OPPOSITION No B 3 052 302

Mann+Hummel Gmbh, Schwieberdinger Str. 126, 71636, Ludwigsburg, Germany (opponent), represented by Forresters, Skygarden Erika-Mann-Str. 11, 80636, Munich, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Shenzhenshi Kanghaoxin Supply Chain Management Ltd, Dezheng Road, Shiyan Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China (applicant), represented by The Trade Marks Bureau, 3rd Floor, 14 Hanover Street, Hanover Square, W1S 1YH, London, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 26/09/2019, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 052 302 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2. European Union trade mark application No 17 805 904 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 17 805 904 for the word mark ‘Manfiter’. The opposition is based on, inter alia, European trade mark registration No 4 473 187 for the word mark ‘MANN FILTER’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) 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 all the trade marks on which the opposition is based. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the proof of use in relation to the opponent’s European trade mark registration No 4 473 187, because the other earlier rights cover the same, a similar or a narrower scope of goods and because this earlier right is the word mark version of the sign, ‘MANN FILTER’.

The date of filing of the contested application is 13/02/2018. The opponent was therefore required to prove that European trade mark registration No 4 473 187 was put to genuine use in the European Union from 13/02/2013 to 12/02/2018 inclusive.

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

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the goods on which the opposition is based, which are, following a restriction of the grounds of opposition filed by the opponent on 11/01/2019, the following:

Class 7: Filters and filter systems for motors or engines for the filtration of liquids and gases, in particular oil filters, oil spin-on filters as well as oil filter modules, air filters, fuel filters, in-line fuel filters, in-tank fuel filters, diesel filter modules; centrifuges; filter media of the aforesaid filters.

Class 11: Filters and filter inserts, filter elements for oil filters and air filters; cabin air filters, activated carbon filters, tank ventilation filters, urea filters, diesel particulate filters, filters for power steering, filters for braking systems, suspension hydraulic filters, cooling water filters, washer system filters; centrifuges; air-oil separator elements; oil mist separators; air dryer box and/or air dryer box for drying gases by means of liquid absorbents; filters for erosion machines; filter media of the aforesaid filters.

Class 12: Filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases, in particular oil filters, oil spin-on filters as well as oil filter modules, air filters, fuel filters, in-line fuel filters, in-tank fuel filters, diesel filter modules; cabin air filters, activated carbon filters; tank ventilation filters, urea filters, diesel particulate filters, filters for power steering, filters for braking systems, suspension hydraulic filters; cooling water filters, washer system filters; centrifuges; air-oil separator elements; oil mist separators; air dryer box and/or air dryer box for drying gases by means of liquid absorbents; filters for erosion machines; filter media of the aforesaid filters.

According to Article 10(3) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the evidence of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 06/11/2018, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the Office gave the opponent until 11/01/2019 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 11/01/2019, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

The evidence to be taken into account is, in particular, the following.

• Witness Statement (Annex A.1): on 07/01/2019 the Director of Brand Management for the opponent’s Automotive Aftermarket, explained the history of the company, founded in 1941 in Germany, which became the global market leader for filtration. The opponent recorded a significant amount of net sales (mentioned in Euros) in a sample of EU countries, such as Germany, Spain, France and the UK. The eight-number figures have increased from 2013 to 2017 in each of the countries taken into account. In particular, they have doubled in the UK. The witness statement makes reference to the annexes, listed as Exhibits JE1-27 and divided per country.

• Invoices (JE9 for Germany, JE15 for Spain and JE22 for the UK): dated within the relevant period, they are divided per country (i.e. a selection of invoices for Germany, for Spain and for the UK). The invoices include the product number (for example in the German invoices CF23107 and HU 7029 Z, in the Spanish invoices C 28 003 and W 1140/11, and in the UK invoices W 712.83), the product description (in German ‘Luftfilterelement’ or ‘Kraftstoffwechselfilter’) and the number of products provided (such as 1 ST where ‘ST’ translates as unit in English). On the last page of these annexes is a page (in English) taken from the Catalogue which explains what the goods ordered are, by way of product coding (e.g. ‘C’ for air filter element, ‘H’ for oil filter element, ‘P’ for ‘fuel filter element’, ‘W’ for spin-on lubricating oil filter, etc.).

• Catalogues, brochures and flyers (JE2, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-21, 23, 25-27): dated within the relevant period, they contain information in relation to the opponent’s filters for vehicles under the sign displayed in the figurative forms and , but also as the word sign ‘MANN-FILTER’. The French, German and Spanish samples have had the relevant parts translated into English.

• Annual Reports (JE1): extracts dated within the relevant period containing substantial key figures of the opponent company and making reference to an independent auditor’s report. They refer to the word sign ‘MANN-FILTER’ in relation to fuel filters.

The applicant argues that the opponent did not submit translations of some of the evidence of use and that therefore this evidence should not be taken into consideration. However, the opponent is not under any obligation to translate the proof of use, unless it is specifically requested to do so by the Office (Article 10(6) EUTMDR, former Rule 22(6) EUTMIR in force before 01/10/2017). Taking into account the nature of the documents that have not been fully translated and are considered relevant for the present proceedings, namely the invoices, and their self-explanatory character, and also taking into account that the opponent has provided translations of their relevant parts and/or provided direct reference to catalogues and brochures in English, the Opposition Division considers that there is no need to request a translation.

As far as the Witness Statement is concerned, Article 10(4) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(4) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017) expressly mentions written statements referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR as admissible means of proof of use. Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR lists means of giving evidence, amongst which are sworn or affirmed written statements or other statements that have a similar effect according to the law of the State in which they have been drawn up. As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, statements drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees are generally given less weight than independent evidence. This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by its personal interests in the matter.

However, this does not mean that such statements do not have any probative value at all.

The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in the particular case. This is because, in general, further evidence is necessary to establish use, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources.

Bearing in mind the foregoing, it is necessary to assess the remaining evidence to see whether or not the contents of the declaration are supported by the other items of evidence.

Place

The witness statement in conjunction with the invoices and the catalogues show that the place of use is Germany, Spain and the UK, at least. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (German, Spanish, English), the currency mentioned (EUR and GBP) and some addresses in Germany, Spain and the UK. Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Time

All of the evidence is dated within the relevant period.

Extent

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).

The documents filed, namely the witness statement in conjunction with the invoices and the catalogues, together with the extracts of the opponent’s annual reports, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use.

Nature

The evidence shows that the mark has been used in accordance with its function and as registered for at least some of the goods for which it is registered. The use in the figurative forms mentioned above does not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered; therefore it also counts towards genuine use of the earlier mark.

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 European Union.

The applicant argues that the items of evidence do not indicate genuine use of all the goods for which the earlier mark is registered, but only for ‘air filters; oil filters; fuel filters; air deoiling elements; dust filters; pollen filters; diesel soot filters; vehicle filters; filters for hydraulics; filtration filters; urea filters’.

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.

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

…if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub‑categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub‑category or sub‑categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong. However, if a trade mark has been registered for goods or services defined so precisely and narrowly that it is not possible to make any significant sub-divisions within the category concerned, then the proof of genuine use of the mark for the goods or services necessarily covers the entire category for the purposes of the opposition.

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

(14/07/2005, T‑126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45‑46.)

In the present case, the evidence proves use at least for air filters; oil filters; fuel filters; vehicle filters, belonging to the following category in the specification of Class 12: filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases. As the opponent is not required to prove all the conceivable variations of the category of goods for which the earlier mark is registered and as the goods for which use has been proved do not constitute a coherent subcategory within the broad category in the specification to which they belong, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases. The goods listed in the opponent’s specification after the term ‘in particular’ are only examples of items included in the category and protection is not restricted to them. In other words, the term ‘in particular’ introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (09/04/2003, T‑224/01, Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107). Therefore, the Opposition Division will focus on the category indicated above for the purposes of the present opposition proceedings.

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.

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark, all subject to proof of use. Based on the analysis of the proof of use above, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s European trade mark registration No 4 473 187.

1. The goods

The goods on which the opposition is based, after the examination of proof of use, are the following:

Class 12: Filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 12: Anti-skid chains; hoods for vehicles; hub caps; rear view mirrors; bumpers for automobiles; shock absorbers for automobiles; sun-blinds adapted for automobiles; brake pads for automobiles; spare tyre covers; cigar lighters for automobiles; anti-theft devices for vehicles; repair outfits for inner tubes; spikes for tyres; tyres for vehicle wheels; adhesive rubber patches for repairing inner tubes; air pumps [vehicle accessories]; non-skid devices for vehicle tires [tyres]; luggage carriers for vehicles; valves for vehicle tires [tyres]; safety belts for vehicle seats; hydraulic circuits for vehicles; windscreen wipers; windshield wipers; windshields; undercarriages for vehicles; upholstery for vehicles; anti-dazzle devices for vehicles; anti-glare devices for vehicles; anti-theft alarms for vehicles; horns for vehicles; brake linings for vehicles; vehicle covers [shaped]; turn signals for vehicles; covers for vehicle steering wheels.

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 goods are all parts and fittings and accessories for vehicles. The opponent’s filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases are also parts of vehicles. The applicant claims that each of the contested goods is dissimilar to the opponent’s goods. According to the applicant, they mainly have a different nature and purpose and they are not complementary to each other as they do not require each other’s’ goods to function. However, these are only few of the factors that must be taken into account for the comparison of the goods. The Opposition Division endorses the opponent’s arguments that the goods at issue can coincide in producers, distribution channels, sales outlets and targeted public. Therefore, they are similar.

The applicant claims in particular that the contested repair outfits for inner tubes and adhesive rubber patches for repairing inner tubes are dissimilar to the opponent’s goods also because ‘a motor vehicle does not have an inner tube and therefore it is clear that these goods are used specifically for bicycle tyres’. This claim has not been accompanied by any evidence and, considering that inner tubes are included in wheels and tyres and as such, are considered parts and fittings for vehicles, it must be set aside. Since these specific contested goods can have the same producers, distribution channels, sales outlets and targeted public as the opponent’s filters and filter systems for vehicles, and filter elements for the filtration of liquids and gases, they are also considered similar to the opponent’s 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 similar are directed at the public at large (including car enthusiasts) as well as at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise.

The Court has established that, when purchasing parts (which include accessories) of vehicles whose use implies that they must be compatible with the vehicle so that they may be attached to the vehicle and/or to ensure their proper functioning, the degree of attention of the consumer is high (22/03/2011, T‑486/07, CA, EU:T:2011:104, § 27-38; 21/03/2012, T‑63/09,Swift GTi, EU:T:2012:137, § 39-42).

3. The signs

MANN FILTER	Manfiter
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 signs at issue are both word marks. In the case of word marks, it is the word as such that is protected and not its written form. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the earlier mark is in uppercase and the contested sign is in title-case letters.

The contested sign is not meaningful as a whole, however it includes in its initial part the term ‘MAN’, which is a basic English word that refers to the concept of a male human (27/02/2019, R 841/2018-1, Man lung / Man et al, § 44). Therefore, although the contested sign is composed of one verbal element, the relevant consumers, when perceiving a verbal sign, will break it down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning, or that resemble words that they already know (13/02/2007, T‑256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57; 13/02/2008, T‑146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58). This element is considered distinctive to a normal degree, since its meaning is not directly related to the relevant goods in a clear way that could impair its distinctiveness. With regard to the remaining letters ‘fiter’, it cannot be excluded that the English-speaking public will read it as a misspelling of the English term ‘fitter’, which signifies ‘a person who puts together or installs machinery, engine parts, or other equipment’ (information extracted from Lexico on 17/09/2019 at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fitter). Since the goods at issue are parts and fittings of vehicles, this term refers directly to the characteristics of the goods and is therefore not distinctive for this part of the public. For the remaining part of the public these letters are not meaningful and therefore will have a normal degree of distinctiveness.

The earlier mark is composed of two terms separated by a space, ‘MANN’ and ‘FILTER’. The first element will clearly be identified by the German-speaking public as referring to the concept of a male human. This is also the case for a significant part of the relevant public in the other Member States, since this word is visually very similar and aurally identical to the corresponding basic English word ‘man’. As such, it has a normal degree of distinctiveness for the same reasons explained above in relation to the contested sign. In any event, even for those who do not see any meaning in it, it is considered to possess an average degree of distinctiveness. The second element of the contested sign, ‘FILTER’, will be understood throughout the EU as ‘a porous device for removing impurities or solid particles from a liquid or gas passed through it’ (information extracted from Lexico on 17/09/2019 at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/filter) either because it is identical (e.g. in Dutch, German and Swedish) or very close to the equivalent word in the official language in the relevant territory (e.g. ‘filtry’ in Czech and Polish, ‘filtre’ in French, ‘filtro’ in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, etc.), or because the relevant public is familiar with the foreign language concerned in connection with the goods in question (a high degree of attention is displayed by the relevant public — car enthusiasts and professionals — in the selection of such specific parts of vehicles). Therefore, this element is non-distinctive.

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

Visually, the signs coincide in the first three letters ‘MAN*’ and share the letters ‘FI*TER’ in a similar sequence. Therefore, they have a similar structure. However, they differ in the additional letter ‘N’ positioned after the first three letters of the earlier mark, in the space after it, and in the letter ‘L’ positioned after the letters ‘FI’ of the earlier mark. Reference is made to the above considerations regarding the distinctive and non-distinctive elements of the signs.

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

Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the relevant territory, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the first letters of the signs ‛MANN’ / ‘MAN’, irrespective of the double ‘N’ in the earlier mark. The pronunciation further coincides in the letters ‘FI’ in the middle of the signs and in the last syllable ‘TER’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation only differs in the letter ‘L’ between ‘FI’ and ‘TER’ of the earlier mark, which has no counterpart in the contested sign, although its sound could go unnoticed, as it is in the middle of the second word of the earlier mark.

Therefore, the signs are aurally highly similar.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As both signs will be associated with a similar meaning conveyed by the distinctive elements ‘MANN’ / ‘MAN’, for the English-speaking part of the public which will see both differing elements of the signs as non-distinctive (‘FILTER’ in the earlier mark and ‘FITER’ as a misspelling of ‘FITTER’ in the contested sign) the signs are conceptually highly similar. For the remaining part of the public for which the element ‘FITER’ has a normal degree of distinctiveness, there is a conceptual similarity to a lower degree.

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

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

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

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

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

In the present case, the goods are similar and they target the general and professional public, whose degree of attention is high. The earlier mark has an average degree of distinctiveness.

The signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally similar to a high degree and conceptually similar to a high degree for the English-speaking part of the public and to a lower degree for the rest of the public.

Especially important is that the signs in conflict share the distinctive element ‘MAN’ at the beginning, with the same meaning and the same sound, notwithstanding the fact that the letter ‘N’ is doubled in the earlier mark. Since words are read from left to right experience has shown that the public attributes greater importance to the beginning of a word in identifying a sign than it does to the following components of the word. The additional letter ‘L’ in the second part of the earlier mark is not enough to counteract the fact that the contested sign reproduces all except two letters of the earlier mark in a similar sequence and structure, in particular with the same initial letters. The fact that the second part of the signs can convey different meanings is not sufficient to rule out a likelihood of confusion since these concepts, when perceived, render these elements non-distinctive in relation to the goods at issue.

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).

Likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods covered are from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings. For the English-speaking part of the public, it cannot be excluded 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 that it designates, so that the earlier mark including the element ‘FILTER’ is for vehicle filters and the contested sign which includes ‘fiter’ (a misspelling for ‘fitter’) is conceived for other parts and fittings of vehicles (23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Considering all the above, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European trade mark registration No 4 473 187. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

As the earlier right European trade mark registration No 4 473 187 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 rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T‑342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

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 (former Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), 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

Irena LYUDMILOVA LECHEVA

Valeria ANCHINI

Michele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI

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.