OPPOSITION No B 2 576 513

Emanuel Ingenhoven, Breite Str. 96, 41460 Neuss, Germany (opponent), represented by Paul & Albrecht Patentanwaltssozietät, Hellersbergstr. 18, 41460 Neuss, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Quales.TV, S.L., Avda M-40 Nº 19 OF 52, 28925 Madrid, Spain (applicant), represented by Pons Consultores de Propiedad Industrial, S.A., Glorieta Rubén Darío 4, 28010 Madrid, Spain (professional representative).

On 23/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 576 513 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 9:        Computer software; analysis instruments for photogrammetric purposes; titration controllers; data processing software for graphic representations; software for processing images, graphics and text; computer software for organizing and viewing digital images and photographs; computer hardware.

Class 42: Software design and development; installation, maintenance and repair of software for computer systems; computer software design; computer software programming services; updating, programming services and maintenance of software and computer programs; design, development and implementation of software; software engineering; software engineering; creation and software creation; repair of computer software.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 14 053 169 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 14 053 169, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 42. The opposition is based on German trade mark registration No 39 730 537. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

---

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 German trade mark No 39 730 537, on which the opposition is based.

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 09/06/2015. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in Germany from 09/06/2010 to 08/06/2015 inclusive.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

Class 9:        Computer programs.

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 05/05/2016, according to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, the Office gave the opponent until 10/07/2016 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 12/05/2016, within the time limit, the opponent submitted a statement in response referring to evidence submitted in previous opposition proceedings, namely B 2 494 436, filed on 10/03/2015, in which the opposition was based on the same earlier trade mark as in the proceedings in question.

The applicant points out that the observations submitted by the opponent refer to other opposition proceedings, to which the applicant or its representative were not party. The applicant claims that the document makes no reference to the present contested EUTM application, and that the arguments submitted and the relevant period do not relate to the proceedings in question.

The Opposition Division notes that references to material filed as proof of use in previous proceedings before the Office are admissible on condition that the opponent clearly identifies the material referred to and the proceedings in which it was filed. In the present case, the evidence referred to is listed clearly and the opposition proceedings in which it was submitted are identified by the opposition number. A copy of the material was sent to the applicant on 06/06/2016, providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment upon it. For these reasons, the evidence is acceptable.

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

Items 18-22         Five invoices in German dated between 26/01/2011 and 20/01/2015, issued to BVASK e.V. in Germany. The invoices show sales of EUR 2 556.15 each year in relation to ‘Lizenzgebühr Qualis®’ with the year, from 2010 to 2014, next to the product name.

Item 24                 An affidavit dated 24/11/2015, signed by Dr. med. Emanuel Ingenhoven, in his capacity as a co-developer of the software solution for which the earlier trade mark is registered. Dr Ingenhoven is also the proprietor of the earlier trade mark. He states that the software in question is for the documentation and quality control of orthopaedics and trauma surgery. Furthermore, he explains that the software is used by physicians, who can access certain additional features if they are members of the BVASK (Federal Association for Arthroscopy), and the BVASK pays licence fees on behalf of its members for the use of the Qualis software. According to Dr Ingenhoven, the licence fees are intended not to generate profit but merely to cover expenses, as the Qualis project is a non-profit project.

The applicant points out that the majority of the evidence submitted in this case is in German. The constant repetition of this argument can be interpreted as implying that such evidence should not be taken into account. Even if this interpretation of the applicant’s argument is valid, such argument shall be set aside, because the opponent is not under any obligation to translate the proof of use, unless he is specifically requested to do so by the Office (Rule 22(6) EUTMIR). Taking into account the nature of the documents which have not been translated and are considered relevant for the present proceedings, namely the invoices, and their self-explanatory character, the Opposition Division considers that there is no need to request a translation.

As far as the affidavit is concerned, Rule 22(4) EUTMIR expressly mentions written statements referred to in Article 78(1)(f) EUTMR as admissible means of proof of use. Article 78(1)(f) EUTMR lists means of giving evidence, amongst which are sworn or affirmed written statements or other statements that have a similar effect according to the law of the State in which they have been drawn up. As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, statements drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees are generally given less weight than independent evidence. This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by its personal interests in the matter.

However, this does not mean that such statements do not have any probative value at all.

The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in the particular case. This is because, in general, further evidence is necessary to establish use, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources.

Bearing in mind the foregoing, it is necessary to assess the remaining evidence to see whether or not the contents of the declaration are supported by the other items of evidence. The Opposition Division will proceed to examine the evidence in this light.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the affirmations in the affidavit do not apply in the present case, as they are intended to support the other opposition proceedings, in relation to which they were first submitted. The Opposition Division, however, deems that the relevant statements in the affidavit do apply in the present case as well, since they give general information about the trademarked software and its use during the relevant period.

Place of use

The invoices show that the place of use is Germany. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (German) and the address of the client in Germany. Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Time of use

The invoices listed above are dated within the relevant period. While the affidavit is dated outside the relevant period, the statements in it refer to the relevant period and the validity of the relevant information in it is not dependent on the period of time, but applies within the relevant period as well.

Extent of use

While the invoices show sales only once a year and to one client only, this can be justified by the statement made by Dr. med. Ingenhoven, that the BVASK pays licence fees on behalf of its members. The invoices support this statement, since they were sent to the BVASK at the beginning of each year, with the product name referring to the year preceding the year of the issuance. Consequently, the BVASK has clearly paid a yearly licence fee each year. The amount paid is relatively small, considering the above statement that it covers the fees of all BVASK members. However, the explanation that the software is provided on a non-profit basis justifies the small amount.

Furthermore, offering goods and services free of charge may constitute genuine use when they are offered commercially, that is to say with the intention of creating or maintaining an outlet for those goods or services in the EU, as opposed to the goods or services of other undertakings, and therefore of competing with them (09/09/2011, T-289/09, Omnicare Clinical Research, EU:T:2011:452, § 67-68).

The fact that there is no profit motive behind the use is irrelevant: ‘The fact that a charitable association does not seek to make profit does not mean that its objective cannot be to create and, later, to preserve an outlet for its goods or services’ (09/12/2008, C-442/07, Radetzky, EU:C:2008:696, § 17).

In the present case, the sales constitute use that is such as to create or preserve an outlet for the goods concerned. The volume of sales, in relation to the period of use, is not so low as to allow the conclusion that the use was merely token, minimal or notional for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark.

The documents filed, namely the invoices supported by the affidavit, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use.

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).

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, although the evidence submitted by the opponent is not particularly exhaustive, it does reach the minimum level necessary to establish genuine use of the earlier trade mark during the relevant period in the relevant territory. Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence of use contains sufficient indications concerning the extent of use.

Nature of use

The product name on the invoices contains the word ‘Qualis’ in a non-stylised form followed by the symbol ®, which shows that the opponent has not only used the trade mark in the form in which it is registered but intended to make it clear that the word is a registered trade mark. Since the invoices for a yearly licence fee were issued to the BVASK (Federal Association for Arthroscopy), it can be inferred that the trade mark has been used specifically in relation to medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy. This is supported by the statements in the affidavit.

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods covered by the earlier trade mark.

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.

The opponent’s mark is registered for computer programs in Class 9. Computer programs or software is a very broad category, which must be limited to the opponent’s actual field of activity. In the present case, the evidence proves use only for medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy. This conclusion can be drawn from the affidavit and is supported by the fact that the invoices were issued to the BVASK. It is clear that the only type of software offered by the opponent is a very specific type intended to be used only in relation to arthroscopy. Consequently, the evidence of use covers medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy.

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 and in relation to which genuine use of the earlier mark has been proven are the following:

Class 9:         Medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9:        Computer software; computer software for analysing market information; analysis instruments for photogrammetric purposes; titration controllers; software programmable microprocessors; data compression software; computer search engine software; data communications software; computer programs for network management; computer software for processing market information; data processing software for graphic representations; data processing software for word processing; computer software to enable the searching of data; computer software to automate data warehousing; software for processing images, graphics and text; communications processing computer software; computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications; computer software for organizing and viewing digital images and photographs; computer software for controlling the operation of audio and video devices; computer hardware; data communications hardware; computer memory hardware; computer software for generation of typefaces and fonts; computer software for generation of typefaces and fonts; media content.

Class 42:         Software design and development; installation, maintenance and repair of software for computer systems; computer software design; computer software programming services; updating, programming services and maintenance of software and computer programs; counselling and consultancy in the field of computer related telecommunications; design, development and implementation of software; software engineering; software engineering; creation and software creation; repair of computer software; design of computer machine and computer software for commercial analysis and reporting; process monitoring for quality assurance; development of software for compression and decompression of multimedia contents; development of hardware for compression and decompression of multimedia contents; development of software for processing and distribution of multimedia contents; development of hardware for processing and distribution of multimedia contents; cloud computing; cloud computing.

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 9

The contested computer software includes, as a broader category, the opponent’s medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy. 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 data processing software for graphic representations; software for processing images, graphics and text; computer software for organizing and viewing digital images and photographs are all specific types of software. The features of these types of software are likely to be also present in medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy, and therefore the same type of expertise is required to develop this contested software as is required to develop the opponent’s goods. The contested goods are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods, as, in addition to their identical nature, they can have the same producers and relevant public.

The contested computer hardware; analysis instruments for photogrammetric purposes and titration controllers are all types of hardware that work hand in hand with software and can all be used in the field of arthroscopy. They are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods, as they can have the same producers, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they can be complementary.

However, when the contested computer software for analysing market information; data compression software; computer search engine software; data communications software; computer programs for network management; computer software for processing market information; data processing software for word processing; computer software to enable the searching of data; computer software to automate data warehousing; communications processing computer software; computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications; computer software for controlling the operation of audio and video devices; computer software for generation of typefaces and fonts [listed twice], which are all specific types of software, are compared with the opponent’s goods, despite their identical nature, the differences in purpose and especially in usual origin clearly outweigh any similarities. Therefore, these goods are dissimilar to the goods for which the earlier mark is registered.

Furthermore, the contested software programmable microprocessors; data communications hardware; computer memory hardware are all specific types of hardware that work hand in hand with computer programs, but not with medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy. These goods are dissimilar to the opponent’s goods, as they differ in, inter alia, nature, purpose and usual origin.

Finally, the contested media content refers to information delivered by means of mass communication. Such content includes, for instance, music, films, magazines and books. Media content is dissimilar to the opponent’s medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy due to the differences in nature, purpose, method of use and usual origin, and the fact that they are not in competition nor complementary.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested software design and development; installation, and repair of software for computer systems; computer software design; computer software programming services; programming services of software and computer programs; design, development and implementation of software; repair of computer software are all services related to software. Design and development of software is required to manufacture any type of software. Manufacturers of software will also commonly provide other software-related services. Although the nature of the goods and services is not the same, they have the same relevant public and usual producers/providers. Furthermore, these goods and services are complementary. Therefore, these services are similar to the opponent’s medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy.

The contested maintenance of software for computer systems; updating and maintenance of software and computer programs; software engineering [listed twice]; creation and software creation are all software-related services that can have the same providers, relevant public and distribution channels as the opponent’s goods. Therefore, they are similar to a low degree to the goods for which the earlier mark is registered.

The contested counselling and consultancy in the field of computer related telecommunications; design of computer machine and computer software for commercial analysis and reporting; development of software for compression and decompression of multimedia contents; development of hardware for compression and decompression of multimedia contents; development of software for processing and distribution of multimedia contents; development of hardware for processing and distribution of multimedia contents are all services related to specific types of software that are not medical software. These services are dissimilar to the opponent’s medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy, as they have no relevant points in common except for their relevant public. They have different purposes and they are neither complementary nor in competition with each other. Moreover, they differ in their channels of distribution and commercial origins.

Furthermore, with regard to the contested process monitoring for quality assurance, it must be noted that by their nature goods are dissimilar to services. This is because goods are articles of trade, wares, merchandise or real estate. Their sale usually entails the transfer of title in something physical, such as movables or real estate. Services, on the other hand, consist in the provision of intangible activities. From this divergent nature, it follows that the methods of use of goods and services are inherently dissimilar. Moreover, process monitoring for quality assurance differs in purpose, usual origin and distribution channels from the opponent’s goods, and they are neither complementary nor in competition. Therefore, this service is dissimilar to medical computer programs in the field of arthroscopy.

Finally, the contested cloud computing [listed twice] is a service that involves using a network of remote servers hosted online to store, manage and process data. It is dissimilar to the opponent’s goods, as they differ in nature, purpose, method of use and usual origin. Moreover, they are not in competition or complementary.

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.

As stated by the Court, the relevant public for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is composed of users likely to use both the goods and services covered by the earlier mark and the product covered by the mark applied for that were found to be identical or similar (01/07/2008, T-328/05, Quartz, EU:T:2008:238, § 23, C-416/08 P, appeal dismissed).

In the present case, although some of the contested good and services are directed equally at the general public and a professional or specialised public, it is not disputed that the opponent’s goods are directed solely at professionals. Therefore, the only public likely to confuse the trade marks in question is formed of such professionals (14/07/2005, T-126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 81).

The degree of attention is considered high, as the goods in question are highly specialised.

3. The signs

QUALIS
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Germany.

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 sign is a word mark, consisting of the verbal element ‘QUALIS’. In the case of word marks, it is the word as such that is protected and not its written form. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is in upper or lower case characters.

The contested sign is a figurative mark that contains the verbal element ‘Quales’ written in a rather standard bold typeface. The sign also contains a figurative element, namely three interrupted circles, placed around the verbal element, the verbal element being in the centre of the sign. The sign is grey.

The marks under comparison have no elements which could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

Although the word ‘Qual’ has a meaning in German, namely ‘agony’ or ‘torment’, the public will not artificially dissect the marks under comparison. Consequently, the verbal elements ‘QUALIS’ and ‘Quales’ of the marks have no meaning for the relevant public and are, therefore, distinctive.

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).

As regards the contested sign, it is composed of a distinctive verbal element and a less distinctive figurative element of a purely decorative nature. Therefore, the verbal element is more distinctive than the figurative element.

 Visually, the verbal elements of the signs coincide in the sequence of letters ‘QUAL*S’, so five out of the six letters are the same. However, the signs differ in their fifth letters, ‘i’ and ‘e’, and also in the colour, the stylisation of the letters and the figurative element in the contested sign, which have no counterparts in the earlier mark. Nevertheless, the stylisation of the letters is relatively basic and the figurative element is of a decorative nature making it less distinctive, which means that the impact of these differing features in the contested sign is limited. Furthermore, the grey colour of the contested sign is not capable of differentiating the sign from the earlier mark; as a very basic colour, it will be easily overlooked by the relevant public.

The first parts of the conflicting marks, ‘QUAL*’, are identical (except for the stylisation). Consumers generally tend to focus on the first element of a sign when being confronted with a trade mark. This is justified by the fact that the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.

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

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛QUAL*S’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs only in the sound of the signs’ fifth letters ‛i’ versus ‘e’, while the rest of the letters are pronounced identically. In addition, the letters ‘i’ and ‘e’ are pronounced similarly in German.

Therefore, the signs are aurally almost identical.

Conceptually, as mentioned above, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

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

The opponent did not explicitly claim that his 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

Some of the contested goods and services are identical or similar to the goods covered by the earlier German trade mark.

The signs under comparison are visually similar at least to an average degree and aurally almost identical, on account of five out of six letters in both marks being identical and following the same sequence. The conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs. The signs differ in one letter, namely ‘i’ in the earlier mark and ‘e’ in the contested mark, and in the colour, stylisation and figurative element of the contested mark.

Account must be 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), and even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T-443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, §  54).

In its observations, the applicant argues that the earlier trade mark has a low distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that include the element ‘qual’. In support of its argument the applicant refers to some EUTM registrations.

The Opposition Division notes that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market. In other words, on the basis of data concerning a register only, it cannot be assumed that all such trade marks have been effectively used. It follows that the evidence filed does not demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and have become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element ‘qual’. In addition, the element ‘qual’ is used only as a part of a longer word, as in the present case. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s claims must be set aside.

Furthermore, 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).

Considering all of the above, the Opposition Division finds that the differences between the signs are not capable of counteracting their similarities. On the whole, it is considered that, despite the high degree of attention of the relevant public, the similarities between the marks are so significant that they are likely to lead to confusion on the part of the German-speaking public in respect of goods and services that are found to be identical, similar or similar to a low degree. Therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s German trade mark registration.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods and services found to be identical or similar (including those found to be similar to a low degree) to those 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

Ana MUÑIZ RODRIGUEZ

Jose Antonio GARRIDO OTAOLA

Plamen IVANOV

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.