OPPOSITION No B 2 543 257

Gruner + Jahr GmbH & Co KG, Am Baumwall 11, 20459 Hamburg, Germany (opponent), represented by Harte-Bavendamm Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft MBB, Am Sandtorkai 77, 20457 Hamburg, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

An Post GeoDirectory Limited, General Post Office, O'Connell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland (applicant), represented by FRKelly, 27 Clyde Road Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland (professional representative).

On 19/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 543 257 is upheld for all the contested goods and services.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 13 448 477 is rejected in its entirety.

3.        The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 650.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 13 448 477. The opposition is based on, inter alia, on International registration No 863 134 designating the European Union. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR.

Preliminary remark

On 11/04/2016, the applicant requested, in accordance with Article 42 EUTMR, that the opponent submit proof of use with regard to four earlier rights on which the opposition was, inter alia, based, namely German trade mark registrations No 30 622 991, No 302 009 049 890 (except for Class 42), No 302 009 043 177 and No 302 010 003 407.

By notification of 14/04/2016, the Office informed the parties that the request for proof of use concerning the last cited mark cannot be taken into account, since the latter had not been registered for at least five years at the date of publication of the contested trade mark.

On 22/06/2016, the opponent explicitly excluded the three earlier rights (with the exception of Class 42 of German trade mark registration No 302 009 049 890) inasmuch as these were subject to the use requirement from the basis of opposition, and informed that, from then on, the opposition is based only upon German trade mark registration No 302 009 049 890 for services in Class 42 and on the remaining earlier rights that were duly invoked as the basis for opposition and with regard to which proof of use was not required.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs and the relevant public.

As seen above, the opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s International registration No 863 134.

1. The goods and services

The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 9: Magnetic, optical, magneto-optical and electronic sound and image recording carriers and data memories, in particular cds, cd roms, cd-is, dvds, floppy disks, video tapes, recording discs and microfilm, for on and off-line use; tape recorders, equipment for receiving, as well as for recording, transmission and reproduction of sound and images; hardware, in particular data processing apparatus, computers and computer peripheral devices; software; data processing programs, computer operating programs.

Class 16: Printed matter; bookbinding material.

Class 35: Services of an electronic commerce platform, namely presentation of goods and services, reception of orders and order processing services, as well as auditing services for electronic ordering systems; publication of publicity texts; compilation and systemization of information into computer databases.

Class 38: Services in the field of telecommunications; transmission of information to third parties on the Internet; dissemination of information on wireless or cable networks; online content provider services, namely providing user access to a global computer network and information about the Internet; broadcasting of radio and (cable) television programmes.

Class 41: Education, providing of training, entertainment, in particular radio and television entertainment; services of a publisher (except printing); publication and issuing of texts in printed and electronic form as an off-line and online publisher, included in this class; sporting and cultural activities.

Class 42: Computer programming; design and development of database programs; exploitation and management of intellectual property.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Electronic directories and database products; database and directories on CD- Rom, tapes, electronic and other media, magnetic data carrier; computer software and data, all relating to maps and mapping; map plotting apparatus; computer programs; computer software and computer firmware; computer software relating to mailing addresses; maps in digital or electronic form; downloadable electronic material, including web pages, and software downloadable from the Internet or other computer network; computer navigation apparatus for vehicles; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for displaying and sharing a user's location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users.

Class 35: Data processing services; database management; computerised data management; data capture; computerised data processing and verification; computerised file management; compilation of information into a computer database; compilation of mailing lists, management of mailing lists and mailing list information; consultancy on targeting communications to customers and potential customers; data hygiene services; data cleaning services, data correction, data updating, data suppression services; provision of market research services; business statistical studies and provision of business statistical and of commercial information; business management and business administration services; advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services; any of the aforesaid services being provided on-line from a computer database or via the Internet, an extranet or intranet.

Class 42: Geographic and location identifying information providing on-line from a computer database or from the internet; providing on-line non-downloadable software for displaying and sharing a user's location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users; Design and development of computer software and hardware; data profiling, geodemographic modelling; data modelling; computerised file storage and retrieval; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for publishing and sharing digital media and information via global computer and communication networks; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software development tools; providing a web hosting platform for others for organizing and conducting meetings, social events and interactive text, audio, and video discussions; providing an on-line network environment that features technology that enables users to share data; computer consultancy services namely the construction, management and building of databases, advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services.

Class 45: On-line social networking services.

An interpretation of the wording of the list of goods and services is required to determine the scope of protection of these goods and services.

The terms ‘in particular’ and ‘including’, used in the applicant’s and opponent’s list of goods and services, indicates that the specific goods and services are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (see the judgment of 09/04/2003, T-224/01, Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

However, the term ‘namely’, used in the opponent’s and applicant’s list of goods and services to show the relationship of individual goods and services with a broader category, is exclusive and restricts the scope of protection only to the specifically listed goods and services.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 28(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar or dissimilar to each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.

Contested goods in Class 9

In Class 9 of the earlier mark, the opponent’s goods are a range of data carriers, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of sound or images, computer hardware and software. In broad terms, such devices commonly originate from the information technology and telecommunications (IT&T) industry and are intended for enabling users to store data or audio-visual content, to permit remote communication between people or machines, to process data etc.

The contested computer software and data, all relating to maps and mapping; computer programs; computer software and computer firmware; computer software relating to mailing addresses; software downloadable from the Internet or other computer network; downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for displaying and sharing a user's location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users are identically contained (including synonyms) or included in the opponent’s broad category of software. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested map plotting apparatus; computer navigation apparatus for vehicles are included in the broad category of the opponent’s hardware, in particular data processing apparatus, computers and computer peripheral devices. Therefore, they are considered as identical.

The contested downloadable electronic material, including web pages includes downloadable software. Thus, there is an overlap with the opponent’s software. Therefore, these goods are identical.

The contested electronic directories and database products; database and directories on CD- Rom, tapes, electronic and other media, magnetic data carrier consist of different types of data, usually stored in or managed with computers. They either consist of software designed to store data or they need software in order to be viewed, stored, updated, read, etc. These contested goods are either identical or highly similar to the opponent’s software, since they can partially overlap and partially be complementary, target the same consumers, have the same distribution channels and are likely to come from the same kinds of companies.

The contested maps in digital or electronic form consist of specific maps and photographs, all of which are in electronic form. The opponent’s software is a broad category, which encompasses, inter alia, software specifically designed to elaborate, develop or work in conjunction with electronic geographical maps, electronic panoramic photographs, geo-informatics systems and electronic land survey results. This type of software is essential for the proper use of the applicant’s goods. Consequently, there is a certain complementarity between these goods. Furthermore, they coincide in their nature and methods of use, being all goods in electronic form to be used with computers, and may have a similar ultimate purpose. They may be distributed through the same specialised commercial channels, target the same consumers and originate from the same IT companies. Therefore, they are highly similar.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested data processing services; database management; computerised data management; data capture; computerised data processing and verification; computerised file management; compilation of information into a computer database; compilation of mailing lists, management of mailing lists and mailing list information; data hygiene services; data cleaning services, data correction, data updating, data suppression services; advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services; any of the aforesaid services being provided on-line from a computer database or via the Internet, an extranet or intranet are identically listed (for compilation of information into a computer database), included in or overlap with the opponent’s compilation and systemization of information into computer databases. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested provision of market research services; business statistical studies and provision of business statistical and of commercial information; business management and business administration services; advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services; any of the aforesaid services being provided on-line from a computer database or via the Internet, an extranet or intranet and the opponent’s auditing services for electronic ordering systems are all services aimed at helping to organise human and other business resources efficiently so as to direct activities towards common goals and objectives. They can have the same purpose and end users. Moreover, they can be rendered by the same providers, namely specialised companies, such as business consultants. These companies gather information and provide tools and expertise to enable their customers to carry out their business or provide businesses with the necessary support to acquire, develop and expand market share. The services include activities such as business research and assessments, cost and price analyses, audits, organisational consultancy and any consultancy, advisory and assistance activity that may be useful in the management of a business, such as advice on how to efficiently allocate financial and human resources, improve productivity, increase market share, deal with competitors, reduce tax bills, develop new products, communicate with the public, market products, research consumer trends, launch new products, create a corporate identity, etc. Therefore, they are considered highly similar.

The contested consultancy on targeting communications to customers and potential customers has a similar purpose and origins, as the opponent’s publication of publicity texts. The services also coincide in consumers and can be in competition. The services are similar.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested design and development of computer software; providing an on-line network environment that features technology that enables users to share data; computer consultancy services namely the construction, management and building of databases are identical to the opponent’s design and development of database programs, either because they include or overlap with these opponent’s services.

The contested geographic and location identifying information providing on-line from a computer database or from the internet; data profiling, geodemographic modelling; data modelling; computerised file storage and retrieval have relevant connections with the opponent’s design and development of database programs, since the latter comprise the design and development of software in multiple technical and scientific areas such as geography. Moreover, the services in conflict are all related to computer databases. Furthermore, they may be offered by the same companies and in combination, as part of a broader service, ordered by the same customer in order to fulfil the same ultimate needs. Therefore, they are considered similar.

The contested advisory, information and consultancy services relating to [Geographic and location identifying information providing on-line from a computer database or from the internet; Design and development of computer software; data profiling, data modelling; computerised file storage and retrieval; providing an on-line network environment that features technology that enables users to share data; computer consultancy services namely the construction, management and building of databases] are similar to the opponent’s design and development of database programs since they are rendered by the same providers. Moreover, they have the same distribution channels and end users. Therefore, they are similar. 

The opponent’s computer programming involves the design and development of the technical equipment or the necessary program platform required to meet the full range of customer demands, including communication and socialising in electronic environments. These services and the contested providing on-line non-downloadable software for displaying and sharing a user's location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for publishing and sharing digital media and information via global computer and communication networks; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software development tools; providing a web hosting platform for others for organizing and conducting meetings, social events and interactive text, audio, and video discussions; advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services are often rendered by the same providers. They have the same distribution channels and end users. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested design and development of computer hardware; advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services are similar to the opponent’s computer programming. The hardware is designed to work hand in hand with computer programs. Computer hardware companies also manufacture software, share the same distribution channels and may target the same professional public. Moreover, they can be complementary.

Contested services in Class 45

The contested on-line social networking services are mainly a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. A social network service consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links and a variety of additional services. Most social network services are web-based and provide means for users to interact over the internet, such as email and instant messaging. Social networking sites allow users to share ideas, pictures, posts, activities, events and interests with people in their network. The contested services are similar to the opponent’s online content provider services, namely providing user access to a global computer network and information about the Internet in Class 38, which is a broad category that may include the access to different kind of information on the Internet such as access to mail accounts, chat lines, etc. Indeed, the services under comparison have a similar nature, may originate from the same companies and target the same end users. Furthermore, they are complementary.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods and services found to be identical or similar to different degrees are directed at the public at large and business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise. The degree of attention is expected to vary from average to higher than average, given the specialised nature of the goods and services and the fact that they may be expensive.

3. The signs

Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

The unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C-514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). This applies by analogy to international registrations designating the European Union. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

The element ‘DIRECTORY’ is meaningful in certain territories, for example, in those countries where English is understood. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the English-speaking part of the public.

The earlier mark consists of the word ‘GEO’ depicted in a rather standard typeface, in light grey.

The contested sign is a figurative mark made up of the word ‘GEO’ written in almost standard blue letters. Below is the word ‘DIRECTORY’ in the same blue typeface but in smaller letters. The verbal elements are preceded by an orange curved arrow. It cannot be excluded that a part of the public will also perceive a highly stylised ‘G’ in this figurative element, referring to the initial letter of the first word ‘GEO’.

The coinciding element of the signs ‘GEO’ will be perceived by an important part of the public as a prefix “indicating “earth” (Collins English Dictionary Online, www.collinsdictionary.com). As it is not descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak for the opponent’s goods and services that are relevant for the present assessment, it is distinctive. However, as some of the contested goods and services in Class 9 (computer software and data, all relating to maps and mapping; map plotting apparatus; maps in digital or electronic form; computer navigation apparatus for vehicles) and 42 (geographic and location identifying information providing on-line from a computer database or from the internet) are directly relating to maps, mapping and to geography, the word ‘GEO’ is allusive for these specific goods and services. By contrast, this word is distinctive in relation to the remaining contested goods and services.

The second word of the contested sign, ‘DIRECTORY’, means notably ‘a book, arranged alphabetically or classified by trade listing names, addresses, telephone numbers etc., of individuals or firms; a book or manual giving directions; an area of a computer disk which contains one or more files or other directories; a grouping of files that are stored on a disk, diskette, etc.; a listing of such files’ (Collins English Dictionary Online, www.collinsdictionary.com). Considering that most of the contested goods and services relate to or may concern data, directories or files, the word ‘DIRECTORY’ is considered as weak for electronic directories and database products; database and directories on CD- Rom, tapes, electronic and other media, magnetic data carrier; computer software and data, all relating to maps and mapping; map plotting apparatus; computer programs; computer software and computer firmware; computer software relating to mailing addresses in Class 9, for all services in Class 35 and for geographic and location identifying information providing on-line from a computer database or from the internet; design and development of computer software and hardware; data profiling, geodemographic modelling; data modelling; computerised file storage and retrieval; providing an on-line network environment that features technology that enables users to share data; computer consultancy services namely the construction, management and building of databases, advisory, information and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services in Class 42. The term is distinctive for the remaining goods and services.

The word ‘GEO’ and the stylised arrow in the contested sign are the dominant and most eye-catching elements due to their size and/or bold typeface.

Visually, the earlier mark differs from a word mark only by the use of a stylisation of letters in a form which is only slightly different from that of a standard typeface. The signs are similar to the extent that they coincide in the word ‘GEO’, which is also written in a rather standard typeface and occupies an independent position in the contested sign. This word constitutes the only element of the earlier mark and is allusive for some of the contested goods and services. The signs differ in the additional word ‘DIRECTORY’ of the contested sign which is however weak for most of the contested goods and services and less eye-catching.

There is also a difference in the coloured figurative element of the contested sign. However, the stylised arrow has less visual impact as well. Indeed, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). In addition, it has been considered that a part of the public will also perceive in the arrow the initial letter of the word ‘GEO’. Therefore, in that case, it will be immediately associated with this word and has a subordinate role in the sign for that reason as well.

Furthermore, the term ‘GEO’ of the contested sign is totally reproduced in the beginning of the earlier mark and the first verbal parts of the conflicting marks are identical. Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.

Therefore, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the earlier trade mark ‘GEO’ is totally included as the beginning of the contested sign. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the word ‘DIRECTORY’, which is however weak for most of the contested goods and services. The part of the public which perceives a stylised ‘G’ in the contested sign will not pronounce this one syllable sound, since the ‘G’ will only be perceived as the initial letter of the word ‘GEO’  with a subordinate role.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to an average degree and even highly similar in relation to the goods and services for which ‘DIRECTORY’ is weak.

Conceptually, as seen above, the element ‘GEO’, present in both signs will be perceived by the public as a prefix ‘indicating earth’. In this respect, the signs have the same meaning.

The signs differ in the additional elements of the contested sign, namely in the concept of the word ‘DIRECTORY’, which has however less visual impact and is weak for most of the goods and services, and in the meaning of figurative element. However, this element, which will be associated with the meaning of an arrow and/or the letter ‘G’, has a lesser impact than the verbal elements and will be perceived as conceptually subordinate to the word ‘GEO’ for a part of the public.

Therefore, the signs are considered conceptually similar to an average degree and even highly similar in relation to the goods and services for which ‘DIRECTORY’ is weak.

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

According to the opponent, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys an enhanced scope of protection. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the evidence filed by the opponent to prove this claim does not have to be assessed in the present case (see below in ‘Global assessment’).

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

According to the case law of the Court of Justice, in determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, trade marks have to be compared by making an overall assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities between the marks. The comparison ‘must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components’ (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22 et seq.).

Moreover, the Court has set out the essential principle that evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between the goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

In the present case, the goods and services are partly identical and partly similar to different degrees. The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal.

The signs are visually and aurally highly similar for most of the goods and services (similar to an average degree for the rest) as well as conceptually similar to an average degree. The similarity results from the common word ‘GEO’, which is the only component of the earlier mark and the most impacting element of the contested sign. Moreover, for a part of the public the signs coincide in their beginning where the attention is more focused on.

The signs only differ in the contested sign in an additional word, which is weak for most of the goods and services, as well as in a less impacting figurative element, which has a subordinate role despite its size.

Likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings.

In the present case, the relevant consumer is highly likely to perceive the contested mark as a variation of the earlier mark intended for designating a specific range of services (23/10/2002, T-104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Finally, account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26). Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T-443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54).

Based on all the foregoing, the additional elements of the contested sign are clearly not sufficient to differentiate the marks. Taken together with the identity and similarity (to different degrees) of the goods and services as well as the average degree of attention of the public, it is highly probable that the English-speaking consumers will believe that the conflicting goods and services come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings. This also applies for the few contested goods and services for which ‘GEO’ is allusive, given the very strong coincidences of the signs as well as the weak, less impacting and/or subordinate nature of the additional elements, which also are confined to the contested sign.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, on the part of the English-speaking public. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s International registration No 863 134 designating the European Union. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods and services.

Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is no need to assess the enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark due to its extensive use as claimed by the opponent. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

As the abovementioned earlier right leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods and services against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

According to Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Sonia MEHANNEK

Steve HAUSER

Martina GALLE

According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.