OPPOSITION No B 2 696 121

Stra, Lda., Rua Arlindo Vicente, Lote 22, 6.º Frt. Esq., 3030-298 Coimbra, Portugal (opponent), represented by Pedro Sousa Rodrigues, Rua Engº Jorge Anjinho, Lote 7 – 1º, Escritório E, 3030-482 Coimbra, Portugal (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

OLX B.V., Taurusavenue 105, 2132 LS Hoofddorp, Netherlands (applicant), represented by Patrade A/S, Fredens Torv 3ª, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (professional representative).

On 17/08/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 696 121 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 9: Computer software applications for smart phones and tablet devices; software for personalizing, supporting and managing advertising and marketing campaigns, personalized content and electronic communications, data analysis including user behaviour analytics and intelligence; computers, computer programs, computer software, computer chips, apparatus and instruments for the encoding and decoding of electrical signals; computer software and apparatus and instruments for use in connection with the Internet; parts (and fittings) for all the aforesaid goods.

Class 35: Electronic commerce services, namely, providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising and sales purposes; classified advertising services; provision of an online marketplace; provision of an online searchable database featuring employment opportunities; advertising, promotion and agency services; rental of advertising space; email marketing services; online marketing services; publicity and marketing services; subscription and subscriber advisory, information, consultancy and management services; arranging and conducting of trade shows and exhibitions; dissemination of advertising and promotional matter; provision and dissemination of information relating to all the aforesaid services.

Class 42: Providing non-downloadable software; Software as a Service (SaaS), computer rental; installation and maintenance of computer software; computer programming and computer design services; all services in this class relating to computers, computing apparatus and equipment, computer programming and computer design; Graphic design, including designing, drawing and commissioned writing services for the compilation of web pages on the Internet; creating and maintaining web sites; hosting the web sites of others; information services relating to computers, development of computer systems and information technology.

.

2.        European Union trade mark application No 14 841 985 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 14 841 985 for the wordmark ‘STRADIA’, namely against some of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 35, and all the services in Class 42. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registrations No 12 706 362 for the figurative mark  and No 13 223 045 for the wordmark ‘stratio’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

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

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

1. The goods and services

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

• From Earlier European Union trade mark No 12 706 362 (1)

Class 35: Advertising; advertisement via mobile phone networks; advertisement for others on the internet; advertisement, and publicity services by television, radio, mail; loyalty, incentive and bonus program services; distribution of advertising, marketing and promotional material; advertising, marketing and promotional services.

Class 42: Computer programming; computer programming and software design; advisory services in the field of product development and quality improvement of software; advisory services relating to computer programming; advisory services relating to computer software design; advisory services relating to the use of computer software; application system testing consultancy; analytical services relating to computer programmes; computer programming and maintenance of computer programs; computer programming for others; computer programming for the internet; computer programming of computer games; computer programming of video and computer games; computer software design and updating; computer software development for others; computer website design; constructing an internet platform for electronic commerce; consultancy in the field of software design; consultancy services relating to computer programming; consultancy with regard to webpage design; creating and designing web pages for others; creating and maintaining computer sites (web sites) for others; creating and maintaining web sites for others; creating and maintaining web-sites; creating electronically stored web pages for online services and the internet; creating of computer programs; creating, designing and maintaining web sites; creating, maintaining, and modernizing computer software; creating programmes for data processing; creation and maintenance of web sites for others and hosting the web sites of others; creation and provision of web pages to and for third parties; creation of computer programmes for data processing; creation of internet web sites; creation, design, development and maintenance of web sites for third parties; creation, maintenance and adaptation of software; creation, updating and adapting of computer programs; design and creating web sites for others; design and maintenance of computer sites for third parties; design and maintenance of web sites for others; design and writing of computer software; design of computer game software; design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties; design, development and implementation of software; design, drawing and commissioned writing of computer software; design, maintenance and up-dating of computer software; design, maintenance, rental and updating of computer software; design, maintenance, development and updating of computer software; design of games; design of homepages and websites; design of information systems; design of software; design services for computer programs; designing and developing webpages on the internet; designing and implementing web sites for others; designing websites for advertising purposes; designing, creating, customizing, implementing and maintaining web sites for others; developing and updating computer software; developing computer software; development of computer game software; development of data processing programs by order of third parties; development of programmes for data processing; development, design and updating of home pages; homepage and webpage design; installation and maintenance of computer programs; internet web site design services; managing the web sites of others; maintenance of websites and hosting on-line web facilities for others; maintenance of software; maintenance of data bases; preparation of data processing programmes; providing computer software that may be downloaded from a global computer network; providing information, advice and consultancy services in the field of computer software; provision of on-line support services for computer program users; research and development of computer software; research relating to computer programs; research, development, design and upgrading of computer software; services for the writing of computer programs; software creation; software customisation services; software design and development; software design for others; services for the design of computer software; software development services; software engineering; support and maintenance services for computer software; technological advisory services relating to computer programs; web site design and creation services

From Earlier European Union trade mark No 13 223 045 (2)

Class 35: Advertising, marketing and promotional services; business analysis, research and information services; business assistance, management and administrative services; commercial trading and consumer information services.

Class 42: Design services; IT services; science and technology services; testing, authentication and quality control.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Computer software applications for smart phones and tablet devices; software for personalizing, supporting and managing advertising and marketing campaigns, personalized content and electronic communications, data analysis including user behaviour analytics and intelligence; computers, computer programs, computer software, computer chips, apparatus and instruments for the encoding and decoding of electrical signals; computer software and apparatus and instruments for use in connection with the Internet; electronic publications; parts (and fittings) for all the aforesaid goods.

Class 35: Electronic commerce services, namely, providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising and sales purposes; classified advertising services; provision of an online marketplace; provision of an online searchable database featuring employment opportunities; retail and wholesale services in relation to computer software and computer hardware; advertising, promotion and agency services; rental of advertising space; email marketing services; online marketing services; publicity and marketing services; subscription and subscriber advisory, information, consultancy and management services; arranging and conducting of trade shows and exhibitions; dissemination of advertising and promotional matter; provision and dissemination of information relating to all the aforesaid services.

Class 42: Providing non-downloadable software; Software as a Service (SaaS), computer rental; installation and maintenance of computer software; computer programming and computer design services; all services in this class relating to computers, computing apparatus and equipment, computer programming and computer design; Graphic design, including designing, drawing and commissioned writing services for the compilation of web pages on the Internet; creating and maintaining web sites; hosting the web sites of others; information services relating to computers, development of computer systems and information technology.

An interpretation of the wording of the lists of goods and services is required to determine the scope of protection of these goods and services.

The term ‘including’, used in the applicant´s list of services, indicates that the specific goods and services are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (see the judgment of 09/04/2003, T-224/01, Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

On the other hand, the term ‘namely’, used in the applicant’s list of goods and services to show the relationship of individual goods and services with a broader category, is exclusive and restricts the scope of protection only to the specifically listed goods and services.

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

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

Contested goods in Class 9

The contested computers,  computer software applications for smart phones and tablet devices; software for personalizing, supporting, managing advertising and marketing campaigns, personalized content and electronic communications; computer programs, computer software (this one contained twice in the contested list of goods) and parts (and fittings) for all the aforesaid goods are similar to the opponent’s computer programming and software design in Class 42 of earlier mark No 1 as they share the same distribution channels, relevant public and producers.

The contested data analysis including user behaviour analytics and intelligence and parts (and fittings) for all the aforesaid goods are closely linked to the opponent’s analytical services relating to computer programmes in Class 42 of earlier mark No 1. This is because the providers of the opponent´s services will also commonly sell or provide the contested goods. Although the nature of the goods and services is not the same, both the relevant public and the usual producers/providers of the goods and services coincide, as explained above. Furthermore, these goods and services are complementary. Therefore, they are considered similar.

The contested computer chips, apparatus and instruments for the encoding and decoding of electrical signals; apparatus and instruments for use in connection with the Internet and parts (and fittings) for all the aforesaid goods are similar to IT services included in Class 42 of earlier mark No 2 as they can coincide in producer, end users and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested electronic publications are publications that are obtained online or through other electronic channels but can be downloaded and saved as files on a user’s computer or other device. They are electronic versions of traditional media, for example e-books, electronic journals, online magazines, online newspapers, etc. On the other hand the opponent´s services in Class 42 cover mainly computer services related to the design of computer software as well as advertising and business assistance and management in Class 35.. Therefore, the contested goods have different natures, purposes and distribution channels from the opponent’s services. Although the provider of computer services could also produce electronic publications, this does not reflect what is common in the trade, where a person who designs software does not generally design publications. The mere fact that electronic publications are made with software does not make them complementary. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested advertising is identically contained in all the lists of services.

The contested electronic commerce services, namely, providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising and sales purposes; classified advertising services; arranging and conducting of trade shows and exhibitions, rental of advertising space; dissemination of advertising  are included in the opponent´s broader category of advertising of both earlier marks. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested promotion and agency services; email marketing services; online marketing services; publicity and marketing services and dissemination of promotional matter are included in the opponent´s broader category of marketing and promotional services included in Class 35 of earlier mark No 2. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested subscription and subscriber advisory, information services and provision of information relating to all the aforesaid services are included in the opponent´s broader category of consumer information services in Class 35 of earlier mark No 2. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested consultancy and management services are included or overlap with the opponent´s business assistance, management services in Class 35 of earlier mark No 2. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested provision of an online marketplace is a specialised service essentially concerned with providing a platform facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers. Therefore, this service is similar to the opponent’s design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties in Class 42 of earlier mark No 1, as they have the same purpose, the same providers and distribution channels and target the same relevant public.

The contested provision of an online searchable database featuring employment opportunities is an aspect of personnel management and concerns the appropriate appointment of individuals into positions that are suitable for them in terms of job knowledge and performance. The opponent’s business assistance services covered by earlier mark No 2 may concern, as it can be transpired from their context, services offered to organisations regarding the appropriate management of their workforce/allocation of staff according to the theoretical and practical requirements for the performance of their activities. Therefore, the contested services and the opponent’s services might target the same relevant public and might be provided by the same undertakings. Therefore, these services are similar to a low degree.

Retailing services in relation to goods consist of bringing together, and offering for sale, a wide variety of different products, thus allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs at one stop. Furthermore, retail and wholesale services concerning the sale of particular goods are similar to a low degree to these particular goods. However, the earlier marks do not cover goods but only services in Class 35 and 42, and these services are not related to retail. For this reason the contested retail and wholesale services in relation to computer software and computer hardware are dissimilar to all the opponent´s services in Class 35 and 42.

Finally, with respect to the contested provision and dissemination of information relating to all the aforesaid services it is usual practise for a provider of services to also provide information regarding those services they provide. Therefore, the services of provision and dissemination of information relating to all the aforesaid services must also be found similar for all the aforesaid services which have been found identical or similar and similar to a low degree for those aforesaid services which have been found similar to a low degree. Likewise, for those services found dissimilar the provision and dissemination of information relating to all the aforesaid services must also be found to be dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested providing non-downloadable software; software as a service (SaaS); installation and maintenance of computer software; computer programming and computer design services; all services in this class relating to computers, computing apparatus and equipment, computer programming and computer design; graphic design, including designing, drawing and commissioned writing services for the compilation of web pages on the internet; creating and maintaining web sites; hosting the web sites of others; information services relating to computers, development of computer systems and information technology are included in the opponent´s broader category of IT services contained in Class 42 of earlier mark No 1. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested computer rental is linked to all the opponent’s services in Class 42 of both earlier marks as these services are all carried out in the field of information technology, where it is not unusual for developers of computer programs to also lease, hire and rent a wide range of IT-related and complementary goods. The services target, at least in part, the same public. Therefore, these services are considered similar to a low degree.

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 pointed out by the applicant, in the present case, the goods and services that have been considered similar (for example computers and software) are directed at the public at large and some are specialised goods and services (for example publicity and marketing services) directed at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise.

The degree of attention varies from average to high as some of the goods and services provided are bought on an infrequent basis for a very specific purpose and their price could also be high.

3. The signs

Earlier mark No 1: Earlier mark No 2: Stratio	STRADIA
Earlier trade marks	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 unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C-514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

In the present case, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison on the Spanish-speaking part of the general public in the European Union, for which the signs are conceptually neutral, as shown below.

Both ‘Stratio’ and ‘STRADIA’ lack any meaning in the relevant territory for the relevant goods and services and, therefore, both terms are distinctive.

Regarding the conceptual content of the signs, the applicant affirms that the contested sign might be perceived as a reference to a recognised method of surveying in which distances are read by noting the interval on a graduated rod intercepted by two parallel cross hairs. On the other hand, the opponent states that the verbal element of the earlier marks come from the latin stratum, in the plural, strata, meaning “something laid down”, that may be interpreted as a path or a road. However, the Opposition Division considers that as no evidence has considers that as no evidence has been submitted by the parties in the present case to support these claims, they must be set aside as unfounded.

. Furthermore, the Opposition Division has found it appropriate to limit the analysis of the signs to a territory where these verbal elements have no clear meaning and remain distinctive for all the relevant goods and services.

The figurative element contained in earlier mark No 1, made up of unfinished, coloured circles with a coloured dot inside, does not carry a particular meaning in relation to the goods and services at hand and therefore has an average degree of distinctive character. On the other hand, the letter stylisation of the said sign, carries only a decorative function and will not draw the consumer’s attention away from the letters it is supposed to embellish.

The Opposition Division does not agree with the applicant´s assertion regarding the dominance of the figurative element within the earlier sign No 1. Indeed, because of the size and position of the component in comparison with the following word element, the Opposition Division is more of the opinion that earlier mark No 1 has no elements that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements, as neither of the two elements that form the sign is visually outstanding compared to the other one.

Visually, the signs have in common the sequence of letters ‘STRA*I*’. Consequently, the signs coincide in their first four letters and in their penultimate one, having, moreover, an identical length of seven letters. On the other hand, they differ in the figurative element and in the slightly stylized typeface of the verbal element of earlier mark No 1.

Notwithstanding the above, 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).

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

The Opposition Division does not share the applicant´s argument that the word element of all the signs are ‘composed of relatively few letters’ and that the differences in one letter will lead to an overall dissimilarity between the signs.

First of all, it is important to point out that consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. In fact, the beginning of words has a greater impact on the consumer, 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.

Secondly, in this regard it should be noted that, even if it is true that the length of the signs may influence their overall impression and, thus, the effect of the differences between them, according to the Office’s practice short signs are considered those signs with three or less than three letters or numbers. Taking into account that in the present case this premise is not present, this argument of the applicant must be rejected as unfounded.

Thirdly, the verbal elements of all the signs are composed of a single word with an identical number of letters, seven. A verbal element of seven letters cannot be considered as short or even as ‘relatively short’. Be it as it may, what is important in the assessment of the visual similarity of verbal elements is the presence, in each of the signs, of several letters in the same order (see, to that effect, 25/03/2009, T-402/07, ARCOL / CAPOL, EU:T:2009:85, § 83). Five of the letters of the marks at issue are identical and placed in the same order – the signs coincide in the first four letters ‘STRA’ in the same sequence and with the identical letter ‘I’ in identical position within the signs. Therefore, a degree of visual similarity cannot be denied.

Moreover, the case C-193/06P, of 20/09/2007, Quicky/quick invoked by the applicant cannot alter this present finding in relation to the visual similarity between the signs. As pointed out by the applicant, although the assessment of the similarity between two marks does not amount to taking into consideration only one component of a complex trade mark and comparing it with another mark, this does not mean that the overall impression created in the mind of the relevant public may not, in certain circumstances, be overshadowed by one or more of these components (see order of the Court of Justice of 28 April 2004 in Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM, 'Matratzen', paragraph 32, [2004] ECR I-3657). Indeed, in the case at hand, the differing element of earlier mark No 1 is only the figurative device and its slightly stylized typeface. Although distinctive to an average degree, the fact remains that the said figurative element is not particularly overwhelming or memorable and does not dominate the complex sign nor create a significant visual overall impression. For all the above, the applicant´s argument related to the visual dissimilarity between earlier sign No 1 and the contested mark must be set aside.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘/Stra*i*/’ present identically in both signs. They have the same number of syllables, coinciding in their first ones ‘/ES/’ ‘/tra/’ and almost the same vowel structure ‘/a-i-o/’ versus ‘/a-i-a/’ which makes the rhythm and intonation quite similar. The pronunciation differs only in the sound of their fifth letters, namely ‘/T/’ in the earlier marks versus ‘/D/’ in the contested sign, and in their last vowel ‘/O/’ versus ‘/A/’, respectively.

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

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions regarding the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory, a conceptual comparison is not possible and 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 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.

5. 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 (recital 8 of the EUTMR). 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).

It has been established in the previous sections of this decision that the contested goods and services are partly either identical or similar to various degrees to the opponent’s services and partly dissimilar.

It has also been concluded that the signs are visually and aurally similar at least to an average degree, whereas the conceptual assessment cannot be done as neither of the signs has any meaning in the relevant territory.

Additionally, 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).

Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that the differences between the signs are not sufficient to counterbalance the overall degree of similarity between them, so the relevant public may believe that the identical or similar goods and services come from the same undertaking or, at least, economically-linked undertakings.

The applicant refers to a previous national decision to support its arguments. However, it must be noted that decisions of national courts and national offices regarding conflicts between identical or similar trade marks on the national level do not have a binding effect on the Office since the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system which applies independently of any national system (13/09/2010, T-292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399).

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

As pointed out by the applicant, in Case T-40/03 of 13/07/2005, Julián Murúa Entrena/MURUA, the Court took into consideration the reasoning of a judgment of the national court as far as it explained the perception of family names on the part of the public in the relevant country: regarding the question whether the relevant public in Spain will generally pay greater attention to the surname ‘Murúa’ than to the surname ‘Entrena’ in the trade mark applied for. The Portuguese decision submitted by the applicant as Appendix Ahas been duly and respectfully analysed by the Opposition Division. However, the Opposition Division does not share the opinion of the previous case referred to by the applicant, and, furthermore, the decision here is being based on a different public. In this regard, it must be recalled that according to case-law, the EU trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it and applies independently of any national system.

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Spanish-speaking part of the public. 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 partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registrations No 12 706 362 and No 13 223 045. It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods and services that have been found to be identical or similar.

However, the contested electronic publications and retail and wholesale services in relation to computer software and computer hardware 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.

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

According to Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein. In the present case the opponent did not appoint a professional representative within the meaning of Article 93 EUTMR and therefore did not incur representation costs.

The Opposition Division

Eva Inés PÉREZ SANTONJA

Alexandra APOSTOLAKIS

Ric WASLEY

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.