OPPOSITION Nо B 3 063 244

RTL Television GmbH, Picassoplatz 1, 50679 Köln, Germany (opponent), represented by Görg, Kennedyplatz 2, 50679 Köln, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Eric Akoto, Flat F, 91 Cambridge Gardens, W10 6JE London, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by JWSS Law LLP, Somerset House T126, New Wing Strand, WC2R 1LA London, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 10/06/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 063 244 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

On 31/08/2018, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 17 894 315 LITRO (word mark). The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

 European Union trade mark registration No 10 882 579 (figurative mark), in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 German trade mark registration No 302 012 010 123 ‘Nitro’ (word mark), in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 German trade mark registration No 302 012 010 221 (figurative mark), in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 Other sign used in the course of trade, namely a work title, ‘NITRO’ (word mark), claimed to exist in Germany for collection of television shows (as translated by the opponent), in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(4) EUTMR.

 Other sign used in the course of trade, namely a company name, ‘NITRO’ (word mark), claimed to exist in Germany for television channel/television broadcaster (as translated by the opponent), in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(4) EUTMR.

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

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

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s earlier European Union trade mark registration No 10 882 579.

a) The goods and services

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

Class 9: Optical apparatus; spectacles, spectacle frames; binoculars, apparatus for the recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; apparatus for video-on-demand (VOD) and other online services, namely pay-TV, teleshopping; apparatus for interactive television viewing; motion picture cameras; photographic cameras; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus, included in Class 9; electric entertainment apparatus, being juke boxes, musical; magnetic data carriers; storage mediums of every kind provided with programs; computer software; compact discs (audio, video); DVDs (sound, images); receivers (sound, images); data-processing equipment and computers; memories for data processing equipment; memory card chips; electric cables, insulated copper wire and electronic conductors; electric pin and socket connectors; electric switches and distribution boards or equipment; distributors (including electronic distributors) suitable for computer input signals or switches to control software for video and/or computer games; calculating machines; cash registers.

Class 16: Books, newspapers and periodicals; paper, cardboard and goods made of these materials, all the aforesaid goods included in Class 16, printed matter and bookbinding material; photographs (prints); stationery; instructional and teaching material (except apparatus).

Class 35: Advertising, marketing, sales promotion (for others); business management; business administration, namely professional business consultancy and organisation consultancy; psychological testing; arranging and conducting of casting events for advertising and sales promotion purposes; market research, opinion polling, media monitoring (market analysis) and advertising research, in Class 35; distribution of samples and demonstration of goods.

Class 38: Telecommunications, electronic mail, news agencies, wire services; broadcasting of television and radio programmes, and broadcasting of television and radio programmes and electronic transmission of data on the internet and via other audiovisual media, and for reception on stationary or mobile terminals; telecommunications relating to video-on-demand (VOD), interactive television, pay-per-view television, cable television broadcasting services, satellite transmission, DSL, digital transmission; broadcasting of teleshopping programmes; providing access to electronic programme guides on data networks; telecommunications consultancy targeted at the broadcasting of television and radio programmes and the broadcasting of performances on the internet and in other audiovisual media.

Class 41: Education; providing of training; entertainment, namely arranging and conducting of shows, quizzes, and music events; organisation of competitions in the fields of training, entertainment and sports; arranging and conducting of cultural, entertainment and sporting events for charitable purposes; talent promotion, namely talent searches for others (model agencies for artists), through the conducting of seminars, courses, providing of training and shows; advance sale of tickets for cultural and sporting events; conducting prize games; sound recording studios and television studios, namely design and production of television and radio programmes; sporting activities; cultural activities, organising and casting services, namely arranging and conducting of shows for cultural and entertainment purposes; showing and rental of motion pictures, video films and other recorded films.

Class 42: Computer programming, namely development of databases software for providing information on the internet and on other audiovisual media; creating home pages and websites on the internet and other audiovisual media; technical consultancy for the development, design, production and broadcasting of television and radio programmes and databases and for electronic transmission on the internet and on other audiovisual media; technical consultancy in the use of computer programs; technical consultancy in connection with telecommunications, the internet, extranets, intranets; hardware and software consultancy, in particular consultancy with regard to the planning, implementation and configuration of hardware, software and computer networks; computer programming; implementation and configuration of software, namely individual intranet, extranet and internet programs, included in Class 42; development of electronic programme guides (software).

Class 45: Personal, social and security services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals, included in Class 45, trading in film, television and video licenses.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: E-books; downloadable e-books; electronic publications (downloadable); audio books; electronic magazines; electronic publications; sound recordings; electronic publications recorded on computer media; sound recordings recorded on computer media; sound recordings (downloadable); sound and video recordings recorded on computer media; sound and video recordings (downloadable).

Class 16: Printed pamphlets; address books; event programs; periodicals; books; booklets; brochures; periodical magazines; diaries [printed matter].

Class 41: Arranging of festivals for cultural purposes; publishing of electronic books and journals online; organisation of cultural events; publication of books, magazines, almanacs and journals; multimedia publishing of electronic publications; organisation of educational events; written text editing; ticket reservation for cultural events; organizing cultural and arts events; publication and editing of printed matter; publication of electronic books and periodicals on the internet; organisation of entertainment and cultural events; publication of booklets; publishing of electronic publications; organising of festivals relating to literature; on-line publication of electronic books and journals [not downloadable]; publication and edition of books; magazine publishing; publication of audio books; publication of video and/or sound recordings; on-line publication of video and/or sound recordings; organising of festivals relating to arts and literature.

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

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

However, the term ‘namely’, used in the lists of goods and services of the opponent is used 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.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.

Some of the contested goods and services are identical to the goods and services on which the opposition is based. For instance, the contested organisation of cultural events (Class 41) includes, as a broad category, the opponent’s cultural activities, organising and casting services, namely arranging and conducting of shows for cultural and entertainment purposes (Class 41). Therefore, they are considered identical.

For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will not undertake a full comparison of the goods and services listed above. The examination of the opposition will proceed as if all the contested goods and services were identical to those of the earlier mark which, for the opponent, is the best light in which the opposition can be examined.

b) Relevant public – degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods and services assumed to be identical are directed at the public at large and at business professionals. The degree of attention is likely to be average.

c) The signs

	LITRO
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

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

The earlier mark will be perceived, throughout the relevant territory, as the abbreviation commonly used to refer to things that contain nitrogen and oxygen. It could also be seen as an abbreviation to refer to ‘nitroglycerine’ or just ‘nitrogen’. This perception is due to the fact that consumers either use the words/abbreviations as such in their respective languages (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nitro or https://dle.rae.es/nitro), or because they use equivalents that are so similar in spelling that will bring to mind the same concept. All the concepts that can be attributed to ‘NITRO’ are of average degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods and services involved.

The word ‘LITRO’ is meaningless for part of the relevant public (e.g. the Bulgarian-speaking consumers). It exists and is used as such by part of the relevant public, such as the Spanish-speaking consumers, for whom the word ‘litro’ means ‘litre’ (https://dle.rae.es/litro). Therefore, the word ‘LITRO’ is of an average degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods and services involved.

When signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T‑312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). This applies by analogy to the background colour and typeface of the earlier mark, which are not striking or particularly stylised, but rather regular and plain.

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. In the present case, the signs differ in their first letters, which have a particular impact for the reason explained below.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘*ITRO’. They differ in their first letters, ‘N’ versus ‘L’. These differences are found at the beginning of both marks which, for the reasons explained above, increase their visual impact. Together with the fact that the differing letters are not similar in shape, this leads to the signs being 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 letters ‘*ITRO’ and differs in the sound of their first letters, ‘N’ versus ‘L’. Therefore, the signs are aurally highly similar.

Conceptually, for the part of the public that only perceives the concept of ‘NITRO’ and perceives the contested mark as meaningless, the signs are not conceptually similar. Moreover, for the part of the public that perceives the concept of both marks, the signs will be associated with different meanings. Therefore, the signs are considered conceptually not similar.

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

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

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

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

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods and services have been assumed to be identical. They target the public at large and business professionals and the degree of attention paid by consumers during their purchase is deemed average.

The signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally highly similar and conceptually not similar.

The signs differ in their first letters (of greater impact, as explained above), and coincide in the rest of them. This one letter difference is sufficient for consumers to perceive that the signs do not coincide in concept.

Where at least one of the signs at issue has a clear and specific meaning that can immediately be grasped, the resulting conceptual difference may offset the visual and aural similarity between the signs (12/01/2006, C‑361/04, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25, § 20). That impact of conceptual difference is taken into consideration when making the overall assessment of similarity between the signs (05/10/2017, C‑437/16 P, CHEMPIOIL / CHAMPION et al., EU:C:2017:737, § 44; 04/03/2020, C‑328/18 P, BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA (fig.) / LABELL (fig.) et al., EU:C:2020:156, § 75).

Neutralisation can only be applied exceptionally, if at least one of the signs, as a whole, has a clear and specific meaning that can immediately be grasped by the relevant public.

Consumers in the relevant territory undoubtedly will perceive the earlier mark as having a clear concept, which may be absent in the contested mark, or, if present, may be perceived as either meaningless or totally different from the one in the earlier mark.

Therefore, even assuming the identity of the contested goods and services, the Opposition Division considers that the differences between the marks are sufficient for consumers to clearly differentiate them, and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected insofar as it is based on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to the signs analysed above.

The opponent has also based its opposition on the following earlier trade marks, also invoking Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR:

 German trade mark registration No 302 012 010 123 ‘Nitro’ (word mark).

 German trade mark registration No 302 012 010 221 (figurative mark).

Since these marks are identical (or with no significant variations) to the one that has already been compared above and cover the same or a narrower scope of goods and/or services, and taking into account that the relevant territory of these marks is Germany (i.e. the relevant territory was the European Union), the outcome cannot be different with respect to these signs. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to those earlier marks.

The opponent also invoked the following earlier rights, in relation to which it invoked Article 8(4) EUTMR:

 Other sign used in the course of trade, namely a work title, ‘NITRO’ (word mark), claimed to exist in Germany for collection of television shows (as translated by the opponent).

 Other sign used in the course of trade, namely a company name, ‘NITRO’ (word mark), claimed to exist in Germany for television channel/television broadcaster (as translated by the opponent).

The signs will be referred to in singular form to simplify the analysis (i.e. the sign) since they are visually identical. The opposition will now proceed on this basis.

NON-REGISTERED MARK OR ANOTHER SIGN USED IN THE COURSE OF TRADE – ARTICLE 8(4) EUTMR

According to Article 8(4) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, the trade mark applied for will not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Union legislation or the law of the Member State governing that sign:

(a) rights to that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the European Union trade mark, or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the European Union trade mark;

(b) that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark.

Therefore, the grounds of refusal of Article 8(4) EUTMR are subject to the following requirements:

 the earlier sign must have been used in the course of trade of more than local significance prior to the filing of the contested trade mark;

 pursuant to the law governing it, prior to the filing of the contested trade mark, the opponent acquired rights to the sign on which the opposition is based, including the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark;

 the conditions under which the use of a subsequent trade mark may be prohibited are fulfilled in respect of the contested trade mark.

These conditions are cumulative. Therefore, where a sign does not satisfy one of those conditions, the opposition based on a non-registered trade mark or other signs used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR cannot succeed.

a) Prior use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance

The condition requiring use in the course of trade is a fundamental requirement, without which the sign in question cannot enjoy any protection against the registration of a European Union trade mark, irrespective of the requirements to be met under national law in order to acquire exclusive rights. Furthermore, such use must indicate that the sign in question is of more than mere local significance.

It must be recalled that the object of the condition laid down in Article 8(4) EUTMR relating to use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance is to limit conflicts between signs by precluding an earlier right that is not sufficiently definite – that is to say, important and significant in the course of trade – from preventing registration of a new European Union trade mark. A right of opposition of that kind must be reserved for signs with a real and actual presence on their relevant market. To be capable of preventing registration of a new sign, the sign relied on in opposition must actually be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade, and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory. In order to ascertain whether that is the case, account must be taken of the duration and intensity of the use of the sign as a distinctive element for its addressees, namely purchasers and consumers as well as suppliers and competitors. In that regard, the use made of the sign in advertising and commercial correspondence is of particular relevance. In addition, the condition relating to use in the course of trade must be assessed separately for each of the territories in which the right relied on in support of the opposition is protected. Finally, use of the sign in the course of trade must be shown to have occurred before the date of the application for registration of the European Union trade mark (29/03/2011, C‑96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 157, 159-160, 163, 166).

The requirement of ‘more than local significance’ relates also to the use that is made of the sign on the basis of which the opposition is entered, and not only to the geographic area in which the sign may be protected according to the law governing the sign in question (29/03/2011, C‑96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 156).

In the present case, the contested trade mark was filed on 01/05/2018. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the sign on which the opposition is based was used in the course of trade of more than local significance in Germany prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the opponent’s sign has been used in the course of trade for the following:

 The work title ‘NITRO’ (word mark) is claimed to exist in Germany for collection of television shows (as translated by the opponent).

 The company name ‘NITRO’ (word mark) is claimed to exist in Germany for television channel/television broadcaster (as translated by the opponent).

On 30/11/2020 the opponent filed the following evidence:

 Annexes 1-4: register information from The German Patent and Trade Mark Office in relation to the earlier rights invoked as the basis of the opposition.

 Annex 5: German Trademark Act, with English translation.

 Annexes 6 and 7: legal commentary ‘Beck’scher Onlinekommentar Markenrecht’ in German with an English translation.

 Annex 8: an extract from Wikipedia, showing the results for the search of ‘Nitro’, in English. It demonstrates that ‘NITRO’ is a German television channel that was launched on 01/04/2012. The mark is used as the name of the television channel and also appears as part of the website address of the channel. The document contains audience share figures relating to Germany, covering part of 2012 until the end of 2017. The extract is undated and, in addition, Wikipedia is editable by anyone accessing it. Therefore, its content is of limited relevance as evidence of use.

 Annex 9: screenshots of the archived web presentation of www.nitro-tv.de of RTL Television GmbH, found at www.archive.org/Web on 31/08/2017 and 08/01/2019, with translations of some of the terms contained in the document. The mark appears to have been used in relation to programs, broadcasts, etc.

 Annexes 10 and 11: legal commentary ‘Beck’scher Onlinkommentar Markenrecht’ in German with an English translation.

 Annexes 12 and 13: legal commentary ‘Ingerl/Rohnke, Markengesetz 3. Edition 2010’ with an English translation.

 Annexes 14 and 15: legal commentary ‘Ingerl/Rohnke, Markengesetz 3. Auflage 2010’, with an English translation consisting of, inter alia, the following.

 Annex 16: an extract from www.tvspielfilm.de, concerning the television programme schedule of the television channel ‘NITRO’, where the names of programmes, the kind of show and the date and hour in which they are broadcasted is shown.

 Annex 17: an extract from www.tvspielfilm.de, concerning the television programme schedule on the television channel ‘NITRO’ with translations. The document does not contain any reference to the year to which the information relates. However, it contains a small footnote where it is explained that, on 01/04/2012, Nitro started broadcasting under the name RTL Nitro and that in 2017 ‘emancipated from broadcaster RTL at least by name and since then has only called itself Nitro’.

 Annex 18: an extract from www.chip.de: ‘NITRO ab jetzt ohne RTL: TV-Sender ändert Namen’ with translations. The document is undated. However, it contains a footnote containing a reference to 2017, which is translated as follows.

 Annex 19: a survey concerning market shares of television channels by AGF Videoforschung GmbH (2012-2017). The mark appears to have been used in word format as ‘RTL Nitro’, showing 0.3 % of average daily market shares in 2012, 0,7 % in 2013, 1,3 % in 2014, 1,3 % in 2016 and 1,6 % in 2017.

 Annex 20: an extract, published in 2016 from www.finanznachrichten.de, relating to the purchase of broadcasting licenses concerning the ‘Bundesliga’ football league, in German. The earlier mark is used in word format, as ‘RTL NITRO’. The partial translations explain the following.

 Annex 21: an extract from www.dwdl.de, concerning the market share of television channels, in German, dated 02/01/2018. The total market share for 2017 is 1,6 % for Nitro.

 Annexes 22 and 23: Legal commentary ‘Beck’scher Onlinekommentar Markenrecht, 16th edition’ in German with an English translation consisting of, inter alia, the following.

The applicant did not comment on the evidence submitted.

The documents show that the use of the sign is in Germany. This can be inferred from the fact that the texts are in German (including websites) and the figures (e.g. audience/share) are specified as referring to Germany.

The evidence is mainly dated before the relevant date or refers to such period of time, although part of it is not dated.

The documents, as a whole, provide sufficient information concerning the commercial volume of use, the length of time of use and the frequency of use. It is clear from the evidence that the opponent’s trade under the sign at issue was of more than mere local significance as can be seen from, inter alia, the market share figures.

The evidence clearly indicates that as a result of the use that has been made of the signs, it has an impact that clearly goes beyond the local area where the opponent’s business is located, the signs having been used at a national level in Germany.

Consequently, the Opposition Division concludes that the opponent’s sign was used in relation to the relevant services (i.e. collection of television shows; television channel/television broadcaster) in the course of trade of more than local significance in Germany before the filing date of the contested mark, and that use is proven for the two non-registered rights invoked by the opponent.

b) The right under the applicable law

German company name

The opponent submitted the relevant law in this regard, together with an English translation, and additional legal commentaries.

Title of work

The opponent submitted the relevant law in this regard, together with an English translation, and additional legal commentaries.

c) The earlier right vis-à-vis the contested trade mark

The opponent explained that, according to the law governing the sign in question, ‘a company designation entitles its owner to go against identical or similar signs, including trade marks according to Sec. 15, Paragraph 2 and 4, Sec. 5 Paragraph 1 and 2 German Trademark Act. This is the case at hand’, and that ‘danger of confusion with regard to a work title is given, according to German law, in case of identity or similarity of the signs (same standard applies as for trade marks), the work title must be distinctive and there must be at least similarity of the works or products involved. The last point, requires certain factual points of contact between the work designated by the protected title, and the work of product of a third party for which the identical or similar sign is used’ (emphasis added) and submitted German literature with translations (Annexes 22 and 23) and pointed out and submitted the relevant provisions in the German Trademark Act.

1. Likelihood of confusion

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.

2. The signs

The signs have already been compared above under the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. Reference is made to those findings, namely that they are visually similar to an average degree, aurally highly similar and conceptually not similar.

3. Global assessment of the conditions under the applicable law

Since these non-registered signs do not present significant variations from the earlier mark that has already been compared under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR above (i.e. the same verbal element in a word mark), and cover the same or a narrower scope of goods and/or services, and taking into account that the relevant territory of these marks is Germany (i.e. the relevant territory was the European Union), the outcome cannot be different with respect to these signs.

In spite of the coincidence in the sequence of letters ‘ITRO’, there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs for the same reasons explained in the analysis of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR above. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to the non-registered signs, and the requirements under Article 8(4) EUTMR described above are not fulfilled.

Therefore, the opposition is not well founded under Article 8(4) 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 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

Irena LYUDMILOVA LECHEVA

María del Carmen SUCH SANCHEZ

Vít MAHELKA

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.