OPPOSITION No B 3 021 568

Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG, Spitalgasse 3, 79713 Bad Säckingen, Germany (opponent), represented by Dompatent von Kreisler Selting Werner - Partnerschaft von Patentanwälten und Rechtsanwälten mbB, Deichmannhaus am Dom, Bahnhofsvorplatz 1, 50667 Köln, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Dentaid, S.L., Parc Tecnològic del Vallès, 08290 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain (applicant), represented by Ponti & Partners, S.L.P, C.Consell de Cent, 322, 08007 Barcelona, Spain (professional representative).

On 12/04/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 021 568 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2. European Union trade mark application No 17 494 601 is rejected in its entirety.

3. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 620.

REASONS

On 10/01/2018, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 17 494 601 ‘VITIS’ (word mark). The opposition is based on, inter alia, European Union trade mark registration No 8 199 523 ‘VITA’ (word mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

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 the European Union trade mark registration No 8 199 523 ‘VITA’.

For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will focus the analysis of the proof of use and later comparison of the signs on the earlier European Union trade mark registration No 8 199 523 ‘VITA’.

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.

The date of filing of the contested application is 17/11/2017. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark referred to above on which the opposition is, inter alia, based was put to genuine use in the European Union from 17/11/2012 to 16/11/2017 inclusive.

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

Class 5: Goods relating to dentistry, namely: chemical preparations for dental purposes, chemicals and soldering agents for dental purposes, dental ceramic for making dentures, glass powder for making dentures, disinfectants for dental purposes and for cleaning medical instruments; material for stopping teeth, in particular material, of ceramic or metal, for stopping teeth and artificial resin material for stopping teeth and temporary material for stopping teeth, dental cement, impression material for dental and dental technical purposes, in particular impression plaster, impression wax and plastic impression materials; artificial resins for dental purposes, varnishes and lacquers for dental purposes, in particular dental lacquer; wax for dental purposes; modelling compounds and modelling goods for dental purposes, cement and plaster for dental purposes; dental prosthetic materials, in particular metal-ceramic, all-ceramic.

According to Article 10(3) EUTMDR, 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 20/03/2020, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR, the Office gave the opponent until 25/05/2020 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 19/05/2020, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use. In addition, on 13/01/2020, within the time limit for substantiation and submission of further materials, the opponent submitted evidence to support its claim for reputation. As requested by the opponent in its observations, and given that the latter was submitted before the request for proof of use, the Opposition Division will also consider the initial evidence submitted for reputation in order to determine whether the earlier mark was put to genuine 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, inter alia, the following:

 Annex 1: a brochure in German dated 01/02/2015 entitled ‘90 years VITA’. The brochure includes the history of the ‘VITA’ brand, which began in 1920 in the field of artificial teeth. The document includes several references to the earlier mark as registered ‘VITA’ and as .

 Annex 5: a brochure in English dated September 2012, entitled ‘50 years of VITA metal ceramics – VMK’. The brochure includes the history of the ‘VITA’ brand, several references to the earlier mark ‘VITA’ and , and promotes its dental product range, such as ‘VITA VMK’, the first metal ceramic veneering system that was launched on the market in 1962, ‘VITA OMEGA’ or ‘VITA 3D-MASTER shade system’.

 Annexes 7, 26 and 27: product catalogues, including two in German entitled ‘VITA Kompendium’ dated July 2013 (Annex 7) and October 2017 (Annex 26), and one in English entitled ‘VITA Compendium’ dated February 2018 (Annex 27), showing the opponent’s products offered under the marks ‘VITA’ and , and accompanied by other specifications (e.g. ‘VITA AKZENT’ ‘VITAFOHL’, ‘VITAVM 13’). Examples are shown below:

.

From the text and images of the catalogues, it can be deduced that the products are preparations and materials intended for dentistry.

A price list in German dated January 2016 (Annex 7) with an overview of the products offered under the mark ‘VITA’ accompanied by other specifications such as ‘VITAZETA’, ‘VITAVM’, ‘VITAPM’, ‘VITABLOCS’.

 Annex 8: printouts from the opponent’s website www.vita-zahnfabrik.com extracted on 13/01/2020, in English, including the products available under the earlier mark, such as veneering materials, modelling liquids, ceramics, resins, luting, materials for dental laboratories, solutions for tooth shade determination and removable prosthetics. Some of the images of the opponent’s products include the marks ‘VITA’ and , such as:

.

 Annexes 10-14: several excerpts from market surveys, with partial translations into English, regarding the reputation and distinctiveness of the earlier mark in Germany over the past 25 years. The surveys were conducted in 2012 and June 2017, among others, by the market research institute GfK, Growth from Knowledge. The majority of the respondents to the study were dentists, and it also included commercial dental laboratories, dental depots and competitors of the opponent’s company in Germany. The most recent survey of June 2017 (Annex 14) demonstrates that 97.5 % of the respondents (510 in total) identified the sign ‘VITA’ in the context of dentures or objects used in connection with dentures. In addition, 93.7 % of the respondents were able to link the mark ‘VITA’ with the opponent.

 Annex 17: a presentation in English of the results of a market report entitled ‘European Dental Market – Laboratory Products 2011-2012’, carried out by the research institute Key-Stone, dated April 2013. The presentation shows the opponent’s position in various EU Member States with respect to ‘color-related materials’, ‘artificial teeth’, ‘porcelain veneering materials’, ‘CAD-CAM frame material’ and ‘resin C&B materials’, covering manufacturers from throughout the European Union. The mark appears in the document.

 Annexes 23 and 28: a large number of invoices dated in 2012, 2014 and 2015, (among others) issued by the opponent from Germany to customers with addresses in Spain, France, Lithuania and Slovenia (Annex 23) and dated in 2016, 2017 and 2018 to customers in Denmark, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands (Annex 28). The currency mentioned is euro. The unit prices and amounts have been omitted, but the invoices contain several references to the quantity and products branded under the earlier mark ‘VITA’, such as ‘VITA Akzent’, ‘VITA VMK’ or ‘VITA ENAMIC’. The mark appears in the heading of every invoice.

 Annex 24: several magazines entitled Dentalzeitung (in English Dental magazine), a German dental journal. The earlier mark ‘VITA’ and can be seen on various pages and also accompanied by other specifications such as ‘VITA Akzent’, ‘VITA VMK’ or ‘VITAPAN PLUS’. The magazines are dated 2013 (June, September, October and November), 2014 (February, April, June, September, October and November) and 2015 (February, March, April, June, September, October and November). The magazines are in German and no translation has been provided, however, from the images it can be clearly deduced that the products are intended for dentistry.

Assessment of the evidence

Place of use

The evidence submitted shows that the place of use is the European Union concerning Member States such as Germany and Austria. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (mainly in German), the currency mentioned (euro) and some addresses in several countries of the European Union (e.g. the addresses of the customers appearing in the invoices in Annexes 23 and 28). Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Time of use

Most of the evidence is dated within the relevant period: most of the invoices (2012 to 2017), the magazine articles (2013 to 2015), the brochure in German (2015), the surveys (2012 and 2017), the catalogues (2013 and 2017). Therefore, the time of use is also satisfactorily demonstrated.

Evidence referring to use made outside the relevant timeframe is disregarded unless it contains conclusive indirect proof that the mark must have been put to genuine use during the relevant period of time as well. Events subsequent to the relevant time period may make it possible to confirm or better assess the extent to which the earlier mark was used during the relevant time period and the real intentions of the EUTM proprietor at that time (27/01/2004, C‑259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50).

In the present case, some of the evidence referring to use outside the relevant period confirms use of the opponent’s mark within the relevant period because it is close to the relevant period, for example the catalogue in English dated February 2018 (Annex 27) and several invoices dated in 2018 (Annexes 28.4 and 28.7). Therefore, they indicate that the mark has been continuously used, in particular during the few months after the end of the relevant period (17/11/2017).

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 goods or services and the characteristics of the market concerned, the territorial extent of use, its commercial volume, duration and frequency.

The documents submitted, such as the large number of invoices issued in relation to sales to several clients in different parts of the relevant territory during the years (Annexes 23 and 28), although the amounts invoiced are not visible, demonstrate the frequency of use of the mark during the relevant period. In addition, the product catalogues (Annexes 7, 26 and 27), the dental magazines (Annex 24) and the level of recognition of the mark in Europe (e.g. the market surveys Annexes 10-14), provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use.

Nature of use – use as a trade mark

Nature of use requires, inter alia, that the trade mark is used as a trade mark, that is, for identifying origin, thus making it possible for the relevant public to distinguish between goods and services of different providers.

The evidence clearly shows that the earlier mark was used in relation to goods related to dentistry, mostly affixed on the products’ labels. Therefore, a link can be established between the sign and the goods themselves.

Therefore, the evidence shows use of the sign as a trade mark.

Nature of use – use of the mark as registered

In the context of Article 10(3) EUTMDR, 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.

According 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 opponent’s sign is registered as the word mark ‘VITA’. In the evidence, the sign appears as registered (e.g. in the invoices) and also in a figurative form, namely slightly stylised and in colour, (e.g. in the packaging of some products, catalogues), or along with other marks such as ‘VITA Akzent’, ‘VITA VMK’ or ‘VITA ENAMIC’. The slight stylisation of the letters and the use of colours does not alter the distinctive character of the earlier word mark. The simultaneous use of several marks is quite common in some market areas for goods and services to bear not only their individual mark, but also the mark of the business or product group (house mark). In these cases, the registered mark is not used in a different form, but the two independent marks are validly used at the same time; two or more trade marks may be used together in an autonomous way, or with the company name, without altering the distinctive character of the earlier registered trade mark (06/11/2014, T‑463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 43).

Therefore, the use of the earlier mark in these ways clearly does not alter the distinctive character of the mark. The signs above show use of the mark as registered, or in a form essentially the same as that registered, and this use, therefore, constitutes use of the earlier mark under Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR.

Use in relation to the registered goods

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; 12/03/2003, T‑174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, the evidence submitted by the opponent is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier trade mark during the relevant period in the relevant territory.

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods covered by the earlier trade mark.

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

The evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark, at least for the following goods:

Class 5: Goods relating to dentistry, namely dental ceramic for making dentures, modelling compounds for dental purposes.

Therefore, the Opposition Division deems it appropriate to first examine the opposition only on the basis of the abovementioned goods.

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

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

a) The goods

The goods on which the opposition is based, and for which (at least) use was proven are the following:

Class 5: Goods relating to dentistry, namely dental ceramic for making dentures, modelling compounds for dental purposes.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 5: Dental wax; medicated dentifrices.

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

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

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.

The contested dental wax includes special waxes designed to satisfy all the dental prosthesis requirements. The quick solidification after application, high strength and excellent modelling capacity are the most important properties of these waxes. They are included in the broad category of the opponent’s goods relating to dentistry, namely modelling compounds for dental purposes. Therefore they are identical.

The contested medicated dentifrices are dentistry products designed to prevent or cure a dental or oral health problem. These contested goods can be complementary to the opponent’s goods (e.g. as part of the same oral health treatment), frequently coincide in their distribution channels (such as retailers specialising in medical and professional dental products) and may overlap in their relevant public to the extent that these dentifrices may also be aimed at professionals as part of the treatment. Therefore, they are similar to a low degree.

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 found to be identical or similar to a low degree are directed at both the public at large and a professional public (dental wax; medicated dentifrices) while the opponent’s goods target business customers only with specific professional knowledge or expertise in the field of dentistry. Therefore, the relevant public for assessing likelihood of confusion (i.e. the overlapping public) will be the professional public only (14/07/2005, T‑126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 81).

The degree of attention is high, because the specialist public pays an increased level of attention when selecting goods that can have serious, long-term consequences for the patients (for instance dental ceramic for making dentures), or with respect to goods that may have an impact on the health of their users or the success of the treatment (e.g. medicated dentifrices).

c) The signs

VITA	VITIS
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 verbal element ‘VITA’ in the earlier mark is a Latin word meaning ‘life’ (25/10/2012, T‑552/10, Vital & Fit, EU:T:2012:576, § 59). In view of the relevant public, who are professionals in the field of dentistry with at least a basic knowledge of Latin, it is likely that the relevant consumers with a medical background will be aware of this meaning. Therefore, it is likely that the relevant public will link the meaning of ‘VITA’ to ‘life, life-related’ or ‘lively’. Although it can create somewhat positive associations, this verbal element has an average degree of distinctive character for the goods at issue (27/05/2013, R 569/2012‑4, HERZVITAL / VITA, § 20).

The contested sign is the verbal element ‘VITIS’ which, for the same reasons explained above and as claimed by the opponent, could be perceived by part of the relevant public as a declination of the Latin word ‘VITA’, and therefore with similar meaning. However, it cannot be completely ruled out that another part of the public will not attribute any concept to this word. In either case, it is distinctive in relation to the goods in question.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in their first three letters/sounds ‘VIT-’. However, they differ in their remaining last letters/sounds, ‘-A’ in the earlier mark and ‘-IS’ in the contested sign.

Although both signs are relatively short words, as claimed by the applicant, the difference in one/two last letters (out of four/five) cannot outweigh the similarities created by the coincidence in the signs’ three initial letters, where consumers tend to focus their attention. Moreover, given their similar lengths, both signs will have at least a similar rhythm and intonation when pronounced.

Taking into account all the above, the signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. The signs are conceptually either similar to a high degree or not similar, depending on the relevant public’s perception of the contested sign.

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.

According to the opponent, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys an enhanced scope of protection. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the evidence filed by the opponent to prove this claim does not have to be assessed in the present case (see below in ‘Global assessment’).

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods 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

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 are partly identical and partly similar to a low degree and are directed at the professional public with specific knowledge in the dentistry field, with a high degree of attention.

The signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree and conceptually either highly similar or not similar, depending on the relevant public’s perception of the contested sign. The earlier mark enjoys a normal degree of distinctiveness.

Both signs are word marks made up of a single distinctive word. The contested sign reproduces three letters (out of four) of the earlier mark in the same order. The differences between the marks, even taking into account that the signs are quite short marks, are insufficient to offset the commonalities explained in section c) above. This is mainly because the differences are confined to the final parts of the signs which will receive less attention from the public than their identical beginnings.

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).

In its observations, the applicant argued that the opponent owns several trade marks such as ‘Spanish trade mark nº 293228(8) VITA Class 5 granted on 1955’ which ‘are coexisting with our client’s trade marks VITIS in Spain from 1996 for dental goods and services and curiously they never have had any coexisting problems’.

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

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

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

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

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

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the professional public. Given that a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public is sufficient to reject the contested application, there is no need to analyse the remaining part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration No 8 199 523. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods. In the present case, despite the high degree of attention paid by the relevant public, taking into account the similarities between the marks, and in application of the interdependence principle mentioned above, the assessed degree of similarity between the signs is sufficient to offset the low degree of similarity between part of the goods.

Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is no need to assess the enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark due to its reputation as claimed by the opponent. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

As the earlier right No 8 199 523 ‘VITA’ leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier right invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T‑342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268) or the proof of use submitted in relation to them or in relation to the remaining goods of the earlier right examined above.

Since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(1) and (7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Mª del Carmen SUCH SÁNCHEZ

Sofía SACRISTÁN MARTÍNEZ

Manuela RUSEVA

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.