CANCELLATION No C 45 015 (INVALIDITY) 

 

Aytac Handels GmbH, Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 14, 68165 Mannheim, Germany (applicant), represented by GHI - Göritz Hornung Imgrund - Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft, Beethovenstr. 22, 68165 Mannheim, Germany (professional representative)

 

a g a i n s t

 

Recep Ercan, Unit 3, Forest Business Park, Argall Avenue, E10 7FB London, United Kingdom  (EUTM proprietor), represented by Loschelder, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11, 50668 Köln, Germany (professional representative).

On 19/03/2021, the Cancellation Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION

1.	The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected in its entirety.

 

2.	The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 450.

REASONS

 

On 17/07/2020, the applicant filed a request for  a declaration of invalidity against European Union trade mark No 17 900 711   (figurative mark)(the EUTM), filed on 15/05/2018 and registered on 11/09/2018. The request is directed against all the goods covered by the EUTM, namely:

 

Class 30: Flour; Cereal flour; Flour mixes; Vegetable flour; Pizza flour; Dough flour; Flour confectionery; Truffle flour; Wheaten flour; Cake flour; Potato flour; Tapioca flour; Maize flour; Wheat flour; Corn flour; Rye flour; Coixseed flour; Edible flour; Rice flour; Soya flour; Buckwheat flour; Nut flours; Potato flour confectionery; Flour of millet; Flour for doughnuts; Flour of oats; Flour based chips; Toasted grain flour; Flour for baking; Chinese batter flour; Flour of rice; Flour of barley; Flour of corn; Wheat starch flour; Flour-based dumplings; Glutinous rice flour; Flour-based gnocchi; Corn starch flour; Mung bean flour; Flour for food; Rice starch flour; Rice flour porridge; Non-medicated flour confections; Tapioca flour for food; Flour concentrate for food; Oilseed flour for food; Barley flour for food; Mixed flour for food; Flour based savory snacks; Flour ready for baking; Soya flour for food; Non-medicated flour confectionery; Potato flour for food; Flour preparations for food; Buckwheat flour for food; Adlay flour for food; Wheat flour [for food]; Corn flour [for food]; Potato flour [for food]; Pulse flour for food; Non-medicated flour confectionery containing chocolate; Flour mixtures for use in baking; Snack foods prepared from potato flour; Snack food products made from cereal flour; Non-medicated flour confectionery containing imitation chocolate; Prepared savory foodstuffs made from potato flour; Snack food products made from soya flour; Snack food products made from rusk flour; Snack food products made from potato flour; Snack food products made from maize flour; Non-medicated flour confectionery coated with chocolate; Snack food products made from rice flour; Flour for making dumplings of glutinous rice; Dried sugared cakes of rice flour (rakugan); Non-medicated flour confectionery coated with imitation chocolate; Deproteinised flour for use in the production of beer.

The applicant invoked Article 60(1)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(4) EUTMR in relation to German, Belgium and Dutch company names ‘Aytac’ and , Article 60(2)(c) EUTMR in relation to a copyright, Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(3) EUTMR and 21(2)(a) EUTMR in relation to a non-registered trade mark used in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands and Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR.

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

  

The applicant argues that it is a company founded in 1999, and it used the logo ‘aytac’ from the beginning. It has been operating a manufacturing, importing and distributing business focused on flour. In 2000 it designed a packaging for the flour that is almost completely identical to the contested mark, which it has been using with only small changes until the present. Since December 2000, the flour has been sold also to Aytac UK Ltd. The EUTM proprietor was the managing director of that company. It gives information regarding the amounts of flour sold and the EU territories in which it was sold. It explains that its products are sold almost exclusively to retailers that cater for consumers with Turkish origins, which is why the packaging, as well as the contested mark, contain Turkish text (Ekstra Un).

The applicant submitted the following documents:

 Certificate of registration of the applicant.

 Affidavit of the managing director of the applicant, in which the history of the company is described, as well as the original and current packaging of the flour, the quantities of flour sold and the territorial extent of use, in essentially identical way as in the applicant’s observations.

 Affidavit of the manager of Frießinger Mühle, the mill that produces the flour for the applicant, confirming the business relationship of more than 20 years between the mill and the applicant, and providing information about the packaging of the flour, confirming the statements of the affidavit of the applicant’s director.

 A document that the applicant describes as ‘first order from Aytac UK Ltd. to the applicant’. However, Aytac UK Ltd. is not mentioned in the entire document, which consists of what seems to be a list of products, among them ‘Aytac Un’, together with their quantities. There is no mention of the entity making the order or the one to which the order is aimed to.

 A list of what the applicant identifies as its customers for 2017 and 2018, together with respective sales figures.

 

The EUTM proprietor did not file any observations, despite having been duly invited to do so by the Office.

 

NON-REGISTERED MARK OR OTHER SIGN USED IN THE COURSE OF TRADE ─ ARTICLE 60(1)(c) EUTMR IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 8(4) EUTMR

 

The application is based on company names ‘Aytac’ and , purportedly used in the course of trade in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, in relation to manufacturing and trading with foods.

 

According to Article 60(1)(c) EUTMR, a European Union trade mark will be declared invalid on application to the Office where there is an earlier right, as referred to in Article 8(4) EUTMR, and the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled.

 

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 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 60(1)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with 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;

 

 pursuant to the law governing it, prior to the filing or the priority date of the contested trade mark, the applicant must have acquired rights to the sign on which the invalidity action 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 must be fulfilled in respect of the contested trade mark.

 

In an application for invalidity based on Article 60(1)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(4) EUTMR, the invalidity applicant must show the earlier sign’s use in the course of trade of more than local significance by the filing date of the contested EUTM (or the priority date, if relevant). In invalidity proceedings, the applicant also has to prove that the sign was used in the course of trade of more than local significance at another point in time, namely at the time of filing of the invalidity request. This condition derives from the wording of Article 60(1)(c) EUTMR, which states that an EUTM will be declared invalid ‘where there is an earlier right as referred to in Article 8(4) and the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled’ (03/08/2011, R 1822/2010‑2, BABY BAMBOLINA (fig.), § 15). The requirement of the ‘continued existence’ in the context of Article 8(4) EUTMR in invalidity proceedings is now explicitly set out in Article 16(1)(b) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR.

  

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

 

The applicable law

  

According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, the Office will examine the facts of its own motion in proceedings before it. However, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office will restrict this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the relief sought.

 

According to Article 16(1)(b) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR, if the application is based on an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the applicant must provide, inter alia, evidence of its acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection, including where the earlier right is invoked pursuant to the law of a Member State, and a clear identification of the content of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence.

 

Therefore, the onus is on the applicant to submit all the information necessary for the decision, including identifying the applicable law and providing all the necessary information for its sound application. According to case-law, it is up to the applicant ‘… to provide OHIM [now the EUIPO] not only with particulars showing that it satisfies the necessary conditions of the national law under which protection is sought but also particulars establishing the content of that law’ (05/07/2011, C‑263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452, § 50).

 

The information on the applicable law must allow the Office to understand and apply the content of that law, the conditions for obtaining protection and the scope of this protection, and allow the proprietor of the contested trade mark to exercise the right of defence.

 

As regards the provisions of the applicable law, the applicant must clearly identify the content of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (Article 16(1)(b) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR). The applicant must provide the reference to the relevant legal provision (article number and the number and title of the law) and the content (text) of the legal provision by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (e.g. excerpts from an official journal, a legal commentary, legal encyclopaedias or court decisions). If the relevant provision refers to a further provision of law, this must also be provided to enable the EUTM proprietor and the Office to understand the full meaning of the provision invoked and to determine the possible relevance of this further provision. Where the evidence concerning the content of the relevant national law is accessible online from a source recognised by the Office, the applicant may provide this evidence by referencing that source (Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR).

 

Furthermore, the applicant must submit appropriate evidence of fulfilment of the conditions of acquisition and of the scope of protection of the right invoked, as well as evidence that the conditions of protection vis-à-vis the contested mark have actually been met. The evidence must clarify whether the holder of the right is entitled to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark as well as the conditions under which the right may prevail and be enforced vis‑à‑vis a subsequent trade mark.

  

In the present case, the applicant did not submit any information at all on the legal protection granted to company names by the laws of the states to which it referred. The applicant did not submit any information on the possible content of the rights invoked or the conditions to be fulfilled for the applicant to be able to prohibit the use of the contested trade mark under the laws in Belgium, Germany or the Netherlands.

 

Therefore, the application must be rejected insofar as it is based on Article 60(1)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(4) EUTMR.

 

 

ARTICLE 60(2) EUTMR – COPYRIGHT

According to Article 60(2)(c) EUTMR, a European Union trade mark shall be declared invalid on application to the Office where the use of such trade mark may be prohibited pursuant to another earlier right under the EU legislation or national law governing its protection, and in particular a copyright.

The applicant claims that it owns copyright to the following image:

It argues that the copyright is protected in the national law of Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, Cyprus, Czech Republic, United Kingdom and Austria.

According to Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR, in the case of an application pursuant to Article 60(2) EUTMR, the applicant must provide evidence of acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection of the relevant earlier right as well as evidence proving that the applicant is entitled to file the application, including, where the earlier right is invoked pursuant to the law of a Member State, a clear identification of the content of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence.

Although the EU legislator has harmonised certain aspects of copyright protection (see Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22/05/2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22/06/2001, pp. 10-19), so far there is no full-scale harmonisation of the copyright laws of the Member States, nor is there a uniform EU copyright. However, all the Member States are bound by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The invalidity applicant has to provide the necessary national legislation in force and put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed under the specific national law in preventing the use of the contested mark. A mere reference to the national law will not be considered sufficient: it is not for the Office to make that argument on the applicant’s behalf (see, by analogy, judgment of 05/07/2011, C-263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452).

In the present case, the applicant did not demonstrate that it is the owner of the copyright. The applicant’s director declares, in his affidavit, that the applicant made the image of the old man available to the mill (Frießinger Mühle), and specified the graphic elements that the packaging should include, and the mill commissioned its graphic agency to create the final design. The director of the mill, in its affidavit, confirms this and states that the design of the packaging was created by the graphic agency pursuant to specifications of the applicant. First of all, these are merely statements of persons directly involved in these proceedings (the director of the applicant and of the mill which is, according to the statements of both directors, a very close and long term business partner to the applicant). 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 perceptions of a party involved in a dispute may be more or less affected by its personal interests in the matter. There is no other evidence in the file that would support the declarations made in the two affidavits. Moreover, it is not clear from the two statements if the copyright is owned by the graphic agency or by the applicant and no contract with the graphic agency or other document that could clarify this issue was submitted.

In any event, the applicant did not provide any information at all about national laws of any of the Member States invoked regarding protection of copyright. It did not submit any information on the conditions to be fulfilled for the applicant to be able to prohibit the use of the contested trade mark, based on copyright, under the laws in any of the countries referred to by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant did not fulfil the condition required by Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR and the Cancellation Division does not have any information on the national law and legal practice and, therefore, it is unable to assess whether or not the applicant would be able to prohibit the use of the contested trade mark in any of the Member States mentioned above based on the copyright to the image of the old man, even if it was considered that the applicant is the owner of that copyright.

Consequently, the application has to be rejected also insofar as it is based on Article 60(2)(c) EUTMR.

UNAUTHORISED FILING BY AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRADE MARK OWNER — ARTICLE 8(3) EUTMR

 

The applicant invoked Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(3) EUTMR and Article 21(2)(a) EUTMR, based on a non-registered trade mark used in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands .

According to Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR, a European Union trade mark will be declared invalid on application to the Office where there is an earlier trade mark, as referred to in Article 8(3) EUTMR, and the conditions set out in that paragraph are fulfilled.

According to Article 8(3) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark will not be registered where an agent or a representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor’s consent, unless the agent or representative justifies his action.

 

Therefore, the grounds for refusal of Article 8(3) EUTMR are subject to the following requirements:

 the signs are identical or only differ in elements that do not substantially affect their distinctiveness; 

 the goods and services are identical or equivalent in commercial terms; 

 the person who applied for the contested mark is an agent or a representative of the owner of the earlier mark; 

 the application for the trade mark was filed without the consent of the owner of the earlier mark; 

 the agent or representative fails to justify its acts. 

These conditions are cumulative. Therefore, where one of the conditions is not satisfied, the invalidity application based on Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(3) EUTMR cannot succeed.

  

Agent or representative relationship

In view of the purpose of this provision, which is to safeguard the legal interests of trade mark proprietors against the misappropriation of their trade marks by their commercial associates, the terms ‘agent’ and ‘representative’ should be interpreted broadly to cover all kinds of relationships based on any business arrangement (governed by a written or oral contract) where one party is representing the interests of another, regardless of the nomen juris of the contractual relationship between the principal-proprietor and the EUTM applicant (confirmed 13/04/2011, T-262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).

Therefore, it is sufficient for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR that there is some agreement of commercial cooperation between the parties of a kind that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship by imposing on the applicant, whether expressly or implicitly, a general duty of trust and loyalty as regards the interests of the trade mark proprietor. It follows that Article 8(3) EUTMR may also extend, for example, to licensees of the proprietor, or to authorised distributors of the goods for which the mark in question is used.

Given the variety of forms that commercial relationships may acquire in practice, a case-by-case approach is applied, focusing on whether the contractual link between the proprietor-opponent and the applicant is only limited to a series of occasional transactions, or if, conversely, it is of such a duration and content to justify the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR. The material question should be whether it was the cooperation with the proprietor that gave the applicant the possibility to get to know and appreciate the value of the mark and incited the applicant to subsequently try to register the mark in its own name.

Nevertheless, some kind of cooperation agreement has to exist between the parties. If the applicant acts completely independently, without having entered into any kind of fiduciary relationship with the proprietor, it cannot be considered an agent within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR (13/04/2011, T-262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64). 

Therefore, a mere customer or a client of the proprietor cannot amount to an ‘agent or representative’ for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR, since such persons are under no special obligation of trust to the trade mark proprietor.

The applicant claims that it sold flour under the earlier mark to Aytac UK Ltd. between 2000 and 2003. From 2003 onwards, the mill sold the flour to the UK company directly with the license from the applicant. This statement is also contained in the affidavit of the applicant’s director. Moreover, in its observations, the applicant puts forward that the EUTM proprietor was the managing director of Aytac UK Ltd. Aytac UK Ltd. was liquidated, according to the applicant, in 2006, and the EUTM proprietor is now the managing director of Aytac Foods Ltd. The applicant does not clarify if it supplies the flour to Aytac Foods Ltd. or in which time period it did so.

The question of whether or not such a relationship could be considered an agent-principal relationship within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR, as well as whether or not the time periods mentioned would be relevant in view of the fact that the contested mark was filed in 2018, can remain unanswered, because the applicant did not even demonstrate the claims that it made. Aside from the statements in the two affidavits, there is no document that would link in any way the applicant to Aytac UK Ltd. The applicant claims that it submitted the first order of Aytac UK to the applicant, but this document consists of a mere list of items, seemingly products, along with their amounts. There is no mention of Aytac UK Ltd. At the top of the document dates 18/12/2000 and 28/12/2000 are printed next to a text in Turkish which appears to be referring to orders and amounts. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that any of the ordered products were ordered by Aytac UK Ltd. Since there is absolutely no document that would support the statements of the applicant’s director and supplier regarding Aytac UK Ltd., this applicant’s claim cannot be considered to be demonstrated.

Moreover, even if the Cancellation Division relied on the affidavits and considered that first the applicant and later the mill supplied the flour under the earlier mark to Aytac UK Ltd., there is absolutely no evidence in the file (including statements made in the affidavits) that the EUTM proprietor is in any way related to Aytac UK Ltd. Consequently, it must be concluded that no relationship whatsoever was demonstrated between the EUTM proprietor and the applicant.

It follows from the above that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the EUTM proprietor is or was its agent or representative.

As one of the necessary requirements is not met, the application must be rejected as not well founded under Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(3) EUTMR. Since the application is not successful as far as these grounds are concerned, the contested trade mark cannot be assigned to the applicant pursuant to Article 21 EUTMR.

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY – ARTICLE 59(1)(b) EUTMR 

General principles 

Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR provides that a European Union trade mark will be declared invalid where the applicant was acting in bad faith when it filed the application for the trade mark. 

There is no precise legal definition of the term ‘bad faith’, which is open to various interpretations. Bad faith is a subjective state based on the applicant’s intentions when filing a European Union trade mark. As a general rule, intentions on their own are not subject to legal consequences. For a finding of bad faith there must be, first, some action by the EUTM proprietor which clearly reflects a dishonest intention and, second, an objective standard against which such action can be measured and subsequently qualified as constituting bad faith. There is bad faith when the conduct of the applicant for a European Union trade mark departs from accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices, which can be identified by assessing the objective facts of each case against the standards (Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 12/03/2009, C-529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60). 

Thus, Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR meets the general interest objective of preventing trade mark registrations that are abusive or contrary to honest commercial and business practices (03/06/2010, Internetportal und Marketing, C‑569/08, EU:C:2010:311, § 36 and 37). Such registrations are contrary to the principle that the application of EU law cannot be extended to cover abusive practices on the part of a trader which do not make it possible to attain the objective of the legislation in question (14/12/2000, Emsland-Stärke, C‑110/99, EU:C:2000:695, § 51 and 52, and 07/07/2016, LUCEO, T‑82/14, EU:T:2016:396, §52).

In that regard, if, insofar as it characterises the applicant's intention at the time of filing the application for registration of an EU trade mark, the concept of bad faith, within the meaning of Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, constitutes a subjective element, it must be determined in the light of the objective circumstances of the case (11/06/2009, Lindt Goldhase, C‑529/07, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).

It is for the applicant for a declaration of invalidity who intends to rely on Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR to establish the circumstances which make it possible to conclude that an application for registration of a European Union trade mark was filed in bad faith, the good faith of the applicant being presumed until proven otherwise (08/03/2017, Formata, T‑23/16, EU:T:2017:149, § 45).

Whether an EUTM proprietor acted in bad faith when filing a trade mark application must be the subject of an overall assessment, taking into account all the factors relevant to the particular case (11/06/2009, C‑529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 37).

Assessment of bad faith

The applicant claims that the EUTM proprietor knew about the applicant’s mark because it was the managing director of a company to which the applicant and later the applicant’s supplier directly, sold flour in a packaging essentially identical to the contested mark.

As already explained above, the applicant failed to demonstrate these claims. There is nothing in the evidence that could link the EUTM proprietor to the applicant or its products. It also cannot be inferred from the evidence that the applicant’s products are reputed among consumers with Turkish origin, as claimed by the applicant. The only evidence (apart from the affidavits) are the lists of clients and sales figures. These documents alone, apart from the fact that their source is unknown and they appear to originate in the applicant itself, show sales worth of hundreds of thousands Euros, mostly to clients in Germany. It is not possible to conclude, from this information alone, that the applicant’s mark was reputed to such an extent that persons in the UK must have been aware of it.

Finally, apart from the claims in the affidavit, there is no indication in the evidence suggesting that the applicant’s products were sold in packaging nearly identical to the contested mark, as the only document that refers to the actual products is the purchase order, in which the products are described as ‘Aytac’. This document is, moreover, dated in 2000 and there is no evidence (except the affidavits) that would show the mark under which the applicant’s products were sold in the time period nearer to the filing of the contested mark (2018).

As stated above, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Since the applicant failed to demonstrate that the EUTM proprietor knew about the applicant’s mark, that there was any type of relationship between the applicant and the EUTM proprietor, that the applicant in fact used a mark that would be similar to the contested mark, in the time period before the filing of the contested mark, or that the EUTM proprietor was in pursuit of dishonest or illegitimate objectives when applying for the contested mark, it must be concluded that bad faith of the EUTM proprietor, when filing the application for the contested mark, was not proven.

As the bad faith of the EUTM proprietor at the time of filing of the contested mark was not demonstrated, the application for a declaration of invalidity must be rejected also insofar as it was based on Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR.

COSTS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Cancellation Division

 

Elena NICOLÁS GÓMEZ

Michaela SIMANDLOVA

Martin LENZ

 

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 of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.