OPPOSITION No B 2 524 141

Federation Internationale des Logis, 83, avenue d'Italie, 75013 Paris, France (opponent), represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, 31-33 Rue de la Baume, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Zhibin Wei, Floor 2 No.13 Heningli, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province  

Popular Republic of China (applicant), represented by Cabinet Vidon Marques & Juridique Pi, 16B, rue Jouanet – 90333, Technopôle Atalante, 35703 Rennes Cedex 7, France (professional representative).

On 25/04/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 524 141 is upheld for all the contested goods and services.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 13 735 907 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 13 735 907. The opposition is based on, inter alia, French trade mark registration No 3 539 410. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR in relation to this trademark.

PROOF OF USE

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

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

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of all the trade marks on which the opposition is based.  However, at this moment only proof of use related to the earlier French trade mark No 3 539 410 will be examined.

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

The contested application was published on 19/02/2015. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in France from 19/02/2010 to 18/02/2015 inclusive.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the services on which the opposition is based as regards this mark, namely the following:

Class 43:        Providing of food and drink for guests; snack bars; booking and rental of temporary accommodation;  temporary accommodation; boarding houses; tourist homes; hotels and motels; providing hotel accommodation; bars, canteens, children's crèches; catering; rental of tents; services of holiday homes; provision of campgrounds; reservations for guest houses, hotels, restaurants.

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

On 30/09/2016, according to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, the Office gave the opponent until 05/12/2016 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 30/09/2016, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use in addition to the evidence that was already submitted on 17/12/2015 to prove the reputation of the earlier mark.

The evidence to be taken into account is, in particular, the following:

 

• Awareness survey established by IFOP, an independent barometer, dated February 2011, in which the notoriety of the hotel chain ‘LOGIS’ or ‘LOGIS DE FRANCE’ among their competitors is studied. The survey shows a notoriety of 24% for LOGIS among its competitors in France.

• Awareness survey established by IFOP, an independent barometer, dated June 2012, in which the notoriety of the hotel chain ‘LOGIS’ or ‘LOGIS DE FRANCE’ among their competitors is studied. The survey shows a notoriety of 29% for LOGIS DE FRANCE as a hotel chain among itscompetitors in France, and a notoriety of 68 % for .

• Awareness survey established by Opened Mind Etudes & Conseils Marketing, a Marketing Surveys and Advisory Centre dated June 2015, in which the notoriety of the ‘LOGIS’ was studied. The survey shows that 6% remembered spontaneously the LOGIS mark in relation to restaurants and hotels, 32 % stated that they were aware of the LOGIS chain of hotels and restaurants when seeing it on a list, being therefore the 4th most well-known chain.

• Summary of the communication campaign 2012 in which it can be read that the Federation International des Logis has more than 2600 establishments and more than 51000 rooms in Europe, being therefore the first voluntary hotel chain in Europe. Moreover, it is also mentioned the turnover of 31 million in August 2012 and that more than 4.1 million visitors entered the opponent’s website in 2012.

• Document which shows details of the television and radio advertising device for 2013: 1.3 million budget, turnover of 1 949 000 for web operations, and turnover of 57 9020 000 generated by the loyalty card.

• Article dated September 2013 of the journal L´Hotellerie, in which is detailed the communication budget of 7 million euros for 2012.

•     Extracts of LOGIS international guides in six languages (French, English among others) and dated from 2010 to 20105 in which the mark     can be seen in relation to all the hotels and restaurants the opponent works with, in France and other countries.

• 60 invoices dated within the relevant period from 2010 to 2015, in French among other languages, issued in different cities in Europe (France included) related to the rental of rooms and/or restaurant services. The mark can be seen in the invoices.

Assessment of the evidence

Before proceeding it is important to note that when evaluating the evidence submitted, the Opposition Division has to make an overall assessment and all the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account. Furthermore, all the materials submitted must be assessed in conjunction with each other. Pieces of evidence may be insufficient by themselves to prove the use of an earlier trade mark, but may contribute to proving use in combination with other documentation and information.

Time & Place

The invoices, turnover information, press documents, awareness surveys, guides refer to France among other countries. Further, the documentation clearly refers to dates between 2010 and 2015, all within the relevant period. It is worth noting that the provisions on the use requirement do not require continuous use (judgment of 16/12/2008, T-86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577,§ 52) but merely within the five years. As such, both conditions have been fulfilled.

Extent

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

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

Under certain circumstances, even circumstantial evidence such as catalogues featuring the trade mark, despite not providing direct information on the quantity of goods actually sold, can be sufficient by themselves to prove the extent of use in an overall assessment (judgments of 15/07/2015, T-398/13 TVR ITALIA (fig.) / TVR et al., EU:T:2015:503, § 57-58; 08/07/2010, T-30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq.).

The materials submitted, relate to years and dates throughout the whole relevant period and prove the frequency of use of the mark during that period.

Moreover, in this case, the documents filed, namely the awareness surveys referring to different years in which a notoriety of 68% is shown for the mark in France in 2012, as well as the fact that ‘LOGIS’ was the 4th most well-known chain in France in 2012, the invoices, the turnover of the company, the amount of money spent in communication and advertising campaigns, the huge number of hotels, the 51 000 rooms in Europe, and the various restaurants in Europe (2 600 establishments), all together, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use.

Therefore, the Opposition Division finds this point has been complied with.

Nature of use

In the context of Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the expression ‘nature of use’ includes evidence of the use of the sign as a trade mark in the course of trade, of the use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof according to Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, and of its use for the goods and services for which it is registered.

The opponent had to prove use for its trade mark .   This trade mark is present in the materials provided and services bearing these marks appear in the invoices and turnover information. The mark has therefore been used as registered.

Overall assessment

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

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

In the present case the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for the following services:

Class 43:        Providing of food and drink for guests; booking and rental of temporary accommodation; temporary accommodation; tourist homes; hotels and motels; providing hotel accommodation; bars, services of holiday homes; reservations for guest houses, hotels, restaurants.

Therefore, the Opposition Division will only consider the abovementioned services in its further examination of the opposition.

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

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

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s French trade mark registration No 3 539 410.

1. The goods and services

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

Class 43:        Providing of food and drink for guests; booking and rental of temporary accommodation; temporary accommodation; tourist homes; hotels and motels; providing hotel accommodation; bars, services of holiday homes; reservations for guest houses, hotels, restaurants.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 32:         Beer; Fruit juices; Waters (beverages); Mineral water (beverages); Seltzer water; Table waters; Non-alcoholic beverages; Drinking waters; Tonic water (non-medicated beverages).          

Class 33:        Alcoholic fruit extracts; aperitifs; cocktails; digesters (liqueurs and spirits); wine; spirits (beverages); brandy; whisky; alcoholic beverages except beers; sparkling wine; distilled beverages.

Class 43:        Accommodation bureaux [hotels, boarding houses]; food and drink catering; cafes; rental of temporary accommodation; boarding houses; hotels; restaurants; motels; bar services; rental of transportable buildings.

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

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.

Preliminary remark:

The provision of food and drinks in Class 43 mainly covers services of a restaurant or

similar services, such as catering, cafeterias and snack bars. These services are intended to serve food and drinks directly for consumption. The mere fact that food and drinks are consumed in a restaurant is not a sufficient reason to find similarity between them (judgment of 09/03/2005, T-33/03, Hai, EU:T:2005:89, § 45 and decision of 20/10/2011, R 1976/2010-4, THAI SPA / SPA et al., § 24-26). Nevertheless, in certain situations these goods and services can be complementary (judgments of 17/03/2015, T-611/11, Manea Spa, EU:T:2015:152, § 52; 15/02/2011, T-213/09, Yorma’s, EU:T:2011:37, § 46). Goods or services are complementary if one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that consumers may think that responsibility for the production of those goods or provision of those services lies with the same undertaking.

The mere fact that food and/or drinks are essential to the services of restaurants, bars, cafeterias, etc. does not in itself lead consumers to think that responsibility for the production of those goods and provision of those services lies with the same undertaking (e.g. salt in restaurants).

On the other hand, consumers may think that responsibility lies with the same undertaking if the market reality is that the provision of food and drinks and the manufacture of such goods are commonly offered by the same undertaking under the

same trade mark (e.g. coffee in their coffee shops, ice cream in their ice cream parlours, beer in pubs). In such cases, there is a low degree of similarity.

Contested goods in Class 32

The contested beer; fruit juices; waters (beverages); mineral water (beverages); seltzer water; table waters; non-alcoholic beverages; drinking waters; tonic water (non-medicated beverages) are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s providing of food and drink for guests in Class 43. The opponent’s services for providing food and drink use the contested goods, which can be sold in the same places where the opponent’s services are provided. Moreover, they can be produced and provided by the same undertakings and, furthermore, may be complementary.

Contested goods in Class 33

In view of the foregoing and the case-law, the contested alcoholic fruit extracts; aperitifs; cocktails; digesters (liqueurs and spirits); wine; spirits (beverages); brandy; whisky; alcoholic beverages except beers; sparkling wine; distilled beverages in Class 43 are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s providing of food and drink for guests to the extent that they can coincide in producer/provider and distribution channels. Furthermore they are complementary.

Contested services in Class 43

Providing of food and drink catering are identically contained in both lists of services (including synonyms).

Hotels; motels; bar services; restaurants are identically contained in both lists of services.

Rental of temporary accommodation are identically contained in both lists of services.

The contested accommodation bureaux [hotels, boarding house] include, as a broader category the opponent’s temporary accommodation. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested services, they are considered identical to the opponent’s services.

The contested boarding houses overlap the opponent’s booking and rental of temporary accommodation. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested rental of transportable buildings; rental of meeting rooms are similar to the opponent’s temporary accommodation, since they have the same purpose. Furthermore, they may be provided by the same undertaking and target the same end users.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods and services found to be identical or similar to various degrees are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is deemed to be average.

3. The signs

	LE LOGIS DE LAFONT
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is France.

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 contested mark is the word mark ‘LE LOGIS DE LAFONT’. In the case of word marks, the word as such is protected, not its written form. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the word mark is depicted in lower or upper case letters, or in a combination thereof.

The earlier sign is a figurative mark, containing a figurative element in brown depicting a chimney. Below this element is the word ’LOGIS’ written in brown, with the letter ‘L’ in upper case and the remaining letters in lower case, all against a green square background.

The word ‘LOGIS’, constituting the solely word element of the earlier mark, and the first word of the contested mark will be perceived by the relevant public in France as referring to ‘dwelling, residence’ (information extracted from the Larousse Dictionary at http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/logis/47594 on 19/04/2017).

In its observations, the applicant argues that the element ‘LOGIS’ is non-distinctive in relation to the services in Class 43. In this sense, he refers to a previous national decision to support its argument. However, it must be noted that decisions of national courts and national offices regarding conflicts between identical or similar trade marks on the national level do not have a binding effect on the Office since the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system which applies independently of any national system (13/09/2010, T-292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399).

Even though previous national decisions are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should be duly considered, particularly when the decision has been taken in the Member State that is relevant to the proceedings.

In the present case, the previous case referred to by the applicant is not relevant to the present proceedings since there is not enough information on the factual/legal background.

Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the Opposition Division is of the opinion that the word ‘LOGIS’ has a certain degree of distinctiveness, although low, for part of the services of Class 43, namely accommodation bureaux [hotels, boarding houses]; rental of temporary accommodation; boarding houses; hotels; motels; bar services, since it is not descriptive of any of the essential characteristics of the services at issue. However, for the rest of the services it is considered to be distinctive.

As regards the element ‘LAFONT’ of the contested mark, the applicant provides evidence that it refers to a ‘chateau’ (castle) in France. The names of cities, villages, regions and other geographic areas evoke a concept that may be relevant for conceptual comparison if it is likely that the relevant public will recognise them as such. In this case, it is not clear however whether all the public might recognise it as such, however what it is sure it that it would be associated with a place. As a consequence, this element is considered to be non-distinctive as it can be associated with the geographical origin of the goods and services and therefore, its impact is limited when assessing the degree of similarity between the marks.

Moreover, the elements ‘LE’ and ‘DE’ will be understood respectively as ‘THE’ and ‘OF’, being articles.

As seen above, the word ‘LOGIS’ of the contested sign is the element with more impact on the public’s perception of the contested sign since the remaining elements ‘LE’, ‘LAFONT’ and ‘DE’ are considered as non-distinctive in relation to the relevant services, while the letters ‘LOGIS’, although not determining the overall impression conveyed by the contested sign, retain an independent and distinctive role, although low, within that sign.

The figurative device in the earlier sign may be perceived by at least a part of the public as representing a chimney, and therefore it will be considered as non-distinctive in relation to the services in Class 43 since it might be interpreted in a way that the restaurants or/and accommodations have chimneys. Nevertheless, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37).

Neither of the marks under comparison has an element that could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘LOGIS’, which constitute the unique verbal element of the earlier trade mark and is included and identifiable as an independent element in the contested sign. They differ in the additional elements of the contested sign, namely the elements ‘LE’, ‘DE’ and ‘LAFONT’, as well as in the overall stylisation and figurative element of the earlier sign which have a limited impact in the sign for the reasons explained above.

Therefore, taking into account all the relevant factors and the differences in the overall structures of the marks, it is concluded that the signs are visually similar to only a low degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘LOGIS’, constituting the only verbal element of the earlier mark and present identically in the contested sign. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the word of the contested sign ‘LE’, ‘DE’, and the last word ‘LAFONT’ which have, however, no- or a limited impact in the contested sign.

Consequently, the marks are aurally similar to an average degree on account of the verbal element ‘LOGIS’ that they have in common.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Consequently, there is a conceptual link between the signs on account of the coinciding element ‘LOGIS’. They differ in the additional concept present in the contested sign, conveyed by the non-distinctive element ‘LAFONT’ and by the figurative device since it may be perceived by at least a part of the public as representing a chimney.

Therefore, taking into account all the above, the marks are conceptually similar to an average degree on account of the verbal element ‘LOGIS’ that they have in common.

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

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

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

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the 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 some non-distinctive elements in the mark at least for part of the public as stated above in section c) of this decision.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The Court has stated that likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case; this appreciation depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the degree of recognition of the mark on the market, the association that the public might make between the two marks and the degree of similarity between the signs and the goods and services. Further the Court has also held that 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, §  22 and 23).

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

To summarise, the goods and services have been found to be partly identical and partly similar to various degrees and the degree of attention is average. The signs are lowly similar in as much as the only verbal element of the earlier mark is identically included in the contested mark and as the remaining elements of the marks are non-distinctive or secondary elements.

For part of the services, the common element ‘LOGIS’ has a low distinctive character, being distinctive for the rest. A coincidence in an element with a low degree of distinctiveness will not normally on its own lead to likelihood of confusion. However, there may be likelihood of confusion if the other components are of a lower (or equally low) degree of distinctiveness or are of insignificant visual impact and the overall impression of the marks is similar. There may also be likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical. Therefore, although the common element ‘LOGIS’ has also been found to be of low distinctiveness, the overall impression of the marks is similar for the reasons stated above.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind, coupled with the fact that consumers rarely examine marks side by side, relying therefore on their imperfect recollection, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion in view of the similarities between the signs and the identity and similarity to a low degree of the goods and services. Indeed, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer will perceive the contested mark as a sub-brand, a variation of the earlier mark, configured in a different way according to the type of goods and services which it designates (see, to that effect, 23/10/2002, T-104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49)

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s French trade mark No 3 539 410. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods and services.

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

As the earlier right French trade mark No 3 539 410 leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods and services against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other grounds of the opposition, namely Articles 8(4) and 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

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

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

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

The Opposition Division

Francesca DINU

Cristina CRESPO MOLTO

Janja FELC

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.