OPPOSITION DIVISION
OPPOSITION No B 2 770 462
Euroflorist AB, Box 5105, 200 71 Malmö, Sweden (opponent), represented by
Zacco Sweden AB, Valhallavägen 117, 114 85 Stockholm, Sweden (professional
representative)
a g a i n s t
Affort Impex Ltd, 306 Premier Building, Albert Street, Victoria, Seychelles
(applicant), represented by Enrico La Malfa, Via Santo Stefano 58, 40125 Bologna,
Italy (professional representative).
On 18/10/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 770 462 is rejected in its entirety.
2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.
REASONS
The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European
Union trade mark application No 15 538 515 . The opposition is
based on European Union trade mark registrations No 8 416 356 and
No 11 186 681 . The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and
Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Preliminary remark
As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU)
2017/1431, subject to certain transitional provisions. All the references in this
decision to the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR shall be understood as references to
the Regulations currently in force, except where expressly indicated otherwise.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 2 of 11
SUBSTANTIATION – earlier European Union trade mark registration
No 8 416 356
According to Article 76(1) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part, now Article 95(1) EUTMR), in proceedings
before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings
relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office is restricted in this
examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the
relief sought.
It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the
opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.
According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part), the Office will give the opposing party the
opportunity to submit the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition
or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted
together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.
According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part), within the period referred to above, the
opposing party must also file evidence of the existence, validity and scope of
protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its
entitlement to file the opposition.
The opponent in the present proceedings is the entity Euroflorist AB (Sweden), while
the owner of earlier EUTM No 8 416 356 is the entity eFlorist Limited (United
Kingdom).
The notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence as regards the
entitlement of the opponent to file the opposition on the basis of earlier EUTM
No 8 416 356.
On 26/09/2016, the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of
the cooling-off period, to substantiate its earlier right and submit further material. This
time limit expired on 01/02/2017.
The opponent submitted evidence to prove its claim that it is entitled to file the
opposition as regards the abovementioned earlier mark on 22/06/2017, that is, only
after the expiry of the abovementioned time limit.
With the same submission, the opponent also claims that the owner of the earlier
mark is a ‘fully owned subsidiary’ of the opponent. It further claims that ‘[b]y virtue of
a parent company, to a fully owned subsidiary, the Opponent thus exercises full
control over Florist ltd. and its trademarks’. It concludes that the opponent has the
right ‘to use and defend its intellectual property rights, either owned directly, or
indirectly via its subsidiaries’, which is claimed to give the opponent the right to base
the present opposition on the earlier right mentioned above.
However, pursuant to Article 41 EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part of the proceedings), an opposition based on
Article 8(1)(b) or Article 8(5) EUTMR may be filed by the proprietors and authorised
licensees.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 3 of 11
The opponent in the present proceedings is not recorded at the Office as a licensee
of the owner of the earlier mark and there is no registered transfer of the earlier mark
or change of name of the proprietor of this mark that could possibly link the opponent
of the present proceedings to the owner of the earlier mark.
The opponent did not submit, within the relevant time limit, any evidence to prove its
entitlement to file the present opposition under the earlier mark mentioned above.
According to Rule 19(4) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part), the Office will not take into account written
submissions or documents, or parts thereof, that have not been submitted in or that
have not been translated into the language of the proceedings, within the time limit
set by the Office.
According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR, if until expiry of the period referred to in
Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the
adversarial part of the proceedings), the opposing party has not proven the
existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well
as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.
The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded, as far as it is based on this
earlier mark.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR – earlier European
Union trade mark registration No 11 186 681
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.
a) The goods and services
The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 31: Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains not included
in other classes; seeds, natural plants and flowers, flower bulbs, wreaths of natural
flowers, flowers, dried, for decoration.
Class 39: Distribution of flowers and plants via agents; delivery of flowers and
plants; supplying of flowers; message delivery; delivery of goods; packaging and
storage of goods, including the aforesaid services in relation to flowers; travel
arrangement; information relating to all the aforesaid services.
The contested goods and services are the following:
Class 31: Flowers; bouquets of fresh flowers; dried flowers; plants; bushes;
floral decorations [fresh]; floral decorations [natural]; floral decorations [dried]; plant
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 4 of 11
residues (raw materials); hanging basket liners [moss]; seeds; seeds, bulbs and
seedlings for plant breeding; live trees.
Class 39: Transportation of plants; flower delivery; courier services for the
delivery of parcels; advisory services relating to the tracking of goods in transit;
collection, transport and delivery of goods, documents, parcels and letters;
packaging articles for transportation; gift wrapping.
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 term ‘including’, used in the applicant’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 (09/04/2003, T-224/01, Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107).
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 31
Flowers; plants; seeds are identically contained in both lists of goods (including
synonyms).
The contested dried flowers include as a broader category the opponent’s flowers,
dried, for decoration. 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 bushes are included in the broader category of the opponent’s natural
plants. These goods are, therefore, considered identical.
The contested floral decorations [dried] overlap with the opponent’s wreaths of
natural flowers, as far as both of them are wreaths of dried natural flowers for
decoration. It follows that these goods are identical.
The contested floral decorations [fresh]; floral decorations [natural] overlap with the
opponent’s wreaths of natural flowers, as far as all of them are wreaths of natural
flowers for decoration. It follows that these goods are identical.
The contested live trees are included in the broader category of the opponent’s
natural plants. These goods are, therefore, considered identical.
The contested seeds for plant breeding are included in the broader category of the
opponent’s seeds. It follows that these goods are identical.
The contested bulbs for plant breeding overlap with the opponent’s flower bulbs, as
far as both of them are bulbs for flower breeding. It follows that these goods are
identical.
The contested seedlings for plant breeding overlap with the opponent’s horticultural
products, as far as both of them are horticultural seedlings for plant breeding. It
follows that these goods are identical.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 5 of 11
The contested plant residues (raw materials) overlap with the opponent’s horticultural
products, as far as both of them are horticultural plant residues. It follows that these
goods are identical.
The contested hanging basket liners [moss] overlap with the opponent’s horticultural
products, as far as both of them are horticultural hanging basket liners [moss]. These
goods are, therefore, considered identical.
The opponent’s flowers may be provided in the form of a bouquet or single
(unarranged) flowers. They therefore include as a broader category the contested
bouquets of fresh flowers. These goods are, therefore, considered identical.
Contested services in Class 39
Flower delivery; delivery of goods are identically contained in both lists of services
(including synonyms).
The contested transportation of plants overlaps with the opponent’s distribution of
plants via agents, as far as both of them are related to the distribution of plants via
agents. It follows that these services are identical.
The opponent’s delivery of goods includes as a broader category the contested
courier services for the delivery of parcels. It follows that these services are identical.
The contested packaging articles for transportation; gift wrapping are included in the
broader category of the opponent’s packaging of goods, including the aforesaid
services in relation to flowers. It follows that these services are identical.
The contested delivery of parcels is included in the broader category of the
opponent’s delivery of goods. It follows that these services are identical.
The contested transport of goods, parcels overlaps with the opponent’s delivery of
goods, as far as they both concern the delivery of goods (or goods being parcels).
These are, therefore, considered identical.
The contested transport and delivery of documents and letters overlap with the
opponent’s message delivery, as far as the services concern delivery of messages,
which are in the form of documents or letters. These services are, therefore,
considered identical.
The contested collection of goods, parcels coincides with the opponent’s delivery of
goods in provider, end users and distribution channels. Furthermore, there is
complementarity between the services. It follows that these services are similar to a
high degree.
The contested collection of documents and letters coincides with the opponent´s
message delivery in provider, end users and distribution channels. Furthermore,
there is complementarity between the services. It follows that these services are
similar to a high degree.
The contested advisory services relating to the tracking of goods in transit are usually
advice and consultancy services offered as part of providing transport services.
Therefore, the contested services coincide with the opponent’s delivery of goods in
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 6 of 11
provider, end users and distribution channels. Furthermore, there is complementarity
between the services. It follows that these services are similar to a high degree.
b) 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 and similar to a
high degree are directed partly at the public at large and partly at business customers
with specific professional knowledge or expertise. The degree of attention of the
relevant public is likely to vary from average to higher than average depending on the
purpose of use and the specific prices of the particular goods and services.
c) 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 earlier mark is a figurative mark, consisting of the element ‘eflorist’, written in
purple lower case letters in a rather standard typeface; to its left is a stylised image of
a flying bird in purple. The element ‘eflorist’ of the earlier mark will be perceived by
part of the relevant public (e.g. at least part of the English-, German-, Swedish- and
Dutch-speaking parts of the relevant public) as a juxtaposition of the word ‘florist’
(‘florist’ in English, Swedish and Dutch; ‘Florist’ in German), meaning ‘a person who
grows or deals in flowers’, and the letter ‘e’. The latter is likely to be perceived as a
reference to ‘electronic’ (i.e. of or concerned with electronics; involving or concerned
with the representation, storage or transmission of information by electronic
systems). These parts of the relevant public are likely to understand the element
‘eflorist’ in the way described above because the word ‘florist’ exists in their
languages and the letter ‘e’ is nowadays often used as referred to above.
Part of the public will perceive the word ‘florist’ as having the meaning specified
above. Bearing in mind that the relevant goods and services are ‘flower and plant
related goods and services or supporting services thereof’, this element is considered
weak for all the relevant goods and services, as it refers to their nature, purpose or
subject matter.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 7 of 11
The first letter, ‘e’, of the earlier sign is likely to be perceived as having the meaning
specified above by at least the part of the public that understands the word ‘florist’.
Even though the relevant goods and services are not electronic per se, it is likely that
the public will consider the letter ‘e’ a reference to how these goods and services are
provided (e.g. online). Therefore, the letter ‘e’ is considered weak for the relevant
goods and services and for this part of the relevant public.
However, it is not excluded that for part of the relevant public, such as the Hungarian-
and Greek-speaking parts, for which the word ‘florist’ does not have a particular
meaning, the element ‘eflorist’ of the earlier mark will not be endowed with a
particular meaning. Furthermore, for this part of the public, because all the letters in
the element ‘eflorist’ are in the same typeface, it is unlikely that the letter ‘e’ will be
separated from the rest and perceived with the meaning specified above.
Consequently, for this part of the public the element is distinctive.
The depiction of the bird in the earlier mark will be perceived as such. As it has no
meaning in relation to the relevant goods and services, it is distinctive.
The earlier mark has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant
than other elements.
The contested sign is a figurative mark, consisting of a stylised green lower case
letter ‘e’, followed by the element ‘Flora’, written in purple, rather standard, title case
letters; above the letter ‘a’ of the element ‘Flora’ is an image of a stylised butterfly
resembling a flower; and underneath the element ‘Flora’, in smaller, slightly stylised
and slanted lower case letters, is the element ‘shop’.
The element ‘Flora’ of the contested sign is likely to be perceived by a significant part
of the relevant public as meaning ‘plants, flowers, plant life’, as the word exists as
such (e.g. ‘flora’ in English, Spanish, Swedish, Dutch and Romanian; ‘Flora’ in
German) and in similar variations, such as ‘flore’ in French. Therefore, in regard to
the element ‘Flora’, the Opposition Division does not find a reason to depart from the
conclusion of the Board of Appeal decision (12/06/2014, R 1189/2013-5, § 22) where
the word ‘flora’ was analysed and it was concluded that as it is a basic Latin term it is
understood by the European public as having the meaning specified above.
Bearing in mind that the relevant goods and services are ‘flower and plant related
goods and services or supporting services thereof’, this element is considered weak
for all the relevant goods and services, as it refers to their nature, purpose or subject
matter.
The stylised letter ‘e’ of the contested sign will be perceived as such by at least part
of the relevant public and it is therefore likely to be understood as having the
meaning referred to above (i.e. of or concerned with electronics; involving or
concerned with the representation, storage or transmission of information by
electronic systems). Bearing in mind that the relevant goods and services are ‘flower
and plant related goods and services or supporting services thereof’, not electronic
per se, it is likely that the public will consider the letter ‘e’ a reference to how these
goods and services are provided (e.g. online). Therefore, the letter is considered
weak for the relevant goods and services for this part of the relevant public. Even if
the element is not perceived as a letter ‘e’ by part of the relevant public, due to its
stylisation, it is likely to be seen as a decorative swirled line and therefore its
distinctiveness even for this part of the public is rather limited.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 8 of 11
The element ‘shop’ of the contested sign will be understood by the English-speaking
part of the public as the English word meaning ‘a place, esp. a small building, for the
retail sale of goods and services’ (information extracted from
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/shop). Furthermore, ‘shop’ is a fairly
common English word and it is likely to be understood by the majority of the relevant
public throughout the relevant territory. Therefore, the element is considered weak for
the relevant goods and services, as it refers to the place where they are marketed or
to the more general idea of a place where goods and services are exchanged for
money.
The figurative element of the flower-like butterfly will be perceived as such or as a
decoration of the letter ‘a’ of the element ‘Flora’. It is therefore considered, that when
perceived as a flower-like butterfly the element is weaker than average for the
relevant goods and services, being ‘flower and plant related goods and services or
supporting services thereof’. Even when perceived as a decoration of the letter ‘a’, its
distinctiveness is rather limited.
However, the entire graphic depiction of the contested sign – namely its combination
of colours, the structure and positioning of the verbal and figurative elements and the
combination thereof – is distinctive to a certain degree.
The elements ‘e’ and ‘Flora’ in the contested sign are the dominant elements, as they
are the most eye-catching due to their size.
Visually, the signs coincide in the sequence of letters ‘eflor’ (when the letter ‘e’ is
perceived as such in the contested sign) or just in the sequence ‘flor’ (when the letter
‘e’ is perceived as a decorative element in the contested sign). The signs differ in the
sequence of letters ‘ist’ of the earlier mark versus the letter ‘a’ of the element ‘Flora’
and the element ‘shop’ of the contested sign; in the depiction of the bird of the earlier
mark and the flower-like device of the contested sign; and in the entire graphic
depiction of the signs, namely the positioning of the verbal and figurative elements,
the way the elements are grouped within the signs and the colours/colour
combinations of the signs. Furthermore, for the part of the public that will not see the
letter ‘e’ in the contested sign, but will perceive it rather as a swirl, the signs also
differ in the letter ‘e’ of the earlier mark and the swirl of the contested sign.
Following from the above and taking into account what has been said about the
distinctiveness of the elements and components of the signs and their dominant
positions within the signs (when applicable), the signs are visually similar to only a
low degree.
Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the
relevant territory, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters
‘eflor’ (when the letter ‘e’ is perceived as such in the contested sign) or just in the
sequence ‘flor’ (when the letter ‘e’ is perceived as a decorative element in the
contested sign). The pronunciation differs in the sound of the sequence of letters ‘ist’
of the earlier mark versus the sound of the letter ‘a’ of the element ‘Flora’ and the
sound of the element ‘shop’ of the contested sign. The pronunciation will also differ in
the sound of the letter ‘e’ of the earlier mark when the letter ‘e’ of the contested sign
is perceived as a swirl.
Following from the above and taking into account what has been said about the
distinctiveness of the elements and components of the signs and their dominant
positions within the signs (when applicable), the signs are aurally similar to only a low
degree.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 9 of 11
Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic
content conveyed by the marks. For the part of the public that will perceive concepts
in both the words ‘florist’ in the earlier mark and ‘flora’ in the contested sign, the signs
are linked by the general concept of plants (flowers). Furthermore, they coincide in
the concept of the letter ‘e’ when it is perceived as having the meaning specified
above in both signs. However, as specified above, these elements/components are
of limited distinctiveness. It follows that for this part of the public the signs are
conceptually similar to only a low degree.
For the part of the public that may not perceive a meaning in the component ‘florist’
or the element ‘eflorist’ of the earlier mark, as the signs will not be associated with
similar meanings, the signs are conceptually not similar.
As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the
examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.
d) 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.
The opponent claimed that the earlier trade mark enjoys enhanced distinctiveness
but did not file any evidence in order to prove such a claim.
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, despite the presence of components with a limited distinctiveness
in the mark for at least a part of the relevant public, as stated above in section c) of
this decision.
e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
The goods and services are identical and similar to a high degree. The degree of
attention will vary from average to higher than average.
The signs coincide as far as both of them include the sequence ‘eflor’ (or only ‘flor’, in
the case specified above) and to that extent they are visually and aurally similar to a
low degree. Furthermore, they are conceptually similar to a low degree for a part of
the relevant public. The coinciding letter ‘e’ and sequence of letters ‘flor’ form parts of
elements/components that are of limited distinctiveness for at least part of the
relevant public. In addition, the coinciding sequence of letters does not form a
separate, independently perceived element in either of the signs under comparison.
Even though it is not excluded that part of the public may not perceive the element
‘eflorist’ of the earlier mark as having any meaning, thus making it distinctive for
those consumers, the signs under comparison differ in the additional letters and
figurative elements specified above and moreover in the graphic depictions of the
signs, namely the positioning of the verbal and figurative elements, the way the
elements are grouped within the signs and the colours/colour combinations of the
signs.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 10 of 11
The abovementioned differences are enough to outweigh the similarities between the
signs originating from the coinciding sequence of letters. Following from the above,
the Opposition Division does not find it plausible to conclude that the relevant
consumer, who, for the purposes of the assessment, is considered reasonably well
informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, might believe that the goods
and services found to be identical or highly similar come from the same undertaking
or economically linked undertakings even when the degree of attention is average.
Considering all the above, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.
REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR
The opponent claimed that its earlier EUTM No 11 186 681 enjoys a reputation in the
European Union.
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.
According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office will examine
the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for
refusal of registration, the Office will be restricted in this examination to the facts,
evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.
It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the
opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.
According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part of the proceedings), the Office will give the
opposing party the opportunity to present the facts, evidence and arguments in
support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have
already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit
specified by the Office.
According to Rule 19(2)(c) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of
commencement of the adversarial part of the proceedings), when the opposition is
based on a mark with reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR, the
opposing party must provide evidence showing, inter alia, that the mark has a
reputation, as well as evidence or arguments showing that 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.
In the present case, the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence
of the alleged reputation of the earlier trade mark.
Decision on Opposition No B 2 770 462 page: 11 of 11
As already specified above, on 26/09/2016 the opponent was given two months,
commencing after the end of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned
material. This time limit expired on 01/02/2017.
The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the reputation of the trade
mark on which the opposition is based.
Given that one of the necessary requirements of Article 8(5) EUTMR is not met, the
opposition must be rejected as unfounded insofar as these grounds are concerned.
COSTS
According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must
bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.
Since the opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the
applicant in the course of these proceedings.
According to Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR (former Rule 94(3)
and Rule 94(7)(d)(ii) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the costs to be paid to the
applicant are the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the
maximum rate set therein.
The Opposition Division
André Gerd Günther
BOSSE
Irina SOTIROVA Judit NÉMETH
According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a
right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 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 for
appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be
deemed to have been 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 Article 109(8) EUTMR
(former Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), such a request must be
filed within one month of the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be
deemed to have been filed only when the review fee of EUR 100
(Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.