OPPOSITION No B 2 716 283

Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry Warwickshire CV3 4LF, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Reddie & Grose LLP, The White Chapel Building 10 Whitechapel High Street, London LND E1 8QS, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Suncoast Tire LLC, 12881 Capricorn St, Stafford Texas 77477, United States of America (applicant), represented by Nextmarq, 1 Rue Chabrier, 13100 Aix-en-Provence, France (professional representative).

On 06/07/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 716 283 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 15 166 358 is rejected in its entirety.

3.        The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 620.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 166 358. The opposition is based on, inter alia, European Union trade mark registration No 2 271 500. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR.

REPUTATION – ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will first examine the opposition in relation to earlier EUTM No 2 271 500, for which the opponent claimed repute in the EU.

According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met.

• The signs must be either identical or similar.

• The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.

• Risk of injury: the use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The abovementioned requirements are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR (16/12/2010, T-345/08, & T-357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). However, the fulfilment of all the abovementioned conditions may not be sufficient. The opposition may still fail if the applicant establishes due cause for the use of the contested trade mark.

In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have due cause for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no due cause exists.

The Opposition Division considers it useful to list the relevant goods.

The earlier goods for which the opponent claims a reputation are as follows:

Class 12: Vehicles; bicycles; parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 12: Cars; tire tubes for vehicles; tire valves for vehicle tires; tires; wheel rims for motor cars; wheels; automobile snow socks; tubular tires; tubular tyres; vehicle wheel hubs; vehicle wheels.

1. Reputation of the earlier trade mark

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the European Union.

Reputation implies a knowledge threshold which is reached only when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services it covers. The relevant public is, depending on the goods or services marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public.

In the present case the contested trade mark was filed on 29/02/2016. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired a reputation in the European Union prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the goods for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely:

Class 12: Vehicles; bicycles; parts, fittings and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.

In order to determine the mark’s level of reputation, all the relevant facts of the case must be taken into consideration, including, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.

On 03/01/2017 the opponent submitted the following evidence:

• Attachment 1: Witness statement of the Global IP Counsel for Jaguar Land Rover Limited. It contains turnover and sales figures for LAND ROVER vehicles for some countries of the European Union for the period 2009-2014, a separate breakdown of sales figures within and outside the EU, worldwide turnover for years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and sales figures for the FREELANDER model in selected countries of the EU for years 2007-2012. There is also information about the opponent’s dealers in the selected countries of the EU, websites, brochures, advertising spending, trade mark registrations of LAND ROVER and FREELANDER marks in selected countries of the EU. Finally, there is a description of the attached exhibits, namely:

– Exhibits AJB1 and AJB2: Screenshots of pages of the internet archive ‘Wayback Machine’ showing websites concerning LAND ROVER and FREELANDER.

– Exhibit AJB3: Copies of extracts from LAND ROVER brochures.

– Exhibit AJB4: Several screen shots of pages concerning LAND ROVER on Facebook, You Tube, Instagram and Twitter.

– Exhibit AJB5: Screenshots of pages concerning the social media campaign ‘#HIBERNOT’.

– Exhibit AJB6: Spreadsheets listing awards for a range of LAND ROVER vehicles together with the printouts of: an article ‘Land Rover Discovery 4 Triumphs For Third Year Running in 2012 Tow Car Awards’, from http://www.stratstone.com; an article ‘As a 4×4, an SUV and a luxury car, the Range Rover is jack of all trades. But it’s a master of all traders, too’, dated 16/07/2013, from http://www.autoexpress.co.uk, the section concerning Britain’s best new cars: New Car Awards 2013; an article ‘2013 Proves A Record Breaking Year For Jaguar Land Rover’s Award Winning Model Line Up’, dated 14/01/2014, from http://www.sytner.co.uk; an article ‘What Diesel Car of the Year Awards 2009’ from http://www.gizmag.com reporting that ‘Land Rover’s Freelander 2 retains its position as the best 4×4 for the third year in succession’ and enumerating ‘Land Rover Freelander 2 as a winner of Best 4×4 award; a newsletter printed from www.autoexpress.co.uk, reporting on ‘Used Car Awards 2010’ indicating Land Rover Freelander 2 as a winner.

– Exhibit AJB7: Copies of LAND ROVER advertisements.

– Exhibits AJB8 and AJB9: Quotes from decisions relating to the LAND ROVER mark  

• Attachment 2: Copies of two earlier decisions of Opposition Division in EUIPO.
• Attachment 3: Printouts from:

http://www.2.warwick.ac.uk, http://newsroom.jaguarlandrover.com and http://www.automobil-produktion.de. The first printout contains information about the National Automotive Innovation Centre. The second printout contains an article entitled ‘Jaguar Land Rover Reveals Future Plans for R&D in The Uk’, which contains information concerning the opening of the National Automotive Innovation Centre. The construction is reported to begin in September 2014 at the University of Warwick. The third printout contains an article entitled ‘JLR startet Bau eines neuen Innovationszentrums’ (translated as ‘JLR starts construction of a new Innovation Centre’), dated 24/03/2015, which reports about the investment for the development of the vehicles and mobility solutions in the future. All articles report that the centre is a partnership between Jaguar Land Rover, Tata Motors European Technical Centre, Warwick Manufacturing Group and the UK Government’s Higher Education Funding Council England.

• Attachment 4: An extract from the Jaguar Land Rover corporate website.
• Attachment 5: Screenshots of pages and a printout from www.landrover.co.uk, showing pictures of cars.
• Attachment 6: Screenshots of pages of the internet archive ‘Wayback Machine’ showing pages with an article from Wikipedia concerning Land Rover.
• Attachment 7: A copy of the ‘Land Rover Monthly’ magazine, dated February 2015, with the history of LAND ROVER 1998-2015.
• Attachment 8: Screenshots and printouts from pages with articles concerning LAND ROVER:

• printout from www.topgear.com showing various models of Land Rover (Defender, Discovery 4, Freelander 2, Range Rover, Range Rover Evoque, Range Rover Sport);
• Article entitled ‘Quentin Willson: It’s a sad end for Britain’s most famous car’, dated 13/10/2013, referring to Land Rover Defender as the ‘Britain’s most famous car’ and ‘most recognised automotive silhouette on the planet’.
• Printout from http://www.autotrader.co.uk, dated November 2007, where the Land Rover Defender is described as ‘one of the most recognisable cars on the road and a British icon to boot.’
• Page from http://www.carbuyer.co.uk, referring to the Land Rover Defender in the following terms: ‘a British institution, an iconic vehicle that has an amazing and deserved reputation for its off-road ability.’
• Printout from http://www.honestjohn.co.uk, containing the following: ‘It’s been around for so long now that it’s something of an icon, and its reputation as the ultimate offroader is richly deserved.’(…) ‘The Defender series Land Rover has been going since 1984 (…)’.
• Article ‘Land Rover Defender review’, dated 19/08/2010, from http://www.perrys.co.uk, referring to the Land Rover Defender in the following terms ‘icon of British car manufacturing, the icon of Land Rover.’
• ‘Land Rover Defender 110 review (1998-on)’, dated 20/09/2012, from http://www.driving.co.uk, reporting about Land Rover Defender: ‘in continuous production since 1948’.
• Article ‘Le Land Rover Defender bientôt à l’arrêt’ (translated: ‘The Land Rover Defender soon to stop’), dated in 2013, from http://news.autojournal.fr, describing in the following terms the Land Rover Defender: ‘legendary wanderer’.
• Article ‘Rijtest: Land Rover Defender 2012’ from GroenLicht.be, with the following statement translated into English: ‘a design that barely evolved since 1948 (…)’.
• ‘Land Rover Discovery XXV Special Edition’, dated in 2014, from http://www.autoruote4x4.com/it, with the following statement translated into English: ‘Sensational innovations from Land Rover raise to new heights the luxury of the interior of the new Discovery created for the twenty-fifth anniversary’.
• Article ‘Jaguar Land Rover shows how British manufacturing is leaping into the 21st century’, dated 17/09/2013, from http://www.newstatesman.com.
• Article ‘Jaguar Land Rover blazes a trial for British car manufacturing’, dated 28/07/2014, from http://www.theguardian.com.

• Attachment 9: Several articles concerning the development of a smaller Land Rover model which could carry a ‘LANDY’ name:

• Article ‘Land Rover Bags Landy Name, May Use It For Compact Crossover’, dated 21/01/2014.
• Article from https://veronicalamond.com/landybooks/ about children’s storybook series with a fictional character ‘LANDY’.
• Article ‘Land Rover Plans Smaller Urban SUV, Could Carry 'Landy' Name’, dated 21/01/2014, from http://www.greencarreports.com.
• Article from http://www.autocar.co.uk, entitled ‘Land Rover plans new 'Landy' urban SUV’, ‘JLR reignites rumours of a new baby SUV model after applying to trademark the 'Landy' name’, dated 17/01/2014.

• Attachment 10: Extract from the UK Intellectual Property Office’s online register concerning LAND ROVER trade mark.
• Attachment 11: Copies of selected pages from ‘The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ reports dated 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 where LAND ROVER (or its models) appears in the top five in categories: automotive manufacturers, models produced in the UK, commercial vehicles and new car registrations in UK in 4×4/SUV or dual purpose segment. The report contains information about sales volumes and market share by segment.
• Attachment 12: An extract from the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 with a definition of dual purpose vehicle.
• Attachment 13: Printouts from internet sites with articles concerning second-hand LAND ROVER vehicles and their restoration:

• ‘Get the best from a second-hand Land Rover Defender’, dated 15/10/2014, from http://www.fwi.co.uk.
• ‘Living with an older Land Rover’ from http://www.glencoyne.co.uk.
• ‘New Division to Offer Classic Land Rover Restoration’, dated 13/06/2014, from http://www.lro.com.
• ‘Land Rover Defender – A lasting effect’, dated 06/10/2014, from http://www.heritagecarinsurance.co.uk.
• ‘Welcome to my Series III Restoration Site’, dated 20/04/2004, from http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk.
• ‘No Half Measures on this Land Rover Series IIA Restoration’, dated 04/03/2015, from http://www.lro.com.

• Attachment 14: A collection of materials attesting the use of LAND ROVER by various military, Red Cross and emergency services, including:

• Article from Fleet News entitled ‘Land Rover renews partnership with the Red Cross’, dated 14/01/2014.
• Article from PERRYS entitled ‘Land Rover teams up with new Royal Navy warship’, dated 25/03/2013.
• Article from http://www.army-technology.com, entitled ‘Land Rover Wolf 4×4 Military Vehicle, United Kingdom’.
• Printout from http://www.landrover.com concerning military personnel sales.
• Article from http://www.uksponsorship.com, entitled ‘Land Rover renews global humanitarian partnership with the IFRC’, dated 24/01/2014.

• Attachment 15: Copies of various extracts from Land Rover OneLife magazine.
• Attachment 16: Screenshots of pages showing Land Rover vehicles at trade shows, including pictures showing how the mark is displayed on the vehicles.
• Attachment 17: Printouts from http://www.imsdb.org, showing a list of search results with information on films and television series in which Land Rover appeared in various years between 1961 and 2010. The following articles are attached: ‘Land Rover Defender to star in 2012’s new James Bond film Skyfall’, dated 24/02/2012, from http://www.carmagazine.co.uk and ‘These Are The Automotive Stars Of The New James Bond Movie’ from https://www.carthrottle.com, reporting about Land Rover cars to appear in the films.
• Attachment 18: Printouts from http://www.royalwarrant.org with information about Royal Warrants held by Jaguar Land Rover.
• Attachment 19: A copy of the Global 500 brand report published by BrandFinance, dated February 2015, where Land Rover appears amongst the top 500 most valuable brands at the position 204.

On the basis of the above the Opposition Division concludes that the earlier trade mark has a reputation, at least in the United Kingdom, for land vehicles in Class 12.

It is clear from the evidence that the earlier trade mark has been subject to long-standing and intensive use and is generally known in the relevant market, where it enjoys a consolidated position among the leading brands, as has been attested by diverse independent sources. The results reported by various statistics, position on the market and marketing activities shown by the evidence as well as references in the press to its success all unequivocally show that the mark enjoys a high degree of recognition among the relevant public.

However, the evidence does not succeed in establishing that the trade mark has a reputation for all the goods on which the opposition is based and for which reputation has been claimed. The evidence mainly relates to land vehicles, whereas there is no or little reference to the remaining goods.

2. The signs

LAND ROVER	LAND GOLDEN
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

However, as reputation has been proven at least in the United Kingdom, the analysis below focuses on the public from this part of the territory.

The word ‘LAND’, which the signs have in common, means, inter alia, ‘[t]he part of the earth's surface that is not covered by water’ or ‘[a] country or state’ (www.oxforddictionaries.com). The word ‘ROVER’ of the earlier mark means, inter alia, ‘[a] person who spends their time wandering’, ‘(in various sports) a player not restricted to a particular position on the field’ or ‘[a] vehicle for driving over rough terrain, especially one driven by remote control over extraterrestrial terrain’ (www.oxforddictionaries.com). The element ‘GOLDEN’ in the contested sign will be understood as ‘[c]oloured or shining like gold’, ‘[m]ade or consisting of gold’ or ‘(of an opportunity) very favourable’ (www.oxforddictionaries.com). Consequently, it may be perceived as indicating the colour of the goods or as alluding to their positive qualities.

As can be seen above, all the components to a lesser or greater extent could be associated with certain characteristics of the goods. Therefore, from the point of view of their distinctiveness, they will be given a comparable weight in the signs’ comparison. On the other hand, account is taken of the fact that the word ‘LAND’, as the first word in both signs, will catch the attention of the consumer first. This is justified by the fact that 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 view of the above, since the signs the signs coincide in the word ‘LAND’, which appears as the first word in both of them, and differ in their second words, namely the word ‘ROVER’ of the earlier mark and the word ‘GOLDEN’ of the contested sign, they are visually, aurally and conceptually similar to an average degree.

3. The ‘link’ between the signs

As seen above, the earlier mark is reputed and the signs are similar to an average degree. In order to establish the existence of a risk of injury, it is necessary to demonstrate that, given all the relevant factors, the relevant public will establish a link (or association) between the signs. The necessity of such a ‘link’ between the conflicting marks in consumers’ minds is not explicitly mentioned in Article 8(5) EUTMR but has been confirmed in the judgments of 23/10/2003, C-408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29 and 31, and of 27/11/2008, C-252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 66. It is not an additional requirement but merely reflects the need to determine whether the association that the public might establish between the signs is such that either detriment or unfair advantage is likely to occur after all of the factors that are relevant to the particular case have been assessed.

Possible relevant factors for the examination of a ‘link’ include (27/11/2008, C-252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 42):

∙        the degree of similarity between the signs;

∙        the nature of the goods and services, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant public;

∙        the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation;

∙        the degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use;

∙        the existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

This list is not exhaustive and other criteria may be relevant depending on the particular circumstances. Moreover, the existence of a ‘link’ may be established on the basis of only some of these criteria.

The relevant public – professionals as well as the general public – would not fail to notice that the signs in conflict have a similar structure; they both begin with ‘LAND’ followed by other word. As seen above, the earlier mark is reputed for land vehicles in Class 12. The contested goods are cars; tire tubes for vehicles; tire valves for vehicle tires; tires; wheel rims for motor cars; wheels; automobile snow socks; tubular tires; tubular tyres; vehicle wheel hubs; vehicle wheels in Class 12. These goods are either identical or belong to the same automobile sector. The ‘LAND ROVER’ mark has acquired a strong distinctive character through use and is highly reputed. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the consumers of the relevant goods, who know the reputed ‘LAND ROVER’ mark and see the ‘LAND GOLDEN’ mark on cars or car parts, would immediately recall the earlier mark.

Therefore, taking into account and weighing up all the relevant factors of the present case, the Opposition Division concludes that when encountering the contested mark the relevant consumers will be likely to associate it with the earlier sign, that is to say, establish a mental ‘link’ between the signs. However, although a ‘link’ between the signs is a necessary condition for further assessing whether detriment or unfair advantage are likely, the existence of such a link is not sufficient, in itself, for a finding that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T-301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96).

4. Risk of injury

Use of the contested mark will fall under Article 8(5) EUTMR when any of the following situations arise:

∙        it takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark;

∙        it is detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark;

∙        it is detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

Although detriment or unfair advantage may be only potential in opposition proceedings, a mere possibility is not sufficient for Article 8(5) EUTMR to be applicable. While the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark, it must ‘adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment’ (06/07/2012, T-60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).

It follows that the opponent must establish that detriment or unfair advantage is probable, in the sense that it is foreseeable in the ordinary course of events. For that purpose, the opponent should file evidence, or at least put forward a coherent line of argument demonstrating what the detriment or unfair advantage would consist of and how it would occur, that could lead to the prima facie conclusion that such an event is indeed likely in the ordinary course of events.

The opponent claims that, given the strong reputation of the earlier mark and similarity of the signs, the risk of a future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage is obvious. Furthermore, the opponent argues that the registration of the contested sign is going to have an effect on the ability of the opponent’s mark to have an impact it presently enjoys in the minds of the public and the attractiveness of the earlier mark risks being diluted.

In other words, the opponent claims that use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark and be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark.

Before examining the opponent’s claims, it is appropriate to recall that the opposition is directed against the following goods: 

Class 12: Cars; tire tubes for vehicles; tire valves for vehicle tires; tires; wheel rims for motor cars; wheels; automobile snow socks; tubular tires; tubular tyres; vehicle wheel hubs; vehicle wheels.

As seen above, the earlier trade mark was found to have a reputation for:

Class 12: Land vehicles.        

Unfair advantage (free-riding)

Unfair advantage in the context of Article 8(5) EUTMR covers cases where there is clear exploitation and ‘free-riding on the coat-tails’ of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation. In other words, there is a risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods and services covered by the contested trade mark, with the result that the marketing of those goods and services is made easier by their association with the earlier mark with a reputation (06/07/2012, T-60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 48, and 22/03/2007, T-215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40).

The opponent bases its claim on the following:

∙        According to the case-law the more immediately and strongly the mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that the current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark (27/11/2008, C-252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655). 

∙        Based on the evidence filed, the earlier mark LAND ROVER is prestigious and the UK public is attached to it. 

∙        Given the high reputation of the earlier mark, the probability of a future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage is obvious.

As seen above, the signs are overall similar to an average degree. They do not only share the word ‘LAND’ but also have a similar structure (‘LAND’ as first word followed by another word). The goods of the opponent and of the applicant are the same or related in that the consumers of car parts and vehicles are the same. The opponent’s mark is reputed for land vehicles in Class 12. Therefore, the public in the United Kingdom, when seeing vehicles or their parts bearing the contested sign ‘LAND GOLDEN’, would be able to associate it with the earlier mark ‘LAND ROVER’. The contested mark would benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of the earlier mark for its own goods, which would attract the consumers’ attention thanks to the association with ‘LAND ROVER’, thereby gaining a commercial advantage over its competitors’ goods. The economic advantage would consist of exploiting the effort expended by the opponent to establish the reputation and the image of its earlier mark without paying any compensation in exchange.

On the basis of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade mark is likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Other types of injury

The opponent also argues that use of the contested trade mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark.

As seen above, the existence of a risk of injury is an essential condition for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply. The risk of injury may be of three different types. For an opposition to be well founded in this respect it is sufficient if only one of these types is found to exist. In the present case, as seen above, the Opposition Division has already concluded that the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark. It follows that there is no need to examine whether other types also apply.

5. Conclusion

Considering all the above, the opposition is well founded under Article 8(5) EUTMR. Therefore, the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

Given that the opposition is entirely successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR it is not necessary to examine the remaining grounds and earlier rights on which the opposition was based.

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

Lucinda CARNEY

Justyna GBYL

Boyana NAYDENOVA

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.