OPPOSITION No B 2 218 546

E-GAB, Naamloze Vennootschap, Assesteenweg 96, 1740 Ternat, Belgium (opponent), represented by Gevers, Brussels Airport Business Park, Holidaystraat 5, 1831 Diegem, Belgium (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Showroom Sp. z o.o., Włoska 10, 00-777 Warsaw, Poland (applicant), represented by Kancelaria Prawno-Patentowa Anna Bełz, Północna 6/24, 20-064 Lublin, Poland (professional representative).

On 28/06/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1.        Opposition No B 2 218 546 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 35:        Clothing, footwear, headgear; bandanas [neckerchiefs]; wimples; berets; underwear; anti-sweat underwear; brassieres; smocks; boas [necklets]; boots; breeches for wear; shoes; ski boots; boots for sports; lace boots; scarfs; top hats; caps [headwear]; bathing caps; bathing caps; tips for footwear; visors (hats); wooden shoes; jerseys [clothing]; knitwear [clothing]; esparto shoes or sandals; fur stoles; aprons [clothing]; ascots; furs [clothing]; gabardines [clothing]; suits; corselets; bodices [lingerie]; bodices [lingerie]; slips [undergarments]; petticoats; vests; fishing vests; hats; paper hats [clothing]; bathing trunks; hoods [clothing]; pocket squares; detachable collars; wet suits for water-skiing; combinations [clothing]; shirts; short-sleeve shirts; neckties; jackets [clothing]; parkas; leg warmers; liveries; pants; babies’ pants [clothing]; maniples; mantillas; miters [hats]; muffs [clothing]; uniforms; skull caps; headgear for wear; headbands [clothing]; ear muffs [clothing]; heels; footwear; gymnastic shoes; football boots; beach shoes; sports shoes; clothing; motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; clothing for gymnastics; ready-made clothing; paper clothing; waterproof clothing; clothing of imitations of leather; clothing of leather; footmuffs, not electrically heated; outerclothing; chasubles; topcoats; slippers; bath slippers; belts [clothing]; girdles; money belts [clothing]; pelerines; pelisses; pyjamas; bath robes; ready-made garters; stocking suspenders; sock suspenders; half-boots; ponchos; stockings; sweat absorbent stockings; coats; tights; ski gloves; gloves (clothing); mittens; sandals; bath sandals; saris; sarongs; socks; bibs, not of paper; underpants; skirts; skorts; trousers; singlets; camisoles; swimsuits; masquerade costumes; beach clothes; jumper dresses; dresses; sweaters; sweaters; shawls; sashes for wear; suspenders; dressing gowns; tee-shirts; togas; teddies [undergarments]; turbans; veils [clothing]; layettes [clothing]; hosiery; stuff jackets [clothing]

Class 35:        Retailing of goods relating to care, personal care and hygiene, perfumery and cosmetics, clothing and fashion accessories, textiles, haberdashery, jewellery, horological goods, spectacles, clothing accessories, footwear, headgear, swimsuits, underwear, spectacles, jewellery, precious stones, watches, bags and suitcases, belts; retailing of goods being leatherwear namely wallets, purses, belts, handbags and keyrings, clothing and fashion accessories

2.        European Union trade mark application No 11 110 376 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 11 110 376, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 25 and 35. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 10 543 304. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR.

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

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

1. The goods and services

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

Class 35:        Retail and wholesale services relating to clothing, clothing accessories, cosmetics, shoes, headgear, swimwear, underwear, glasses, juwels, watches, bags and trunks.

The contested goods and services, after the limitation in Class 36 requested on 08/05/2015, are the following:

Class 25:        Clothing, footwear, headgear; non-slipping devices for footwear; bandanas [neckerchiefs]; wimples; berets; underwear; anti-sweat underwear; brassieres; smocks; boas [necklets]; boots; breeches for wear; shoes; ski boots; boots for sports; lace boots; boot uppers; footwear uppers; scarfs; top hats; caps [headwear]; bathing caps; bathing caps; tips for footwear; visors (hats); wooden shoes; jerseys [clothing]; knitwear [clothing]; esparto shoes or sandals; fur stoles; aprons [clothing]; ascots; furs [clothing]; gabardines [clothing]; suits; spats; spats; corselets; bodices [lingerie]; bodices [lingerie]; slips [undergarments]; petticoats; galoshes; vests; fishing vests; hats; paper hats [clothing]; bathing trunks; hoods [clothing]; shirt yokes; pockets for clothing; pocket squares; shoulder wraps; detachable collars; wet suits for water-skiing; combinations [clothing]; studs for football boots; shirts; short-sleeve shirts; neckties; jackets [clothing]; parkas; leg warmers; liveries; pants; babies’ pants [clothing]; maniples; cuffs; mantillas; sleep masks; miters [hats]; muffs [clothing]; uniforms; skull caps; headgear for wear; headbands [clothing]; shirt fronts; heelpieces for stockings; ear muffs [clothing]; heels; footwear; gymnastic shoes; football boots; beach shoes; sports shoes; welts for footwear; collar protectors; clothing; motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; clothing for gymnastics; ready-made clothing; paper clothing; waterproof clothing; clothing of imitations of leather; clothing of leather; footmuffs, not electrically heated; outerclothing; fittings of metal for footwear; chasubles; topcoats; slippers; bath slippers; belts [clothing]; girdles; money belts [clothing]; pelerines; pelisses; pyjamas; bath robes; soles for footwear; inner soles; ready-made linings [parts of clothing]; garters; stocking suspenders; sock suspenders; half-boots; ponchos; stockings; sweat absorbent stockings; dress shields; coats; tights; ski gloves; gloves (clothing); mittens; sandals; bath sandals; saris; sarongs; socks; bibs, not of paper; underpants; skirts; skorts; trousers; singlets; camisoles; swimsuits; masquerade costumes; beach clothes; jumper dresses; dresses; sweaters; sweaters; shawls; sashes for wear; suspenders; hat frames [skeletons]; dressing gowns; tee-shirts; gaiter straps; togas; teddies [undergarments]; turbans; veils [clothing]; layettes [clothing]; hosiery; stuff jackets [clothing]; heelpieces for footwear.

Class 35:        Online advertising and promotion via a computer network and the internet; but not including retail services; compilation of information into a computer database; retailing of goods relating to care, personal care and hygiene, perfumery and cosmetics, clothing and fashion accessories, textiles, haberdashery, jewellery, horological goods, spectacles, clothing accessories, footwear, headgear, swimsuits, underwear, spectacles, jewellery, precious stones, watches, bags and suitcases, belts; retailing of goods being leatherwear namely wallets, purses, belts, handbags and keyrings, clothing and fashion accessories; business management but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home; business administration but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home; administrative services but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home.

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

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

The specification of the earlier mark contains the word ‘juwels’. It is evident that this refers to the correct English word ‘jewels’, so it will be considered as such.

Contested goods in Class 25

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.

Therefore, the contested clothing, footwear, headgear; bandanas [neckerchiefs]; wimples; berets; underwear; anti-sweat underwear; brassieres; smocks; boas [necklets]; boots; breeches for wear; shoes; ski boots; boots for sports; lace boots; scarfs; top hats; caps [headwear]; bathing caps; bathing caps; tips for footwear; visors (hats); wooden shoes; jerseys [clothing]; knitwear [clothing]; esparto shoes or sandals; fur stoles; aprons [clothing]; ascots; furs [clothing]; gabardines [clothing]; suits; corselets; bodices [lingerie] (listed twice); slips [undergarments]; petticoats; vests; fishing vests; hats; paper hats [clothing]; bathing trunks; hoods [clothing]; pocket squares; detachable collars; wet suits for water-skiing; combinations [clothing]; shirts; short-sleeve shirts; neckties; jackets [clothing]; parkas; leg warmers; liveries; pants; babies’ pants [clothing]; maniples; mantillas; miters [hats]; muffs [clothing]; uniforms; skull caps; headgear for wear; headbands [clothing]; ear muffs [clothing]; heels; footwear; gymnastic shoes; football boots; beach shoes; sports shoes; clothing; motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; clothing for gymnastics; ready-made clothing; paper clothing; waterproof clothing; clothing of imitations of leather; clothing of leather; footmuffs, not electrically heated; outerclothing; chasubles; topcoats; slippers; bath slippers; belts [clothing]; girdles; money belts [clothing]; pelerines; pelisses; pyjamas; bath robes; ready-made garters; stocking suspenders; sock suspenders; half-boots; ponchos; stockings; sweat absorbent stockings; coats; tights; ski gloves; gloves (clothing); mittens; sandals; bath sandals; saris; sarongs; socks; bibs, not of paper; underpants; skirts; skorts; trousers; singlets; camisoles; swimsuits; masquerade costumes; beach clothes; jumper dresses; dresses; sweaters; sweaters; shawls; sashes for wear; suspenders; dressing gowns; tee-shirts; togas; teddies [undergarments]; turbans; veils [clothing]; layettes [clothing]; hosiery; stuff jackets [clothing] are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s retail services relating to clothing, clothing accessories, shoes, headgear, swimwear, underwear.

In contrast, the remaining contested goods are not identical to the goods to which the opponent’s services relate, since they consist of parts of or accessories for footwear or, in any case, goods that are not included in and that neither include nor overlap with the objects of the opponent’s retail services. Therefore, the contested non-slipping devices for footwear; boot uppers; footwear uppers; tips for footwear; spats (listed twice); galoshes; shirt yokes; pockets for clothing; shoulder wraps; cuffs;  studs for football boots; sleep masks; shirt fronts; heelpieces for stockings; welts for footwear; collar protectors; fittings of metal for footwear; soles for footwear; inner soles; ready-made linings [parts of clothing]; dress shields; hat frames [skeletons]; gaiter straps; heelpieces for footwear are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 35.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested retailing of goods relating to care, personal care and hygiene, perfumery and cosmetics, clothing and fashion accessories, textiles, haberdashery, jewellery, horological goods, spectacles, clothing accessories, footwear, headgear, swimsuits, underwear, spectacles, jewellery, precious stones, watches, bags and suitcases, belts; retailing of goods being leatherwear namely wallets, purses, belts, handbags and keyrings, clothing and fashion accessories are identical (since they are identically contained in the opponent’s services or the goods of the contested services include or are included in those of the opponent’s services) or similar to at least an average degree to the opponent’s retail services relating to clothing, clothing accessories, cosmetics, shoes, headgear, swimwear, underwear, glasses, juwels, watches, bags and trunks.

Retail services relating to specific goods are considered similar to retail services relating to other specific goods whether or not there is similarity between the goods in question. The services under comparison have the same nature, as both are retail services, have the same purpose of allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs, and have the same method of use. Furthermore, depending on whether or not the goods in question are commonly retailed in the same outlets, they may coincide in relevant public and distribution channels, in which case they must be considered highly similar (e.g. cosmetics versus perfumery products).

The contested online advertising and promotion via a computer network and the Internet; but not including retail services consist of providing others with assistance in the sale of their goods and services by promoting their launch and/or sale, or of reinforcing the client’s position in the market and acquiring competitive advantage through publicity by a computer network and the internet. These services are provided by specialised companies which study their client’s needs and provide all the necessary information and advice for the marketing of their products and services, and create a personalised strategy regarding the advertising of their goods.

The contested compilation of information into a computer database consists of transferring data for storage into a computer device in such a way that the data are easily accessible.

The contested business management but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home are services intended to help companies manage their business by setting out the strategy and/or direction of the company. They involve activities associated with running a company, such as controlling, leading, monitoring, organising and planning. They are usually rendered by companies specialised in this specific field such as business consultants. They gather information and provide tools and expertise to enable their customers to carry out their business or to provide businesses with the necessary support to acquire, develop and expand their market share.

The contested business administration but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home consists of organising people and resources efficiently to direct activities towards common goals and objectives. They include activities such as personnel recruitment, payroll preparation, drawing up account statements and tax preparation.

The contested administrative services but not including retail services of furniture, tables, household linen or on such goods of leather, or leather articles for the home are aimed at supporting or helping other businesses to carry out or improve their commercial activity, mainly in relation to human resources management.

These services have nothing in common with the opponent’s retail and wholesale services in Class 35. The natures and purposes of these goods and services differ and so do their providers and relevant publics. They are not complementary or interchangeable either. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods and services found to be similar are directed at the public at large and business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise. Given that the general public is more prone to confusion, the examination will proceed on this basis. The degree of attention is average.

3. The signs

Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

The earlier mark includes the word ‘SHOWROOM’, in slightly stylised upper case grey characters. It cannot be ruled out that, due to the structure of the mark, a part of the public will split the element into two words, ‘SHOW’ (meaning exhibition) and ‘ROOM’ (meaning portion of a building). Likewise, it cannot be excluded that another part of the public will not have any understanding of this verbal component. Nonetheless, the English word is likely to be understood by at least a substantial part of the public throughout the entire territory of the European Union, by some because they speak English and by some because they have been exposed to the term in the relevant market. Considering that the word ‘SHOWROOM’ indicates a room where merchandise is displayed for sale, and taking into account the fact that the relevant goods and services are mainly clothing, footwear, headgear and accessories, as well as the retail services, this element of the marks has a weak distinctive character. It alludes to the place where the relevant goods are sold or to the nature of the services in question. The limited distinctive character of the abovementioned element derives from its natural meaning in connection with the relevant goods and services and not from the existence of a certain number of both European Union and national marks including it, the latter being pointed out by the applicant in its observations of 03/01/2017. The existence of several trade mark registrations (which was, in any case, only alleged and not proven) is not per se particularly conclusive for a finding of lack of distinctive character, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market.

The sign also includes the number ‘86’, which has no connection with the relevant goods and is also distinctive, as well as a black square background on which the number is depicted. This latter component of the mark is a mere carrier of the verbal component and has no distinctive character, so it is of limited relevance in the present comparison.

The contested sign consists of the word ‘SHOWROOM’, which has a weak distinctive character for the reasons seen above in relation to the same word in the earlier mark. It is depicted in slightly stylised upper case black letters.

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

Visually, the signs coincide in the word ‘SHOWROOM’ and differ in the additional elements of the earlier mark, ‘86’ and the non-distinctive (therefore secondary) square element, which are placed in the end of the earlier mark and therefore have less relevance than the word ‘SHOWROOM’. Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because 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. The elements that the signs have in common are weak in relation to some goods; however, considering that the contested sign is entirely included in the initial, and consequently most relevant, part of the earlier mark and that the black square of the earlier mark is non-distinctive, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘SHOWROOM’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the number ‘86’ of the earlier mark. Therefore, despite the common element being weak and considering that the marks coincide in their beginnings, they are aurally highly similar.

Conceptually, bearing in mind that the number ‘86’ will be perceived as such, without triggering any specific concept, and considering that the word ‘SHOWROOM’, despite its limited distinctive character, will be perceived as having the same meaning, the marks are conceptually similar to an average degree.

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 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 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 a weak element and a non-distinctive element in the mark as stated above in section c) of this decision.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The relevant goods are partly identical, partly similar to various degrees and partly dissimilar. They are deemed to target the general public, whose degree of attention is average. The earlier mark has a normal degree of distinctive character.

The signs are visually and conceptually similar to an average degree and aurally similar to a high degree because the contested sign is entirely included in the earlier mark, constituting its initial and, thus, more relevant part, as explained in section c) of this decision. Therefore, the difference in the number ‘86’ of the earlier mark plays a less relevant role in the present assessment. The other difference observed lies in a non-distinctive element, namely the square background of the earlier mark.

Admittedly, the marks coincide in a weak element. However, although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion (see, by analogy, 29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 24), it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment and cannot by itself prevent a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion (13/12/2007, T-134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70). Indeed, despite its limited distinctiveness, the element still has to be taken into account and such weak distinctiveness cannot outweigh the fact that the contested sign is, as specified above, entirely contained in the initial part of the earlier mark.

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

Likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings. 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 or services that it designates (23/10/2002, T-104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

In its observations of 03/01/2017, the applicant argues that:

• In invalidity proceedings 16/06/2016, ICD 10 726, in which the applicant requested the cancellation of the opponent’s earlier mark, the Office found dissimilarities between the marks.
• The opponent has not been using the mark in the course of trade, as is demonstrated by the fact that a Google search for ‘SHOWROOM86’ redirects to the website www.aspasia.be/nl.

Regarding the first claim, it should be noted that the Office is not bound by its previous decisions as each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities. This practice has been fully supported by the General Court, which stated that, according to settled case-law, the legality of decisions is to be assessed purely with reference to the EUTMR, and not to the Office’s practice in earlier decisions (30/06/2004, T-281/02, Mehr für Ihr Geld, EU:T:2004:198).

Even though previous decisions of the Office are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should still be duly considered when deciding upon a particular case. In the present case, the previous case referred to by the applicant, although it relates to the same marks at issue, is not relevant to the present proceedings, since the Cancellation Division assessed not likelihood of confusion but the (unfulfilled) requirement in relation to Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(b) EUTMR. Therefore, the decision cited cannot be taken into consideration.

The applicant’s second argument, on the lack of use of the earlier mark in the course of trade, is irrelevant for the purpose of the current assessment of likelihood of confusion, which means a probability of confusion on the part of the relevant consumer and does not require actual confusion. As expressly confirmed by case-law, ‘it is not necessary to establish the existence of actual confusion, but the existence of a likelihood of confusion’ (24/11/2005, T-346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69). As a consequence, the present assessment is based on only the relevant law (mainly the EUTMR) and the General Court and Court of Justice case-law, while the facts put forward by the applicant cannot be taken into consideration. If in doubt on the actual use of the earlier mark, the applicant should have requested the Office to ask for proof of its genuine use, pursuant to Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR, according to which ‘if the applicant so requests, the proprietor of an earlier EU trade mark who has given notice of opposition shall furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or the date of priority of the EU trade mark application, the earlier EU trade mark has been put to genuine use in the Union in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered’. Consequently, this claim must be set aside too.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the general public, which is the part most prone to confusion. Given that a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application, there is no need to analyse the remaining part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 10 543 304. It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods and services found to be identical or similar to those of the earlier trade mark. This conclusion also stands for the contested goods that are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods. This is because 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; a lesser degree of similarity between the 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). In the present case, the similarity between the signs is significant enough to lead to a likelihood of confusion also in relation to the goods that have only a low degree of similarity.

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.

For the sake of completeness, it must be mentioned that the opposition must also fail insofar as based on grounds under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR and directed against the remaining goods and services because the goods and services are obviously not identical.

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

Andrea VALISA

Orsola LAMBERTI

Michele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.