OPPOSITION No B 2 683 228

CR7 Services Limited, 23 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent ME19 4UA, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Stobbs, Endurance House, Vision Park, Chivers Way, Cambridge CB24 9ZR, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Wirecard AG, Einsteinring 35, 85609 Aschheim, Germany (applicant), represented by Pinsent Masons Germany LLP, Ottostraße 21, 80333 München, Germany (professional representative).

On 24/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 683 228 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 09: Databases (electronic); stored and downloadable computer-software; electronic apparatus for verifying the authenticity of pre-paid, debit, credit and other payment cards; digital transmitting and receiving apparatus, in particular mobile telephones and other mobile transmitting and receiving apparatus, for stationary and mobile payment systems; electric, electronic and optical devices and instruments, and parts therefor, for the recording, processing, receiving, transmission, sending, storage, exchange and output of messages, images, speech and data (included in class 9); data carriers containing recorded computer software, in particular magnetic and optical data carriers containing computer software, in particular applications software, operating systems software, database software, data encoding software, data decoding software and software for processing digital signatures; calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers, and parts therefor; active and passive electronic components, in particular integrated and non-integrated semiconductor components; printed circuit boards with and without electronic components.

Class 35: Computerised file management; computer services, namely providing of an interactive computer database in the field of payment information and payment behaviour for commercial purposes.

Class 36: Processing and authenticating of credit card and other electronic payment transactions; payment processing; conducting of electronic payment transactions, namely by means of computer software; management of payment transactions, namely for customers using payment software, included in class 9.

Class 38: Providing access to databases; transmission of database information via telecommunications networks; access to content, websites and portals; providing of access to interactive databases in the fields of payment information and payment behaviour.

Class 42: Creation and maintenance of computer databases; development, design and updating of home pages; web pages hosting; consultancy in relation to information systems using online electronic communications networks; enabling temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for verifying credit card and bank card payments, processing of credit card and bank card transactions, investigation of fraud in relation to credit cards and bank cards, processing of electronic payment transactions, processing of automated clearance payments, automatic database management; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems, and integration of computer systems and networks; management and advisory services, namely technical assistance for businesses in relation to the use of electronic online communications networks; electronic exchanges between computer networks (clearing centre), namely adding and converting data into a receiver-dependent form/structure and/or data matching (computer-aided economic services); analysis (validation and verification) of information (economic services); computer services in relation to electronic payment processing and data transfer related thereto.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 058 424 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining services.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 14 058 424. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 13 150 826. 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 goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 09: Computer application software; computer platform software; terminal application software; financial management software; computer programmes relating to financial matters; software for the processing of financial transactions; financial management computer software; computer software relating to the handling of financial transactions; computer software relating to financial applications; computer software relating to financial platforms; downloadable software relating to financial applications; downloadable software relating to financial platforms; computer software for producing financial models; computer software relating to financial history; computer software for processing market information; computer software for use in the transfer of funds; computer software for use for financial messaging; computer software for processing financial transactions through a secure payments network or through a secure financial network; computer software for managing and monitoring debt collection, payments, negotiations, settlement and accounting; computer software for automating wire payments processing; computer software for viewing, managing and monitoring of account balances and liquidity; computer software for providing direct access to national and international payments network; computer software for the electronic transmission of information, data, documents, and images over the internet or an intranet; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods.

Class 42: Design and development of terminal application software; design and development of software relating to the provision of financial transactions, financial applications and financial platforms; design, maintenance and development of databases; updating of software databases; preparation of data processing programmes; compilation of data processing programs; preparation of computer programs for data processing; development of systems for the processing of data; services for the design of electronic data processing software; computer programming services; programming of data processing apparatus and equipment; installation of computer software; maintenance of computer software; repair of computer software; updating of computer software; rental of computer software; rental of computer hardware; computer system design; computer systems analysis; creating and maintaining websites for others; computer software installation, updating, maintenance and repair; research, development design and upgrading of computer software; computer software engineering; providing computer software that may be downloaded from a global computer network; software as a service [SaaS]; hosting services and software as a service and rental of software; application service provider (ASP); application service provider services; application service provider (ASP), namely, hosting computer software applications of others; computer software rental services; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software; providing temporary use of non- downloadable terminal application software; software as a service (SAAS), managed service provider (MSP), and application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in the field of global financial messaging, payment operations and payment services; software as a service (SAAS), managed service provider (MSP), and application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use for financial messaging, namely connecting to and processing financial transactions through a secure payments network or through a secure financial network; software as a service (SAAS), managed service provider (MSP), and application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in the field of payments, securities and cash management messaging; providing software as a service (SAAS) pertaining to the provision of bill payment data; information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid; information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid services provided on-line from a computer database or the Internet; information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid services provided over a telecommunications network.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 09: Databases (electronic); stored and downloadable computer-software; electronic apparatus for verifying the authenticity of pre-paid, debit, credit and other payment cards; digital transmitting and receiving apparatus, in particular mobile telephones and other mobile transmitting and receiving apparatus, for stationary and mobile payment systems; electric, electronic and optical devices and instruments, and parts therefor, for the recording, processing, receiving, transmission, sending, storage, exchange and output of messages, images, speech and data (included in class 9); data carriers containing recorded computer software, in particular magnetic and optical data carriers containing computer software, in particular applications software, operating systems software, database software, data encoding software, data decoding software and software for processing digital signatures; calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers, and parts therefor; active and passive electronic components, in particular integrated and non-integrated semiconductor components; printed circuit boards with and without electronic components.

Class 35: Computerised file management; computer services, namely providing of an interactive computer database in the field of payment information and payment behaviour for commercial purposes; loyalty, incentive and bonus program services; management of discount schemes where participants obtain discounts on goods and services through the use of a certain software.

Class 36: Insurance underwriting; insurance information; clearing-houses, financial; processing and authenticating of credit card and other electronic payment transactions; payment processing; conducting of electronic payment transactions, namely by means of computer software; management of payment transactions, namely for customers using payment software, included in class 9.

Class 38: Providing access to databases; transmission of database information via telecommunications networks; access to content, websites and portals; providing of access to interactive databases in the fields of payment information and payment behaviour.

Class 42: Creation and maintenance of computer databases; development, design and updating of home pages; web pages hosting; consultancy in relation to information systems using online electronic communications networks; enabling temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for verifying credit card and bank card payments, processing of credit card and bank card transactions, investigation of fraud in relation to credit cards and bank cards, processing of electronic payment transactions, processing of automated clearance payments, automatic database management; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems, and integration of computer systems and networks; management and advisory services, namely technical assistance for businesses in relation to the use of electronic online communications networks; electronic exchanges between computer networks (clearing centre), namely adding and converting data into a receiver-dependent form/structure and/or data matching (computer-aided economic services); analysis (validation and verification) of information (economic services); computer services in relation to electronic payment processing and data transfer related thereto.

Class 45: Fraud investigation in relation to credit and other payment cards; confirmation of licences or electronic certification.

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

The term ‘in particular’, used in the applicant’s list of goods and 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).

However, the term ‘namely’, used in both the applicant’s and the opponent’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 stored and downloadable computer-software overlaps with the opponent’s computer application software. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested databases (electronic) are similar to the opponent’s computer application software as they incorporate special software which provides a structure to digital databases and enables their management, including the retrieval and processing of data. These goods therefore have the same purpose and are highly complementary. Furthermore, they may have the same producers, distribution channels and target the same public.

The contested electronic apparatus for verifying the authenticity of pre-paid, debit, credit and other payment cards; digital transmitting and receiving apparatus, in particular mobile telephones and other mobile transmitting and receiving apparatus, for stationary and mobile payment systems; electric, electronic and optical devices and instruments, and parts therefor, for the recording, processing, receiving, transmission, sending, storage, exchange and output of messages, images, speech and data (included in class 9); data carriers containing recorded computer software, in particular magnetic and optical data carriers containing computer software, in particular applications software, operating systems software, database software, data encoding software, data decoding software and software for processing digital signatures; calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers, and parts therefor are all types of computers and data processing apparatus.

They are therefore similar to the opponent’s computer application software; computer platform software; terminal application software; computer software for the electronic transmission of information, data, documents, and images over the internet or an intranet. Indeed, computers and data processing apparatus are actually ‘systems’, a combination of components that work together, especially programmable electronic machines that perform high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assemble, store, correlate or otherwise process information. The hardware devices are the physical components of these systems. The hardware is designed to work hand in hand with computer programs, referred to as software. These goods are therefore highly complementary. Computer hardware companies may also produce software, share the same distribution channels and target the same professional public (e.g. for use in banking and finance, education, medicine, business and entertainment/recreation) and/or the general public.

The contested active and passive electronic components, in particular integrated and non-integrated semiconductor components; printed circuit boards with and without electronic components are common hardware components of computers and data processing apparatus. Therefore, they are lowly similar to the opponent’s computer application software, as they can coincide in producer. Furthermore, they are complementary.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested computerised file management; computer services, namely providing of an interactive computer database in the field of payment information and payment behaviour for commercial purposes are administrative data processing services that are similar to the opponent’s Class 9 computer application software as they require special software which provides a structure to digital files and databases and enables their management, including the retrieval and processing of data. In spite of the fact that the nature of the opponent’s goods in Class 9 and the contested services in Class 35 is not the same, they have the same purpose and are highly complementary. Furthermore, they may have the same distribution channels and target the same public.

The contested loyalty, incentive and bonus program services; management of discount schemes where participants obtain discounts on goods and services through the use of a certain software have different natures and purposes to all the opponent’s Class 9 goods and Class 42 services. The relevant public will not usually coincide and the goods and services are neither complementary nor are they in competition. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 36

The contested processing and authenticating of credit card and other electronic payment transactions; payment processing; conducting of electronic payment transactions, namely by means of computer software; management of payment transactions, namely for customers using payment software, included in class 9 are financial transfer, transaction and payment services that are similar to the opponent’s Class 9 computer software relating to the handling of financial transactions as they may require special software that provides electronic platforms which enable their management, including conducting, processing and authenticating payment transactions. In spite of the fact that the nature of the opponent’s goods in Class 9 and the contested services in Class 36 is not the same, they have the same purpose and are complementary. Furthermore, they may have the same distribution channels and target the same public.

The contested insurance underwriting; insurance information; clearing-houses, financial have different natures and purposes to all the opponent’s Class 9 goods and Class 42 services. The relevant public will not usually coincide and the goods and services are neither complementary nor are they in competition. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 38

The contested providing access to databases; transmission of database information via telecommunications networks; access to content, websites and portals; providing of access to interactive databases in the fields of payment information and payment behaviour are telecommunication services which allow people to communicate with one another and transmit information by remote means. These services are similar to the opponent’s Class 9 computer application software as they require special software that provides electronic platforms which enable their management, including providing access to and transmitting information. In spite of the fact that the nature of the opponent’s goods in Class 9 and the contested services in Class 38 is not the same, they have the same purpose and are highly complementary. Furthermore, they may have the same distribution channels and target the same public.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested creation and maintenance of computer databases is identically contained on both lists of services, including synonyms.

The contested web pages hosting is included in the broad category of the opponent’s hosting services and software as a service and rental of software. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested consultancy in relation to information systems using online electronic communications networks overlaps with the opponent’s information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid services [IT services] provided on-line from a computer database or the Internet. Therefore, these categories cannot be clearly separated and they are considered identical.

The contested enabling temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for verifying credit card and bank card payments, processing of credit card and bank card transactions, investigation of fraud in relation to credit cards and bank cards, processing of electronic payment transactions, processing of automated clearance payments, automatic database management are included in, or overlap with, the broad category of the opponent’s hosting services and software as a service and rental of software. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems and integration of computer systems and networks is included in the broad category of the opponent’s repair of computer software. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested management and advisory services, namely technical assistance for businesses in relation to the use of electronic online communications networks overlaps with the opponent’s information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid [IT services]. Therefore, these categories cannot be clearly separated and they are considered identical.

The contested electronic exchanges between computer networks (clearing centre), namely adding and converting data into a receiver-dependent form/structure and/or data matching (computer-aided economic services) overlap with the opponent’s updating of software databases. Therefore, these categories cannot be clearly separated and they are considered identical.

The contested analysis (validation and verification) of information (economic services) overlaps with the opponent’s information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid [IT services]. Therefore, these categories cannot be clearly separated and they are considered identical.

The contested computer services in relation to electronic payment processing and data transfer related thereto overlap with the opponent’s design and development of software relating to the provision of financial transactions, financial applications and financial platforms. Therefore, these categories cannot be clearly separated and they are considered identical.

The contested development, design and updating of home pages is similar to the opponent’s computer programming services as they can coincide in producer, end user and distribution channels.

Contested services in Class 45

The contested fraud investigation in relation to credit and other payment cards; confirmation of licences or electronic certification have different natures and purposes to all the opponent’s Class 9 goods and Class 42 services. The relevant public will not usually coincide and the goods and services are neither complementary nor are they in competition. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, most of the goods and services found to be identical or similar (to different degrees) are directed at the public at large; some may also be directed at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise, for example, computer services in relation to electronic payment processing and data transfer related thereto.

The degree of attention may vary from average to high, depending on the cost of the services and given that some of the IT services in question may have a considerable impact on the success of a business and so they will be chosen with special care.

3. The signs

AXEPT
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

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

The 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). This applies by analogy to international registrations designating the European Union. 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 Spanish-speaking part of the relevant public, for the reasons which are explained hereunder.

The earlier mark is the word mark ‘AXEPT’ and therefore it is immaterial whether the element is written in upper or lower-case letters, given that in the case of word marks, it is the word as such that is protected, regardless of its written form.

Although the verbal element ‘accept’ of the contested sign and the earlier right ‘AXEPT’ have some semantic similarities to the Spanish word ‘ACEPTAR’, which is equivalent to the English word ‘ACCEPT’, the Opposition Division considers the semantic differences to be greater than the similarities, on account of the striking nature of the misspellings in these two verbal elements, which the Spanish-speaking public instantly perceive as fanciful foreign words. Therefore, even if the allusion to the meaning of the word ‘aceptar’ (in Spanish) is perceived, the distinctiveness of these elements is deemed to be normal for the goods and services in question, as they convey no clear or unequivocal descriptive meaning in relation to them, and also taking into consideration the level of fancifulness of these foreign terms from the perspective of the relevant public under analysis.

The contested sign is a figurative mark consisting of a black horizontally aligned rectangle containing the word element ‘accept’, written in large white lower-case lettering. A small, barely perceptible grey square is located at the end of this word element. The word elements ‘by wirecard’ are written in small grey lower-case lettering and placed below the ‘accept’ word element.

The stylization of the contested sign, including the black rectangular background, is rather basic and does not convey any concepts that would strikingly differentiate the signs; instead, its role is primarily ornamental and the relevant public will immediately perceive it as graphic elements used to embellish and bring their attention to the word elements of the mark.

The main indicator of commercial origin in the contested sign is undoubtedly the word element ‘accept’, which is the dominant element in the sign as it is the most eye-catching.

A negligible element refers to an element that due to its size and/or position is not noticeable at first sight or is part of a complex sign. In the contested sign, the above described small grey square is barely perceptible. As this is likely to be disregarded by the relevant public, it will not be taken into consideration.

Given their small size and positioning, the contested sign’s ‘by wirecard’ word elements play a secondary role in relation to the contested sign’s ‘accept’ word element, since the public will most likely not attach any particular trade mark significance to them, due to their subordinate role in the sign.

Visually, the signs coincide in the initial letter ‘A-’ and final three letter sequence ‘-EPT’ of the earlier mark (A*EPT) and the contested sign’s dominant ‘accept’ word element (A**EPT). These elements differ in their respective middle letters; ‘X’ in the earlier mark and ‘CC’ in the contested sign. They signs further differ due to the contested signs’ additional word elements ‘by wirecard’, which, as previously explained, have a reduced impact for the relevant public, and its weakly distinctive stylization.

Furthermore, 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).

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

Aurally, the relevant public will pronounce the earlier right and the contested signs’ dominant word element identically. As mentioned above, due to their size and role within the sign, the elements ‘by wirecard’ of the contested sign are not likely to be pronounced by the majority of the public.

Therefore, the signs are aurally identical for the aforementioned part of the public; for the part of the public that may pronounce ‘by wirecard’, the marks are aurally similar to a high degree, as the part to which consumers will attribute trade mark significance in the contested sign (‘accept’) is aurally identical to the earlier mark.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning, as such, for the public in the relevant territory. Nonetheless, at least a part of the public will perceive an allusion to the Spanish word ‘aceptar’ in the earlier mark and in the contested sign’s ‘accept’ element. For this part of the public, the signs are similar to an average degree on account of this allusion to the same concept.

For the part of the public which will not make such an association, a conceptual comparison is not possible as the signs have no meaningful elements. Therefore, 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

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.

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

As has been concluded above, some of the contested goods and services are identical or similar (to different degrees) and the signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally identical for the majority of the public (and aurally similar to a high degree for the remaining part) and conceptually similar to an average degree for a relevant part of the public.

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 who pay a high degree of attention to the products in question, as is generally the case with some of the IT services in question, need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T‑443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, §  54).

In the present case, as was concluded above, the main indicator of commercial origin in the contested sign is the distinctive word element ‘accept’, which is the dominant element in the sign. Given their small size and positioning, the contested sign’s ‘by wirecard’ word elements have a rather reduced impact on the public, in the overall impression conveyed by the sign, due to their subordinate role in the sign. That is why it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the public will not even pronounce these elements when confronted with the sign. Additionally, the stylization of the contested sign is rather basic and its role is primarily ornamental.

Furthermore, the signs coincide in the initial letter ‘A-’ and final three letter sequence ‘-EPT’ of the earlier mark (A*EPT) and the contested sign’s dominant ‘accept’ word element (A**EPT). This is important, given that, as was also concluded above, 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.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Spanish-speaking part of the public in the relevant territory and therefore the opposition is partly well-founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 13 150 826. 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 and services found to be identical or similar (to different degrees) to those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested services are dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the opposition based on this article and directed at these services cannot be successful.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 85(2) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

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

The Opposition Division

Gueorgui IVANOV

José Alexandre DE PAIVA ANDRADE TEIXEIRA

Ewelina SLIWINSKA

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.