MediWell | Decision 2756123

OPPOSITION DIVISION
OPPOSITION No B 2 756 123
Pharmadom, société anonyme coopérative à conseil d'administration, 66 rue
Escudier, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France (opponent), represented by Marie
Paule Dauquaire, 9 rue de Montevideo, 75116 Paris, France (professional
representative)
a g a i n s t
IRF s. r. o., Turnianska 1, 85107 Bratislava, Slovakia (applicant), represented by
Katarína Baďurová, Budatínska 12, 85106 Bratislava, Slovakia (professional
representative).
On 03/11/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 756 123 is is rejected in its entirety.
2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.
PRELIMINARY REMARK — APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
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have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),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.
REASONS
The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European
Union trade mark application No 15 078 645 . The opposition is
based on, inter alia, French trade mark registration No 12 3 929 829, WELL AND
WELL’. 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.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 2 of 11
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 12 3 929 829, ‘WELL AND WELL’.
a) The goods and services
The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning,
disinfecting, softening, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps;
perfumes and perfumery; essential oils; cosmetics; cosmetic preparations;
preparations for body care including cleansing milks, creams, gels, pomades, talcum
powders and oils; preparation for slimming purposes; make-up removing
preparations; hair lotions and creams; shampoos; hair dyes; dentifrices; dental
preparations; depilatory preparations; shaving preparations; nail care preparations
including nail lacquers and varnishes.
Class 5: Pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutical preparations; sanitary preparations for
medical purposes; dietetic food and substances adapted for medical use; appetite
suppressants for medical purposes; food for babies; dietary supplements;
disinfectants; cotton for medical purposes; materials for dressings; plasters;
medicines for human purposes; preparations for pharmaceutical purposes; lotions for
pharmaceutical purposes; pharmaceuticals for body care; vaccines; disinfectants;
preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides; herbicides; napkins; babies' napkins;
babies' napkin-pants.
Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments;
orthopedic apparatus and articles; suture materials; feeding bottles; gloves for
medical purposes; massage apparatus; arterial blood pressure measuring apparatus.
Class 35: Business management assistance; business management and
organization consultancy; business information and inquiries; business research;
cost price analysis; procurement services for others; administrative processing of
purchase orders; commercial management assistance; communications
(presentation of goods and services on communication media); price comparison
services; commercial information and advice for consumers; business management
consultancy; professional business consultancy; mail advertising; arranging
newspaper subscriptions for others; arranging subscriptions to telecommunication
services; direct mail advertising, leaflets, prospectuses, printed matter, samples;
distribution of samples; business appraisals; business management including
purchasing, sales, order and stock management; organization of exhibitions,
manifestations and demonstrations for professional, commercial, information or
advertising purposes; economic forecasting; systemization and compilation of
information into computer databases; computerized file management; data search in
computer files; import-export agency services; commercial information agency
services; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of
others; rental of advertising time on communication media; rental of advertising
space; market studies; market research; sponsorship search; sponsorship;
sponsorship (advertising); news clipping services; employment agencies; sales
promotion for others; advertising; on-line advertising on a computer network;
advertisement; dissemination of advertising matter; publication of publicity texts;
public relations; outsourcing services (business assistance); personnel recruitment;
marketing; referencing of goods and services; demonstration of goods; production of

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 3 of 11
advertising films; advertising film management; rental of vending machines; rental of
advertising materials including data processing equipment; drawing up of statements
of accounts; data search in computer files for others.
Class 44: Health care; medical assistance; advise and information relating to para-
pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutical assistance; pharmacy services; pharmacy advice;
pharmaceutical services; pharmacists' services; tele-pharmacy services; para-
pharmaceutical services; para-pharmaceutical consultancy; beauty services namely
assistance and advice for purchasing.
The contested goods and services are, after limitation, the following:
Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; Cleaning,
polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; Soaps; Perfumery, Essential oils,
Cosmetics, Hair lotions; Dentifrices.
Class 5: Pharmaceutical, veterinary and medical preparations; Sanitary preparations
for medical purposes; Dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary
use, food for babies; Dietary supplements for humans and animals; Plasters,
materials for dressings; Material for stopping teeth, dental wax; Disinfectants;
Preparations for destroying vermin; Fungicides, herbicides.
Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments;
Artificial limbs, Artificial eyes and Artificial teeth; Surgical suture materials.
Class 35: Wholesaling and retailing of bleaching preparations and other substances
for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps,
perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices, pharmaceuticals,
medical and veterinary preparations, sanitary preparations for medical purposes,
dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary use, food for babies,
dietary supplements for humans and animals, plasters, materials for dressings,
material for stopping teeth, dental wax, disinfectants, preparations for destroying
vermin, fungicides, herbicides, surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus
and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth, surgical suture materials;
Advertising, brokerage and consultancy in the aforesaid fields, offering the aforesaid
goods on the internet; Commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and
services of others, Publicity material rental; Rental of advertising space, Marketing
studies, Opinion polling; Direct mail advertising, distribution of advertising materials
(leaflets, prospectuses, printed material, samples), Dissemination of advertising
matter; Issuance, publication, announcements and declaration of publicity materials;
Advertising; Outsourcing services (business assistance); Business management;
Business administration; Office functions.
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 3
Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing,
scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair
lotions; dentifrices are identically covered by both marks.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 4 of 11
Contested goods in Class 5
The contested pharmaceutical preparations; sanitary preparations for medical
purposes; food for babies; plasters; materials for dressings; disinfectants;
preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides are identically covered by
both marks despite the slight differences in the wording of some.
The contested dietary supplements for humans and animals and the opponent’s
dietary supplements are the same product. Therefore they are identical.
Besides, as the opponent’s pharmaceutical preparations refer to any kind of
medicine, that is, a substance or combination of substances for treating or preventing
disease in people or animals, they include, as a broader category, the contested
veterinary preparations. Therefore, these goods are identical.
Further, given that ‘medical use’ covers ‘veterinary use’, it has to be considered that
the contested dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary use
coincide or are included in the opponent’s dietetic food and substances adapted for
medical use, to which they are thus identical.
The contested medical preparations are synonyms of the opponent’s medicines for
human purposes. These goods are thus identical.
The contested material for stopping teeth; dental wax are similar to a high degree to
the opponent’s dental apparatus and instruments as they have the same purpose.
Moreover, they can coincide in producer, end-user and distribution channels.
Furthermore they are complementary.
Contested goods in Class 10
The contested surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments
are identically covered by both marks.
The opponent’s suture material includes as a broader category the contested
surgical suture materials. These goods are thus considered identical.
The contested artificial limbs are included in the opponent’s broad category
orthopedic apparatus and articles. Therefore, these goods are identical.
The contested artificial teeth are highly similar to the opponent’s dental apparatus as
they have the same purpose. They can coincide in producer, end user and
distribution channels. Furthermore they are complementary.
The contested artificial eyes are dissimilar to any of the opponent’s goods and
services as they do not have the same natures and purposes, they do not usually
come from the same undertakings and they do not coincide in distribution channels.
In addition, they are neither in competition nor complementary.
Contested services in Class 35
Advertising is identically covered by both lists of services.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 5 of 11
The contested services advertising […] in the aforesaid fields are included in the
opponent’s broader category advertising. Therefore, these services are considered
identical.
The contested services of consultancy [in the aforesaid fields] are included in the
opponent’s broader category business management consultancy. Therefore, these
services are considered identical.
The contested services brokerage […in the aforesaid fields], consist of negotiating
contracts of purchase and sale of products for another undertaking. These services
are similar to the opponent’s business management as they can coincide in provider,
end user and distribution channels.
The contested commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services
of others; rental of advertising space; marketing studies; direct mail advertising,
distribution of advertising materials (leaflets, prospectuses, printed material,
samples), dissemination of advertising matter; business management; outsourcing
services (business assistance) are identically covered by both marks in spite of the
slight differences in the wording for some.
The opponent’s rental of advertising time on communication media; rental of
advertising space cover the same activities as the contested publicity material rental.
Therefore, these services are considered identical.
The broad category of the contested services issuance, publication, announcements
and declaration of publicity materials includes the opponent’s publication of publicity
texts. As the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the
contested services, they are considered identical.
The contested services of opinion polling are included in the opponent’s broad
category of business management assistance to which they are thus identical.
The contested services business administration constitutes a broad category that
includes the opponent’s personnel recruitment. As the Opposition Division cannot
dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested services, they are considered
identical.
The contested office functions include as broader category the opponent’s data
search in computer files for others. As the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex
officio this broad category of contested services, they are considered identical to the
opponent’s services.
As regards the remaining contested services in Class 35, it has to be borne in mind
that retail services concerning the sale of particular goods are similar to a low degree
to those particular goods. Although the nature, purpose and method of use of these
goods and services are not the same, they have some similarities, as they are
complementary and the services are generally offered in the same places where the
goods are offered for sale. Furthermore, they target the same public. In addition,
although they do not target the public at large but address professionals, the same
holds true for wholesaling services.
Moreover, since the contested services offering the aforesaid goods on the internet
cover the same activities as retailing of goods, the same holds true for these
contested services.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 6 of 11
As seen above, bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use,
cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential
oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices, pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary
preparations, sanitary preparations for medical purposes, dietetic food and
substances adapted for medical or veterinary use, food for babies, dietary
supplements for humans and animals, plasters, materials for dressings, disinfectants,
preparations for destroying vermin, fungicides, herbicides, surgical, medical, dental
and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, surgical suture materials to
which the contested services above mentioned inter alia relate are identical to the
opponent’s bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning,
polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery; essential oils;
cosmetics; hair lotions; dentifrices (in Class 3), pharmaceutical preparations; sanitary
preparations for medical purposes; dietetic food and substances adapted for medical
use; food for babies; dietary supplements; disinfectants; materials for dressings;
preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides; herbicides (in Class 5) and surgical,
medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; orthopedic apparatus and
articles; suture materials (in Class 10).
As a result, the contested wholesaling and retailing of bleaching preparations and
other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive
preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices,
pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary preparations, sanitary preparations for
medical purposes, dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary
use, food for babies, dietary supplements for humans and animals, plasters,
materials for dressings, disinfectants, preparations for destroying vermin, fungicides,
herbicides, surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments,
artificial limbs, surgical suture materials; offering the aforesaid goods on the internet
are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods above mentioned in Classes 3, 5
and 10.
However, similarity between retail services of specific goods covered by one mark
and specific goods covered by another mark can only be found where the goods
involved in the retail services and the specific goods covered by the other mark are
identical. This condition is not fulfilled as regards the material for stopping teeth and
dental wax which are not identical to any of the opponent’s goods.
As a result, the contested services wholesaling and retailing of material for stopping
teeth, dental wax; artificial eyes and teeth; offering the aforesaid goods on the
internet are dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10. Moreover,
they are also dissimilar to the opponents services in Classes 35 and 44. Indeed, they
have different natures and purposes, they do not usually come from the same
undertakings and they are not distributed through the same channels. Finally, they
are neither in competition nor complementary.
b) Relevant public — degree of attention
The average consumer of the category of products and services 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, part of the goods and services found identical or similar to
varying degrees are directed at the public at large and the remaining part are

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 7 of 11
addressed exclusively to professionals, for example, some of the services in
Class 35 and some of the goods in Class 10.
The degree of attention may vary from average to high, depending on the target
public, the specialised nature of the goods or services, the frequency of purchase
and their price.
For example, insofar as pharmaceutical preparations, whether or not issued on
prescription, are concerned, the relevant public’s degree of attention is relatively high
(15/12/2010, T-331/09, Tolposan, EU:T:2010:520, § 26; 15/03/2012, T-288/08, Zydus,
EU:T:2012:124, § 36 and cited case-law). In particular, medical professionals have a
high degree of attentiveness when prescribing medicines. Non-professionals also
have a higher degree of attention, regardless of whether the pharmaceuticals are
sold without prescription, as these goods affect their state of health. Such finding
holds true for all the relevant goods in Class 5 as well as for the goods in Class 10
since they also affect state of health.
However, the level of attention displayed will be average for other goods and services
such as those in Class 3 (21/02/2013, T-427/11, Bioderma, EU:T:2013:92, § 38;
14/04/2011, T-466/08, ACNO FOCUS, EU:T:2011:182, § 49).
c) The signs
WELL AND WELL
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 earlier mark is a word mark consisting of three elements, namely, Well’ at the
beginning and at the end of the sign plus ‘and’ placed between the two. In that
regard, it has to be borne in mind that in the case of word marks, it is the word as
such that is protected, regardless of the way in which it is depicted, for example it is
irrelevant if the words are in lower or upper case.
The contested sign is figurative and consists of a single word element, namely,
‘MediWell’ displayed in a blue typeface. Notwithstanding the fact that it consists of a
single word element, since the first part ‘Medi’ is displayed in bold letters while the
second part Well’ is displayed in thin and slightly stylised letters, and both elements
begin with a capital letter, it has to be assumed that the relevant public will break
down the contested sign into these identifiable components.
The element ‘Well’ identically present in both signs is an English adverb that has no
meaning in French. In that regard it has to be recalled that, unless where the word is
very basic and is commonly used in the relevant territory, knowledge of a foreign
language cannot be presumed. Therefore, contrary to the applicant’s contention it
has to be considered that this English term is meaningless for a substantial part of

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 8 of 11
the French public (see for example, in this regard, the decisions of 23/08/2017 in
case B 2 650 193, B-WELL and of 08/05/2017 in case B 2 657 032, wellpharmashop
(fig.).
On the other hand, the element ‘and’ (‘et’ in French), being a very basic English word,
can be safely assumed to be understood by the whole relevant public as a connector
between the earlier mark’s elements ‘Well’. As it has no relation with the goods and
services in question, it is distinctive.
As regards the element ‘Medi’ in the contested sign, it has to be observed that
because of its similarity with the French words ‘médical’ (medical) and médicament’
(medicine), it is likely to evoke the medical purpose, application or more generally the
field of trade of the goods and services in question. In view of its allusive content, it
has to be considered that it has weak distinctive character for the goods and services
in question (06/10/2011, T-247/10, deutschemedi.de, EU:T:2011:579, § 40 to 44, by
analogy).
As regards the graphical representation of the contested sign, it has to be borne in
mind that 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 (14/07/2005, T 312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289,
§ 37).
It follows from all the aforesaid that the element ‘Well’ is the most distinctive element
of the contested sign.
None of the signs has any element that could be considered clearly more dominant
(visually outstanding) than other elements.
Visually, the signs coincide in the distinctive word ‘Well’, identically present in both
signs. However, they differ in the duplication of the word ‘Well’ and in the additional
word ‘and’ of the earlier mark as well as in the element ‘Medi’ and the graphical
representation of the contested sign.
Therefore, the signs are visually similar to a low degree.
Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in Well’, present identically in both
signs which, however, is repeated twice in the earlier mark.
The pronunciation differs in the syllable ‘and’ in the middle of the earlier mark and in
the sound of the element ‘Medi’ at the beginning of the contested sign, which has no
counterpart in the earlier mark. The signs also differ in their structure, rhythm and
intonation.
Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a low degree.
Conceptually, although the signs as a whole do not have any meaning for the public
in the relevant territory, the element ‘and’ included in the earlier mark, and the
element ‘Medi’ of the contested sign, will be associated with the meanings explained
above. Therefore, the signs are not conceptually similar.
As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the
examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 9 of 11
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 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 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.
e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
The appreciation of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on
numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the earlier mark on the
market, the association which can be made with the registered mark, the degree of
similarity between the marks and between the goods or services identified. It must be
appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of
the case (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18;
11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
Such a global assessment of a likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence
between the relevant factors and, in particular, similarity between the trade marks
and between the goods or services. Accordingly, a greater degree of similarity
between the goods may be offset by a lower degree of similarity between the marks,
and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).
Although the signs coincide in the element ‘Well’, the additional differing elements
permit to avoid a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.
Even if the element ‘Well’ has no meaning and, hence, is distinctive, in the perception
of the French public, the coincidence between the marks in such element is not
sufficient to lead them to confuse the mark ‘MediWell’ with the earlier mark ‘Well and
Well’.
The differences between the signs, namely, the element ‘Medi’ of the contested sign,
the repetition of the word ‘Well’ and the additional element ‘and’ of the earlier mark
are clearly perceivable and provide a completely different structure to the signs,
which will not go unnoticed.
In addition, considering that the public reads from left to right, which makes the part
placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of
the reader, consumers tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter
a trade mark, that is, ‘Well’ in the earlier sign and ‘Medi’ in the contested sign.
In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that a likelihood of confusion
between the marks in question can be safely excluded even in the context of identical
goods.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 10 of 11
Moreover, such conclusion is not called into question by the previous decisions of the
Office to which the opponent refers in support of its arguments. Indeed, these
decisions are not relevant to the present proceedings.
The decision in case B 2 444 092 referred to by the opponent is obviously not
relevant as it deals with the perception by the English-speaking public of the word
‘up’ which was also the only element of one of the marks in conflict, by contrast with
the situation in the present case.
Similarly, the decisions in cases T389/15, T-33/13 and B 2 429 978 as well as the
two decisions from the French Industrial Property Office that the opponent mentions
are not relevant as they concern cases where the common element was either
dominant in both marks in conflict, or in the beginning of both marks in conflict and/or
also the only element of one of the marks in conflict.
As explained above, these circumstances are not met in the present case where the
common element is placed at the end of the contested sign.
Considering all the above, there can be no likelihood of confusion on the part of the
French public between the marks in question in the present case, even in the context
of identical or similar goods and services. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.
The other earlier right invoked by the opponent, namely, earlier French trade mark
registration No 13 4 007 987 for the figurative mark is less similar to the
contested mark. This is because it contains further word and figurative elements,
which are not present in the contested trade mark. Moreover, it covers the same
scope of the goods and services. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists with
respect to this earlier right.
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.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 756 123 page: 11 of 11
The Opposition Division
Carmen SÁNCHEZ
PALOMARES
Marine DARTEYRE Ana MUÑÍZ RODRÍGUEZ
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.

Leave Comment