OPPOSITION No B 2 830 944

Société Immobilière Et Mobilière De Montagny, société par actions simplifiée, 5 rue du Fuyant, 42300 Roanne, France (opponent), represented by Mark & Law, 7, rue des Aulnes – Bâtiment B, 69410 Champagne au Mont d’Or, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

12 Seasons GmbH, Sonnenallee 223, 12059 Berlin, Germany (applicant), represented by Gail & Kollegen Rechtsanwälte, Bettinastraße 105/107, 63067 Offenbach am Main, Germany (professional representative).

On 08/06/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 830 944 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 18: Goods made of leather and imitations of leather, namely briefcases, beach bags, wallets, shopping bags, handbags, bags (game -) [hunting accessories], holdalls, backpacks, satchels, casual bags; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging; trunks and travelling bags.

Class 25: Clothing, in particular belts; footwear, in particular insoles; headgear.

2. European Union trade mark application No 15 981 921 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As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431, subject to certain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from 14/05/2018, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 have been codified and repealed by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626.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 15 981 921 . The opposition is based on international trade mark registration No 1 132 650 ‘EDJI’ designating the European Union and French trade mark registration No 11 3 880 373 ‘EDJI’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

SUBSTANTIATION

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 international trade mark registration designating the EU on which the opposition is based.

On 16/03/2017 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 21/07/2017.

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

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 earlier international registration No 1 132 650 designating the European Union. It will proceed on the basis of French trade mark registration No 11 3 880 373.

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 marks on which the opposition is based, including French trade mark No 11 3 880 373.

The date of filing of the contested trade mark is 28/10/2016.

Earlier trade mark No 11 3 880 373 was registered on 28/02/2014. Therefore, the request for proof of use is inadmissible.

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 are the following:

Class 9: Spectacles (optics); goggles for sports; sunglasses; anti-dazzle glasses; spectacle frames; chains for eyeglasses; spectacle cases; parts and accessories for eyeglasses; headphones; players for PC audio files; mobile telephones, earpieces for mobile telephones; cases especially made for photographic apparatus and instruments, for personal stereos, for mobile telephones; cases for spectacles; USB sticks namely peripheral memory units for computers.

Class 14: Jewelry articles; earrings; cuff links; boxes of precious metal; watch cases; bracelets (jewelry); watch straps; broaches (jewelry products); jewelry cases [caskets]; necklaces (jewelry); clocks; watches; wristwatches; medals; ornaments (jewelry); pearls (jewelry); key rings; alarm clocks; pins (jewelry).

Class 18: Traveling trunks; vanity cases (not fitted); trunks [luggage]; wallets; beach bags; sports bags; travelling bags; backpacks; handbags; garment bags for travel; travelling sets (leatherware); valises; briefcases.

Class 25: Clothing; footwear; headgear; bandanas (neckerchiefs); headbands (clothing); hosiery; pants; bathing trunks; caps (headwear); belts (clothing); hats; socks; shirts; short-sleeve shirts; tights; combinations (clothing); suits; neckties; scarves; furs (clothing); gloves (clothing); vests; raincoats; skirts; petticoats; singlets; bathing suits; coats; trousers; overcoats; parkas; dressing gowns; bath robes; pullovers; pajamas; dresses; tee-shirts; jackets; sashes for wear; clothing of leather; leather belts.

Class 35: Management of a reduction program through the distribution of coupons for the purchase of goods or services and issuing gift vouchers for advertising or commercial purposes; organization of business operations to obtain customer loyalty, namely by means of providing cards or coupons to privileged users; promotional offers, namely sales promotion for others by means of the sale of goods via catalogs on favorable terms to encourage consumer sales and loyalty, these products being clothing, footwear, perfumes, cosmetics, spectacles (optics), spectacle frames, spectacle cases, jewelry, watches, watchbands, cufflinks, bags, sports bags, briefcases, belts, travel bags (leatherware), throws, upholstery fabrics, curtains, rugs, furniture, decorative objects, works of art, boxes, cushions, picture frames, blinds, protective clothing for sports, covers for sports articles, bath linen (except clothing), bed linen, table linen and household linen; management of customer accounts comprising information on pre-paid cards, gift cards and other payment methods; sales promotion for others; presentation and demonstration of goods and services for promotional or advertising purposes; bringing together for the benefit of others (excluding the transport thereof) of goods in connection with clothing, leatherware, jewelry, household decoration, upholstery fabrics, bed linen, bath linen, table linen; retail sale, wholesale, home sale, telephone sale and online sale of goods, namely clothing, footwear, perfumes, cosmetics, spectacles (optics), spectacle frames, spectacle cases, jewelry, watches, watchbands, cufflinks, bags, sports bags, briefcases, belts, travel bags (leatherware), throws, upholstery fabrics, curtains, rugs, bath linen (except clothing), bed linen, table linen and household linen, furniture, decorative objects, works of art, boxes, cushions, picture frames, blinds, protective clothing for sports, covers for sports articles enabling consumers to select and purchase these goods based on information and advice in showrooms, retail stores, general catalogs, websites or on other electronic media; commercial information and advice for consumers; publicity material rental; advertising mail; shop window dressing; demonstration of goods; dissemination (distribution) of samples; arranging and conducting of exhibitions and shows for business purposes or for the general public, and of trade fairs for commercial or advertising purposes; organization and setting up of stands and paying areas for commercial or advertising events at exhibitions, fairs and shows for business purposes or for the general public, for commercial or advertising purposes; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; commercial administration of franchises; commercial or industrial management assistance; business advice, information and inquiries; advice on advertising, public relations, marketing, media and multimedia communication; rental of advertising time on communication media; rental of advertising space; advertising; on-line advertising on a computer network; public relations; drawing up of press lists; compilation of statistics; marketing studies; opinion polling; marketing research; administrative data banks; data search in computer files for others; collection, compilation and/or systemization of information into computer databases; novelty advertising agencies; newspaper subscriptions for others, electronic or non-electronic publication subscription services; news clipping services; modeling for advertising or sales promotion; business management in connection with hotels and in connection with providing food and drink at trade shows; hosting services at trade shows, for reception and business information purposes.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of leather and imitations of leather, namely briefcases, beach bags, wallets, shopping bags, handbags, bags (game -) [hunting accessories], holdalls, backpacks, satchels, casual bags; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips; harnesses; saddlery.

Class 25: Clothing, in particular belts; footwear, in particular insoles; headgear.

An interpretation of the wording of the list of goods and services is required to determine the scope of protection of these goods and services.

The term ‘in particular’, used in the applicant’s list of goods, indicates that the specific goods are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (09/04/2003, T‑224/01, Nu‑Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

However, the term ‘namely’, used in the applicant’s and opponent’s lists of goods and services to show the relationship of individual goods and services to a broader category, is exclusive and restricts the scope of protection only to the goods and services specifically listed.

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 18

Goods made of leather and imitations of leather, namely briefcases, beach bags, wallets, handbags, backpacks; trunks and travelling bags are identically contained in both lists of goods.

The contested goods made of leather and imitations of leather, namely shopping bags, casual bags, satchels overlap with the opponent’s handbags. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested goods made of leather and imitations of leather, namely bags (game -) [hunting accessories], holdalls and the opponent’s sports bags have the same nature and purpose. They can be produced by the same manufacturers and distributed through the same channels, and can target the same public. Furthermore, they can be in competition. Therefore, they are highly similar.

The contested bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging and the opponent’s briefcases have the same nature. They can be manufactured by the same producers and can target the same public. Furthermore, they have the same distribution channels. Therefore, they are similar.

Leather and imitations of leather; animal skins and hides in Class 18 refer to the skins of various kinds of animals (or imitations thereof). These are raw materials. The fact that one product is used for manufacturing another (for example, leather for footwear) is not sufficient in itself for concluding that the goods are similar, as their nature, purpose, relevant public and distribution channels may be quite distinct. The abovementioned raw materials in Class 18 are intended for use in industry rather than for direct purchase by the final consumer. They are sold in different outlets, are of a different nature and serve a different purpose from any of the opponent’s goods. These goods also have different natures and serve different purposes from the opponent’s services in Class 35. They do not have the same producers/service providers, they target different publics and they are not complementary or in competition. In addition, retail services consist in bringing together, and offering for sale, a wide variety of different products, thus allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs in one place. This is not the purpose of goods. Similarity between retail services of specific goods covered by one mark and specific goods covered by another mark can only be found where the goods involved in the retail services and the specific goods covered by the other mark are identical. This condition is not fulfilled in the present case, since the goods at issue, namely leather and imitations of leather; animal skins and hides are not identical to opponent’s goods and are not involved in opponent’s retail sale and wholesale services. Therefore, the contested leather and imitations of leather; animal skins and hides are dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods and services.

Umbrellas are devices for protection from the weather consisting of a collapsible, usually circular, canopy mounted on a central rod; parasols are light umbrellas carried for protection from the sun; walking sticks are canes or other staffs used as aids for walking; whips are instruments used for driving animals; harnesses are the gear or tackle with which a draft animal pulls a vehicle or implement; and saddlery is equipment for horses, such as saddles and harnesses. The nature of these goods is very different from that of the opponent’s goods in Classes 18, 25, 9 and 14. They serve very different purposes, such as storage, protection from rain/sun, assistance with walking, aid in the control and/or riding of horses. They do not usually have the same retail outlets and are not usually made by the same manufacturers. These goods are considered dissimilar. Moreover, the contested umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips; harnesses; saddlery are also dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 35. They have different natures and serve different needs. They do not have the same manufacturers/service providers, they target different consumers and they are not complementary or in competition. Furthermore, the opponent’s retail sale, wholesale, home sale, telephone sale and online sale of goods, namely clothing, footwear, perfumes, cosmetics, spectacles (optics), spectacle frames, spectacle cases, jewelry, watches, watchbands, cufflinks, bags, sports bags, briefcases, belts, travel bags (leatherware), throws, upholstery fabrics, curtains, rugs, bath linen (except clothing), bed linen, table linen and household linen, furniture, decorative objects, works of art, boxes, cushions, picture frames, blinds, protective clothing for sports, covers for sports articles enabling consumers to select and purchase these goods based on information and advice in showrooms, retail stores, general catalogs, websites or on other electronic media and the contested umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips; harnesses; saddlery are not similar. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. Retail services consist in bringing together, and offering for sale, a wide variety of different products, thus allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs at one stop. This is not the purpose of goods. Furthermore, goods and services have different methods of use and are neither in competition nor complementary. Similarity between retail services of specific goods covered by one mark and specific goods covered by another mark can only be found where the goods involved in the retail services and the specific goods covered by the other mark are identical. This condition is not fulfilled in the present case, since the goods at issue are not identical and are not involved in the retail services. The same principle applies to the opponent’s services bringing together for the benefit of others (excluding the transport thereof) of goods in connection with clothing, leatherware, jewelry, household decoration, upholstery fabrics, bed linen, bath linen, table linen. The opponent’s remaining services in Class 35 are even more different from the aforementioned contested goods. It follows that the contested umbrellas; parasols; walking sticks; whips; harnesses; saddlery are dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods and services.

Contested goods in Class 25

The wording of the contested clothing, in particular belts; footwear, in particular insoles indicates that ‘belts’ and ‘insoles’ are only examples of goods included in clothing and footwear. Since clothing and footwear are identically contained in both lists of goods, the contested clothing, in particular belts; footwear, in particular insoles are identical to the opponent’s clothing; footwear.

Headgear 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 or similar are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention varies from average to high depending on the price of the goods.

3. The signs

EDJI
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is France.

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 trade mark is a word mark consisting of word element ‘EDJI’. It has no meaning for the relevant public and its distinctiveness in relation to the goods is average.

The contested sign is a figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘BE EDGY’ in rather standard black upper case letters. Below it, there is the verbal element ‘BERLIN’ in smaller standard black upper case letters. There is a triangle on the left of the verbal element ‘BE EDGY’ and an inverted triangle on its right. The triangles are simple geometrical shapes; they are rather decorative in nature and of less trade mark significance.

The verbal element ‘BE EDGY’ is the most dominant element of the contested sign due to its size and position. It will be perceived by the relevant public as containing two components, of which ‘EDGY’ is a meaningless element and ‘BE’ will be perceived and understood by the relevant public as the English verb meaning ‘to be’, since it is a basic English word. As a whole, the verbal element ‘BE EDGY’ is not descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak in relation to the relevant goods and it is considered to have an average degree of distinctiveness.

The verbal element ‘BERLIN’ is the name of the capital city of Germany. The general public in Europe is familiar with the names of capital cities and therefore it could be perceived as indication of the geographical origin of the goods; its distinctiveness is therefore low.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘ED*’. However, they differ in the letters ‘*JI’ in the earlier trade mark and ‘BE *GY’ in the contested sign. They also differ in the verbal element ‘BERLIN’ and in the triangles in the contested sign, which have no counterparts in the earlier trade mark. However, the triangles are rather decorative in nature and of less trade mark significance, and the distinctiveness of the verbal element ‘BERLIN’ is low. The most dominant element in the contested sign is the verbal element ‘BE EDGY’, in which the component ‘BE’ will be understood by the relevant public and the component ‘EDGY’ is a meaningless verbal element; it is the most distinctive and differs from the earlier trade mark in its last two letters.

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

Aurally, the relevant public will pronounce the earlier trade mark, ‘EDJI’, and the component ‘EDGY’ of the contested sign identically. Therefore, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘EDJI’/‘EDGY’. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letters ‛BE’ and ‘BERLIN’ in the contested sign, which have no counterparts in the earlier trade mark; however, the distinctiveness of the word ‘BERLIN’ is low, since it may be perceived as an indication of the geographical origin of the goods, namely that the goods are from Berlin or Germany.

In its observations, the applicant refers to the judgment of 30/06/2004, T‑317/01, M+M EUROdATA, EU:T:2004:195; however, the signs in the present case are not comparable to those in the case cited. In the present case, the earlier trade mark is a one-word mark, which will be pronounced by the relevant public identically to one of the components of the contested sign. It does not contain any other element. The contested sign contains the word ‘BERLIN’, which has a low degree of distinctiveness and will be pronounced last, and the word element ‘BE’; although it will be pronounced first, it is a one-syllable word. The following element, ‘EDGY’, will be clearly heard and identifiable when referring to the contested sign and, moreover, it will be pronounced identically to the only word of the earlier trade mark.

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

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Although the public in the relevant territory will perceive the meanings of the elements of the contested sign as explained above, the other sign has no meaning for the relevant public. Since one of the signs will not be associated with any meaning, the signs are not conceptually 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 and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

According to settled case-law, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29). The likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 16). In addition, 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 signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree and conceptually not similar, since the earlier mark has no meaning. As explained above, the earlier trade mark is a one-word mark. The contested sign contains more elements; however, the triangles are rather decorative in nature and the word ‘BERLIN’ is in a secondary position and has a low degree of distinctiveness. The most distinctive element in the contested sign is the verbal element ‘BE EDGY’, and the component ‘EDGY’ plays a significant role in the overall impression created by the contested sign, since it is twice as long as the word ‘BE’ and the word ‘BE’ is used not alone but in combination with other words. The component ‘EDGY’ and the earlier trade mark, ‘EDJI’, both have similar structures: four letters and two syllables. The first two letters are identical and the differing letters, ‘GY’ versus ‘JI’, are very similar. Moreover, aurally, the verbal elements ‘EDGY’ and ‘EDJI’ will be pronounced identically.

Although the signs are conceptually not similar, the average degree of visual and aural similarity between the signs due to the similarity between the most distinctive and dominant element of the contested sign, ‘BE EDGY’, and the earlier trade mark, ‘EDJI’, and the identity or similarity (to various degrees) between the goods outweigh the lack of conceptual similarity.

The likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association, in the sense that the public may, if not confuse the conflicting signs directly, conclude that they designate different lines of products or services coming from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings. 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 public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s French trade mark registration.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be identical or similar (to various degrees) 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

Cristina CRESPO MOLTÓ

Birute SATAITE-GONZALEZ

Julie, Marie-Charlotte HAMEL

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.