OPPOSITION No B 2 685 322

Aviludo – Indústria e Comércio de Produtos Alimentares, S.A., Sítio do Semino, 8125-300 Vilamoura, Portugal (opponent), represented by Joana Dez-Réis Grilo, Rua Rodrigo da Fonseca, 82- 2º Esq., 1250-193 Lisboa, Portugal (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Foodoo Limited, 31 Home Park Road, London SW19 7HP, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by JP Mitchell Solicitors, 1 Barlow Road, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NF, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 21/06/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 685 322 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 29:         Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs; milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.

Class 30:         Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder, salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.

Class 31:         Agricultural, horticultural products not included in other classes; live animals; fresh fruits and vegetables.

Class 43:         Services for providing food and drink.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 15 027 378 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining goods and services.

3.        Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 15 027 378, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 43. The opposition is based on Portuguese trade mark registration No 506 535. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

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.

1. The goods and services

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

Class 29: Ajvar [preserved peppers]; albumen for culinary purposes; toasted laver; alginates for culinary purposes; preserved garlic; foods made from fish; kimchi [fermented vegetable dish]; aloe vera prepared for human consumption; clams, not live; short-necked clams [not live]; mussels, not live; almonds, ground; peanuts, prepared; anchovy; herrings; tuna fish; olive oil; olives, preserved; bacon; lard; French fries; low-fat potato chips; milk shakes; milk beverages, milk predominating; bouillon; prawns, not live; shrimps, not live; crabs [not live]; meats; poultry, not live; pork; preserved meat; canned meat; game, not live; salted meats; fruit peel; caviar; onions, preserved; sauerkraut; black pudding; white of eggs; curd; rennet; coconut, desiccated; mushrooms, preserved; ginger jam; apple purée; cranberry sauce [compote]; bouillon concentrates; gherkins; buttercream; silkworm chrysalis, for human consumption; croquettes; crustaceans, not live; jams; peas, preserved; seaweed extracts for food; meat extracts; fish meal for human consumption; beans, preserved; milk ferments for culinary purposes; liver; fish fillets; potato flakes; fruit preserved in alcohol; fruit, stewed; fruit, preserved; frozen fruits; crystallized fruits; frosted fruits; fruits, tinned [canned (am.)]; gelatine; meat jellies; jellies for food; fruit marmalade; yolk of eggs; non-alcoholic eggnog; coconut fat; edible fats; soya beans, preserved, for food; sea-cucumbers, not live; hummus [chickpea paste]; isinglass for food; yogurt; vegetable soup preparations; kephir [milk beverage]; kumys [kumyss] [milk beverage]; spiny lobsters, not live; crayfish, not live; lobsters, not live; lecithin for culinary purposes; vegetables, cooked; vegetables, preserved; vegetables, tinned [canned (am.)]; vegetables, dried; milk; albumin milk; soya milk [milk substitute]; lentils, preserved; butter; peanut butter; cocoa butter; coconut butter; margarine; shellfish, not live; seafood [not live]; marmalade; fatty substances for the manufacture of edible fats; blue mussels [not live]; fat-containing mixtures for bread slices; vegetable mousses; fish mousses; whipped cream; cream [dairy products]; edible birds’ nests; prepared walnuts; coconut oil; colza oil for food; sunflower oil for food; linseed oil for culinary purposes; corn oil; palm kernel oil for food; bone oil, edible; palm oil for food; sesame oil; edible oils; oysters, not live; fish roe, prepared; eggs; snail eggs for consumption; powdered eggs; raisins; liver pâté; pectin for culinary purposes; fruit chips; fish, preserved; salted fish; fish, tinned [canned (am.)]; fish, not live; piccalilli; pickles; pollen prepared as foodstuff; fruit pulp; preparations for making bouillon; preparations for making soup; ham; milk products; tomato purée; cheese; fruit salads; legume salads; salmon; sausages; sausages in batter; sardines; suet for food; sunflower seeds, prepared; seeds, prepared; fruit-based snack food; potato fritters; soups; whey; tomato juice for cooking; vegetable juices for cooking; tahini [sesame seed paste]; dates; tofu; tripe; truffles, preserved; animal marrow for food;

Class 30: Syrups and treacles; waffles; vinegar; beer vinegar; vanillin [vanilla substitute]; rusks; tortillas; spring rolls; seasonings; pies; meat pies; tarts; tapioca; noodles; tacos; tabbouleh; sushi; meat gravies; artificial coffee; sorbets [ices]; cereal-based snack food; rice-based snack food; groats for human food; semolina; sandwiches; salt for preserving foodstuffs; cooking salt; celery salt; sago; noodle-based prepared meals; peppermint candy; ravioli; quiches; puddings; propolis; meat tenderizers, for household purposes; pastries; flour-milling products; cocoa products; vegetal preparations for use as coffee substitutes; preparations for stiffening whipped cream; aromatic preparations for food; cereals; pralines; powders for ice cream; cake powder; pizzas; popcorn; peppers [seasonings]; allspice; pepper; petits fours [cakes]; pesto [sauce]; stick liquorice [confectionery]; pastilles [confectionery]; pâtés en croûte; soya bean paste [condiment]; almond paste; gruel, with a milk base, for food; breadcrumbs; gingerbread; unleavened bread; bread; pancakes; bread rolls; nutmegs; nutmeg; muesli; dessert mousses [confectionery]; mustard; dressings for salad; dressings (salad -); sauces [condiments]; tomato sauce; relish [condiment]; soya sauce; corn, roasted; corn, milled; mint for confectionery; honey; honeys; sausage binding materials; binding agents for ice cream [edible ices]; thickening agents for cooking foodstuffs; pasta; cake dough; marinades; maltose; malt for human consumption; mayonnaise; macaroni; macaroons [pastry]; marzipan; linseed for human consumption; yeast; catsup; frozen yogurt [confectionery ices]; infusions, not medicinal; iced tea; hominy; cheeseburgers [sandwiches]; halvah; chewing gum; pastilles; wheat germ for human consumption; ginger [spice]; cooling ice; ice for refreshment; ice, natural or artificial; fruit jellies [confectionery]; royal jelly; ice cream; ices; fondants [confectionery]; fondants; corn flakes; chips [cereal products]; oat flakes; ferments for pastes; baking powder; leaven; wheat flour; tapioca flour; soya flour; mustard meal; corn flour; bean meal; barley meal; potato flour; flour of oats; flour; malt extract for food; essences for foodstuffs, except etheric essences and essential oils; spices; spaghetti; seaweed [condiment]; garden herbs, preserved [seasonings]; natural sweeteners; confectionery for decorating Christmas trees; couscous [semolina]; turmeric; custard; cream of tartar for cooking purposes; cream of tartar for culinary purposes; cloves [spice]; fruit coulis [sauces]; peanut confectionery; almond confectionery; confectionery; condiments; cake frosting [icing]; ham glaze; chutneys [condiments]; chow-chow [condiment]; chocolate; chicory [coffee substitute]; tea; crushed barley; husked barley; curry [spice]; caramels [candy]; hominy grits; cinnamon [spice]; unroasted coffee; coffee; cocoa; brioches; sweetmeats [candy]; rice cakes; cakes; crackers; salt crackers; cookies; malt biscuits; petit-beurre biscuits; baking soda [bicarbonate of soda for cooking purposes]; chocolate beverages with milk; coffee beverages with milk; cocoa beverages with milk; chocolate-based beverages; chocolate based beverages; coffee-based beverages; cocoa-based beverages; tea-based beverages; vanilla [flavoring] [flavouring]; high-protein cereal bars; oatmeal; husked oats; rice; flavourings, other than essential oils; flavourings [not essential oils]; flavorings [flavourings], other than essential oils, for cakes; flavourings, other than essential oils, for cakes; flavorings [flavourings], other than essential oils, for beverages; plant flavourings [other than essential oils] for beverages; flavourings, other than essential oils, for beverages; coffee flavorings [flavourings]; aniseed; star aniseed; starch for food; farinaceous foods; oat-based food; vermicelli [noodles]; capers; liquorice [confectionery]; sea water for cooking; gluten additives for culinary purposes; sugar; saffron [seasoning]; chocolate mousses;

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 29: Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs; milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.

Class 30: Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.

Class 31: Grains and agricultural, horticultural and forestry products not included in other classes; live animals; fresh fruits and vegetables; seeds; natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals; malt.

Class 35: Commercial trading and consumer information services in relation to food, drink, nutrition, restaurants, cafes, bars and meals and other catering-related subjects and products.

Class 41: Education and training services; provision of online training and education; education and training services in relation to food, diet, allergens, food handling, food technology, food safety, food preparation and dietary requirements; education and training of personnel involved in the preparation, handling, delivery, storage and service of food; education and training in relation to regulatory, legal and compliance issues regarding the preparation, handling, delivery, storage and service of food.

Class 43: Services for providing food and drink; agency services for reservation of restaurants; services for the location, reservation and booking of restaurants, cafes, bars and meals; providing services in connection with the review and rating of restaurants, cafes, bars, food and drink; provision of information relating to restaurants, bars and cafes; restaurant, café and bar information services.

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

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

Contested goods in Class 29

Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved fruits and vegetables; frozen fruit; dried and cooked vegetables; jellies, jams; eggs; milk and milk products; edible oils and fats are identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).

The contested dried and cooked fruit are included in the broad category of the opponent’s fruit, preserved, as preservation involves treating food in a particular way so that it can be kept for a long time without going bad, including freezing, drying or cooking. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested frozen vegetables are included in the broad category of the opponent’s vegetables, preserved, as the considerations outlined above in relation to fruit, preserved also apply to the opponent’s vegetables, preserved, which can be frozen, dried or cooked vegetables. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested compotes are similar to the opponent’s jellies for food. Compotes, namely a mixture of pieces of fruit that are cooked or preserved in syrup, generally have the same producers and are distributed through the same channels as jellies. These goods also target the same customers.

Contested goods in Class 30

Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour; bread; confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar; sauces (condiments); spices; ice are identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).

The contested preparations made from cereals include, as a broader category, the opponent’s malt biscuits. 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 pastry includes, as a broader category, the opponent’s macaroons [pastry]. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are considered identical to the opponent’s goods.

Contested goods in Class 31

The contested live animals also include animals that are eaten live or sold to be cooked in their living state, such as oysters, mussels and lobsters. Therefore, they are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s fish, not live, as they can coincide in their producers and distribution channels.

The contested fresh fruits are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s fruit, preserved, as they have the same relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are in competition.

The contested fresh vegetables are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s vegetables, dried, as they have the same relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are in competition.

The contested agricultural, horticultural products not included in other classes is a broad category of goods that covers, inter alia, fresh fruits and vegetables. These contested goods are considered similar to a low degree to the opponent’s fruit, preserved; vegetables, preserved in Class 29, as they can be distributed through the same channels, target the same relevant public. Moreover they are in competition with each other.

The contested grains and forestry products not included in other classes; seeds, natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals; malt are dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30. In particular, the contested forestry products not included in other classes are unprocessed products derived from forests, the contested grains not included in other classes; seeds are any propagative parts of a plant, the contested malt refers only to a raw ingredient used in the brewing and distilling process and the contested natural plants and flowers include vegetable products that are sold alive, usually for gardening or breeding purposes. The contested goods, which are not as such destined for consumption by humans as food, do not have anything relevant in common with the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30, as their methods of use are different and they are neither complementary to nor in competition with each other. They also differ in their relevant public and are sold through different distribution channels. In particular, the opponent’s seeds, prepared in Class 29 and malt for human consumption in Class 30 are treated seeds (roasted, salted, spiced, etc.) and processed cereals meant for human consumption. In contrast, the contested seeds and malt in Class 31 are agricultural products and raw ingredients. The latter are not edible and are distributed through different channels and target a different relevant public from the former. Therefore, despite identical wording, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested commercial trading and consumer information services in relation to food, drink, nutrition, restaurants, cafes, bars and meals and other catering-related subjects and products are usually rendered by companies specialised in the specific field of business consultancy. They mainly involve business support services such as processing orders, advisory services relating to the purchase of goods and services and arranging commercial contracts. The contested services are different from the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. The contested services involve ‘consultancy’, ‘advisory’ and ‘assistance’ activities that may be useful in the management of a business. This is not the purpose of the goods. Furthermore, they have different methods of use and relevant publics and are neither in competition nor necessarily complementary. The fact that the contested services may be provided ‘in relation to food, drink’ and that the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30 are different kinds of foodstuffs is not sufficient to find a similarity between them and is not a reason to consider these goods and services complementary in the sense that one is indispensable (essential) or important (significant) for the use of the other. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 41

The contested services are education and training services and online training and education in relation to food, diet, allergens, food handling, food safety, etc.

In general, the contested services are rendered by companies specialised in the specific field of education. The earlier trade mark registration covers different kinds of foodstuffs in Classes 29 and 30. The purpose of the contested services is clearly different from that of the opponent’s goods. Furthermore, the origins, methods of use, distribution channels and relevant publics of the goods and services do not coincide and they are neither complementary to nor in competition with one another. As noted in relation to the contested services in Class 35, the fact that the contested services in Class 41 may be provided ‘in relation to food’ and that the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30 are different kinds of foodstuffs is not sufficient to find a similarity between them, because they have nothing relevant in common that could lead consumers to think that the responsibility for the production of those goods or for the provision of these services lies with the same undertaking. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 43

The contested services for providing food and drink mainly cover restaurant services or similar services, such as catering and services in cafeterias and snack bars. These services involve serving food and drinks directly for consumption.

There is a link between the contested services for providing food and drink and the opponent’s coffee, tea; cookies in Class 30. The opponent’s goods are food products that are sold not necessarily only in grocery or bakery shops, but also on the same premises as the contested services, in particular services for providing food and drink. Furthermore, the opponent’s goods may be made ad hoc and offered as home-made products. In such a case, it is obvious that the goods and services will be complementary to each other and will originate from the same undertakings. For example, products such as cookies are often sold in bakeries that have been converted into small cafeterias or take-away shops. In line with this argument, the Opposition Division considers that these goods and services are similar to a low degree.

The other contested services are mainly reservation services, services in connection with review and rating, and the provision of information, all in relation to restaurants, bars, cafes, etc. These services have nothing relevant in common with the opponent’s goods in Classes 29 and 30. The natures, purposes and methods of use of these services and goods are different. They do not have the same trade origin or distribution channels and they are not in competition. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

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 relevant goods and services are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is average.

3. The signs

FOODGO
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Portugal.

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 the word mark ‘FOODGO’. Since this word has no meaning for the relevant public, it is considered distinctive. In its submissions of 15/02/2017, the applicant claims that the ‘earlier trade mark will be readily perceived by the average consumer as comprised of the words “FOOD” and “GO” ’ and that ‘the word “food” is entirely descriptive of the goods for which the mark is registered, all of which are staple foodstuffs’, and that, therefore, the earlier mark is not distinctive. However, the applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that part of the relevant public would understand the meaning of the English words ‘FOOD’ and ‘GO’. Contrary to the applicant’s opinion, the Opposition Division believes that a substantial part of the relevant public, which does not have a good command of English, will not grasp the meaning of the English words ‘FOOD’ and ‘GO’ in the earlier mark and therefore will perceive it as a one-word trade mark. Moreover, being a word mark, the earlier mark has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

The contested mark is a figurative mark composed of the letters ‘F**d**’ and four coloured circles (in red, blue, yellow and green), two of them placed between the letters ‘F’ and ‘d’ and the other two placed at the end of the mark. The letters ‘F’ and ‘d’ are in a standard black typeface and the coloured circles are likely to be perceived as vowels (i.e. the vowel ‘o’) by a substantial part of the public, on which the Opposition Division will focus the present proceedings. Therefore, the verbal element of the contested sign will be read by the relevant public as the word ‘Foodoo’, with the coloured circles all perceived as the vowel ‘o’. The word ‘Foodoo’ has no meaning for the relevant public and is, therefore, distinctive. Moreover, the contested sign has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

As regards the colours and graphic stylisation of the contested sign and, in particular, the depiction of the vowels ‘o’ as coloured circles, it has to be stressed that as consumers are well used to such depictions of verbal elements in marks, they will perceive the stylisation and colours as merely decorative.

Furthermore, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component, since the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37; 19/12/2011, R 233/2011-4, Best Tone (fig.) / BETSTONE (fig.), § 24; 13/12/2011, R 53/2011-5, Jumbo (fig.) / DEVICE OF AN ELEPHANT (fig.), § 59).

Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the graphic stylisation of the contested mark plays an important role must be disregarded. On the contrary, in the comparison of the marks, the importance of the graphic depiction is generally lower than that of the verbal elements, for the reasons explained above.

Visually, the signs coincide in the sequence of letters ‘Food*o’, present in the same order in both marks. Consequently, the marks coincide in five out of their six letters. They differ in their penultimate letters, ‘g’ and ‘o’ in the earlier mark and in the contested sign, respectively. These differing letters that are near the ends of the signs are of little importance as regards the impression they might produce on customers, who are most likely to focus on the signs’ initial, coinciding, elements. The signs also differ in the stylisation and colours of the contested sign (the four vowels ‘o’ depicted as coloured circles) that, for the reasons explained above, have a limited impact in the comparison of the signs.

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

Aurally, the signs are highly similar on account of them having the letters ‘Food*o’ in common.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

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.

The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

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. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods and services are partly identical, partly similar to various degrees and partly dissimilar.

The signs are visually similar to an average degree and aurally similar to a high degree. Moreover, they lack concepts that could help consumers to differentiate between them. The similarities between the signs result from the fact that the words ‘Foodgo’ and ‘Foodoo’ of the earlier mark and contested sign, respectively, differ in only their penultimate letters, which, being towards the ends of the signs, may go unnoticed by consumers.

In relation to the other differences created by the colours and stylisation of the contested sign, the Opposition Division finds that they do not have a decisive impact on the global impressions created by the signs, for the reasons explained above in section c).

Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

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

It follows that, when encountering identical or similar goods and services, the relevant public may think that the signs under comparison originate from the same undertaking or companies with economic ties.

This is also true for the contested goods and services that are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods. In this regard, it should be mentioned that a lesser degree of similarity between the goods and/or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the signs, and vice versa. Therefore, the average degree of visual similarity and the high degree of aural similarity between the signs is sufficient to offset the low degree of similarity between the contested goods and services and the opponent’s goods, resulting in a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public with regard to these goods and services as well.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s Portuguese trade mark registration No 506 535.

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

The rest of the contested goods and services 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 and services cannot be successful.

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 and services, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

María Belén IBARRA DE DIEGO

Angela DI BLASIO

Michele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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.