SLOW CLOTHES | Decision 2602764

OPPOSITION No B 2 602 764

The World Institute of Slowness AS, Johan Øydegardsvei 11, 4632 Kristiansand S, Norway (opponent), represented by Lane IP Limited, 55 Old Broad Street, London,  EC2M 1RX, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Slow Clothes SL, C/ Sondeo, 9 Apto. 156, 03599 Altea, Spain (applicant), represented by Mapa Trademarks, Henao, 7 - 5ª planta, 48009 Bilbao (Bizkaia), Spain  (professional representative)

On 16/01/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following


  1. Opposition decision No B 2 602 764 notified to the parties on 08/12/2016 is hereby revoked and replaced with the present decision.

  1. Opposition No B 2 602 764 is upheld for all the contested goods.

  1. European Union trade mark application No 14 409 502 is rejected in its entirety.

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


The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 14 409 502. The opposition is based on, inter alia, European Union trade marks No 9 895 269 and No 11 407 038 and the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a), (b) and 8 (5) EUTMR.


Where the Office has made an entry in the Register or taken a decision that contains an obvious error attributable to the Office, it shall ensure that the entry is cancelled or the decision is revoked.

The reason for the revocation is that the decision contained an obvious procedural error attributable to the Office, namely that the contested mark was not taken into account as published. Indeed, the previous decision reproduced the contested mark as ‘SLOW CLOTHES’, when it should have been.

The parties were informed of this error on 09/12/2016.

In accordance with Article 80 EUTMR, the Office gave a deadline to the parties to submit any observations. Observations were only received by the applicant (09/01/2017) in which the applicant submitted that the goods and services were not similar and that ‘Slow’ was weak in relation to the goods and services at stake. These arguments and corresponding exhibits will be referred to more in detail further on in the decision.  

Therefore the decision notified on 08/12/2016 is hereby revoked and replaced with the present decision.


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

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s European Union trade marks No 9 895 269 and No 11 407 038.

  1. The  goods and services

The goods and services on which the opposition is based are, inter alia, the following:

  1. European Union trade mark No 9 895 269

Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear.

  1. European Union trade mark No 11 407 038

Class 16: Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; Printed matter; Bookbinding material; Photographs; Stationery; Adhesives for stationery or household purposes; Artists' materials; Paint brushes; Typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); Instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); Plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); Printers' type; Printing blocks; Absorbent sheets of paper or plastic for foodstuff packaging; Address plates for addressing machines; Address stamps; Addressing machines; Adhesive bands for stationery or household purposes; Adhesive tape dispensers [office requisites]; Adhesive tapes for stationery or household purposes; Adhesives [glues] for stationery or household purposes; Advertisement boards of paper or cardboard; Albums; Almanacs; Announcement cards [stationery]; Aquarelles; Architects' models; Atlases; Bags (Conical paper -); Bags [envelopes, pouches] of paper or plastics, for packaging; Bags for microwave cooking; Balls for ball-point pens; Bibs of paper; Binding strips [bookbinding]; Biological samples for use in microscopy [teaching materials]; Blackboards; Blotters; Bookbinding apparatus and machines [office equipment]; Bookbinding cloth; Bookbinding cords; Bookbinding material; Bookbindings; Bookends; Booklets; Bookmarkers; Books; Bottle envelopes of cardboard or paper; Bottle wrappers of cardboard or paper; Boxes of cardboard or paper; Bubble packs (Plastic -) for wrapping or packaging; Cabinets for stationery [office requisites]; Calculating tables; Calendars; Canvas for painting; Carbon paper; Cardboard; Cardboard articles; Cardboard tubes; Cards; Cases for stamps [seals]; Catalogues; Chalk for lithography; Chalk holders; Chaplets; Charcoal pencils; Chart pointers, non-electronic; Chromos; Cigar bands; Clipboards; Clips for offices; Coasters of paper; Coffee filters (Paper -); Comic books; Compasses for drawing; Composing frames [printing]; Composing sticks; Copying paper [stationery]; Correcting fluids [office requisites]; Correcting ink [heliography]; Correcting tapes [office requisites]; Covers [stationery]; Cream containers of paper; Credit card imprinters, non-electric; Decalcomanias; Diagrams; Document files [stationery]; Document holders [stationery]; Document laminators for office use; Drawer liners of paper, perfumed or not; Drawing boards; Drawing instruments; Drawing materials; Drawing pads; Drawing pens; Drawing sets; Drawing squares; Drawing T-squares; Duplicators; Elastic bands for offices; Electrocardiograph paper; Electrotypes; Embroidery designs [patterns]; Engraving plates; Engravings; Envelope sealing machines, for offices; Envelopes [stationery]; Erasing products; Erasing shields; Etching needles; Etchings; Fabrics for bookbinding; Face towels of paper; Figurines [statuettes] of papier mâché; Files [office requisites]; Filter paper; Filtering materials [paper]; Finger-stalls [office requisites]; Flags of paper; Flower-pot covers of paper; Flyers; Folders for papers; Folders [stationery]; Forms, printed; Fountain pens; French curves; Galley racks [printing]; Garbage bags of paper or of plastics; Geographical maps; Glue for stationery or household purposes; Gluten [glue] for stationery or household purposes; Graining combs; Graphic prints; Graphic representations; Graphic reproductions; Greeting cards; Gummed cloth for stationery purposes; Gummed tape [stationery]; Gums [adhesives] for stationery or household purposes; Hand labelling appliances; Hand-rests for painters; Handbooks [manuals]; Handkerchiefs of paper; Handwriting specimens for copying; Hat boxes of cardboard; Hectographs; Histological sections for teaching purposes; Holders for checkbooks [cheque books]; Holders for stamps [seals]; House painters' rollers; Humidity control sheets of paper or plastic for foodstuff packaging; Index cards [stationery]; Indexes; Indian inks; Ink; Ink sticks; Ink stones [ink reservoirs]; Inking pads; Inking ribbons; Inking ribbons for computer printers; Inking sheets for document reproducing machines; Inking sheets for duplicators; Inkstands; Inkwells; Isinglass for stationery or household purposes; Labels, not of textile; Ledgers [books]; Letter trays; Letters [type]; Lithographic stones; Lithographic works of art; Lithographs; Loose-leaf binders; Luminous paper; Magazines [periodicals]; Manifolds [stationery]; Marking chalk; Marking pens [stationery]; Mats for beer glasses; Mimeograph apparatus and machines; Modelling clay; Modelling materials; Modelling paste; Modelling wax, not for dental purposes; Moisteners for gummed surfaces [office requisites]; Moisteners [office requisites]; Molds for modelling clays [artists' materials]; Money clips; Mounting photographs (Apparatus for -); Musical greeting cards; Napkins of paper for removing make-up; Newsletters; Newspapers; Nibs; Nibs of gold; Note books; Numbering apparatus; Numbers [type]; Office perforators; Office requisites, except furniture; Oleographs; Packaging material made of starches; Packing paper; Pads [stationery]; Paint boxes [articles for use in school]; Paint trays; Paintbrushes; Painters' brushes; Painters' easels; Paintings [pictures], framed or unframed; Palettes for painters; Pamphlets; Pantographs [drawing instruments]; Paper; Paper bows; Paper clasps; Paper-clips; Paper for recording machines; Paper knives [cutters] office requisites; Paper ribbons; Paper sheets [stationery]; Paper shredders for office use; Paper tapes and cards for the recordal of computer programmes; Paperweights; Papier mâché; Parchment paper; Passport holders; Pastels [crayons]; Patterns for dressmaking; Patterns for making clothes; Pen cases; Pen clips; Pen wipers; Pencil holders; Pencil lead holders; Pencil leads; Pencil sharpeners, electric or non-electric; Pencil sharpening machines, electric or non-electric; Pencils; Penholders; Pens [office requisites]; Perforated cards for Jacquard looms; Periodicals; Photo-engravings; Photograph stands; Photographs [printed]; Pictures; Placards of paper or cardboard; Place mats of paper; Plans; Plastic cling film, extensible, for palletization; Plastic film for wrapping; Plastics for modelling; Portraits; Postage meters for office use; Postage stamps; Postcards; Posters; Printed matter; Printed publications; Printed timetables; Printers' blankets, not of textile; Printers' reglets; Printing blocks; Printing sets, portable [office requisites]; Printing type; Prints [engravings]; Prospectuses; Punches [office requisites]; Radiograms (Paper for -); Rollers for typewriters; Rubber erasers; Rulers (Drawing -); School supplies [stationery]; Scrapers [erasers] for offices; Sealing compounds for stationery purposes; Sealing machines for offices; Sealing stamps; Sealing wafers; Sealing wax; Seals [stamps]; Self-adhesive tapes for stationery or household purposes; Sheets of reclaimed cellulose for wrapping; Shields [paper seals]; Signboards of paper or cardboard; Silver paper; Slate pencils; Song books; Spools for inking ribbons; Square rulers; Stamp pads; Stamp stands; Stamps [seals]; Stands for pens and pencils; Stapling presses [office requisites]; Starch paste [adhesive] for stationery or household purposes; Stationery; Steatite [tailor's chalk]; Steel letters; Steel pens; Stencil cases; Stencil plates; Stencils; Stencils [stationery]; Stickers [stationery]; Table linen of paper; Table napkins of paper; Tablecloths of paper; Tablemats of paper; Tags for index cards; Tailors' chalk; Teaching materials [except apparatus]; Terrestrial globes; Thumbtacks; Tickets; Toilet paper; Towels of paper; Tracing cloth; Tracing needles for drawing purposes; Tracing paper; Tracing patterns; Trading cards other than for games; Transparencies [stationery]; Trays for sorting and counting money; Typewriter keys; Typewriter ribbons; Typewriters, electric or non-electric; Vignetting apparatus; Viscose sheets for wrapping; Watercolor saucers (Artists' -); Waxed paper; Wood pulp board [stationery]; Wood pulp paper; Wristbands for the retention of writing instruments; Writing board erasers; Writing brushes; Writing cases [sets]; Writing cases [stationery]; Writing chalk; Writing instruments; Writing materials; Writing or drawing books; Writing pads; Writing paper; Writing slates; Xuan paper for Chinese painting and calligraphy.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 14: Jewellery, including imitation jewellery and plastic jewellery.

Class 18: Luggage, bags, wallets and other carriers.

Class 25: Clothing.

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 14

The goods in this class are items of jewellery which are essentially used as forms of adornment or as accessories. The wording of the contested goods is broad given that it refers to articles that may be made of precious metals, gems as well as imitations and plastic.

Earlier mark No 11 407 038 designates chaplets (also known as rosaries) in Class 16 which loosely refers to a string of beads which may be used for counting prayers as well as being used as a necklace given that it is configured in this way and used as such. Clearly a necklace is encompassed within jewellery, however, account should also be taken of the different classes since chaplets are classified in Class 16 given their use as prayer beads which means that for classification purposes they are considered alike to instructional and teaching materials also found in Class 16.  

However, even whilst bearing in mind these differences, there are still similarities between the goods. Not only are they aimed at the same consumers but they are all items to be worn and despite chaplets also serving as prayer beads they are also worn on the neck for adornment and fashion purposes. Further, these goods may also be made of precious stones or just plastic and as such it cannot be dismissed that they may be made by the same undertakings given that the ‘know-how’ and technical process is the same. In view of these relevant points of contact the goods are, at least, similar. 

With regard to this conclusion, in its observations of 09/01/2017, the applicant submits that the goods are not similar as the goods in Class 14 are expensive thus warranting a high degree of attention. Further, according to the applicant, the difference in classes is also indicative of dissimilarity.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 28(7) EUTMR, goods or services shall not be 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. Thus the applicant’s argument along these lines are not valid, indeed a clear definition of ‘chaplets’ has been given above and contrary to the applicant’s contentions it is not an abacus. Indeed, an abacus is considered as a calculating instrument and is naturally classified in Class 9. Moreover, the degree of attention of the relevant consumer is not a relevant factor when comparing goods and services since this is a factor that comes into play in the global assessment when weighing up the issues. Consequently, even considering the applicant’s observations on the above findings the conclusion of similarity is maintained.

Contested goods in Class 18 

The earlier mark No 9 895 269 includes clothing, headgear and footwear in Class 25 which are used to cover parts of the human body and protect them against the elements. They are also articles of fashion.

The contested goods are bags, wallets as well as luggage and other carriers. The two latter items are broad terms that include bags, rucksacks, backpacks and the like. It has to be taken into account that given the broad nature of these categories they cannot be dissected ex-officio and in view of the foregoing, these goods are related to articles of clothing, headgear and footwear in Class 25. This is because consumers are likely to consider the Class 18 goods as accessories that complement articles of clothing, headgear and even footwear as the former are closely co-ordinated with the latter. Furthermore, they may be distributed by the same or linked manufacturers and it is not unusual for manufacturers of clothing, headgear and footwear to directly produce and market related goods such as those at issue. Moreover, these goods can be found in the same retail outlets. Therefore, these goods are considered similar.

Contested goods in Class 25

The contested goods are equally designated by the earlier right No 9 895 269 and as such are identical.

  1. 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 found to be identical or similar are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention may vary from average to high given that some goods such as in Class 14 may be expensive purchases.

  1. The signs

SLOW (No 9 895 269)

SlowRevolution (No 11 407 038)

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 of the signs on the English-speaking part of the relevant public given that the verbal components in the signs are English.

Whilst the earlier marks are word marks with no dominant elements, the contested sign is figurative, consisting of a large letter ‘S’ in a stencil format in a gold, yellow colour with hardly legible decorative embellishments inside. This figurative ‘S’ is, by virtue of its size in comparison with the other elements, dominant. However, whilst it may indeed be visually striking it does not in any way obscure or overshadow the terms found below it, namely ‘SLOW CLOTHES’. Indeed the figurative ‘S’ will most probably be perceived as a reference to ‘Slow’ or within the context of the goods in Class 25 may even be perceived as a reference to the size of the goods as ‘S’ is used to denote ‘small’. In such a scenario its distinctive character would be diminished. It should also be mentioned that despite its dominance, 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; decisions of 19/12/2011, R 233/2011 4 Best Tone (fig.) / BETSTONE (fig.), § 24; 13/12/2011, R 53/2011 5, Jumbo(fig.) / DEVICE OF AN ELEPHANT (fig.), § 59). These considerations will be taken into account in the following comparison.

The aforementioned wording from the contested sign, as well as the terms from the earlier rights are all composed of English terms, even if in earlier mark  No 11 407 038, two terms are conjoined (slow and revolution) the relevant public would immediately perceive two different terms due to the conceptual meaning of each, as illustrated below.

‘SLOW’ common to all signs, will be understood as something moving or operating, or designed to do so, only at a low speed, not quick or fast and is a basic English adjective meaning the opposite of ‘fast’. The applicant is of the opinion that the term is not distinctive and points out that there already a large number of trade marks including the same term for the same services. Furthermore, the applicant also refers to opposition procedures against the earlier mark which, according to the applicant, also demonstrate the fact that there are other ‘SLOW’ trade marks which are earlier than those of the opponent.

However, when examining the applicant’s arguments, 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 ‘SLOW’. As to the opposition proceedings, these in themselves are not indicative of a non-distinctive mark but are merely part of the registration of a trade mark and an opportunity for other undertakings to protect their own marks by filing oppositions against signs that they believe may cause confusion on the market for example. Under these circumstances therefore, the applicant’s claims must be set aside.

Reverting to the distinctive character of ‘SLOW’, the Opposition Division finds that despite an allusive quality perhaps as to the speed in which the goods are manufactured there is still no direct association and moreover it is a very subjective notion in itself. Therefore the term ‘SLOW’ has an average distinctive character.

‘Revolution’ as found in No 11 407 038 bears no association with the goods as it refers to a circular movement as well as the movement of the sun, the action of turning, the overthrowing of an established government as well as variations of these notions. Given that there is no connection with the goods this part of the sign is distinctive.

Consequently, the earlier sign No 11 407 038 ‘SlowRevolution’ is no more than a combination of the aforementioned terms referring to a not speedy overthrowing of the government or a not fast movement.

In the contested sign, the term ‘CLOTHES’ is clearly descriptive for the relevant goods in Class 25 rendering it non-distinctive in this regard. Even if it is distinctive in relation to the remaining goods it is positioned in a secondary position in the sign, following ‘SLOW’. Indeed, the first verbal parts of the conflicting marks are identical. 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.

It has to be said that the contested sign, when taken as a whole, has no other semantic meaning than the combination of the terms thus referring to garments that are not fast which is rather an absurd statement, at most taken as referring to the speed at which they are manufactured.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in ‘SLOW’ and differ in the contested mark’s figurative nature largely due to the ‘S’ device, previously detailed, ‘CLOTHES’ as well as the earlier mark’s (No 11 407 038) ‘Revolution’. The difference produced by the ‘S’ device and ‘CLOTHES’ lose weight in the overall assessment for the reasons expounded above and as such, the signs, given their coincidence in the primary and most distinctive element, are similar to an average degree. Indeed, even if the element ‘Revolution’ is distinctive it is also in secondary positioning and ‘SLOW’ as the first, foremost element is equally distinctive and furthermore despite being affixed, still plays an independent role in the sign due to its meaning as explained above.

Conceptually, in view of the meanings of the signs given above as well as the issues concerning distinctiveness, the signs are found to be at least conceptually similar to an average degree. Indeed, the differentiating elements that convey a semantic meaning are not as distinctive as the common term ‘SLOW’ thus reducing their impact. Further, the distinctive character of ‘Revolution’ is noted in the aforementioned average degree of similarity but still  does not alter the meaning of ‘SLOW’ in any way.

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


  1. Distinctiveness of the earlier marks

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

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

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier marks will rest on their distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade marks as a whole have 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 marks must be seen as normal.

  1. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods have been found identical and similar. Moreover, they are directed at the general public with a degree of attention varying between average and high. The signs have been found to be visually, aurally and conceptually similar to an average degree.

Consideration should be given to the principle established by the Court, namely that of interdependence, 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).

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). Even consumers with 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).

It should also be born in mind that 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. In this regard, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer will perceive the contested mark as a sub brand, a variation of the earlier mark, configured in a different way according to the type of goods and services which it designates (23/10/2002, T 104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the English speaking public and therefore the opposition is partly well-founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registrations. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be identical or similar to those of the earlier trade marks.

Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier marks, there is no need to assess the enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing marks due to its reputation as claimed by the opponent and in relation to identical and similar goods. The result would be the same even if the earlier marks enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

As the aforementioned earlier rights lead to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T-342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268). Likewise, there is no need to further examine the other grounds of the opposition.


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

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

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

The Opposition Division

Claudia SCHLIE

Vanessa PAGE

Lucinda CARNEY

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

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month from the date of notification of this fixation of costs and shall be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.

Start your Trademark Study today!

This report is optional but highly recommended.
Before filing your trademark, it is important that you evaluate possible obstacles that may arise during the registration process. Our Trademark Comprehensive Study will not only list similar trademarks {graphic/phonetic} that may conflict with yours, but also give you an Attorney's opinion about registration possibilities.