OPPOSITION No B 2 574 211

Aerogroup International LLC, 201 Meadow Road, Edison, New Jersey 08817, United States of America (opponent), represented by Bugnion S.P.A., Viale Lancetti, 17, 20158 Milano, Italy (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Vorola Financial Ltd., 33 Porter Road, P.O. Box 3169, PMB 103, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (holder), represented by J.M. Toro, S.L.P., Viriato, 56 – 1º izda, 28010 Madrid, Spain (professional representative).

On 19/06/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 574 211 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 25:        Footwear; half-boots; ski boots; boots for sports; football shoes; galoshes; leggings [leg warmers]; beach shoes; sports shoes; lace boots; wooden shoes; sandals; bath sandals; boots; inner soles; bath slippers; gymnastic shoes; slippers; shoes.

2.        International registration No 1 226 507 is refused protection in respect of the European Union for all of the contested goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

3.        Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods of international registration designating the European Union No 1 226 507, namely against all the goods in Classes 18 and 25. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 2 180 370, for the figurative mark , and European Union trade mark registration No 725 168, for the word mark ‘AEROSOLES’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of publication of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

For international registrations designating the European Union, the ‘date of publication’ of the contested mark within the meaning of Article 42(2) EUTMR, that is to say for the purposes of establishing the five-year period of use obligation for the earlier mark, is considered to be six months after the first republication of the international registration, which corresponds to the beginning of the opposition period (Article 156 EUTMR in conjunction with Article 152 EUTMR, in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition). The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

The holder requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade marks on which the opposition is based, European Union trade mark registrations No 2 180 370 and No 725 168.

The request was submitted in due time and is admissible as the earlier trade marks were registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

The relevant date (first republication of the contested international registration plus six months) is 12/06/2015. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade marks on which the opposition is based were put to genuine use in the European Union from 12/06/2010 to 11/06/2015 inclusive.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade marks for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

European Union trade mark registration No 2 180 370 for the figurative mark

Class 18:        Luggage, luggage straps, travel bags, garment bags, briefcases, portfolios, attache cases, handbags, pocketbooks, leather and fabric evening bags, clutches, tote bags, athletic bags, duffel bags, beach bags, shoe bags, diaper bags, cosmetic bags sold empty, toiletry cases sold empty, school bags, knapsacks, waist bags, umbrellas; wallets, billfolds, business card cases, credit card cases, key cases, change purses.

Class 25:        Coats, jackets, overcoats, rainwear and topcoats, suits, blazers, shirts, slacks, dresses, sweaters, jeans, t-shirts, sweatshirts, swim wear, shorts, underwear, loungewear, lingerie, robes and pajamas, neckwear, scarves, gloves, mittens, headwear, belts, footwear, socks and hosiery.

European Union trade mark registration No 725 168 for the word mark ‘AEROSOLES’

Class 18:        Handbags, totebags, travel bags, purses and small leather assessories, namely wallets and keyfobs; handbags, totebags, backpacks supplied by mail order.

Class 25:        Clothing, footwear, headgear.

According to Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the evidence of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods and services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 04/05/2016, according to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, the Office gave the opponent two months to submit the proof of use. This time limit was extended and finally expired on 09/09/2016. On 09/09/2016, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

As the opponent requested to keep certain commercial data contained in the evidence confidential vis-à-vis third parties, the Opposition Division will describe the evidence only in the most general terms without divulging any such data.

The evidence to be taken into account is the following:

Enclosures 1 and 2: two maps with the heading ‘AEROSOLES’ at the top, and a list entitled ‘Aerosoles Stores in Europe, Africa and Middle East’ of unknown origin, all undated.

Enclosure 3:         11 photos showing ‘AEROSOLES’ shops in the European Union, undated.

Enclosure 4:         a text of unknown origin, entitled ‘Spring-Summer ’09’ and mainly in German, showing shoes and a handbag.

Enclosure 5:        a chart entitled ‘Aerosoles Company Profile’, dated July 2006, showing the growth of the company’s business in 1993-2004.

Enclosure 6:        five photos, three of them showing shoes and the trade mark ‘AEROSOLES’, said to be of posters on the streets of Paris and on the subways of Paris and Milan; a document with the words ‘B2B Participacao em Feiras Profissionais’ at the top, undated. The photos are of poor quality and undated; and a document in Portuguese with the Olympic rings and the words ‘Portugal’ and ‘AEROSOLES’, identifying ‘AEROSOLES’ as the official sponsor of the Portuguese team at the Olympics in Beijing 2008.

Enclosure 7:        some extracts from articles in magazines dated 2008.

Enclosure 8:        photos intended to demonstrate that ‘AEROSOLES’ is promoted at the most important fairs and events in the EU. Illegible photos, undated.

Enclosures 9 and 10: two licence agreements dated 2012, relating to licences to use the mark ‘AEROSOLES’ in connection with, inter alia, the sale of women’s shoes, handbags and accessories bearing the licensed mark.

Enclosure 11:        some sales figures for the European Union, not signed, undated and with no reference to the relevant goods.

Enclosure 12:         a set of 15 invoices issued between 11/06/2013 and 26/02/2016. Five of these are dated outside the relevant timeframe (they date from 19/02/2016-10/03/2016). Five of the remaining invoices contain no reference to the trade mark ‘AEROSOLES’. The remaining four invoices are to customers in the United Kingdom and Greece and refer to the trade mark ‘AEROSOLES’ for ladies’ shoes and ladies’ sandals. These invoices are dated between 09/01/2015 and 13/03/2015 and refer to sales of several thousand pairs of shoes to clients in the United Kingdom and Greece.

According to Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the indications and evidence required to provide proof of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opponent’s trade mark for the relevant goods and services. These requirements for proof of use are cumulative (05/10/2010, T-92/09, STRATEGI, EU:T:2010:424, § 43). This means that the opponent is obliged not only to indicate but also to prove each of these requirements. However, the sufficiency of the indication and proof of the place, time, extent and nature of use has to be determined by considering the entirety of the evidence submitted.

The holder argues that not all the items of evidence indicate genuine use in terms of time, place, extent, nature and use of the goods for which the earlier marks are registered.

The holder’s argument is based on an individual assessment of each item of evidence regarding all the relevant factors. However, when assessing genuine use, the Opposition Division must consider the evidence in its entirety. Even if some relevant factors are lacking in some items of evidence, the combination of all the relevant factors in all the items of evidence may still indicate genuine use.

Place of use

The invoices and the licence agreements show that the place of use is, inter alia, the United Kingdom and Greece. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (English), the currency mentioned (euros) and some addresses in the United Kingdom and Greece. Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Time of use

Most of the evidence is dated outside the relevant period, or undated. However, some of the invoices, demonstrating significant sales, and the licence agreements are dated within the relevant period. Evidence referring to use made outside the relevant timeframe is disregarded unless it contains conclusive indirect proof that the mark must have been put to genuine use as well during the relevant period of time. Events subsequent to the relevant time period may make it possible to confirm or better assess the extent to which the earlier mark was used during the relevant time period and the real intentions of the EUTM proprietor at that time (27/01/2004, C-259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50).

Extent of use

As regards the extent of use, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the nature of the relevant goods or services and the characteristics of the market concerned, the territorial extent of use, its commercial volume, duration and frequency.

The assessment of genuine use entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, or vice versa. Likewise, the territorial scope of the use is only one of several factors to be taken into account, so that a limited territorial scope of use can be counteracted by a more significant volume or duration of use.

The documents filed, namely the invoices dated within the relevant timeframe, for significant amounts to customers in the United Kingdom and Greece, the photographs (even though the quality is substandard) and the list over Aerosoles stores, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration and the frequency of use.

Use of the mark need not be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine.

Although the evidence indicates a short duration and a low frequency of use, it shows use in several Member States, including the United Kingdom and Greece.

Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that the opponent has provided sufficient indications concerning the extent of the use of the earlier marks.

In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence does show use of the sign as registered within the meaning of Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR.

The Court of Justice has held that there is ‘genuine use’ of a mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services. Genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition of genuine use of the mark requires that the mark, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly (11/03/2003, C-40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, and 12/03/2003, T-174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, the evidence submitted by the opponent is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier trade marks during the relevant period in the relevant territory. The trade mark is used as registered and as a trade mark, namely to indicate the goods of a certain producer, which can be seen from the invoices submitted. The earlier figurative mark is registered in a standard typeface and therefore the Opposition Division finds that the evidence shows use of that trade mark as well.

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods covered by the earlier marks.

According to Article 42(2) EUTMR, if the earlier trade mark has been used in relation to part only of the goods or services for which it is registered it will, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services.

According to case-law, when applying the abovementioned provision the following should be considered:

…if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub-categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub-category or sub-categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong. However, if a trade mark has been registered for goods or services defined so precisely and narrowly that it is not possible to make any significant sub-divisions within the category concerned, then the proof of genuine use of the mark for the goods or services necessarily covers the entire category for the purposes of the opposition.

Although the principle of partial use operates to ensure that trade marks which have not been used for a given category of goods are not rendered unavailable, it must not, however, result in the proprietor of the earlier trade mark being stripped of all protection for goods which, although not strictly identical to those in respect of which he has succeeded in proving genuine use, are not in essence different from them and belong to a single group which cannot be divided other than in an arbitrary manner. The Court observes in that regard that in practice it is impossible for the proprietor of a trade mark to prove that the mark has been used for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned by the registration. Consequently, the concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ cannot be taken to mean all the commercial variations of similar goods or services but merely goods or services which are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or sub-categories.

(14/07/2005, T-126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288).

In the present case, the evidence proves use only for ladies’ shoes and ladies’ sandals, belonging to the following category in the specification: footwear for women. As the opponent is not required to prove all the conceivable variations of the category of goods for which the earlier mark is registered, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for footwear for women. There is, however, no reference to the other relevant goods, and the evidence does not provide sufficient information about how they have been used commercially.

Therefore, the Opposition Division will only consider the abovementioned goods, footwear for women, in its further examination of the opposition.

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.

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 European Union trade mark registration No 725 168.

1. The goods

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

Class 25:        Footwear for women.

The contested goods are, after a limitation, the following:

Class 18:         Leather and imitations of leather; animal skins; chamois leather, other than for cleaning purposes; imitation leather; leather, unworked or semi-worked; curried skins.

Class 25:         Footwear; half-boots; ski boots; boots for sports; football shoes; galoshes; leggings [leg warmers]; boot uppers; heels; heelpieces for footwear; beach shoes; sports shoes; fittings of metal for footwear; soles for footwear; lace boots; non-slipping devices for footwear; welts for footwear; wooden shoes; sandals; bath sandals; boots; footwear uppers; inner soles; bath slippers; gymnastic shoes; slippers; shoes; tips for footwear.

Contested goods in Class 18

The contested leather and imitations of leather; animal skins; chamois leather, other than for cleaning purposes; imitation leather; leather, unworked or semi-worked; curried skins refer to the skins of various kinds of animals (or imitations thereof). These are raw materials. The fact that one product is used for manufacturing another (e.g. leather for footwear) is not sufficient in itself to conclude that the goods are similar, as their nature, purpose, relevant public and distribution channels may be quite distinct. The abovementioned raw materials in Class 18 are intended for use in industry rather than for direct purchase by the final consumer. They are sold in different outlets, are of a different nature and serve a different purpose from the opponent’s goods. Therefore, these goods are dissimilar.

Contested goods in Class 25

The contested footwear includes, as a broader category, the opponent’s footwear for women. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are considered identical to the opponent’s goods.

The contested half-boots; ski boots; boots for sports; football shoes; galoshes; beach shoes; sports shoes; lace boots; wooden shoes; sandals; bath sandals; boots; bath slippers; gymnastic shoes; slippers; shoes are included in the broad category of the opponent’s footwear for women. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested leggings [leg warmers] are related to the opponent’s footwear for women, since they serve the same purpose: they are used to cover various parts of the human body and protect them against the elements. They are also articles of fashion and are often found in the same retail outlets. Consumers, when seeking to purchase clothes, will expect to find footwear in the same department or shop, and vice versa. Moreover, many manufacturers and designers will design and produce both sets of goods. Therefore, these goods are similar.

The contested inner soles are important parts of footwear and it is not unlikely that they would be produced by the same manufacturers and distributed through the same channels as the opponent’s footwear for women. Furthermore, they are complementary and may have the same relevant public. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested boot uppers; heels; heelpieces for footwear; fittings of metal for footwear; soles for footwear; non-slipping devices for footwear; welts for footwear; footwear uppers; tips for footwear are considered dissimilar to the opponent’s footwear for women. This is because they differ in nature and purpose. They target different publics, have different distribution channels and are not usually produced by the same kind of undertakings.

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 found to be identical or similar are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is considered average.

3. The signs

AEROSOLES
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). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

All the elements/components of the signs are 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, such as the public in the United Kingdom.

The earlier mark is a word mark, ‘AEROSOLES’.

The contested mark is a figurative mark, consisting of the word ‘AEROSHOES’ in rather standard letters.

The element ‘AERO’ in both marks will be understood as a prefix, used at the beginning of words, especially nouns, referring to things or activities connected with air or movement through the air (information extracted from Collins English Dictionary on 23/05/2017 at www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/aero_2). Bearing in mind that the relevant goods are mainly footwear and parts of footwear, this element alludes to the quality or feeling of these goods (being suggestive of, inter alia, the expression ‘to walk on air’), and is therefore considered weak in both marks.

The element ‘SOLES’ of the earlier mark will be perceived as the plural form of the word ‘sole’, meaning the underneath surface of a shoe, a sock or a foot (information extracted from Collins English Dictionary on 23/05/2017 at www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sole). Bearing in mind that the relevant goods are footwear, this element is non-distinctive for these goods.

Therefore, the earlier mark as a whole will be perceived as meaning ‘soles of air’.

The element ‘SHOES’ of the contested mark will be associated with shoes. Bearing in mind that the relevant goods are mainly shoes and parts of footwear, this element is non-distinctive for these goods.

The contested mark as a whole will be perceived as meaning ‘shoes of air’, or something similar.

The coinciding element, ‘AERO’, is the most distinctive part in both signs.

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.

Visually, the signs coincide in the prefix ‘AERO’, which is considered weak, as described above. They differ in the non-distinctive verbal elements ‘SOLES’ of the earlier mark and ‘SHOES’ of the contested mark, in which four out of five letters (‘S*O*ES’) are identical.

Therefore, the signs are visually highly similar.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘AERO’ and ‘S*O*ES’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letters ‘L’ of the earlier mark and ‘H’ of the contested mark; this single differing letter in each word creates a slightly different pronunciation of the second half of each mark.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to at least an average degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As the signs will be associated with similar meanings – soles of air versus shoes of air – the signs are conceptually highly similar.

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 in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. However, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as lower than average, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The contested goods are partly identical, partly similar and partly dissimilar to the opponent’s goods.

The signs are visually and conceptually highly similar and aurally similar to at least an average degree.

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. In the present case, the differing elements ‘SOLES’ and ‘SHOES’ come at the end, which is usually the part of a sign that does not attract the primary attention of the consumer. Furthermore, these elements are considered non-distinctive for the relevant goods.

The finding that part of a mark (the earlier mark in the present case) has a limited distinctive character in respect of the goods does not preclude a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion. As a whole, the earlier mark has a lower than average degree of distinctiveness for the goods. Although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. Therefore, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a similarity between the signs and between the goods and services covered (13/12/2007, T-134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).

Consumers tend to remember the similarities rather than the dissimilarities between signs. In addition, account should be 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 Meyer, EU:C:1999:323).

In its observations, the holder argues that the earlier trade mark has a low degree of distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that start with the element ‘AERO’. In support of its argument, the holder refers to several European Union trade mark registrations for goods in the same classes.

The Opposition Division notes that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market. In other words, on the basis of data concerning a register only, it cannot be assumed that all such trade marks have been effectively used. It follows that the evidence filed does not demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and have become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element ‘AERO’. Under these circumstances, the holder’s claims must be set aside.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the English-speaking part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well-founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 725 168. 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.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be identical or similar to those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested goods are dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the opposition based on this article and directed at these goods cannot be successful.

Since the opposition is partially 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 and in relation to identical and similar goods. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

Likewise, there is no need to assess the claimed enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark in relation to dissimilar goods, as the similarity of goods and services is sine qua non for there to exist likelihood of confusion. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

The opponent has also based its opposition on the following earlier trade mark:

European Union figurative mark .

Since this mark covers the same scope of goods – footwear for women – the outcome cannot be different with respect to goods for which the opposition has already been rejected. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to those goods.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 85(2) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the opposition is successful only for part of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Irina SOTIROVA

Lena FRANKENBERG GLANTZ

Plamen IVANOV

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.