OPPOSITION No B 3 049 077

Juan Enrique Ramon Ros, Carmen Consuelo Ramon Ros and Maria José Ramon Ros, Ciudad de Sevilla, 5-7, 46988, Paterna (Valencia), Spain (opponents), represented by Sanz Bermell International, Calle Jativa, 4, 46002, Valencia, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

UAB "Alma littera", Ulonų g. 2, 08245, Vilnius, Lithuania (applicant), represented by Vilija Viešūnaitė, L. Stuokos - Guceviciaus str. 9, 01122, Vilnius, Lithuania (professional representative).

On 19/12/2019, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 049 077 is rejected in its entirety.

2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

REASONS

The opponents filed an opposition against some of the goods of European Union trade mark application No 17 572 314 for the figurative trade mark , namely against all the goods in Class 3. The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

1. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 079 592 (Class 3)

2. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 416 591 AQUA NELLY (fig) (Class 3)

3. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 427 879 (Class 3)

4. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 607 652 ‘Nelly Coloractive’ (word) (class 3)

5. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 645 994 ‘N D NELLY’ (word) (Class 3)

6. EU trade mark registration No 5 704 481 ‘Nelly’ (word) (Class 3)

7. EU trade mark registration No 6 408 355 ‘AQUANELLY’ (word) (Classes 3, 5, 44)

8. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 872 193 ‘Nelly’ (word) (Classes 3)

9. Spanish trade mark registration No 2 939 269 (Class 3)

10. Spanish trade mark registration No 3 022 778 NELLY (fig.) Classes 1, 2, 5, 21, 35, 42.

11. Spanish trade mark registration No 3 071 279 ‘NELLY SENSES’ (words) (Class 3)

The opponents invoked Article 8(1)(b)EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

The applicant requested that the opponents submit proof of use of the trade marks on which the opposition is based.

In accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponents 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 opponents cite 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.

In the present case, the date of filing of the contested trade mark is 06/12/2017.

The earlier Spanish trade mark No 3 071 279 ‘NELLY SENSES’ was registered on 18/07/2013. Therefore, the request for proof of use is inadmissible with regard to this earlier right.

For the remaining earlier rights the request is admissible, as these earlier trade marks were registered more than five years prior to the relevant date mentioned above.

The opponents were therefore required to prove that the trade marks on which the opposition is based were put to genuine use in the European Union or Spain, where appropriate, from 06/12/2012 to 05/12/2017 inclusive.

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

The earlier rights Nos 1-9 are protected essentially for (including synonyms or a slightly different wording):

Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and scraping preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices,

The right No 7 is additionally protected for:

Class 5: Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.

Class 44: Health and beauty salons.

The earlier right No 10 is protected for:

Class 1: chemicals for use in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artificial resins, unprocessed plastics; fertilizers for land; fire extinguishing and fire prevention compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; substances for tanning animal skins and hides; adhesives for use in industry;

Class 2: paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants, dyes; inks for printing, marking and engraving; raw natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for use in painting, decorating, printing and art.

Class 5: disinfectants, insecticides and hygienic products

Class 21: small household or kitchen utensils and containers, included in this class

Class 35: advertising and business management

Class 42: services of beauty and hairdressing rooms

Pursuant 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 and services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 12/11/2018 the Office gave the opponents until 17/01/2019 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade marks. This time limit was later extended and finally expired on 17/03/2019. On 15/03/2019, within the time limit, the opponents submitted evidence of use.

The evidence filed by the opponents consists of:

• Invoices of sales from Laboratorios Belloch, S.A. to clients in different countries within the EU (e.g. Germany, Belgium, Greece, Italy etc.) issued in the period 2013-2017 where the trade marks featuring the element ‘Nelly’ seem to be used for various cosmetic products, especially hair care products.

• Copies of customs documentation and bills of landing of merchandise.

• Materials regarding advertising and promotional activities as well as the sale of products under the ‘Nelly ‘brand such as invoices regarding advertising in the magazine ‘New Fragrances’; advertising brochures and product information by companies like Alaya (a food and beverage supplier), Schlecker (a drugstore), Tisery, Dia (market stores) etc., screenshots from different websites e.g. bodybell.com (a perfumery chain) regarding the ‘Nelly’ products as well as images of ‘Nelly’ products in different stores, development report of Laboratorios Belloch. S.A.

• Evidence regarding the sales volumes, including a customer list signed by the financial director of Laboratorios Belloch. S.A. with sales numbers per client, Nielsen report as well as sale volume certification.

• Printouts from the website nelly.es showing the products marketed under the ‘Nelly’ trade marks.

Most of the earlier rights are registered for goods in Class 3. The evidence presented above clearly concerns goods in Class 3, especially cosmetics and hair care products. There are no relevant indications about the use of trade marks for goods in Classes 1, 2, 5, 21 or services in Classes 35, 42 or 44 which are protected by the EU trade mark registration No 6 408 355 ‘AQUANELLY’ (trade mark No 7) and Spanish trade mark registration No 3 022 778 NELLY (trade mark No 11), as listed above. The fact that advertising services have been contracted to promote the ‘Nelly’ trade marks does not prove the use of the marks for these services. This rather shows that in this ambit the opponents or their affiliated company were the clients of the said services.

Consequently, the use of the two earlier trade marks has not been proven for these classes and therefore, the opposition has to be rejected insofar as it is based on these two earlier rights protected for these classes, that is EUTM registration No 6 408 355 ‘AQUANELLY’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 44 and Spanish trade mark registration No 3 022 778 NELLY in its entirety.

As to the remaining earlier rights which are protected for goods in Class 3, at this point, the Opposition Division does not consider it appropriate to undertake an assessment of the evidence of use submitted (15/02/2005, T‑296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 41, 72). The examination of the opposition will proceed as if genuine use of the earlier marks had been proven for all the goods in Class 3 invoked, which is the best light in which the opponent’s case can be considered.

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

For the earlier rights Nos 1-9:

Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and scraping preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices,

For the earlier right No 11:

Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other laundry preparations; cleaning, polishing, scouring and scraping preparations; soaps; perfumery products, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; hair lacquers; cosmetic foams; capillary gel; hair styling gel; hair styling oil; hair care creams; hair waxes; shampoos; hair conditioners; hair conditioners; hair softeners; cosmetic masks; hair dyes; bath gel; hand soaps and other body soaps;moisturizing[cosmetic] body lotions; nail polish remover; hand cream; skin cleansing gel; skin exfoliators; skin moisturizers[cosmetic], dentifrics.

The contested goods belong to Class 3. The full list of the contested goods (which is not reproduced here due to its length) can be found in the notice of opposition, which can be accessed through https://euipo.europa.eu. In comparison to the wording of the list as applicable in the Notice of Opposition a limitation has been added at the end to the effect: all above-mentioned goods being for babies and children use. This limitation will be considered in the below assessment.

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 earlier rights are protected for the general indications of the Nice class heading in Class 3 as well as particular goods which fall under them.

The contested goods encompass a very long list of goods which essentially can be divided in categories of bleaching preparations and other laundry preparations; cleaning, polishing, scouring and scraping preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices, which are in line with the general indications of the class heading as well cobbler’s wax, tailor’s wax as well as shoemakers’ wax.

The contested cobbler’s wax, tailor’s wax as well as shoemakers’ wax are very specific goods which are meant for professional public like tailors and shoemakers and they are used in the manufacturing and repair process of footwear as well as clothing. These goods have no common points with the earlier goods in Class 3 which are goods used for cleaning, laundry, polishing, scouring as well as for personal hygiene and beautification and care of the human body, hygiene of animal as well as for providing fragrance to homes and persons. The contested goods are applied as coating for the thread used in the production and repair process of footwear and clothing, but they are not cleaning agents. Even though the earlier goods also include hair wax, these goods are completely different goods from the contested ones. The use of the same word ‘wax’ in their names only suggests that they may have a similar consistency or form, however this is not sufficient to consider them similar taking into account their different purpose, method of use as well as the fact that they target different public via different channels of distribution. The same applies also to the remaining earlier goods. The goods under comparison are neither in competition nor are they complementary. The goods are dissimilar. This finding is not affected by the limitation present in the contested goods all above-mentioned goods being for babies and children use. Since these contested goods clearly cannot be used by babies or children, as they are meant for a professional public.

The remaining contested goods are identical to the earlier goods either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the opponents’ goods include, are included in, or overlap with, the contested. This finding is not affected by the above mentioned limitation applied in the contested sign since for the goods where it is applicable it does not change their nature which allows for the conclusion of identity. Additionally, for some of the contested goods, like diverse abrasive, cleaning and scouring preparations etc. this limitation is clearly inapplicable because by their nature, these goods cannot be meant for babies’ or children’s’ use.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods found to be identical are directed mostly at the public at large, considering the limitation of the contested sign indicating that they are meant for babies and children which will be applicable to the majority of the goods. For some of the contested goods, as mentioned above, this limitation is clearly inapplicable because by their nature they cannot be meant for babies or children and they can also target professional public.

The applicant argues that the goods of the earlier mark are meant for a professional public so the publics of the goods under comparison do not overlap. The Opposition Division notes that the comparison of goods is undertaken on the basis of the earlier right as registered, unless they fall under the proof of use obligation, and the contested sign as applied for. In the present case one of the earlier signs is not subject to proof of use. The wording of the goods in Class 3 of this earlier right is quite broad and does not suggest that it should be limited to a professional public; consequently these goods potentially target both the general and the professional public. The same is true for the remaining earlier rights for which it was assumed that the use was proven for goods in Class 3, since the wording of the goods for this class is quite broad as well and does not point to a professional public. Additionally, the proof of use submitted by the opponent, mentioned above, does not point to a purely professional public either. Considering the limitation in the contested sign, which will be applicable to most of the goods, it is clear that the overlapping public for both signs is the public at large as it was explained above. For some of the goods also professional public could be the overlapping and thus the relevant one, but since all the goods clearly target public at large and this public is more prone to confusion the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus on this public, as this is the best light in which the opposition can be seen.

The degree of attention is average.

3. The signs

AQUA NELLY (fig) ‘Nelly Coloractive’ (word) ‘N D NELLY’ (word) ‘Nelly’ (word) ‘AQUANELLY’ (word)) ‘Nelly’ (word) ‘NELLY SENSES’ (words)
Earlier trade marks	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Spain and 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 element ‘Nelly’ as such present in all the signs may be perceived as a female name e.g short of Eleonora or Eleonor by part of the public and it will not be associated with any meaning by the other part. In any case this word does not have any meaning for the relevant goods; thus its distinctiveness is average.

The contested sign is figurative and consists of an image of an imaginative cartoon character, most likely a girl in a colourful overall. There is a label or a name tag on the chest on the character which contains, in rather small letters, the elements ‘Nelly Jelly’. Considering the manner in which these letters are depicted, on the label or the name tag across the chest of the figure, regardless if Nelly as such is perceived as a name, the expression ‘Nelly Jelly’ is most likely to be perceived as denoting the name or nickname of the character represented. The element ‘Jelly’ alone may be perceived by part of the public, especially the English speaking part as denoting anything which has a consistence of a jelly, which may refer to the form of many of the contested goods as chemical preparations such as cosmetics, cleaning preparations etc. may have a jelly like form. In such a case the distinctiveness of this element would be limited. The Opposition Division is of the view that because of the manner in which the entire expression is depicted in the name tag or label on the chest of the character the most likely scenario is that the public will perceive this expression as a whole as the name or nickname of the character and will not think of the typical meaning of the word ‘Jelly’; thus, the distinctness of this expression will be normal.

The applicant argues that Nelly Jelly is a fictitious character from the children’s books published by the applicant and that it will be perceived as such. The applicant explains that previously the name of the character was KAKE MAKE and later it was changed to Nelly Jelly. The applicant submits some evidence regarding the character called ‘KAKE MAKE’. To this the Opposition Division observes that the evidence is very scarce and concerns the persona of KAKE MAKE and not Nelly Jelly, so they are irrelevant to show the perception of the public with regard to this concept. Therefore, this argumentation of the applicant has to be set aside. However, as mentioned above, considering the representation of contested sign and especially its striking figurative element the Opposition Division is of the opinion that the contested sign as a whole is most likely to be perceived as a cartoon character, albeit not necessarily the one mentioned by the applicant.

The perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood. In that regard, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details (Case C‑251/95 SABEL [1997] ECR I‑6191, paragraph 23, and Case C‑342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I‑3819, paragraph 25). This is the case here with regard to the contested sign which is clearly dominated by the figurative element which is so large that is overshadows the verbal elements, which might even go unnoticed, due to their minimal size. Thus the verbal elements, if at all perceived, play a secondary role within the sign.

The figurative element is distinctive of the goods since it is not related directly to the goods in question. This is true even considering the limitation of the goods which mentions that they are meant for children or babies, since the figurative element is a rather original and playful representation of a cartoon character and will be perceived as such.

Visually, the signs coincide in the distinctive element ‘Nelly’ present in all signs, albeit in the earlier signs it is placed in various constellations, sometimes it is alone, or accompanied by a word or phrase, or placed within a label. In the contested sign however, even if it will be read/seen as such, it is placed in the secondary element which is overshadowed by the figurative element dominating the contested sign; therefore, this coincidence has limited impact, even if in a given earlier mark ‘Nelly’ is the only verbal element or the main verbal element. The signs differ in all the other aspects and, above all, in the dominant figurative element of the contested sign as well as in the additional verbal element ‘JELLY’, as well as the additional elements of the earlier signs including both verbal and figurative elements. The signs also differ in their structure and composition, since neither of the earlier signs has a similar figurative element as the contested sign and in neither of the earlier signs the verbal elements are positioned in a similar manner as in the contested sign. Thus, the visual similarity will be rather low, if any.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the sings coincides only in the element ‘Nelly’, but differs in the word ‘Jelly’ of the contested sign and in the additional verbal elements of some of the earlier signs. The Opposition Division notes that the words ‘NELLY JELLY’ with their repeated endings result in a certain rhythm which is not present in any of the earlier signs, in the absence of this kind of repetition. This has impact on the aural impression produced by the contested sign; consequently the aural similarity is below the average.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. In case of the earlier marks, the element ‘Nelly’ will be perceived as a female name, if understood at all, whereas in the contested sign this element will be perceived in conjunction with Jelly and the character depicted by the figurative element and thus will be understood as a name or a nickname of this character , as explained above. Such an association will not be evoked by the word ,Nelly’ in any of the earlier signs, because of the lack of a similar figurative element. Consequently, despite the presence of the same name in all signs the Opposition Division is of the view that their perception will be different, thus there is no conceptual similarity. This is the more so, in case if the element ‘Nelly’ in the earlier sings will not be recognised as a name.

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 marks

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 opponents 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 marks will rest on their distinctiveness per se. In the present case, each of the earlier trade marks as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory, despite the presence of some weak or non distinctive elements in them, as mentioned under letter c) above. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment

The goods are partially identical and partially dissimilar. The level of attention of the public is average. The signs are visually similar to a low degree, aurally similar to a below the average degree and conceptually not similar.

It is a settled case law that account should be taken of the fact that the average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks but has to place his trust in the imperfect image of them that he has retained in his mind (23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 28). The dominant figurative element of the contested sign will accordingly be of major importance in the overall impression of the sign. When the average consumer is led to seek out and select a product covered by the mark applied for, this element retained in the visual memory will be decisive. This is the more so considering the goods in question which are diverse kinds of cosmetics, cleaning preparations, essential oils, perfumery. These goods normally are not very large; therefore, the reproduction of the sign on their packaging, even if it were to take a large part of the space could not be very big. It is a well-known fact, however that trade marks normally do not occupy a majority of the space on a product or its packaging, but rather a relatively small part of it, since space is needed to provide information about the product its self, its ingredients, producers, etc. What is more, most of these goods are fairly ordinary consumer products that are commonly purchased in supermarkets or establishments where goods are arranged on shelves and consumers are guided by the visual impact of the mark they are looking for (15/04/2010, T‑488/07, Egléfruit, EU:T:2010:145). Therefore the fact that the figurative component of the contested sign is so large and striking plays an important role in the assessment of the perception of the sign by the public. Thus, if the mark is taken as a whole, it is the representation of the figurative character in the contested sign which dominates the impression retained by the average consumer in his mind. Such a figurative element is not present in any of the earlier signs.

Even if the consumers perceive the words ‘Nelly Jelly’ in the contested sign, they will notice the figurative element first and as a result this expression will be perceived in the context of this figurative element. Consequently, this will be understood as the name/nickname of the character represented by the dominant figurative element. Neither of the earlier signs has both of these verbal elements of the contested sign. They also do not feature any figurative element which would even remotely resemble the striking figurative element of the contested sign. Even considering the identity of goods and the average level of attention of the public the Opposition Division is of the view that considering the strikingly different structures of the signs under comparison and the overlap only in part of the secondary verbal element of the contested sign which is clearly overshadowed by the figurative element, the signs will be safely differentiated and there will be neither association between them nor likelihood of confusion.

It remains necessary to consider the opponents’ argument that the earlier trade marks, all characterised by the presence of the same word component ‘Nelly’ constitute a ‘family of marks’ or ‘marks in a series’. In its view, such a circumstance is liable to give rise to an objective likelihood of confusion insofar as the consumer, when confronted with the contested mark which contains the same word component as the earlier marks, will be led to believe that the goods identified by that mark may also come from the opponent.

In fact, the concept of the family of marks was exhaustively analysed by the General Court in its judgment of 23/02/2006, T‑194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65.

When the opposition to a European Union trade mark is based on several earlier marks and those marks display characteristics which give grounds for regarding them as forming part of a single ‘series’ or ‘family’ a likelihood of confusion may be created by the possibility of association between the contested trade mark and the earlier marks forming part of the series. However, the likelihood of association described above may be invoked only if two conditions are cumulatively satisfied.

Firstly, the proprietor of a series of earlier registrations must furnish proof of use of all the marks belonging to the series or, at the very least, of a number of marks capable of constituting a ‘series’.

Secondly, the trade mark applied for must not only be similar to the marks belonging to the series, but also display characteristics capable of associating it with the series. This could not be the case where, for example, the element common to the earlier series of marks is used in the contested trade mark, either in a different position from that in which it usually appears in the marks belonging to the series, or with a different semantic content.

According to the opponents their family of marks is characterised by the presence of the word ‘Nelly’ combined with other terms. The Opposition Division notes that when considering the earlier marks it is difficult to establish the characteristics the said family of marks should have other than the presence of the verbal element ‘Nelly’, since this element in some cases is the sole element or in other cases occupies different positions, like in ‘AGUA NELLY’, where it is the second element, in ‘NELLY SENSES’ where it is the first element and in ‘N DE NELLY’ where it is even a third element. However, what is clear is that the element ‘Nelly’ in the earlier marks is clearly visible, plays an independent distinctive role and is not overshadowed by any figurative elements. This is not the case with the contested sign, which is clearly dominated by the figurative element, as thoroughly explained above. Therefore the fact that it includes the word ‘Nelly’, albeit in a secondary position, is not sufficient to establish that it could be perceived as belonging to the family of marks of the opponents. This argument has to be, thus, set aside. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether the existence of the family of marks indeed has been proven.

Considering, the above the Opposition Division finds that there is no likelihood of confusion for identical goods for the average public paying a normal degree of attention. This is the more so, for the professional public which is more attentive and will pay a higher level of attention, as for such public the differences between the signs are even more apparent.

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.

Given that the opposition is not well founded under Article 8(1) EUTMR it is unnecessary to further examine the evidence of use filed by the opponent.

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 opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.

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

The Opposition Division

Gueorgui IVANOV

Ewelina SLIWINSKA

Monika CISZEWSKA

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.