OPPOSITION No B 2 696 733

CLS Capital GmbH & Co. KG, Krumme Str. 4, 38300 Wolfenbüttel, Germany (opponent), represented by Harmsen Utescher, Neuer Wall 80, 20354 Hamburg, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

FMTM Distribution Ltd., 3A and 3B Isle of Man Freeport, IM9 2AP Ballasalla, Isle Of Man (applicant), represented by Ingenias, Av. Diagonal 421, 2º, 08008 Barcelona, Spain (professional representative).

On 29/10/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 696 733 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 14: Horological instruments; watches; chronometric instruments; chronographs (watches); chronometers; apparatus for sports timing (stopwatches); clocks; movements for watches and clocks; components for watches and clocks; straps for wristwatches; watch bracelets; buckles for watchstraps; watch crowns; watch cases (components); watch springs; dials (clock- and watchmaking); hands for clocks and watches; watch glasses; parts and fittings for timepieces; cases for watches and clocks; cases for the display of timepieces (presentation); watch boxes; clock boxes; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for clocks; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for watches; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for jewelry, cufflinks and tie pins; precious stones; semi-precious stones; diamond [jewellery]; imitation precious stones; jewelry; semi-precious articles of bijouterie; jewelry ornaments; fashion jewellery; gem brooches; jewellery cases [caskets]; boxes for jewelry; jewel cases of precious metal; tie pins; cuff links; key fobs; boxes for cufflinks; boxes for tie-pins; boxes for key fobs [caskets]; cases for the display of jewelry, cufflinks, and tie pins; presentation boxes and cases adapted to contain and transport timepieces; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport jewelry; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport cufflinks, tie pins and key fobs.

Class 18: Leather straps; leather shoulder belts; pocket wallets; notecases; key cases; credit card cases; travelling sets (leather ware); travelling sets; luggage; travelling trunks; travelling bags; garment bags for travel; envelopes, of leather, for packaging; purses; leather cases; attaché cases; briefcases; suitcases; vanity cases (not fitted); make-up cases; credit card holders; bags made of leather; handbags; shopping bags; make-up bags; beach bags; sports bags; luggage tags; bags; pouches; leather or leather-board boxes; cases of leather or leatherboard.

Leather; leather (imitation -); leather straps; leather shoulder belts; pocket wallets; notecases; key cases; credit card cases; travelling sets (leather ware); travelling sets; luggage; travelling trunks; travelling bags; garment bags for travel; envelopes, of leather, for packaging; furniture (leather trimmings for -); trimmings of leather for furniture; umbrellas; parasols; purses; leather cases; attaché cases; briefcases; suitcases; vanity cases (not fitted); make-up cases; credit card holders; bags made of leather; handbags; shopping bags; make-up bags; beach bags; sports bags; luggage tags; furniture coverings of leather; bags; pouches; leather or leather-board boxes; cases of leather or leatherboard.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 939 706 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods of European Union trade mark application No 14 939 706 ‘KRYPTON’, namely against all the goods in Classes 14 and 18. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 13 519 582 ‘KRYPTON’ and German trade mark registration No 302 009 066 388 ‘KRYPTON’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (b), and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

SUBSTANTIATION - German trade mark registration No 302 009 066 388

According to Article 76 (1) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part, now Article 95(1) EUTMR), in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office is restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the relief sought.

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to submit the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.

In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark that is not a European Union trade mark, the opposing party must submit a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part).

In the present case, the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence as regards the earlier German trade mark registration 302 009 066 388 ‘KRYPTON’, on which the opposition is based.

On 02/06/2016 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the ending of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material. This time limit expired on 07/10/2016.

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the substantiation of the earlier trade mark.

According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded, as far as it is based on this earlier mark.

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.

a) The goods

The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 14: Bracelets; bracelets of precious metal; bracelets and watches combined; body-piercing rings; body-piercing studs; cufflinks; chains [jewellery, jewelry (am.)]; medallions; rings [jewellery, jewelry (am.)]; key chains as jewellery [trinkets or fobs]; ornaments [jewellery, jewelry (am.)]; anchors [clock- and watchmaking]; watches made of precious metals or coated therewith; watches made of precious metals; watches made of gold; watches for outdoor use; watches made of rolled gold; watches bearing insignia; watches containing an electronic game function; watches containing a game function; watches incorporating a telecommunication function; watches incorporating a memory function; clocks and watches; atomic clocks; watchstraps; chronographs; metal expanding watch bracelets; digital clocks; digital clocks incorporating radios; digital time indicators having temperature displays; digital watches with automatic timers; clocks and watches, electric; electronically operated movements for watches; digital clocks being electronically controlled; electronic alarm clocks; cases for watches and clocks; barrels [clock- and watchmaking]; floor clocks; women's watches; housings for clocks and watches; horological articles; apparatus for timing sports events; watchstraps made of leather; mechanical watches with automatic winding; mechanical watches with manual winding; mechanical watches; watches made of plated gold; quartz watches; jewellery, clocks and watches; buckles for watchstraps; sports watches; stopwatches; divers' watches; escapements; bracelets for watches; watch straps of synthetic material; watchbands that communicate data to smartphones; boxes for timepieces; timepieces; automobile clocks; watches that communicate data to smartphones; clocks for world time zones; clocks incorporating ceramics; horological instruments having quartz movements; clock cases; watch springs; watch crystals; watch crowns; parts for clockworks; clock hands [clock- and watchmaking]; pendant watches; timekeeping systems for sports; chronometric apparatus and instruments; apparatus for sports timing [stopwatches]; movements for clocks and watches; dials [clock- and watchmaking]; watch straps of nylon; sundials.

Class 18: Baggage.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 14: Precious metals; precious metal alloys; horological instruments; watches; chronometric instruments; chronographs (watches); chronometers; apparatus for sports timing (stopwatches); clocks; movements for watches and clocks; components for watches and clocks; straps for wristwatches; watch bracelets; buckles for watchstraps; watch crowns; watch cases (components); watch springs; dials (clock- and watchmaking); hands for clocks and watches; watch glasses; parts and fittings for timepieces; cases for watches and clocks; cases for the display of timepieces (presentation); watch boxes; clock boxes; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for clocks; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for watches; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for jewelry, cufflinks and tie pins; precious stones; semi-precious stones; diamond [jewellery]; imitation precious stones; jewelry; semi-precious articles of bijouterie; jewelry ornaments; fashion jewellery; gem brooches; jewellery cases [caskets]; boxes for jewelry; jewel cases of precious metal; tie pins; cuff links; key fobs; boxes for cufflinks; boxes for tie-pins; boxes for key fobs [caskets]; cases for the display of jewelry, cufflinks, and tie pins; presentation boxes and cases adapted to contain and transport timepieces; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport jewelry; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport cufflinks, tie pins and key fobs.

Class 18: Leather; leather (imitation -); leather straps; leather shoulder belts; pocket wallets; notecases; key cases; credit card cases; travelling sets (leather ware); travelling sets; luggage; travelling trunks; travelling bags; garment bags for travel; envelopes, of leather, for packaging; furniture (leather trimmings for -); trimmings of leather for furniture; umbrellas; parasols; purses; leather cases; attaché cases; briefcases; suitcases; vanity cases (not fitted); make-up cases; credit card holders; bags made of leather; handbags; shopping bags; make-up bags; beach bags; sports bags; luggage tags; furniture coverings of leather; bags; pouches; leather or leather-board boxes; cases of leather or leatherboard.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from 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 14

Horological instruments; watches; chronometric instruments; chronographs (watches); apparatus for sports timing (stopwatches); clocks; movements for watches and clocks; watch bracelets; buckles for watchstraps; watch crowns; watch cases (components); watch springs; dials (clock- and watchmaking); hands for clocks and watches; cases for watches and clocks; jewelry are identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).

The contested chronometers are included in the broad category of the opponent’s chronometric apparatus and instruments. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested components for watches and clocks; watch glasses; parts and fittings for timepieces are included in, or overlap with, the opponent’s parts for clockworks. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested straps for wristwatches are included in the broad category of the opponent’s watchstraps. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested cases for the display of timepieces (presentation); watch boxes; clock boxes; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for clocks; presentation boxes and cases made of leather for watches; presentation boxes and cases adapted to contain and transport timepieces are included in, or overlap with, the opponent’s cases for watches and clocks. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested semi-precious articles of bijouterie; jewelry ornaments; fashion jewellery; gem brooches; tie pins; cuff links; key fobs are included in the broad category of the opponent’s jewellery. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested presentation boxes and cases made of leather for jewelry, cufflinks and tie pins; jewellery cases [caskets]; boxes for jewelry; boxes for cufflinks; boxes for tie-pins; boxes for key fobs [caskets]; cases for the display of jewelry, cufflinks, and tie pins; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport jewelry; presentation cases and cases adapted to contain and transport cufflinks, tie pins and key fobs; jewel cases of precious metal are similar to the opponent’s jewellery. They usually coincide in producer, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested precious stones; semi-precious stones; diamond [jewellery]; imitation precious stones are similar to the opponent’s jewellery. They usually coincide in producer, relevant public and distribution channels.

The contested precious metals; precious metal alloys are dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in Classes 14. The contested goods are also dissimilar to the opponent’s baggage in Class 18. The goods under comparison differ not only in their nature, purpose and method of use, but also they usually have different distribution channels, sales outlet and producers. Furthermore, they are not in competition.

Contested goods in Class 18

The opponent’s baggage means trunks, suitcases, etc., used in traveling. Its synonym is the word ‘luggage’.

The contested travelling sets (leather ware); travelling sets; luggage; travelling trunks; travelling bags; garment bags for travel; leather cases; bags made of leather; suitcases; bags; leather or leather-board boxes; cases of leather or leatherboard are identical to the opponent’s baggage, either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the opponent’s goods include, or overlap with, the contested goods.

The contested purses; attaché cases; briefcases; handbags; notecases; beach bags; sports bags are similar to the opponent’s baggage. They have the same purpose. They usually coincide in relevant public, producer and distribution channels.

The contested vanity cases (not fitted); make-up cases; make-up bags are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s baggage. These goods usually have the same producer, relevant public and distribution channels.

The contested pocket wallets; key cases; credit card cases; credit card holders; pouches; shopping bags; envelopes, of leather, for packaging are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s baggage. They have the same purpose. They usually coincide in producer and distribution channels.

The contested luggage tags are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s baggage. They usually coincide in producer, consumers and distribution channels. They can be also complementary.

The contested leather straps; leather shoulder belts are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s baggage. They can coincide in producer and distribution channels.

The contested leather; leather (imitation -); furniture (leather trimmings for -); trimmings of leather for furniture; umbrellas; parasols; furniture coverings of leather are dissimilar to the opponent’s baggage in Class 18. The contested goods are also dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in Class 14. The goods under comparison differ not only in their nature, purpose and method of use, but also they usually have different distribution channels, sales outlet and producers. Furthermore, they are not in competition.

With regard to the comparison of goods in Class 18 the applicant refers to previous decisions of the Office to support its arguments (i.e. 27/03/2015, B 2 394 800, Luvanis). However, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions, as each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities.

This practice has been fully supported by the General Court, which stated that, according to settled case-law, the legality of decisions is to be assessed purely with reference to the EUTMR, and not to the Office’s practice in earlier decisions (30/06/2004, T‑281/02, Mehr für Ihr Geld, EU:T:2004:198).

Even though previous decisions of the Office are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should still be duly considered when deciding upon a particular case.

While the Office does have a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration, the way in which these principles are applied must be consistent with respect to legality. It must also be emphasised that each case must be examined on its own individual merits. The outcome of any particular case will depend on specific criteria applicable to the facts of that particular case, including, for example, the parties’ assertions, arguments and submissions. Finally, a party in proceedings before the Office may not rely on, or use to its own advantage, a possible unlawful act committed for the benefit of some third party in order to secure an identical decision.

In view of the above, it follows that, even if the previous decisions submitted to the Opposition Division are to some extent factually similar to the present case, the outcome may not be the same. Therefore, this argument of the applicant must be set aside.

b) The signs

KRYPTON	KRYPTON
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The signs are identical.

c) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The Court has stated that likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case; this appreciation depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the degree of recognition of the mark on the market, the association that the public might make between the two marks and the degree of similarity between the signs and the goods and services (11/11/1997, C 251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

The contested goods are partly identical, partly similar (to various degrees) and partly dissimilar. The signs are identical.

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).

In its observations, the applicant argues that it owns one registration with the word ‘KRYPTON’ (i.e. European Union trade mark registration No 15 412 935 ‘FRANCK MULLER KRYPTON’ for goods in Class 14), which coexists with the opponent’s earlier mark.

In its observations, the applicant argues that the opponent did not file an opposition with regard to the aforesaid trade mark. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the contested sign ‘is a continuation of the earlier “FRANCK MULLER KRYPTON”’.

According to case-law, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the coexistence of two marks on a particular market might, together with other elements, contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public (03/09/2009, C-498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82). In certain cases, the coexistence of earlier marks in the market could reduce the likelihood of confusion that the Office finds between two conflicting marks (11/05/2005, T-31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86). However, that possibility can be taken into consideration only if, at the very least, during the proceedings before the EUIPO concerning relative grounds for refusal, the applicant for the European Union trade mark duly demonstrated that such coexistence was based upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public between the earlier marks upon which it relies and the intervener’s earlier mark on which the opposition is based, and provided that the earlier marks concerned and the marks at issue are identical (11/05/2005, T‑31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86).

In this regard it should be noted that formal coexistence in national or Union registries of certain marks is not per se particularly relevant. It should also be proved that they coexist in the market, which could actually indicate that consumers are used to seeing the marks without confusing them. Last but not least, it is important to note that the Office is in principle restricted in its examination to the trade marks in conflict.

Only under special circumstances may the Opposition Division consider evidence of the coexistence of other marks in the market (and possibly in the register) at national/Union level as an indication of ‘dilution’ of the distinctive character of the opponent’s mark that might be contrary to an assumption of likelihood of confusion.

This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and such an indicative value should be treated with caution as there may be different reasons as to why similar signs coexist, e.g. different legal or factual situations in the past, or prior rights agreements between the parties involved.

Therefore, in the absence of convincing arguments and evidence thereof, this argument of the applicant must be rejected as unfounded.

The signs are identical and some of the contested goods (indicated above), as established above in section a) of this decision, are identical. Therefore, the opposition must be upheld according to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR for these goods. Furthermore, some contested goods (indicated above), as established above in section a) of this decision, were found to be similar (to various degrees) to those covered by the earlier trade mark. Given the identity of the signs, there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and the opposition is upheld also insofar as it is directed against these goods. The rest of the contested goods are dissimilar. As the 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 goods cannot be successful.

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 No 13 519 582 ‘KRYPTON’.

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 for 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: 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.

a) Reputation of the earlier trade mark

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark, that is, European Union trade mark registration No 13 519 582 ‘KRYPTON’, has a reputation in the European Union.

Reputation implies a knowledge threshold that 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 18/12/2015. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired a reputation in the European Union prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the goods for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely all the goods on which the opposition is based already listed above.

After examining the present case under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR the opposition is still directed against the following goods:

Class 14: Precious metals; precious metal alloys.

Class 18: Leather; leather (imitation -); furniture (leather trimmings for -); trimmings of leather for furniture; umbrellas; parasols; furniture coverings of leather.

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 03/05/2016 the opponent submitted the following evidence:

- a printout from the Internet presenting watches under the trade mark ‘KRYPTON’ available for sale on Amazon’s website. This evidence is undated. It is partly in English and partly in German, and the prices are given in Euro.

The evidence concerning reputation might include the following documents: invoices or other commercial documents, price lists, affidavits, catalogues, surveys, opinion polls, annual reports, turnover and sales figures, press cuttings, samples of products/packaging, advertisements, audits, certification and awards, offers made to potential clients and other documents confirming that the mark has been used on the market and is recognized by the public.

As listed above, the opponent submitted solely the aforesaid document. The evidence does not show the market share or any level of awareness of the relevant public. With regard to reputation, the opponent could have submitted more supporting documentation, for example, declarations made by independent parties attesting as to the reputation of the mark, verified or verifiable data as to the market share held, opinion polls and market surveys, certifications and awards, and other commercial documents, audits and inspections.

The Opposition Division finds that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark acquired a reputation.

As seen above, it is a requirement for the opposition to be successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR that the earlier trade mark has a reputation. Since it has not been established that the earlier trade mark has a reputation, one of the necessary conditions contained in Article 8(5) EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition must be rejected as far as this provision is concerned.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(3) 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 for only some of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Irina SOTIROVA

Michal KRUK

Loreto URRACA LUQUE

According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds for appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to have been filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.