CANCELLATION No 13 334 C (REVOCATION)

Kamaridis Steel Limited, Kefallinias 3, Agios Athanasios, 4107 Limassol, Cyprus (applicant), represented by Crina Frisch, 54 Carol I Boulevard, B entry, 3rd floor, suite 5, 020915 Bucharest, Romania (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Metecno S.p.A., Via per Cassino, 19, 20067 Tribiano (Milan), Italy (EUTM proprietor), represented by Cristian Nastase, Splaiul Independentei no. 3, Bl. 17, sc. 2, ap.27, sector 4, 040011 Bucharest, Romania (professional representative).

On 11/06/2018, the Cancellation Division takes the following

DECISION

1. The application for revocation is partially upheld.

2. The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 1 621 416 are revoked as from 22/07/2016 for some of the contested goods, namely:

Class 6: Metal building materials, elements of metal for civil, industrial and agricultural buildings.

Class 17: Packing, stopping and insulating materials; insulating materials.

Class 19: Building materials (non-metallic), non-metallic elements for public, industrial and agricultural buildings, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

3. The European Union trade mark remains registered for all the remaining goods, namely:

Class 6: Panels of metal for building.

Class 17: Insulating panels for building.

Class 19: Panels, not of metal, for building, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

4. Each party bears its own costs.

Preliminary remark

As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431, subject to certain transitional provisions. Further, as from 14/05/2018, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 have been codified and repealed by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626. All the references in this decision to the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR shall be understood as references to the Regulations currently in force, except where expressly indicated otherwise.

REASONS

The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark registration No 1 621 416 (figurative mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against all the goods of the EUTM, namely

Class 6: Metal building materials, elements of metal for civil, industrial and agricultural buildings; panels of metal for building.

Class 17: Packing, stopping and insulating materials; insulating materials; insulating panels for building.

Class 19: Building materials (non-metallic), non-metallic elements for public, industrial and agricultural buildings, panels, not of metal, for building, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

The applicant invoked Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR.

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

The applicant argues that the mark has not been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years.

The EUTM proprietor explains the history of the relationship and disputes between the two parties and claims that the applicant filed its Romanian trade marks, as well as the revocation application, in bad faith. It puts forward that it has been producing a large variety of products, including insulating systems for walls, roof, cold-storage, fire resistance, acoustic and architectural products, and that it has distributors and offices in more than 25 countries in Europe, South America and Asia. It claims that the evidence proves the use of the mark in Bulgaria, Romania and Germany. It contends that different lines of products are marketed under the contested mark, which are, in addition to the contested mark, also labelled with various marks such as TopRoof, TopWall etc. It concludes that the evidence submitted demonstrates genuine use of the mark in the EU within the relevant period and requests that the revocation application be rejected in its entirety.

The applicant argues that the EUTM proprietor’s arguments about the alleged bad faith of the applicant are irrelevant for the present proceedings. It emphasizes that many of the documents submitted contain no reference to the contested mark. The EUTM proprietor contends that the Annexes A and B1 to B7 contain general information about the EUTM proprietor, and other companies, and have no relevance for these proceedings. Some of the Annexes contain references to other marks such as TopRoof or TopWall but not to the contested mark. According to the applicant, the catalogue should also be disregarded as it greatly predates the relevant period, and in fact, emanates from the predecessor of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant argues that the various approvals and authorizations do not demonstrate any public use of the trade mark. The invoices are all issued to only one entity in each country. The applicant also points out that the transactions between the companies in Bulgaria and Romania are among the entities belonging to the same group, and, as such, they do not prove the outward use of the mark. Finally, the applicant questions the territorial extent of use and argues that, in any case, the use was not continuous and cannot be considered to be genuine use. To conclude, the applicant refers to a decision of the Bucharest Tribunal which cancelled the Romanian part of the international registration IR 744 176 Topanel, belonging also to the EUTM proprietor, for non-use. The applicant claims that the Romanian Court issued the decision based on the same set of evidence as was submitted in the present proceedings.

The EUTM proprietor insists on the dishonest intentions of the applicant and claims that the fact that the applicant considers such circumstances irrelevant, instead of denying those circumstances, supports the EUTM proprietor’s statements. As regards the applicant’s argument about the limited territorial use, the EUTM proprietor puts forward that the applicant did not take into account the main advantage of using the EUIPO for trade mark registration, which is, in the EUTM proprietor’s opinion, the fact that the use of the mark in only one country will be considered to be genuine use. Moreover, the EUTM proprietor puts forward that the fact that the goods were provided to a single entity is less important than the overall quantity of goods sold. It claims that the goods identified in the invoices as Toproof or Topwall also all bear the mark TOPANEL. The goods consist of panels of metals for buildings, they are usually packaged, and have applied the logo of the mark, but given that they are directed at professionals for industrial applications, the products as such, are not usually stamped or punched with the mark. As regards the Romanian Court’s decision cancelling the Romanian part of the EUTM proprietor’s international registration, the EUTM proprietor argues that the evidence could not have been the same in that case as in the present case, as in the Romanian case the relevant territory was only Romania.

GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION

According to Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of the European Union trade mark will be revoked on application to the Office, if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the Union for the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use.

Genuine use of a trade mark exists where the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services. Genuine use requires actual use on the market of the registered goods and services and does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark, nor use which is solely internal (11/03/2003, C‑40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, in particular § 35-37 and 43).

When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether commercial exploitation of the mark is real, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a market share for the goods or services protected by the mark (11/03/2003, C‑40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 38). However, the purpose of the provision requiring that the earlier mark must have been genuinely used ‘is not to assess commercial success or to review the economic strategy of an undertaking, nor is it intended to restrict trade-mark protection to the case where large-scale commercial use has been made of the marks’ (08/07/2004, T‑203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 38).

According to Article 19(1) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the indications and evidence of use must establish the place, time, extent and nature of use of the contested trade mark for the goods and/or services for which it is registered.

In revocation proceedings based on the grounds of non-use, the burden of proof lies with the EUTM proprietor as the applicant cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, namely that the mark has not been used during a continuous period of five years. Therefore, it is the EUTM proprietor who must prove genuine use within the European Union, or submit proper reasons for non‑use.

In the present case, the EUTM was registered on 15/06/2001. The revocation request was filed on 22/07/2016. Therefore, the EUTM had been registered for more than five years at the date of the filing of the request. The EUTM proprietor had to prove genuine use of the contested EUTM during the five-year period preceding the date of the revocation request, that is, from 22/07/2011 to 21/07/2016 inclusive, for the following contested goods:

Class 6: Metal building materials, elements of metal for civil, industrial and agricultural buildings; panels of metal for building.

Class 17: Packing, stopping and insulating materials; insulating materials; insulating panels for building.

Class 19: Building materials (non-metallic), non-metallic elements for public, industrial and agricultural buildings, panels, not of metal, for building, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

On 03/01/2017 the EUTM proprietor submitted evidence as proof of use.

The evidence to be taken into account is the following:

• Annexes A1 to A7 – documents regarding the business evolution of the applicant and the past relationship between the predecessor of the applicant and the EUTM proprietor. These documents do not show any use of the contested trade mark within the relevant period.

• Annexes B1 and B2 – printouts from the EUTM proprietor’s website www.metecno.com showing an overview of the EUTM proprietor company and its products which are presented as diverse products and systems used in building construction. The contested trade mark does not appear in the excerpts.

• Annex B3 – a list of the EUTM proprietor’s distributors.

• Annex B4 – a declaration dated 19/12/2016, drawn up by the EUTM proprietor’s administrator, stating that the companies Metecno Bulgaria AD, Metecno Trading SRL and Metecno Bausysteme GmbH are all related to the EUTM proprietor.

• Annex B5 – a certificate of constancy of performance in relation to insulating panels with polyurethane foam produced by Metecno Bulgaria, concerning products which include TOPWALL and TOPROOF. The contested mark is not mentioned. The certificate is dated in 2015.

• Annex B6 – three pro-forma invoices issued by Metecno Bulgaria to Metecno Trading Romania for products described as “TOPROOF brand: TOPANEL” and “TOPWALL brand: TOPANEL”, dated in 2014, 2015 and 08/06/2016, altogether for nearly EUR 100,000.

• Annex B7 – invoices for the products sold, as per the pro-forma invoices from Annex B6, and their transport and delivery documents, dated in 2015 and 2016. The contested mark does not appear in these documents, the products are referred to as ‘TOPROOF’ and ‘TOPWALL’.

• Annex B8 – invoices for TOP ROOF and TOP WALL products issued by Metecno Trading SRL to Metpanel Service SRL, Romania, dated in 2015 (one on 14/07/2016).

• Annex B9 – catalogue ‘TOPANEL’, in Romanian, displaying insulating panels under the marks ‘TOPROOF’, ‘TOPSHEET’ and ‘TOPWALL’. The catalogue is not dated but the EUTM proprietor claims it is from 2004, which is supported by the attached invoices for the printing of the catalogue dated in 2004.

• Annexes B10-B14 – approvals by the German Institute of Construction Engineering and German Institute for Construction Technique for ‘sandwich panels with coated steel armouring and polyurethane foam core’, including ‘TOPANEL’. The documents are dated 16/04/2014, 31/07/2013, 14/02/2011 (the modification from 31/10/2011), and 23/06/2011. The documents are in German with English translation.

• Annex B13 - certificate of constancy of performance issued by Karlsruhe Institute for technology on 02/10/2014 for ‘self-supporting double skin metal faced insulating panels’ produced by Metecno Bausysteme GmbH, including “Klöckner TOPANEL”.

• Annex B14 – Certification Document from the European Quality Assurance Association for Panels and Profiles, including for the product Topanel, dated 22/09/2011.

• Annex B15 – invoices issued by Metecno Bausysteme GmbH to Klöckner Stahl und Metallhandel GmbH in Germany, dated between 2011 and 2013, for ‘Topanel’ products for total amounts ranging from several thousand to tens of thousand Euro.

• Annex B16 – sheets of sales figures for products under the mark TOPANEL by Metecno Bausyteme GmbH, for years 2011 to 2013.

• Annexes B17 and 18 – leaflets describing the insulating panels including TOPANEL, dated in 2014.

Preliminary remarks

The EUTM proprietor explains in detail the history of the relationship between the parties, and makes claims about the applicant, and its bad faith in filing the application for revocation, and in filing its Romanian marks. However, the circumstances related to the applicant’s national trade marks are completely irrelevant for these proceedings, the scope of which is to assess whether or not the contested EUTM was genuinely used.

Moreover, Article 63(1)(a) EUTMR grants all natural and legal persons the right to file an application for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 58 EUTMR, without making that right subject to the balancing of the applicant’s possible personal interests in such a declaration with the general interests safeguarded by that provision. In that regard, Article 63(1)(a) EUTMR regulates the issue exhaustively and does not leave any scope to take account of any possible bad faith on the part of the applicant for revocation, with the result that an abuse of rights cannot constitute an obstacle to the examination of an application for such a declaration.

Therefore, the EUTM proprietor’s arguments relating to the intentions of the applicant or to a previous relationship between the parties are irrelevant for these proceedings.

Assessment of genuine use – factors

Time of use

The evidence must show genuine use of the European Union trade mark within the relevant period, that is, from 22/07/2011 to 21/07/2016. The vast majority of the evidence is dated within the relevant period. Even considering that the most relevant documents, that is, the invoices demonstrating the actual sales of goods in Germany, only cover the two first years of the relevant period, even this use alone would be sufficient to show use of the mark in the relevant time frame. Regarding the duration of use, it is important to remember that only trade marks whose genuine use was interrupted for a continuous period of five years are subject to the sanctions provided for in Article 18(1) EUTMR. Therefore, it is sufficient for avoiding these sanctions that a trade mark was genuinely used for only part of this period (16/12/2008, T‑86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 52 and 09/07/2009, R 623/2008‑4, Walzer Traum (fig.) / Walzertraum (fig.), § 28).

Considering the above, the factor of time of use was sufficiently demonstrated.

Place of use

The evidence must show that the contested European Union trade mark has been genuinely used in the European Union (see Article 18(1) EUTMR and Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR).

The documents show that some products manufactured in Bulgaria were sold and shipped to Romania, although it is not completely clear whether or not this use can be considered public and outward use, considering that this transaction was carried out between two companies related to the EUTM proprietor (as admitted by the EUTM proprietor and confirmed by the declaration of the EUTM proprietor’s administrator). Moreover, there is no evidence that these goods were later distributed or sold to third parties. It is also not completely clear whether or not this transaction involved goods labelled with the contested trade mark or with other marks such as TOPROOF and TOPWALL.

However, the documents also show use in relation to Germany. Annex B15 contains invoices for the sale of goods under the trade mark by the EUTM proprietor’s German distributor to a client in Germany. Additionally, the use in Germany is also supported by the various approvals of these products issued by the German authorities.

Consequently, at least, the use of the sign carried out in Germany is clearly public and outward use related to the contested mark and such use was related to the relevant territory. Whether or not this territorial scope of use is sufficient will be discussed below in the section ‘extent of use’ of this decision.

Nature of use: use as a trade mark

Nature of use requires, inter alia, that the contested European Union trade mark is used as a trade mark, that is, for identifying origin, thus making it possible for the relevant public to distinguish between goods and services of different providers.

The mark was clearly used as a trade mark. It was used directly in connection with the goods to indicate their commercial origin as is obvious from the invoices and also from the various approvals and authorizations.

Nature of use: use of the mark as registered

‘Nature of use’ in the context of Article 10(3) EUTMDR further requires evidence of use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof which, pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) EUTMR, does not alter the distinctive character of the contested European Union trade mark.

The mark is registered as a figurative mark in the following form: . The only documents in which the mark is shown in some type of figurative form are dated in 2004, that is, seven years before the start of the relevant period. It cannot be assumed that the mark was used in the same form throughout all the years leading up to the relevant period, without any modifications, in the absence of any proof to this effect. In the documents that refer to the use of the mark within the relevant period (invoices, approvals, certificate of constancy of performance, leaflets), the mark is always shown as a word ‘Topanel’ or ‘TOPANEL’ in standard characters. Consequently, it has to be assessed whether or not such use of the mark is in compliance with Article 18 EUTMR.

It is appropriate to consider whether the form in which the contested trade mark is used contains differences which affect its distinctive character or whether, despite the differences, the mark used and the contested EUTM have the same distinctive character. Firstly, the distinctive character of the contested EUTM must be clarified. Then, it must be considered whether or not the mark as used alters this distinctive character. The mark as registered contains the word element ‘Topanel’, written in a slightly stylised typeface, and a figurative element. Admittedly, the degree of distinctive character of the word element ‘Topanel’, in relation to the goods for which the mark was used, that is, panels, is not very high. On the other hand, it is not completely non-distinctive, as the missing ‘P’, and the fact that it is a single element, may result in consumers not immediately perceiving the words ‘Top’ and ‘Panel’ in the word ‘Topanel’. This play on words provides the word with a certain degree of distinctiveness, even in relation to panels. In view of this conclusion, the slight stylization, and the rather simple and unmemorable figurative element preceding the word element, are only marginal, non-distinctive additions to the most relevant part of the mark which is the word element. Consequently, the Cancellation Division concludes that the omission of the device and the lack of stylization of the letters in the mark as used do not alter the mark’s distinctive character.

Considering all the above, the mark was used in compliance with Article 18 EUTMR.

Extent of use

Concerning extent of use, it is settled case-law that account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of the overall use, as well as of the length of the period during which the mark was used and the frequency of use (e.g. 08/07/2004, T‑334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 35).

The evidence shows that products under the mark were sold at least from the end of 2011 till September 2013 to one entity in Germany. Although the invoices do not cover a particularly long time period, particularly large territory and they are addressed to only one entity, the quantities sold are quite significant and show regularity of use during those two years. There is an invoice for nearly each month during that period and the total amounts charged for these products are listed in the thousands or even tens of thousands of Euro. Moreover, the invoices submitted may be considered to only be samples of invoices, on account of their regular spread in time and their non-consecutive numbering. This is also supported by the sales sheet submitted as Annex B16. Even though this sheet is of an unknown origin, when considered together with the sample invoices, and in view of the fact that it provides very detailed information about the sales, it can be inferred that the sales in Germany were, although not very long-term, regular, frequent and intensive during the years 2011 to 2013.

The applicant claims that the extent is not sufficient since the sales were only made to one entity and in a very limited territory. It is true that the sales in Germany were only made to a single client, but there is no indication that this entity was in any way connected to the EUTM proprietor, so it must be considered an independent company. It is not up to the Cancellation Division to judge the commercial strategy of the EUTM proprietor. If the sales to only one client seem to be sufficient to warrant in the economic sector concerned, to maintain or create a market share for the goods, such use can be considered to be genuine use of the mark. In the present case, given the frequency, regularity and intensity of the use, as mentioned above, the demonstrated use was, in the opinion of the Cancellation Division, reasonable to warrant an outlet for the goods.

As regards the territorial scope of use, it may be noted that the assessment of genuine use entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. Likewise, the territorial scope of the use is only one of several factors to be taken into account, so that a limited territorial scope of use can be counteracted by a more significant volume or duration of use.

In the present case, in addition to the rather significant volume of use in Germany, it should also be taken into account that the evidence shows some sales between Bulgaria and Romania. It is true, as explained above, that these sales are between two companies which are related to the EUTM proprietor, and it is not completely clear whether or not the goods were actually sold under the contested mark. On the other hand, there are indications that indeed, the contested mark was at least one of the marks under which the goods were branded, as suggested by the pro-forma invoices (Annex B6). Moreover, even if the goods were sold between companies related to the EUTM proprietor, it is hard to imagine that EUR 100 000 worth of goods would be purchased by any entity without their subsequent further sales, within the EU or for export. Consequently, the Cancellation Division concludes that these sales cannot be completely disregarded and they add further to the indications of extent of use, both in a territorial and quantitative respect.

Considering all the above, it is concluded that sufficient extent of use was demonstrated.

Use in relation to the registered goods and services

Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR and Article 10(3) EUTMDR require that the EUTM proprietor proves genuine use for the contested goods and services for which the European Union trade mark is registered.

The contested EUTM is registered for goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19 listed above. However, the evidence filed by the EUTM proprietor does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods for which it is registered.

According to Article 58(2) EUTMR, where there are grounds for revocation in respect of only some of the goods or services for which the contested mark is registered, the proprietor’s rights will be revoked for those goods and services only.

In the present case, the various authorizations, approvals, certificates of continued performance and the leaflets are very clear that the goods marketed under the mark ‘TOPANEL’ were insulating panels used in the construction of buildings, and made of polyurethane and metal. Therefore, these goods belong to all of the three classes for which the mark is registered, as they are, at the same time, panels made of metal (Class 6), of non-metallic materials (Class 19) and they serve for insulation purposes (Class 17).

The evidence does not contain any indications that the mark was used for any other registered goods. Panels fall under most of the broad categories for which the EUTM is registered (e.g. metal building materials), but use merely for panels does not justify use of the mark for those entire categories.

Consequently, use of the mark was demonstrated for the following goods:

Class 6: Panels of metal for building.

Class 17: Insulating panels for building.

Class 19: Panels, not of metal, for building, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

Overall assessment

In order to examine, in a given case, whether use of the earlier mark is genuine, an overall assessment must be made taking account of all the relevant factors in the particular case. That assessment implies a certain interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, a low volume of goods marketed under that trade mark may be compensated for by high intensity of use or a certain constancy regarding the time of use of that trade mark or vice versa (08/07/2004, T‑334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 36).

The evidence demonstrated that the mark has been used in relation to some of the contested goods, during the relevant period, in the relevant territory, to an extent sufficient to indicate that the use made was genuine. It was used as a trade mark in a form not altering the distinctive character of the registered mark. Considering all the above, the Cancellation Division concludes that the evidence, as a whole, is sufficient to demonstrate that the contested mark was genuinely used during the relevant period, in the relevant territory, for insulating panels for building made of both metallic and non-metallic materials.

The applicant referred to a decision of the Romanian Court which cancelled the Romanian part of the EUTM proprietor’s international trade mark. However, that decision has little relevance for these proceedings as, firstly, the relevant territory is restricted to Romania in the Romanian case, and therefore, is more limited than that in in the present case, and, secondly, the Cancellation Division does not have the Romanian decision at its disposal and, as such, it cannot verify on what evidence the decision of the Romanian Court was based or if there were any other deciding factors that led to that decision.

Conclusion

It follows from the above that the EUTM proprietor has not proven genuine use of the EUTM for the following goods, for which it must, therefore, be revoked:

Class 6: Metal building materials, elements of metal for civil, industrial and agricultural buildings.

Class 17: Packing, stopping and insulating materials (except panels); insulating materials.

Class 19: Building materials (non-metallic), non-metallic elements for public, industrial and agricultural buildings, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

The EUTM proprietor has proven genuine use for the remaining contested goods, namely:

Class 6: Panels of metal for building.

Class 17: Insulating panels for building.

Class 19: Panels, not of metal, for building, except sheets of wood fibre and any sheet or shaped part manufactured on the basis of wood, wood fibre, wood chips or other particles containing wood or cellulose.

Therefore, the application is not successful in this respect and the mark remains valid and registered for these goods.

According to Article 62(1) EUTMR, the revocation will take effect from the date of the application for revocation, that is, as of 22/07/2016.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in cancellation proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(2) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Cancellation Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the cancellation is successful only for part of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Cancellation Division

Nicole CLARKE

Michaela SIMANDLOVA

Pierluigi M. VILLANI

According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds 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.