of the opposition based on the priority trade mark owned by the opposing party, Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, falling within Class 42 of the International Classification. if the opposition is allowed, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark No 006105985 CAFÉ DEL SOL applied for with respect to the ‘provision of food and beverages, temporary accommodation and catering’, falling within Class 43 of the International Classification, requested by German company Gastro & Soul GmbH; or, in the event that the Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, with the direction to grant the opposition. with respect to the evidence, consider the documents annexed to the present application, numbered 1 to 4, as specified in the attached list of accompanying documents, as having been provided together with the relevant evidence in the administrative procedure. Pleas in law Inconsistency ‘extra petitum’ of the contested decision, since the applicant did not raise the inadmissibility of the opposition as one of the grounds for the application. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. ____________