OPPOSITION Nо B 2 818 642

Primitivo Roig Jornet, C/Don Juan de Austria nº 4, 1-1, 46002 Valencia, Spain (opponent), represented by Kapler, Calle Orense, 10, 12º D, 28020 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Montecristo International Investments, S.A.R.L., 11a, Boulevard Joseph II, 1840 Luxembourg, Luxembourg (applicant), represented by Fernando Antas da Cunha, Av. Fontes Pereira de Melo, Nº 6, 2.º Andar, 1050‑121 Lisboa, Portugal (professional representative).

On 08/06/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 818 642 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 3: All the goods in this class.

Class 5: Dental abrasives; adhesives for dentures; adhesives for dental use; adhesives for dental and dentistry use; corrosive agents for the surface treatment of teeth; sealing agents for dental purposes; orthodontic alginate impression materials; orthodontic alginate for dental impressions; dental amalgams; dental amalgams of gold; dental anaesthetics; antimicrobial clay; rubber for dental purposes; dental wax for the preparation of dental moulds; dental wax; dental impression materials; molding wax for dentists; ceramics for use in the reconstruction of dentures; ceramics for the construction of dentures; dental ceramics; dental cement; dental cement for fillings; medicated mouthwash; cements for dental prostheses; medicated anti-cavity mouthwashes; antimicrobial mouthwashes; antiseptic mouthwashes; dental composite materials; dental restoration compounds; abrasive pads for dental purposes; mouthwashes for medical purposes; medicated dental rinses; dental veneers for use in dental restoration; abrasive fluids for dental use; gases for dental use; gypsum for dental purposes; medicated brush-on oral care gels; conductive lacquers for dental use; dental lacquer; bandages for the oral cavity; ceramic alloys used in dental crowns; alloys of precious metals for dental purposes; dental alloys; metal alloys for dental use; dental mastics; ceramic materials for dental use for fillings; bonding and primer materials for dental purposes; fixing materials for dental purposes; embedding material for dental use; dental porcelain materials; lining materials for dental purposes; materials for artificial teeth; materials for oral prophylaxis; materials for tooth restoration; synthetic materials for dental use for fillings; dental ceramic material; material for dental prostheses; material for repairing teeth; denture base materials; porcelain materials for use in dentistry; dental materials for stopping the teeth; dental materials for duplicating models of teeth; dental materials for making models of teeth; teeth filling material; cleaners [preparations] for sterilising dental instruments; pharmaceutical preparations for dental use; dental preparations for disclosing plaque; porcelain for dental prostheses; dental stone; dental blanks; shaped metals for dentistry; material for dental bridges; material for dental crowns; dental impression materials; medicated mouth care preparations; preparations to facilitate teething; mouth cavity cleansers; medicated mouth treatment preparations; dental rinse; dental polish; colouring reagents for detecting dental plaque; dental resin for temporary bridges, crowns and veneers; dental resins; synthetic resins for use in dentistry; metal primers for dental purposes; fissure sealants for dental use; fissure sealant for dental and dental technical purposes; mouth sprays for medical use; dental varnishes for sealing teeth.

Class 44: All the services in this class.

REASONS

On 15/12/2016, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 15 806 111 (figurative mark). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 15 173 248 (figurative mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.

a) The goods and services

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

Class 16: Educational, promotional or advertising publications; books, magazines and pamphlets.

Class 41: Training; provision of training courses; providing of training in business management, arranging and conducting of colloquiums, conferences, congresses, seminars, symposiums and training workshops, teaching academies, cultural activities, publication of books and texts.

Class 44: Dentistry; dental clinics; dentistry, consultancy relating to dentistry; hygienic and beauty care for human beings.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 3: Oral hygiene preparations; breath freshening sprays; solid toothpaste tablets; sets of cosmetic oral care products; dentifrices and mouthwashes; liquid dentifrice; dentifrice; non-medicated dentifrices; dentifrices in the form of chewing gum; mouthwash; breath freshening strips; teeth whitening strips; tooth gel; dental bleaching gels; teeth cleaning lotions; breath fresheners in the form of chew sticks made from birchwood extracts; toothpaste; toothpaste in soft cake form; medical toothpastes; non-medicated toothpaste; moistened tooth powder; tooth powder; dentifrice powder; tooth care preparations; cosmetic preparations for the care of mouth and teeth; disclosing tablets for personal use in indicating tartar on the teeth; denture polishes; dental care preparations for animals; preparations for cleaning dentures; mouthwashes, not for medical purposes; tooth cleaning preparations; tooth polish; mouth [breath] fresheners, not for medical use; breath fresheners; teeth whitening strips impregnated with teeth whitening preparations [cosmetics]; non-medicated mouth sprays; mouth sprays, not for medical use; throat sprays [non-medicated].

Class 5: Dental abrasives; adhesives for dentures; adhesives for dental use; adhesives for dental and dentistry use; corrosive agents for the surface treatment of teeth; sealing agents for dental purposes; orthodontic alginate impression materials; orthodontic alginate for dental impressions; dental amalgams; dental amalgams of gold; dental anaesthetics; antimicrobial clay; rubber for dental purposes; dental wax for the preparation of dental moulds; dental wax; dental impression materials; molding wax for dentists; ceramics for use in the reconstruction of dentures; ceramics for the construction of dentures; dental ceramics; dental cement; dental cement for fillings; medicated mouthwash; cements for dental prostheses; medicated anti-cavity mouthwashes; antimicrobial mouthwashes; antiseptic mouthwashes; dental composite materials; dental restoration compounds; abrasive pads for dental purposes; mouthwashes for medical purposes; medicated dental rinses; dental veneers for use in dental restoration; abrasive fluids for dental use; gases for dental use; gypsum for dental purposes; medicated brush-on oral care gels; in vitro gender prediction test kit; conductive lacquers for dental use; dental lacquer; bandages for the oral cavity; ceramic alloys used in dental crowns; alloys of precious metals for dental purposes; dental alloys; metal alloys for dental use; dental mastics; ceramic materials for dental use for fillings; bonding and primer materials for dental purposes; fixing materials for dental purposes; embedding material for dental use; dental porcelain materials; lining materials for dental purposes; materials for artificial teeth; materials for oral prophylaxis; materials for tooth restoration; synthetic materials for dental use for fillings; dental ceramic material; material for dental prostheses; material for repairing teeth; denture base materials; porcelain materials for use in dentistry; dental materials for stopping the teeth; dental materials for duplicating models of teeth; dental materials for making models of teeth; teeth filling material; cleaners [preparations] for sterilising dental instruments; pharmaceutical preparations for dental use; dental preparations for disclosing plaque; porcelain for dental prostheses; dental stone; dental blanks; shaped metals for dentistry; material for dental bridges; material for dental crowns; dental impression materials; medicated mouth care preparations; preparations to facilitate teething; mouth cavity cleansers; medicated mouth treatment preparations; dental rinse; dental polish; colouring reagents for detecting dental plaque; dental resin for temporary bridges, crowns and veneers; dental resins; synthetic resins for use in dentistry; metal primers for dental purposes; fissure sealants for dental use; fissure sealant for dental and dental technical purposes; mouth sprays for medical use; dental varnishes for sealing teeth.

Class 44: Human hygiene and beauty care; human healthcare services; dentistry; hiring of dental instruments; advice relating to dentistry; dental assistance; surgery; dental consultations; providing information relating to dentistry; mounting gemstones in dentures; cosmetic dentistry; advisory services relating to dental instruments; teeth whitening services; dental clinic services; dental hygienist services; orthodontic services; health assessment surveys.

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 3

The contested oral hygiene preparations; breath freshening sprays; solid toothpaste tablets; sets of cosmetic oral care products; dentifrices and mouthwashes; liquid dentifrice; dentifrice; non-medicated dentifrices; dentifrices in the form of chewing gum; mouthwash; breath freshening strips; teeth whitening strips; tooth gel; dental bleaching gels; teeth cleaning lotions; breath fresheners in the form of chew sticks made from birchwood extracts; toothpaste; toothpaste in soft cake form; medical toothpastes; non-medicated toothpaste; moistened tooth powder; tooth powder; dentifrice powder; tooth care preparations; cosmetic preparations for the care of mouth and teeth; disclosing tablets for personal use in indicating tartar on the teeth; denture polishes; dental care preparations for animals; preparations for cleaning dentures; mouthwashes, not for medical purposes; tooth cleaning preparations; tooth polish; mouth [breath] fresheners, not for medical use; breath fresheners; teeth whitening strips impregnated with teeth whitening preparations [cosmetics]; non-medicated mouth sprays; mouth sprays, not for medical use; throat sprays [non-medicated] are all various types of oral hygiene preparations. Therefore, they have some factors in common with the opponent’s dental clinics in Class 44. These goods and services have the same purpose (i.e. care, treatment and/or hygiene of mouth and/or teeth). They usually coincide in relevant public. Furthermore, they are complementary. Consequently, they are similar at least to a low degree.

Contested goods in Class 5

The contested dental abrasives; adhesives for dentures; adhesives for dental use; adhesives for dental and dentistry use; corrosive agents for the surface treatment of teeth; sealing agents for dental purposes; orthodontic alginate impression materials; orthodontic alginate for dental impressions; dental amalgams; dental amalgams of gold; dental anaesthetics; antimicrobial clay; rubber for dental purposes; dental wax for the preparation of dental moulds; dental wax; dental impression materials; molding wax for dentists; ceramics for use in the reconstruction of dentures; ceramics for the construction of dentures; dental ceramics; dental cement; dental cement for fillings; medicated mouthwash; cements for dental prostheses; medicated anti-cavity mouthwashes; antimicrobial mouthwashes; antiseptic mouthwashes; dental composite materials; dental restoration compounds; abrasive pads for dental purposes; mouthwashes for medical purposes; medicated dental rinses; dental veneers for use in dental restoration; abrasive fluids for dental use; gases for dental use; gypsum for dental purposes; medicated brush-on oral care gels; conductive lacquers for dental use; dental lacquer; bandages for the oral cavity; ceramic alloys used in dental crowns; alloys of precious metals for dental purposes; dental alloys; metal alloys for dental use; dental mastics; ceramic materials for dental use for fillings; bonding and primer materials for dental purposes; fixing materials for dental purposes; embedding material for dental use; dental porcelain materials; lining materials for dental purposes; materials for artificial teeth; materials for oral prophylaxis; materials for tooth restoration; synthetic materials for dental use for fillings; dental ceramic material; material for dental prostheses; material for repairing teeth; denture base materials; porcelain materials for use in dentistry; dental materials for stopping the teeth; dental materials for duplicating models of teeth; dental materials for making models of teeth; teeth filling material; cleaners [preparations] for sterilising dental instruments; pharmaceutical preparations for dental use; dental preparations for disclosing plaque; porcelain for dental prostheses; dental stone; dental blanks; shaped metals for dentistry; material for dental bridges; material for dental crowns; dental impression materials; medicated mouth care preparations; preparations to facilitate teething; mouth cavity cleansers; medicated mouth treatment preparations; dental rinse; dental polish; colouring reagents for detecting dental plaque; dental resin for temporary bridges, crowns and veneers; dental resins; synthetic resins for use in dentistry; metal primers for dental purposes; fissure sealants for dental use; fissure sealant for dental and dental technical purposes; mouth sprays for medical use; dental varnishes for sealing teeth are all various types of products used by dentists or their patients for dental treatments. Therefore, they have some factors in common with the opponent’s dental clinics in Class 44. These goods and services have the same purpose (i.e. care, treatment and/or hygiene of mouth and/or teeth). They usually coincide in relevant public. Furthermore, they are complementary. Consequently, they are similar at least to a low degree.

The contested in vitro gender prediction test kit are diagnostic tests that are used to predict the gender of an unborn child. They do not have any factors in common with the opponent’s services in Class 44 as these are either dental or hygienic and beauty care services. The contested services are very specific and differ in their nature, purpose, distribution channels, providers and method of use. Furthermore, they are neither in competition nor complementary. This also applies to the opponent’s remaining goods and services, which are various publications, books, magazines and pamphlets (Class 16) and training, cultural activities, and the publication of books and texts (Class 41). Bearing in mind the abovementioned criteria, they have also no factors in common with the applicant’s in vitro gender prediction test kit. Therefore, these contested goods are dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods and services.

Contested services in Class 44

The contested human hygiene and beauty care is a synonym for the opponent’s hygienic and beauty care for human beings. Therefore, they are identical.

The remaining contested services, namely human healthcare services; dentistry; hiring of dental instruments; advice relating to dentistry; dental assistance; surgery; dental consultations; providing information relating to dentistry; mounting gemstones in dentures; cosmetic dentistry; advisory services relating to dental instruments; teeth whitening services; dental clinic services; dental hygienist services; orthodontic services; health assessment surveys are identical to the opponent’s dental clinics, either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the opponent’s services include, are included in, or overlap with, the contested services.

b) 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 were found to be identical or similar to at least a low degree. Some of these target both the public at large and business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise (e.g. medical toothpastes in Class 3, medicated dental rinses in Class 5 and dentistry in Class 44) and some target solely business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise, such as dentists and dental assistants (e.g. dental amalgams of gold in Class 5 and hiring of dental instruments in Class 44).

The public’s degree of attentiveness may vary from average to high, depending on the price, specialised nature, or terms and conditions of the goods and services purchased. It should be noted that these goods or services, to varying degrees, affect human and animal health.

c) The signs

Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

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

The earlier mark is a figurative sign containing the verbal elements ‘SLOW’, ‘DENTISTRY’ and ‘ACADEMY’, written in fairly standard letters placed one above the other on three lines and justified to the right. They precede the letter ‘W’, which is black and placed inside a white square frame. The first two verbal elements and the letter ‘W’ are written in bold font and are slightly larger than the word ‘ACADEMY’. All the elements are in black apart from the ‘W’ in the verbal element ‘SLOW’, which is depicted in white inside a black square.

The contested sign is a figurative mark composed of the verbal elements ‘SLOW’, ‘DENTISTRY’, ‘primary’, ‘care’ and ‘clinics’, written in slightly stylised letters, and a depiction of a clock. They are all inside a square black background. The elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’ are placed one above the other on two lines. Likewise, preceding them, the verbal elements ‘primary’, ‘care’ and ‘clinics’ are depicted one above the other on three lines. The verbal elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’ are much larger than the elements ‘primary’, ‘care’, ‘clinics’. This mark’s elements are in white, black and light blue.

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 ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’, present in both signs, do not exist in some of the languages of the EU, for example in Polish. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the Polish-speaking part of the public.

These verbal elements have no meaning for the relevant public, at least for its vast majority. Therefore, they are distinctive.

The word ‘ACADEMY’ of the earlier mark, although it does not exist in Polish, can be associated with its Polish equivalent, namely ‘akademia’, which means ‘higher education institution’ or ‘official ceremony related to a specific feast’ (information extracted from Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN on 28/05/2021 at https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/akademia.html). This word, whether understood as indicated above or not, has no direct meaning for the relevant services and is, therefore, distinctive.

The verbal elements ‘primary’, ‘care’ and ‘clinics’ of the contested sign have no meaning for the relevant public, at least for the vast majority, and are, therefore, distinctive.

The depiction of the clock in the contested sign has no direct meaning for the goods and services concerned and is, consequently, distinctive. However, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T 312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). Therefore, its impact on the comparison is limited.

The verbal elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’ and the letter ‘W’, in the earlier mark are the co-dominant element as they are the most eye-catching.

The verbal elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’ and the depiction of a clock in the contested sign are the dominant elements as they are slightly more eye-catching than the smaller word ‘ACADEMY’ in the lowermost position.

The backgrounds and the slight stylisation of the letters in the contested sign play a marginal role in the comparison.

Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning (top) of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left (top) to right (bottom), which makes the part placed at the left (top) of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.

Visually, the signs coincide in the elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’. In both signs, these verbal elements are depicted one above the other. However, they differ in some verbal elements, namely ‘ACADEMY’ and the ‘W’ of the earlier mark, and in ‘primary’, ‘care’ and ‘clinics’ of the contested sign. The public will probably associate the letter ‘W’ as pertaining to the last letter of the element ‘SLOW’, as they are depicted very similarly. The contested sign contains a depiction of the clock, which is not shared by the earlier mark. They differ also in their backgrounds and the slight stylisation of the letters in the contested sign. In this sign, the colour blue is used as well as black and white.

Therefore, the signs, bearing in mind the above and the distinctiveness and dominance issues, are visually similar to an above-average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the verbal elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’, present identically in both signs as their co-dominant elements. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the word ‘ACADEMY’ and the letter ‘W’ of the earlier mark and the words ‘PRIMARY’, ‘CARE’ and ‘CLINICS’ of the contested sign.

However, consumers tend not to pronounce all the elements of signs because they take time to pronounce, especially when they are easily separable from the dominant element of the mark (18/09/2012, T‑460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 48). Therefore, the relevant public may not pronounce some of the verbal elements, namely the verbal element ‘ACADEMY’ and the letter ‘W’ of the earlier mark (because this letter is, due to its depiction, linked to the final letter of ‘SLOW’), and the elements ‘PRIMARY’, ‘CARE’ and ‘CLINICS’ of the contested sign, given their much smaller size.

Therefore, the signs, bearing in mind the above and the distinctiveness and dominance issues, are aurally at least similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. The public will perceive the depiction of a clock in the contested sign. It is irrelevant whether the public understands the meaning of the word ‘ACADEMY’ of the earlier mark (i.e. part of the public will perceive the meaning of the verbal element ‘ACADEMY’ and the rest of the public will not). As the signs will be associated with a dissimilar meaning, the signs are conceptually 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.

d) 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 his mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The appreciation of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, the association that can be made with the used or registered sign, and the degree of similarity between the trade mark, and the sign and between the goods or services identified. It must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18; 11/11/1997, C‑251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

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).

The goods and services are partly identical, partly similar at least to a low degree and partly dissimilar. They target professionals and the general public, whose degree of attention may vary from average to high. The earlier mark has a normal degree of distinctiveness. The signs are visually similar to an above-average degree and aurally at least similar to an average degree. Conceptually, the signs are not similar.

Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26). Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T‑443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54).

The earlier mark’s distinctive and dominant verbal elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’ are entirely incorporated in the contested sign where they play an independent, autonomous and distinctive role. In both signs, these elements are depicted one above the other and have therefore a similar structure. The signs differ in elements whose impact on the comparison is either limited or marginal and therefore do not overshadow the commonalities of the signs due to the common elements ‘SLOW’ and ‘DENTISTRY’. The Opposition Division is of the opinion that the similarities in the signs overweigh the differences.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on Polish-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 15 173 248. This is also applicable to the goods found only similar at least to a low degree, according to the interdependence principle mentioned above. 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.

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 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

Julia GARCÍA MURILLO

Michal KRUK

Chantal VAN RIEL

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.