OPPOSITION No B 2 740 341

Società Agricola La Raia S.S., Strada Monterotondo 79, 15067 Novi Ligure, Italy (opponent), represented by Pipparelli & Partners, Via Quadronno 6, 20122 Milano, Italy (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Horta de Gonçalpares - Sociedade Agricola Lda, Rua Outeiro Nº105, 6000 500 Cebolais de Cima, Castelo Branco, Portugal (applicant), represented by Alvaro Duarte & Associados, Avª Marquês de Tomar nº 44-6º, 1069-229 Lisboa, Portugal (professional representative).

On 19/06/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 740 341 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 33: Wine.

2. European Union trade mark application No 15 212 202 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

PRELIMINARY REMARK

As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431, subject to certain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from 14/05/2018, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 have been codified and repealed by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626.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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 212 202 ‘RAYA’. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 3 729 506 ‘LA RAIA’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PRELIMINARY REMARK ON A PARALLEL OPPOSITION CASE

It should be explained that, as indicated above, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 212 202 ‘RAYA’. However, on 19/01/2018 the Opposition Division issued a decision in the parallel opposition proceeding, that is, B 2 741 752 in which European Union trade mark application No 15 212 202 was rejected for some goods. As a result the application in question remains solely for olives, preserved (Class 29) and wine (Class 33). The opponent was informed by the Office about that fact and, in its letter of 17/05/2018, maintained its opposition in the present case.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or, where applicable, the date of priority 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 applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade mark on which the opposition is based, that is, European Union trade mark No 3 729 506 ‘LA RAIA’.

The date of filing of the contested application is 14/03/2016. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in the European Union from 14/03/2011 to 13/03/2016 inclusive.

The request was submitted in due time and is admissible given that the earlier trade mark was registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

Class 29: Meat, fish, poultry and games; meat extract; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams and compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (other than beers); wine, sparkling wine, liqueurs.

According to Article 10(3) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), 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 or services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 27/02/2017, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the Office gave the opponent until 02/05/2017 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 28/04/2017, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

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.

The evidence to be taken into account is the following:

Item 1: Copies of ‘LA RAIA’ labels for goods in class 33 (i.e. wine). They are dated 2012 (two samples), 2014 (four samples) and 2016 (one sample). Some of these labels are both in Italian and English. They also give indication as to the place of production, that is, ‘Prodotto in Italia’ which means ‘made in Italy’.

Item 2: Two copies of ‘LA RAIA’ wine catalogue, one in English and the other one in German. They mention that ‘La Raia … is one of 45 certified wineries in Italy’. The trade mark ‘LA RAIA’ appears, inter alia, on the first page and on labels put on some bottles of wine.

Item 3: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a magazine ‘CorrierEconomica’ dated 23/06/2014. According to this article ‘LA RAIA’ is a biodynamic farm recognized for the production of Gavi D.o.c.g.

Item 4: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a magazine ‘Bibenda’ dated 04/2015. The article mentions honey production at the ‘LA RAIA’ farm.

Item 5: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a website www.gnambox.com dated 09/06/2015. The article mentions production of wine, honey, cereals, vegetables and beef at the ‘LA RAIA’ farm.

Item 6: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a website www.cucchiaio.it dated 09/06/2015. It contains a picture of a label with the mark ‘LA RAIA’.

Item 7: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a website www.bibenda.it dated 14/11/2014. According to this article the farm ‘LA RAIA’ was established in 2003 and one of its products is a wine ‘LA RAIA Pise 2012’.

Item 8: Document in English entitled ‘Statement of use of EUTM LA RAIA no 003729506’ by Mr. Piero Rossi Cairo, a legal representative of Società Agricola LA RAIA S.S., stating that the mark ‘LA RAIA’ was put in genuine use within the entire European Union, during the relevant period, ‘for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (other than beers); wine, sparkling wine, liqueurs) and Class 29 (meat)’. Furthermore, the document discloses the related turnover and advertising investment in the European Union concerning the brand ‘LA RAIA’ in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Item 9: Excerpt of the opponent’s current website in English (www.la-raia.it/en). According to this document, ‘LA RAIA is a biodynamic farm’ specialized in the production and distribution of various types of wine, honey, cereals, vegetables and meat. It contains also representation of bottles of wine with labels showing the brand ‘LA RAIA’.

Item 10: Press article in Italian (partly translated into English) from a website www.wisesociety.it dated 12/02/2016. It contains a brief statement of the ‘LA RAIA’ farm’s owner: ‘we restarted the production of cereals and we have breeding beef cattle to improve crops; it has been two years since we started honey production’.

Items 11 and 11bis: Press articles in Italian (partly translated into English) from a newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ dated 27/06/2015. According to this article ‘at LA RAIA the entire production is certified biodynamic … last year they started the ‘PORTANATURA’ project, delivery service of vegetables, fruit, bread, meat, milk and derivate, edible oils, honey and preserve, jams and compotes, all produced according to a biodynamic principle. At LA RAIA they mainly produce wine’. The item 11bis is an excerpt of the opponent’s current website in English www.la-raia.it/en. It briefly describes the opponent’s ‘PRONATURA’ project.

Items 12-16: Invoices issued in the years 2011-2015 (at least several invoices for each of these years) by the opponent to various clients, mainly in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and France, but also in the Czech Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Latvia. They all are in Italian and contain some information on the price and the number of products sold. The invoices indicate names of the products, for example ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG 2011’, ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG PISE 2010’, ‘LA RAIA PIEMONTE BARBERA DOC 2011’ and ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG RISERVA 2010’.

Assessment of evidence

The evidence concerning proof of use may cover the following documents, for example: invoices, price lists, affidavits, catalogues, surveys, turnover and sales figures, press clippings, samples of products/packaging, advertisements, offers made to potential clients and other documents confirming that the mark was used genuinely on the market. The opponent submitted some of the aforesaid documents, such as invoices, catalogues, statement of use, labels and articles. It should be emphasised that the final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in the particular case.

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).

Place of use

The evidence shows that the place of use was the European Union as the products were sold to clients from various EU Member States. This can be inferred from the language (i.e. Italian, German and English) used in these materials and references to (places in) the following territories: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and France, the Czech Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Latvia. In this respect, the following documents should be referred to, for example: invoices, press articles and catalogues.

Time of use

Overwhelmingly the evidence relates to the relevant period. Although some of the aforementioned evidence bears no date (e.g. catalogues), they have to be considered in conjunction with the rest of the evidence, that is dated, since in the context of an overall assessment they may be relevant.

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 services 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 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.

Some of the documents (i.e. statement of use and invoices) pertain to the commercial volume achieved under the marks in question. They refer to the relevant territory, the relevant goods and the relevant period of time. The amount of at least part of the goods sold under the earlier mark is undoubtedly significant and comprises sales to various clients from the relevant territory.

Nature of use

In the context of Article 10(3) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the expression ‘nature of use’ includes evidence of use of the sign in accordance with its function, of use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof according to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, and of its use for the goods and services for which it is registered.

As regards the goods for which it is registered, the materials submitted, when assessed as a whole, show that the earlier mark was used in such a way as to establish a clear link between some of the goods, that is, wine, sparkling wine, and the earlier mark, since it can be concluded that the goods listed in the invoices marked as ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG 2011’, ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG PISE 2010’, ‘LA RAIA PIEMONTE BARBERA DOC 2011’ and ‘LA RAIA GAVI DOCG RISERVA 2010’ are the same as the goods seen in the submitted photographs, catalogues and articles.

In terms of the use of the mark in the form as registered (i.e. word mark ‘LA RAIA’), pursuant to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR, the following will also constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 1: use of the European Union trade mark in a form differing in elements that 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 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, Article 18 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 invoices submitted depict the earlier mark with some other verbal elements, for example ‘GAVI DOCG PISE 2010’. However given the nature of invoices and the goods in question it is normal that the trade mark is accompanied by other verbal elements that describe the goods sold. The earlier mark appears also in a figurative form, for instance and . In this case the earlier mark ‘LA RAIA’ is clearly recognisable. The addition of the figurative aspects (a blade of grass with a bird) as well as the stylisation of the letters are merely decorative and do not change the overall impression of the sign. Therefore, the sign used constitutes use of the mark as registered or in a form essentially the same as that registered and, therefore, it constitutes use of the earlier mark under Article 18 EUTMR.

According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, if the earlier trade mark has only been used in relation to part of the goods or services for which it is registered it shall, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services.

In the present case the evidence proves use only for wine; sparkling wine. In the articles submitted by the opponent there is only some information that the farm ‘LA RAIA’ produced also honey, cereals, vegetables and meat. However, the evidence does not contain any further information showing that these goods were marketed under the brand ‘LA RAIA’. Even in the ‘Statement of use’ it is mentioned that the opposed mark ‘has been used within the European Union, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (other than beers); wine, sparkling wine, liqueurs) and Class 29 (meat)’. It should be noted that the catalogues and invoices refer exclusively to different types of wine.

Overall assessment

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, the evidence submitted by the opponent is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier trade marks during the relevant period in the relevant territory for some of the goods for which it is registered.

According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, if the earlier trade mark has been used in relation to part only of the goods or services for which it is registered it shall, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services.

According to case-law, when applying the abovementioned provision the following should be considered:

…if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub category or sub categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong. However, 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.

Although the principle of partial use operates to ensure that trade marks which have not been used for a given category of goods are not rendered unavailable, it must not, however, result in the proprietor of the earlier trade mark being stripped of all protection for goods which, although not strictly identical to those in respect of which he has succeeded in proving genuine use, are not in essence different from them and belong to a single group which cannot be divided other than in an arbitrary manner. The Court observes in that regard that in practice it is impossible for the proprietor of a trade mark to prove that the mark has been used for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned by the registration. Consequently, the concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ cannot be taken to mean all the commercial variations of similar goods or services but merely goods or services which are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or sub categories. (14/07/2005, T 126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288).

In the present case, the evidence proves use only for wine, sparkling wine belonging to the following category in the specification: alcoholic beverages (other than beers); wine, sparkling wine, liqueurs of the earlier mark. As the opponent is not required to prove all the conceivable variations of the category of goods for which the earlier mark is registered and as the goods for which use has been proved (i.e. wine; sparkling wine) do not constitute a coherent subcategory within the broad categories in the specification to which they belong, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows genuine use of the earlier trade marks for the following goods:

Class 33: Wine; sparkling wine.

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

The goods on which the opposition is based and in relation to which use has been proven are the following:

Class 33: Wine; sparkling wine.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 29: Olives, preserved.

Class 33: Wine.

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 29

The contested olives, preserved are dissimilar to the opponent’s wine; sparkling wine. These goods are different in nature, purpose and method of use. They have distinct producers and commercial channels and they are neither in competition with each other nor complementary. The fact that they can be aimed at the same end users and be consumed together is not enough to render them similar.

Contested goods in Class 33

Wine is identically contained in both lists of goods.

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 are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is considered to be average.

3. The signs

LA RAIA	RAYA
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).

Both marks under comparison are word marks, namely ‘LA RAIA’ and ‘RAYA’. In the case of word marks, the word as such is protected and not its written form. Therefore, the use of upper or lower case letters is immaterial.

The unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C‑514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

The elements ‘LA’ and ‘RAYA’ are meaningful in certain territories, for example in those countries where French is understood. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the French-speaking part of the public.

The word element ‘LA’ of the earlier mark will be perceived by the relevant public as a definite female article in French. Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that it is non-distinctive and has no impact on the comparison. The word ‘RAIA’ of the earlier mark has no meaning in French and, therefore, it is distinctive for the relevant public.

The word ‘RAYA’ of the contested sign means in French ‘a subject of the Ottoman Empire (especially a non-Muslim) who is not a member of the ruling class’ (extracted from Larousse Dictionary on 13/06/2018 at www.larousse.fr). It should be however noted that in French it is used extremely rarely and most part of the French speaking public will perceive it as a fanciful word. In any case this word has no relationship to the goods in question and is therefore distinctive.

Visually, the signs coincide in ‘RA*A’. However, they differ in the first verbal element ‘LA’ of the earlier mark and the third letter in the words ‘RAIA’ of the earlier mark and ‘RAYA’ of the contested sign.

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

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘RA*A’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the syllable in the sound of the third letters in the words ‘RAIA’ of the earlier mark and ‘RAYA’ of the contested sign. It should be however noted that the pronunciation of the letters ‘Y’ and ‘I’ is also very similar. The signs differ also in the verbal element ‘LA’ of the earlier mark.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a high degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As the signs will be associated with a different meaning, the signs are conceptually dissimilar. With regard to this part of the relevant public who does not understand ‘RAYA’ of the contested sign, the marks in comparison are also not similar.

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

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal, despite the presence of a non‑distinctive element, that is ‘LA’, in the mark, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

5. 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 goods are partially identical and partially dissimilar and target the public at large whose degree of attention is average. The signs are visually similar to an average degree and aurally similar to a high degree for the relevant public. The signs are conceptually dissimilar for part of the public and conceptually not similar for the remaining part of the public. Furthermore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal.

Regarding their distinctive elements the signs coincide in their first two and their last letters, namely ‘RA*A’. In an overall assessment of all the relevant factors, it must be concluded that the differences between the marks cannot outweigh the visual and aural similarities arising from the coinciding letters. In particular, the existing conceptual differences for part of the public are not such as to enable the consumer to safely distinguish between the signs.

The applicant argues that the length of the signs may influence the effect of the differences between them. According to the applicant the shorter a sign, the more easily the public is able to perceive all of its single elements. The Opposition Division does not share this argument in the present case. The signs in comparison are not considered to be short as they have six and four letters respectively. Furthermore, as explained above, the letters ‘I’ and ‘Y’ will be pronounced very similarly. Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a high degree. In this context it should be borne in mind that the relevant goods are beverages and, since these are frequently ordered in noisy establishments (bars, nightclubs), the phonetic similarity between the signs is particularly relevant (see judgment of 15/01/2003, T 99/01, Mystery, EU:T:2003:7, § 48, which reflects this line of reasoning).

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).

Indeed, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer will perceive the contested mark as a sub-brand, a variation of the earlier mark, configured in a different way according to the type of goods or services that it designates (23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the French-speaking 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 3 729 506 ‘LA RAIA’. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be identical to those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested goods 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 goods cannot be successful.

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

Ana MUÑÍZ RODRÍGUEZ

Michal KRUK

Elena NICOLÁS GÓMEZ

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.