OPPOSITION No B 2 661 315

Time Inc. (UK) Ltd, Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark Street, London SE1 0SU, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by HGF Limited, 1 City Walk, Leeds, Leeds LS11 9DX United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Etienne Laforgue, 1920 route de Bellencombre, 76950 Les Grandes Ventes, France (applicant).

On 31/03/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 661 315 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested services:

Class 41: Publishing and reporting; Education, entertainment and sports.

Class 42: Design services; IT services.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 803 902 is rejected for all the above services. It may proceed for the remaining services.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS:

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the services of European Union trade mark application No 14 803 902, namely all the services in Classes 41 and 42. The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

• European Union trade mark registration No 2 272 904, the word mark ‘NME’

• United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 004 566, the word mark ‘NME’

• United Kingdom trade mark registration 2 136 525, the word mark ‘NME’

The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) 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:

EUTM No 2 272 904

Class 9: Computer software and computer programs; video and audio tapes, cassettes, discs and records; read only memory; magnetic data carriers; CD-Roms; inter-active CDs; video CDs; DVDs; computer peripherals; information stored in or on electronic magnetic and/or optical means; printed publications in electronic form supplied on-line from a database or from facilities provided on the Internet or other networks.

Class 16: Printed publications, magazines, instructional and teaching material, playing cards, stationery.

Class 35: Advertising; marketing, business and promotional services; bringing together for the benefit of others a variety of advertisements to enable customers to conveniently view or purchase those goods and services from a printed publication or from a web-site or through television or other electronic media; information and advisory services relating thereto.

Class 41: Entertainment services; cultural and sporting events; music events, live events; booking agency services; organisation of competitions and award ceremonies; provision of record reviews; publishing services, e-publishing services, provision of information by electronic means including the Internet; arranging and conducting of conferences, conventions and exhibitions; production, presentation, distribution, syndication, networking and rental of television and radio programmes and of films and video recordings; provision of radio and television entertainment services; library services; information relating to music, live events, recordings; information and advisory services relating to all the aforesaid services.

UKTM No 2 004 566

Class 9: Recorded tapes, discs and cassettes; read only memories recorded on compact disc; computer software and computer programs.

Class 16: Printed publications and periodicals.

Class 41: Computer-based storage and retrieval of information; all relating to music and musical entertainments.

UKTM No 2 136 525

Class 35: Advertising and promotion services and information services relating thereto.

Class 41: Entertainment, education and instruction by or relating to radio and television; production, presentation, distribution, syndication, networking and rental of television and radio programmes and of films and video recordings; publishing services including electronic publishing; information and advisory services relating to any of the above.

The contested services are the following:

Class 41: Publishing and reporting; Education, entertainment and sports.

Class 42: Design services; IT services; Science and technology services; Testing, authentication and quality control.

The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first compare the goods and services covered by the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 2 272 904.

Contested services in Class 41

Publishing and entertainment identically appear on both lists.

Sports services include the opponent’s sporting events which cannot be filtered from the applicant’s broad categories: they are identical.

Reporting services are similar to the opponent’s publishing services. The services coincide in their purpose of reporting news or other events of general interest, they can be provided by the same undertakings and target the same public.

Education services are similar to the opponent’s arranging and conducting of conferences, conventions and exhibitions. The purpose, namely training and developing knowledge, skills, mind, character is the same, the services can be expected to be provided by the same providers, and to the same public.

Contested services in Class 42

Design services, IT services include design and development of the opponent’s computer software, because services to develop such software cannot be filtered ex officio from the broad categories of the contested services.

Design and development of software consists, inter alia, of the process of writing source code (judgment of 29/03/2012, T-417/09, Mercator Studios, EU:T:2012:174 § 26), and software is a set of coded instructions that enables a machine, especially a computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations. Software is composed of programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation.

Therefore, design and IT services are, in general terms, closely linked to the opponent’s computer software. This is because in the field of computer science, producers of software will also commonly provide software-related services.

Consequently, and in spite of the fact that the nature of the goods and services is not the same, both the end users and the producers/providers of the goods and services coincide. Furthermore, they are goods and services that are complementary. For these reasons these goods and services are considered similar.

At the same time, the contested science and technology services; testing, authentication and quality control are dissimilar to the goods and services of the opponent. These services are related to scientific research, technological development, processes or systems used to identify characteristics or problems, or to check that goods or services are of an acceptable standard. These services are usually performed by companies specialising in these specific domains, often with a scientific background, and developing and testing products for various undertakings. Therefore they have nothing in common with the opponent’s IT goods, publications, teaching materials, advertising, entertainment, cultural, and sporting services. The goods and services differ in nature, producers, distribution channels, and they are not complementary either.

These goods are also dissimilar to the goods and services of the earlier United Kingdom trade mark registrations, given that they cover the same or more limited goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42.

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 and services found to be identical or similar are mainly directed at the public at large, while the IT goods or related services can also target business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise.

The degree of attention will vary from average to high, the latter in the case of professional customers who seek goods and services for the smooth running of their business.

3. The signs

NME	INME
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).

Conceptually, in principle, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public and therefore the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs. However, it cannot be excluded that the English-speaking relevant public will perceive the contested sign consisting of the words ‘in’ and ‘me’, in which case the signs are conceptually not similar.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the letter sequence ‘NME’ and only differ in the additional letter ‘I’ of the contested sign. If a concept is discovered in the contested sign, it will be pronounced as ‘IN-ME’. If not, the signs are likely to be spelt out as acronyms, i.e. N-M-E and I-N-M-E. Therefore, the signs coincide in all the three letters of the earlier sign, which correspond to even more coinciding sounds if the signs are pronounced as acronyms. The only difference between the signs lays in the letter/sound ‘I’ of the contested sign.

Therefore the signs are visually and aurally highly similar.

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 at this stage (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 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.

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 in the unlikely event a concept is discovered in the contested mark, that mark contains the entire earlier mark with the simple addition of the letter ‘I’. This difference is clearly insufficient to counteract the similarities and thereby exclude a likelihood of confusion.

This finding also applies to the highly attentive consumers who also need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T‑443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, §  54).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the services found to be identical or similar 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.

Since the opposition is partially 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 its reputation as claimed by the opponent, at least insofar as it related to Article 8(1) EUTMR. The result would be the same both in relation to the similar services as well as in relation to dissimilar services even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

The examination of the opposition will nonetheless proceed, as far as the dissimilar services are concerned, with the examination of the other ground invoked, i.e. Article 8(5) EUTMR.

REPUTATION – ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met.

• The signs must be either identical or similar.

• The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.

• Risk of injury: the use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The abovementioned requirements are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR (16/12/2010, T‑345/08, & T‑357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). However, the fulfilment of all the abovementioned conditions may not be sufficient. The opposition may still fail if the applicant establishes due cause for the use of the contested trade mark.

In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have due cause for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no due cause exists.

1. The signs

The signs have already been compared above under the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. Reference is made to those findings, which are equally valid for Article 8(5) EUTMR.

2. Reputation of the earlier trade mark

According to the opponent, the earlier trade marks have a reputation in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Reputation implies a knowledge threshold which is reached only when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services it covers. The relevant public is, depending on the goods or services marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public.

In the present case the contested trade mark was filed on 17/11/2015. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade marks on which the opposition is based have acquired a reputation in the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the goods and services for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely:

EUTM No 2 272 904

Class 9: printed publications in electronic form supplied on-line from a database or from facilities provided on the Internet or other networks.

Class 16: Printed publications, magazines, instructional and teaching material.

Class 35: Advertising; marketing, business and promotional services; bringing together for the benefit of others a variety of advertisements to enable customers to conveniently view or purchase those goods and services from a printed publication or from a web-site or through television or other electronic media; information and advisory services relating thereto.

Class 41: Entertainment services; cultural and sporting events; music events, live events; booking agency services; organisation of competitions and award ceremonies; provision of record reviews; publishing services, e-publishing services, provision of information by electronic means including the Internet; arranging and conducting of conferences, conventions and exhibitions; production, presentation, distribution, syndication, networking and rental of television and radio programmes and of films and video recordings; provision of radio and television entertainment services; library services; information relating to music, live events, recordings; information and advisory services relating to all the aforesaid services.

UKTM No 2 004 566

Class 16: Printed publications and periodicals.

Class 41: Computer-based storage and retrieval of information; all relating to music and musical entertainments.

UKTM No 2 136 525

Class 35: Advertising and promotion services and information services relating thereto.

Class 41: Entertainment, education and instruction by or relating to radio and television; production, presentation, distribution, syndication, networking and rental of television and radio programmes and of films and video recordings; publishing services including electronic publishing; information and advisory services relating to any of the above.

In order to determine the mark’s level of reputation, all the relevant facts of the case must be taken into consideration, including, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.

On 07/09/2016 the opponent submitted evidence to support this claim. As the opponent requested to keep certain commercial data contained in the evidence confidential vis-à-vis third parties, the Opposition Division will describe the evidence only in the most general terms without divulging any such data. This will not affect the presentation of information which is otherwise publicly available. The evidence consists of the following documents:

• Witness statement of the general manager of the opponent, setting out the history of the NME music and entertainment magazine, dating back to 1952. The witness statement gives substantial figures for weekly circulation of the NME magazine, advertising revenue figures, amounts spent on marketing and advertising, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram followers. The statement also mentions the ‘NME Awards’, a music awards event, and a website existing since 1990.

• Covers of the magazine ‘New Musical Express’, later on abbreviated as NME, dating back to 1977

• Article from ‘The Economist’ dated 07/07/2015, including the following information: ‘At its height, it would regularly sell over a quarter of a million copies; now circulation has fallen to fewer than 15,000. So there was much lamentation, though little surprise, when the magazine’s publishers announced this week that it was to cease selling NME. Instead the magazine is to be converted it into a freesheet, to be thrust onto passers-by. For all the ignominy of that announcement, its place in the social history of Britain is assured. It was first published in 1952. ‘

• Article from ‘The Guardian’ dated 26/02/2012 with the title: NME: 60 years of rock history

• Book cover ‘In Their Own Write: Adventures in the Music Press’ mentioning in its introduction: ‘Since its early 70s overhaul and co-option of the best that underground press had to offer, the NME became a mandatory read for anyone with an eye on popular culture’

• Book cover ‘The History of the NME’

• Article from http://noisey.vice.com about NME

• Wikipedia article of ‘NME’ the ‘NME Awards’, first awarded in 1953, the ‘NME Awards Tour’ with tour dates in the United Kingdom and pictures of famous musicians taken in front of a background showing ‘NME Awards’ and ‘NME Awards Tour’ in different years in 2011-2016.

• Surveys showing substantial figures for print distribution, online visitors, social media, distribution maps in the UK, audience breakdown.

The abovementioned evidence indicates that the earlier trade mark ‘NME’ has been used for a substantial period of time.

The evidence attests to the fact that the ‘NME’ magazine has had a solid market presence during decades, and even despite being converted into a free magazine, it continues to enjoy recognition, at least in the United Kingdom. The figures on print distribution and the distribution system in the UK suggest that the trade mark has a consolidated position in the UK market.

As for the rest of the European Union, no specific evidence has been submitted. Figures on Twitter and Facebook followers are not reliable indicators as it is unclear what percentage of these followers are within the European Union. The same applies to the number of website visits, which in the absence of further information cannot be limited to the European Union.

Under these circumstances, the Opposition Division finds that, taken as a whole, the evidence indicates that the earlier trade mark enjoys a certain degree of recognition among the relevant public in the United Kingdom, which leads to the conclusion that the earlier trade mark enjoys some degree of reputation in the country. Whether the degree of recognition is sufficient for Article 8(5) EUTMR to be applicable depends on other factors relevant under Article 8(5) EUTMR such as, for example, the degree of similarity between the signs, the inherent characteristics of the earlier trade mark, the type of goods and services in question, the relevant consumers, etc.

However, the evidence does not succeed in establishing that the trade mark has a reputation for all the goods and services on which the opposition is based and for which reputation has been claimed. The evidence, in particular the affidavit, the newspaper articles, the surveys and the photos mainly relate to the following goods and services:

Class 9: Printed publications in electronic form supplied on-line from a database or from facilities provided on the Internet or other networks.

Class 16: Printed publications and periodicals.

Class 41: Music events, live events; organisation of award ceremonies.

At the same time, there is no or little reference to the remaining goods and services.

3. The ‘link’ between the signs

The opponent claims that there is a link between the contested mark and the opponent’s marks. This claim needs to be assessed in the context of the services which have been found dissimilar, science and technology services; testing, authentication and quality control in Class 42.

In order to establish the existence of a risk of injury, it is necessary to demonstrate that, given all the relevant factors, the relevant public will establish a link (or association) between the signs. The necessity of such a ‘link’ between the conflicting marks in consumers’ minds is not explicitly mentioned in Article 8(5) EUTMR but has been confirmed in the judgments of 23/10/2003, C‑408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29 and 31, and of 27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 66. It is not an additional requirement but merely reflects the need to determine whether the association that the public might establish between the signs is such that either detriment or unfair advantage is likely to occur after all of the factors that are relevant to the particular case have been assessed.

Possible relevant factors for the examination of a ‘link’ include (27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 42):

 the degree of similarity between the signs;

 the nature of the goods and services, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant public;

 the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation;

 the degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use;

 the existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

This list is not exhaustive and other criteria may be relevant depending on the particular circumstances. Moreover, the existence of a ‘link’ may be established on the basis of only some of these criteria.

The establishment of such a link, while triggered by similarity (or identity) between the signs, requires that the relevant sections of the public for each of the goods and services covered by the trade marks in dispute are the same or overlap to some extent.

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union,

It is therefore conceivable that the relevant section of the public as regards the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered is completely distinct from the relevant section of the public as regards the goods or services for which the later mark was registered and that the earlier mark, although it has a reputation, is not known to the public targeted by the later mark. In such a case, the public targeted by each of the two marks may never be confronted with the other mark, so that it will not establish any link between those marks.

(27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 48.)

The Court of Justice has also noted,

… that certain marks may have acquired such a reputation that it goes beyond the relevant public as regards the goods or services for which those marks were registered. In such a case, it is possible that the relevant section of the public as regards the goods or services for which the later mark is registered will make a connection between the conflicting marks, even though that public is wholly distinct from the relevant section of the public as regards goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered.

(27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 51 and 52.)

In the present case, the contested science and technology services concern researching and implementing scientific and technology solutions, for example developing new products or services by scientists or engineers, for other industry participants.

Testing, authentication and quality control refer to the activity of checking that the goods or services are of an acceptable standard, provided to businesses or other organisations that produce goods or render services.

At the same time, the earlier trade mark was found to have a reputation among the general public, and especially those interested in music and musical events.

While the relevant section of the public for the goods or services covered by the conflicting marks overlaps to some extent since the goods and services covered by the earlier mark address the public at large, the industry sector for the services is so different that the later mark is unlikely to bring the earlier mark to the mind of the public when seeking the relevant services.

The huge differences in usage between the goods and services in dispute and the goods and services for which a reputation has been proven make it very unlikely that the public will make a link between the signs in dispute, which is essential for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and for unfair advantage to be taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. It is even less likely that, when seeking scientific, technological, testing and control services, the relevant public will link these services to a trade mark that is very well known, but in the music industry.

Therefore, taking into account and weighing up all the relevant factors of the present case, the Opposition Division concludes that it is unlikely that the relevant public will make a mental connection between the signs in dispute, that is to say, establish a ‘link’ between them, as far as the dissimilar services are concerned.

4. Risk of injury

It is also worth noting that, in respect of the contested dissimilar services, the opponent failed to establish that detriment or unfair advantage is probable, in the sense that it is foreseeable in the ordinary course of events.

For that purpose, the opponent should have filed evidence, or at least put forward a coherent line of argument demonstrating what the detriment or unfair advantage would consist of and how it would occur, that could lead to the prima facie conclusion that such an event is indeed likely in the ordinary course of events.

This is confirmed by Rule 19(2)(c) EUTMIR, which establishes that if the opposition is based on a mark with a reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR, the opponent must submit evidence showing that the mark has a reputation, as well as evidence or arguments demonstrating that use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

Although detriment or unfair advantage may be only potential in opposition proceedings, a mere possibility is not sufficient for Article 8(5) EUTMR to be applicable. While the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark, it must ‘adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment’ (06/07/2012, T‑60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).

In the present case, the opponent claimed that the use of a mark that is so similar to the trade mark ‘NME’ “is sure to bring to mind the well known magazine title and events promoter, especially if used in respect of the services of the application. By giving the impression linked to the opponent’s family of marks, being a brand extension of it, the applicant will secure a clear and unfair advantage including increased sales. In particular it will benefit from sales due to the erroneous assumption that the goods are of the same quality as, or otherwise associated with the opponent. This takes advantage of the significant marketing efforts of the opponent, in creating a family of brands known for high quality.”

The opponent, in short, treats the risk of securing an unfair advantage as an unavoidable effect of the similarity of the signs and the alleged reputation of the earlier trade marks. However, in the present case, there seems to be no good reason to assume that use of the contested trade mark will result in any such events occurring, particularly since the remaining dissimilar services concern a distinct market sector aiming at businesses and industry players. The opponent did not present any arguments which would lead to the conclusion that in the ordinary course of events unfair advantage would be likely to occur even where the services target specialised professional industry participants. Although potential detriment or unfair advantage cannot be completely excluded, this is insufficient, as seen above.

As seen above, it is very unlikely, as far as the dissimilar services are concerned, that there could be a link between the contested mark and the opponent’s mark. Nor could it be established, with respect to these services, that use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade marks as required by Article 8(5) EUTMR. Consequently, the opposition must be rejected as not well founded under Article 8(5) EUTMR as far as the following contested services are concerned: science and technology services; testing, authentication and quality control.

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

Cynthia DEN DEKKER

Marianna KONDAS

Julie GOUTARD

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.