OPPOSITION No B 2 603 325

Micki Leksaker AB, P.O. Box 202, 360 32 Gemla, Sweden (opponent), represented by Awapatent AB, Södra Hamngatan 37-41, 404 28 Göteborg, Sweden (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Slow Global Di Palmieri Robert James, Corso Libertà 262, 13100 Vercelli, Italy and Michi Lifestyle LLC, 1010 North Country Club Drive, Niskayuna 12309, United States of America (applicants).

On 04/08/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 603 325 is upheld for all the contested goods and services, namely:

Class 28: Toys for dogs, toys for cats, toys for pets.

Class 35: Online and retail store services for pets, pet supplies, pet accessories.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 190 409 is rejected for all the contested goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining goods and services.

3. The applicants bear the costs, fixed at EUR 650.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 14 190 409, namely against all the goods in Class 28 and some of the services in Class 35. The opposition is based on, inter alia, Swedish trade mark registration No 362 179 ‘MICKI’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and 8(5) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of filing of the opposition), if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of publication of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

The applicants requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade marks on which the opposition is based. The request was submitted in due time and is admissible as all the earlier trade marks on which the opposition is based were registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

The opponent argues that there was no proper proof of use request submitted by the applicants. However, the applicants in their observations of 17/06/2016 explicitly requested for proof of use of the earlier marks, and the Opposition Division considers that this request – although initially overseen by the Office - was unambiguous and unconditional.

Consequently, on 08/09/2016, according to Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, the Office gave the opponent a deadline until 13/11/2016 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade marks. On 11/11/2016, the opponent filed evidence of use and referred to the evidence already filed on 23/03/2016, within the substantiation period, to prove the reputation of the earlier marks. Furthermore, on 19/04/2017, in reply to the applicants’ observations on the proof of use, the opponent resent the evidence previously submitted on 23/03/2016. However, as confirmed by the Office in its communication of 05/05/2017, these last submissions will not be taken into account as they were not received within the time limit until 14/04/2017 given to the opponent to file its final observations.

Since 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 Swedish trade mark registration No 362 179 for the word mark ‘MICKI’. Therefore, the examination of the proof of use will now focus on this earlier mark.

The contested application was published on 20/08/2015. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the above mentioned earlier trade mark was put to genuine use in Sweden from 20/08/2010 to 19/08/2015.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely games and playthings in Class 28.

The evidence to be taken into account is, in particular, the following:

• Extracts from the opponent’s annual report showing the turnover of the company for the years 2009 – 2014.

• Statement from the opponent’s auditor (PricewaterhouseCoopers AB) showing annual sales and advertising expenditure for the trade marks ‘MICKI’ and ‘MICKI + device’ in, amongst others, Sweden from 2001 to 2015. The figures (in Swedish Krona) in relation to annual sales are the following:

2011 38’740’627

2012 35’071’854

2013 36’799’716

2014 33’018’742

2015 37’812’227

• Examples of invoices covering the period from 2001 to 2016 addressed to the opponent and mostly concerning promotional activities and advertising expenses, such as attendance at the Nuremberg Toy Fair (invoices for the years 2007-2010 and 2012-2016), leaflets for toys, and advertisements in publications and catalogues.

• Selection of invoices addressed to various clients of the opponent covering the years from 2000 to 2015. As regards Sweden, ten invoices are dated within the relevant period; they are made out to clients in different cities in this territory and show the following quantities (in Swedish Krona): 229’954.00, 49’795.00, 990’928.00, 70’652.00, 67’737.00, 16’231.00, 86’220.00, 20’183.00, 59’971.00 and 8’322.00. The article numbers can be found in the catalogues filed by the opponent and they correspond to specific toys, games and playthings. For example, on the invoice dated 29/11/2010 article number 10-2090-00 ‘SPIS ROD’ corresponds to the toy article ‘Stove, red’ on page 13 of the catalogue ‘MICKI 2010’, etc. The figurative version of the mark can be seen on the top of the most of invoices together with a registered trade mark symbol after the element ‘MICKI’. Each invoice has a sequential number such as 23705 (for the invoice of 03/02/2012), 31489 (for the invoice of 10/01/2013) and 39914 (for the invoice of 14/02/2014) thus it can be inferred that other invoices were emitted in between.

• Catalogues for the years 2006-2016 showing an abundance of toys and playthings such as dolls and accessories, cuddly toys, castles, trains and accessories, building blocks, kitchens and accessories, dressing up outfits, puzzles, baby accessories, games both board games as well as air hockey and football tables/games and similar table games. The trade mark ‘MICKI’ is displayed on the cover pages and featured throughout the catalogues and on some of the products themselves (e.g. on article numbers 10-2090 ‘Red stove’, 10-2091 ‘Red mini-kitchen’ and 10-2107 ‘Couronne game’).

• Declarations made out by various, amongst others, Swedish companies dated January 2012, stating that the trade mark ‘MICKI’ has been marketed in their catalogues over the years 2005 – 2011.

• Photographs of packaging showing the mark ‘MICKI’ affixed to a variety of toys, games and playthings encompassed within the protected category of goods.

• Printouts from the opponent’s website (www.micki.se) showing use of the mark with playthings, information concerning the company and the goods as well as website statistics from Google Analytics concerning the number of visitors during the years 2008 - 2012 and 2010 – 2016 and a printout showing the opponent’s ownership of the domain name ‘micki.se’.

• Certificate from the Nuremberg International Toy Fair 2008 attesting that the opponent has participated in the fair for 40 years, and information extracts from the fair’s website referring to events in 2011 and 2012.

• Market Survey Report by the company GfK Custom Research containing the results of three different surveys carried out in 2003, 2007 and 2011 in, amongst others, Sweden. The 2011 report shows that 49% of the 502 respondents in Sweden identify and know the trade mark ‘MICKI’ in connection with games and playthings.

• A range of newspaper articles (in Swedish with translation into English) from 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2016. The articles from the years 2011 and 2016 discuss the opponent’s company history and its activities around Christmas time.

• Declarations from the Swedish Toy Association dated 22/11/2011 and 16/03/2016 stating that “the mark ‘MICKI’ has been used extensively on the market in Sweden since 1944 and must be considered to enjoy a high level of recognition and reputation in Sweden since 1960”.

According to Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the evidence of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods and services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

Place of use

The evidence undoubtedly relates to the relevant territory, Sweden. This is confirmed by the addressee information in the invoices, the currency (SEK), the catalogues and the language used, the market research reports and the examples of advertisements, just to name a few examples. Consequently, the evidence of use filed by the opponent contains sufficient indications concerning the place of use.

Time of use

Part of the evidence is dated within the relevant period and part is dated before. Important evidence, such as the declarations from the auditors with sales figures and advertising expenditure, some invoices, catalogues and press articles cover the relevant period.

Furthermore, evidence referring to use made outside the relevant timeframe is disregarded unless it contains conclusive indirect proof that the mark must have been put to genuine use as well during the relevant period of time. Events subsequent to the relevant time period may make it possible to confirm or better assess the extent to which the earlier mark was used during the relevant time period and the real intentions of the EUTM proprietor at that time (27/01/2004, C 259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50).

In the present case, the evidence referring to use outside the relevant period confirms use of the opponent’s mark within the relevant period, because the use demonstrated by the invoices, catalogues and other documents over the years 2000 - 2010 confirms a continuity of use over time.

Therefore, the evidence sufficiently indicates the time of use.

Extent of use

As regards the extent of use, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the nature of the relevant goods and the characteristics of the market concerned, the territorial extent of use, its commercial volume, duration and frequency.

The assessment of genuine use entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that the 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.

The main information as regards the extent of use comes from the statement of sales figures and advertising expenditures, which - together with sample invoices that back up the overall figures presented - demonstrate sales to clients situated in different locations across Sweden within the relevant period and an important marketing effort made by the opponent. The figures shown in relation to sales covering the years 2011- 2015 amount to a total of SEK 181’443’166 that correspond to approximately EUR 19’000’000. As regards the limited number of invoices dated within the relevant period, the numbering on the invoices allows the Opposition Division to see that other invoices were emitted in between. Consequently it can be inferred that the invoices submitted are only examples that are truly illustrative of a larger volume of sales and thus support the accounting information provided by the opponent (see judgment of 14/07/2014, Case T-204/12, ‘VIAVITA/VILA VITA PARC et al’, paragraphs 29-31 and 36-39, which supports these findings).

The applicants argue, however, that the submitted invoices show a significant drop in sales over the years and that the sales and advertising figures are low. The Opposition Division notes that even if there was a decrease in sales over the years, the amounts corresponding to the relevant years (presented in the listing of evidence) are rather stable. Moreover, considering the nature of the goods at issue and the size of the relevant market, these amounts demonstrate a substantial value and provide sufficient information concerning the commercial volume of use of the opponent’s mark.

Aside from this, there is a significant array of documentation (e.g. catalogues, press articles) that supports the Opposition Division’s finding that the trade mark has been used consistently in an outward, active and commercial manner for financial gain throughout the period. Additionally, the market survey and certificates attesting the recognition of the mark on the Swedish market also indirectly contribute to this factor. The market survey 2011 demonstrates that the mark must have had an important market presence, as 49% of the respondents in Sweden identify and know the mark in connection with games and playthings.

Therefore, taking into account all information regarding the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration and the frequency of use contained in the documents filed by the opponent, the evidence provides the Opposition Division with sufficient indications concerning the extent of use of the earlier mark.

Nature of use

In the context of Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, the expression ‘nature of use’ includes evidence of the use of the sign as a trade mark in the course of trade, of the use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof according to Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, and of its use for the goods and services for which it is registered.

The evidence of use filed by the opponent, as listed above, clearly shows use of the sign ‘MICKI’ as a trade mark identifying the commercial origin of the goods sold by the opponent.

According to Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, the following shall also constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 1: use of the European Union trade mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor. When examining the use of an earlier registration for the purposes of Article 42(2) and (3) EUTMR, Article 15 may be applied by analogy to assess whether or not the use of the sign constitutes genuine use of the earlier mark as far as its nature is concerned.

In the present case, the evidence, for instance the catalogues, contains sufficient indications concerning the use of the word mark ‘MICKI’. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates use of the figurative trade mark . This constitutes an acceptable variation of the registered form, because the stylisation of the letters and the addition of a figurative element do not affect the distinctiveness of the verbal element ‘MICKI’ from which the distinctive character of the mark is essentially derived.

Even though, as the applicants claim, the opponent may commercialise or distribute some of the goods under third parties’ brands, the Opposition Division finds that there is enough evidence referring to products bearing the opponent’s earlier mark.

In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence does show use of the sign as registered within the meaning of Article 15(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR.

Finally, as regards the use of the mark for the goods for which it is registered, it is apparent that the opponent marketed games and playthings in Class 28. The catalogues and invoices are extremely clear in this sense, citing and showing a variety of toys, games and playthings such as baby walker, sorting box, stove, mini kitchen, cookware set, weaving frame, building rods, couronne game, farm with floor mat, tool-chest with tools, tool belt, dressing up outfits, etc. Items that clearly fit into the aforementioned categories are numerous. Indeed, the abundance of such goods leaves no doubt whatsoever that use has been proven for all the goods as registered.

In line with ‘Aladin’ case-law, it is worth remembering that it is not necessary that the owner of a mark proves use for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned but merely goods which are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or sub-categories. Furthermore, if a trade mark has been registered for goods or services defined so precisely and narrowly that it is not possible to make any significant sub-divisions within the category concerned, then the proof of genuine use of the mark for the goods or services necessarily covers the entire category for the purposes of the opposition. Finally, the pursuit of a legitimate objective must not result in an unjustified limitation on the scope of the protection conferred by the earlier trade marks (14/07/2005, T‑126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45, 46 and 53).

As confirmed by the Boards of Appeal in its decision of 11/12/2013, R 2314/2012-2, ‘MICKI (Fig. Mark)’, a specification ‘games and playthings’ is sufficiently clear and precise as its scope of protection can be determined as being the equipment used for entertainment. Furthermore, especially taking into consideration the broad use in respect of numerous different types of games and playthings shown by the opponent, the goods for which the earlier mark has been registered form a sufficiently narrowly-defined category in which the use requirement can be considered to be fulfilled. Under the present circumstances the specification could not be divided other than in an arbitrary manner and would be an unjustified limitation on the scope of protection conferred by the earlier trade mark registration (11/12/2013, R 2314/2012-2, MICKI (FIG. MARK), § 14 and 22).

Therefore, the Opposition Division concludes that the evidence shows use of the earlier mark for the category of games and playthings in Class 28.

Overall assessment

The Court of Justice has held that there is ‘genuine use’ of a mark where it 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 does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition of genuine use of the mark requires that the mark, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly (11/03/2003, C 40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, and 12/03/2003, T 174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, it does reach the level necessary to establish genuine use of the earlier trade mark during the relevant period in the relevant territory for all the goods for which it is registered, namely games and playthings in Class 28.

DOUBLE IDENTITY – ARTICLE 8(1)(a) EUTMR

The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) as one of the grounds of its opposition. Although the specific conditions under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR differ, they are related. Consequently, in oppositions dealing with Article 8(1) EUTMR, if 8(1)(a) is claimed but identity between the signs and/or the goods/services cannot be established, the Opposition Division will still examine the case under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, which requires at least similarity between signs and goods/services and likelihood of confusion, and vice versa.

In the present case, as will be shown further in the decision, the signs are not identical nor are the contested services. Therefore, the examination of the opposition will follow on the grounds of 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 on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 28: Games and playthings.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 28: Toys for dogs, toys for cats, toys for pets.

Class 35: Online and retail store services for pets, pet supplies, pet accessories.

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 28

Contrary to the applicants’ arguments, the Opposition Division finds that the contested toys for dogs, toys for cats, toys for pets are clearly included in the opponent’s broader category of games and playthings.

According to the applicants, the contested goods would only cover ‘games and playthings marketed for use by human beings’. However, the Opposition Division considers arbitrary such a limitation of the natural and usual meaning of the category of ‘games and playthings’ which encompasses different types of toys that may be used for entertaining different types of public.

Consequently, these goods are identical.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested online and retail store services are specified to relate to broad categories of pet supplies and accessories which include, amongst others, toys for pets.

Retail services, whether provided online or not, concerning the sale of particular goods are similar to a low degree to these particular goods (05/05/2015, T-715/13, Castello, § 33). Although the nature, purpose and method of use of these goods and services are not the same, it should be noted that they display similarities, having regard to the fact that they are complementary and that those services are generally offered in the same places as those where the goods are offered for sale. Furthermore, they are directed at the same public.

The goods covered by the retail services and the specific goods covered by the earlier mark have to be identical in order to find a similarity, that is to say, they must either be exactly the same goods, fall under the natural and usual meaning of the category or overlap. As it has been established that the opponent’s games and playthings overlap with the broad categories of pet shop articles to which the applicants’ retail services relate insofar as they include toys for pets, the goods and services are considered similar to a low degree.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods found to be identical and the services found to be similar to a low degree are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is considered average.

3. The signs

MICKI	MICHI
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Sweden.

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).

Both signs are composed of a single verbal element that does not exist as such in Swedish. For at least part of the relevant public, the words ‘MICKI’ and ‘MICHI’ have no identifiable components, are fanciful and enjoy an average degree of inherent distinctiveness in the context of the relevant goods and services.

The applicants argue that the earlier mark will be perceived by the relevant public as a name or a nickname and that this element is weak in relation to the relevant goods. The Opposition Division finds that the word ‘MICKI’ may be seen by a part of the public as a short form of the male name ‘Michael’/‘Mikael’, although it is noted that it is usually abbreviated in Swedish to ‘Micke’. However, contrary to the applicants’ findings, even when recognised as a name, this word has no relation to the relevant goods and is therefore distinctive.

Visually, the signs are similar to the extent that they coincide in the letters ‘MIC*I’. They differ only in the letters ‘K’ of the earlier mark and ‘H’ of the contested sign. The length of the signs is the same; both have five letters and thus they cannot be considered as ‘short signs’ as claimed by the applicants.

Therefore, the signs are visually highly similar.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of their identical beginnings ‘MI’ and endings ‘I’. The pronunciation of the letters ‘CK’ placed in the middle of the earlier mark and ‘CH’ of the contested sign differs because in Swedish ‘CK’ is pronounced as a sound /k/ and ‘CH’ as a sound /tj/. However, the Opposition Division does not agree with the applicants who claim that this difference ‘change completely the pronunciation of both marks’, as the beginning, the end, the number of syllables and the rhythm of the signs are the same.

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

Conceptually, for a part of the relevant public that associates the earlier mark with a name, the signs are not conceptually similar. However, for a part of the relevant public for which neither of the signs has a meaning, a conceptual comparison is not possible and the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

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

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

According to the opponent, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys 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 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 in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods are identical and the contested services are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods. They are directed at the public at large.

The signs are visually highly similar and aurally similar to an average degree. Even though the signs are not conceptually similar for part of the public, for the remaining part of the public the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

Since the differences between the signs are confined to only one letter, placed in the middle of the signs, this is considered insufficient to enable the average consumer to safely distinguish between the signs, even if the contested services are similar to only a low degree. 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).

Considering all the above, and taking into account an average degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s Swedish trade mark registration No 362 179. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods and services found to be identical or similar to a low degree to those of the earlier trade mark.

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

As the aforesaid earlier right leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods and services 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).

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

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

Since the applicants are the losing party, they 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

Cynthia DEN DEKKER

Zuzanna STOJKOWICZ

Ioana MOISESCU

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 will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.