OPPOSITION No B 3 084 887

Northern Foods Grocery Group Limited, Trinity Park House, Fox Way, Wakefield WF2 8EE, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Walker Morris LLP, 33 Wellington Street, Leeds LS1 4DL, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Autobahn Tank & Rast GmbH, Andreas-Hermes Str. 7-9, 53175 Bonn, Germany (applicant), represented by Redeker Sellner Dahs, Willy-Brandt-Allee 11, 53113 Bonn, Germany (professional representative).

On 17/12/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 084 887 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 29: Nut bars.

Class 30: Snack food products consisting of cereal products; chocolate-based ready-to-eat food bars; candy bars; rice crackers; chocolate based products; sweets (candy), candy bars and chewing gum; cereal bars and energy bars; pastries, cakes, tarts and biscuits (cookies); crackers; pastries; pastry; chocolates; sweet biscuits.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 014 118 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 014 118 (figurative mark), namely against some of the goods in Classes 29 and 30. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 8 271 017 ‘FOX'S’ (word mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) 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.

a) The goods

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

Class 30: Cakes, bread other than croutons, pizzas, sweet snack foods but not including non-medicated sugar confectionery; muffins, preparations made from cereals; pastry, biscuits, crackers, chocolate and coated biscuits, biscuit confectionery, chocolate confectionery, chocolate sugar confectionery, chocolate products, flour confectionery; wafers, ice creams and edible ices; ice cream products; crisp breads other than croutons, crisps; rice based snacks; flour based snacks; breakfast cereals.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 29: Nut bars.

Class 30: Baking preparations and yeasts; snack food products consisting of cereal products; chocolate-based ready-to-eat food bars; candy bars; rice crackers; chocolate based products; sweets (candy), candy bars and chewing gum; cereal bars and energy bars; pastries, cakes, tarts and biscuits (cookies); crackers; pastries; pastry; chocolates; sweet biscuits.

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

The terms ‘but not including’ and ‘other than’ used in the opponent’s list of goods to show the relationship of individual goods and services 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.

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.

Contested goods in Class 29

The contested nut bars are normally consumed as snacks, and therefore they are similar to the opponent’s flour based snacks. The goods under comparison can be produced by the same producers and can be directed at the same consumers. Moreover, they are likely to be distributed through the same distribution channels and may be in competition.

Contested goods in Class 30

The contested snack food products consisting of cereal products; chocolate-based ready-to-eat food bars; candy bars; rice crackers; chocolate based products; sweets (candy), candy bars and chewing gum; cereal bars and energy bars; pastries, cakes, tarts and biscuits (cookies); crackers; pastries; pastry; chocolates; sweet biscuits are similar to at least a low degree to the opponent’s sweet snack foods but not including non-medicated sugar confectionery, preparations made from cereals; pastry, biscuits, crackers, chocolate and coated biscuits, chocolate confectionery, chocolate products, as they coincide in at least the relevant public, distribution channels and they may originate from the same producers.

The contested baking preparations and yeasts are leavening agents that are used to increase the volume of baked goods. These goods are dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods in Class 30, since they have a different nature, purpose and method of use. Furthermore, they differ in distribution channels and the usual producer of the goods.

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods found to be similar to at least a low degree are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is average.

c) The signs

FOX'S
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 unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C‑514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the part of the relevant public for which the verbal elements included in both signs are meaningful, such as the English-speaking part of the public.

The element ‘FOX’S’ of the earlier mark will be understood by the public under analysis as the possessive of the noun ‘fox’, meaning ‘a wild animal which looks like a dog and has reddish-brown fur, a pointed face and ears, and a thick tail’ (information extracted from Collins Dictionary on 11/12/2020 at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fox). Given that it has no relation to the goods in question, it is distinctive.

The contested sign is a figurative sign composed of the verbal element ‘FOXX’ depicted in white upper-case letters placed against a dark grey rectangular background. There is a small depiction of a fox´s head in the space between the letters ‘XX’.

The verbal element ‘FOXX’ of the contested sign is likely to be associated by the public under analysis with the English word ‘fox’, with the meaning defined above in relation to the earlier mark. This is because the double letter ‘X’ does not prevent the English-speaking consumers from immediately perceiving the word ‘fox’ therein. In addition, the presence of the figurative element of a fox´s head in the contested sign reinforces the concept of this animal for those consumers who do not overlook this element in the sign. These elements of the sign are distinctive for the goods at issue. However, the rectangular background of the sign will be perceived as a simple geometrical shape. Since it is a commonplace element, it is considered non-distinctive.

It should be noted that 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).

In the contested sign, the verbal element overshadows the figurative element of a fox’s head by virtue of its central position and size. Therefore, the verbal element is the visually dominant element of the contested sign.

Visually, the signs coincide in the initial three letters, ‘FOX*’, of their distinctive verbal elements, ‘FOX’S’ and ‘FOXX’, the latter being the dominant element of the contested sign. However, they differ in the last letters ‘S’ and ‘X’ as well as in the punctuation mark of the earlier mark. The signs differ further in the figurative elements of the contested sign, as specified above.

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

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛FOX*’, present identically in both signs and constituting the majority of the distinctive element ‘FOX’S’ of the earlier mark and the entirety of the distinctive verbal element ‘FOXX’ of the contested sign, since the double ‘XX’ will be pronounced as one by the public under analysis. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the final letter, ‘S’, of the earlier mark, which has no counterpart in the contested sign.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a high degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As the signs will be perceived by the public under analysis as referring to the same concept of a fox, which is reinforced in the contested sign by the figurative element representing a fox head, the signs are conceptually identical.

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

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the European Union, in connection with part of the goods for which it is registered, namely cakes, sweet snack foods but not including non-medicated sugar confectionery; muffins, preparations made from cereals; pastry, biscuits, crackers, chocolate and coated biscuits, biscuit confectionery, chocolate confectionery, chocolate sugar confectionery, chocolate products, flour confectionery; wafers, flour based snacks. This claim must be properly considered given that the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark must be taken into account in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C 39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).

The opponent submitted the following evidence:

- Annex A: a declaration signed by the representative of the opponent, dated 17/12/2019, stating, inter alia, that the opponent has been using the ‘FOX'S’ trade mark since 1853 in relation to snack foods including biscuits, cakes and confectionery. Further, it states that ‘the opponent invests heavily in the advertisement and marketing of its FOX'S trade mark. Each year, a significant amount of money is spent in relation to the advertisement of the brand. By way of an indication, nearly 1.2 million pounds has been spent on the advertisement of FOX'S in the last 7 years alone’.

- Annex 1: undated screenshots of the websites of Amazon and eBay (UK, DE, ES, FR and IT), and of the supermarkets’ websites of B&M (it can be read ‘From a tiny Victorian bakery in northern England over 160 years ago, Fox’s Biscuits has grown to become one of the UK’s leading biscuits brands’), Iceland, Poundland, Tesco, English shop, Michelle’s Specialities, Lebensmittel, Neqtiq and Coopers Candy, showing ‘FOX’S’ branded goods, such as biscuits, cookies, mini party rings, chocolate bars, caramel bars, chocolate melts, chocolate biscuits, cream biscuits, caramel biscuits, biscuits bars. The screenshots in German, Spanish, French, Italian and Swedish are untranslated.

- Annex 2: a Google Analytics report showing the number of visitors to the opponent’s website (www.foxs-biscuits.co.uk) for the period 29/11/2014 - 05/12/2019. During this period there were 539,957 new users worldwide and 629,136 sessions worldwide.

- Annex 3: screenshots of the opponent’s website at www.foxs-biscuits.co.uk obtained through the Wayback machine, dated between 22/08/2005 and 10/03/2019.

- Annex 4: screenshots of ‘FOX'S’ social media pages (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). According to the opponent’s representative’s statement, there are nearly half a million followers on Facebook, over 13,000 followers on Twitter and over 6,000 followers on Instagram.

- Annex 5: a copy of an email dated 06/03/2017 sent from the UK Intellectual Property Office to the opponent’s trade mark representatives for permission to use the ‘FOX'S’ trade mark at the INTA conference stall promoting IP in 2017. The opponent’s trade mark is referred to as one of the "most iconic UK brands".

- Annex 6: an extract from the local paper Batley & Birstall News, titled ‘Sweet! Behind the scenes at Fox’s Biscuits’, dated 10/10/2013, stating ‘It came from humble beginnings, but now Fox’s is famous the world over, and is celebrating its 160^th anniversary this year. Founded by one man in a small Batley bakehouse, the business has expanded and developed over many years, and now counts rapper Dizzee Rascal and boxer Amir Khan among its famous fans. While the iconic brand is a huge part of local heritage, its’s also exported all over the world so whether you’re in Soothill or South Africa you can dunk a Fox’s Classic in your afternoon brew’; extract from British Baker, titled ‘Fox’s Biscuits expands Chunkie Cookie range’, dated 30/04/2019, stating ‘The new flavour, Extremely Chocolatey Dark Chocolate, Raspberry & Hazelnut joints Extremely Chocolatey Half Coated Milk Chocolate, Milk Chocolate Chunk, White Chocolate Chunk and Triple Chocolate Chunk cookies in the Chunkie Cookie range’; an undated extract from The Guardian, titled ‘Fox’s biscuits launches ‘danda’ ad’, stating ‘Biscuit maker Fox’s is to launch a TV campaign fronted by an animated character dubbed a ‘danda’, a cross between a dog and a panda. (…) The £5m campaign, which includes the first TV ad by Fox’s in nearly two years, aims to reinforce the company’s position as a premium brand in its battle with rivals including United Biscuits’ McVities’s brand’; an extract ‘Rocky Road: Fox’s biscuits’, with no indication of where it was published, dated 09/08/2017, concerning the corporate history of Fox’s Biscuits; an extract, with an illegible date, from The Telegraph, titled ‘Chicken King’s Boparan receives £350mbid for Fox’s biscuits’.

- Annex 7: an extract from Wikipedia regarding the history of Fox’s Biscuits (company).

Additionally, on 03/08/2020, after the time limit set by the Office, the opponent submitted the following evidence:

- Annex 1: a table ‘Fox Brand Sales into UK Territory and International for all year round products’ referring to the sales figures for 2010-2020. It is assumed that the reference to ‘Fox Brand’ is a typo error, and it should be read as referring to sales for the trade mark ‘FOX’S’. The information provided in this table has not been corroborated by any clarification in the opponent’s observations.

- Annexes 2-4: numerous invoices, dated 2011-2020, issued to some supermarkets, namely: Tesco, Morrisons, Asda, Aldi, GM Marketing and Fitzpatrick Exports Ltd., referring to ‘FOX’S’ branded goods and goods branded under the supermarkets own brands. The figurative sign ‘FOX’S’ is visible on the top part of the invoices and in the goods’ specifications.

In respect of the evidence submitted after the time limit set by the Office, even though, according to Article 7(2) EUTMDR, the opponent has to provide evidence of substantiation within a time limit set by the Office, this cannot be interpreted as automatically preventing additional evidence from being taken into account. Therefore, the Office will take into account this evidence, as it will not affect the final outcome of the case.

The Opposition Division finds that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark acquired a reputation.

The opponent must submit evidence enabling the Office to reach the positive conclusion that the earlier mark has acquired a reputation in the relevant territory. It follows that the evidence must be clear and convincing, in the sense that the opponent must clearly establish all the facts necessary to safely conclude that the mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public. The reputation of the earlier mark must be established to the satisfaction of the Office and not merely assumed.

According to the second sentence of Article 95(1) EUTMR, in inter partes proceedings, the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties. It follows that, when assessing whether the earlier mark enjoys reputation, the Office may neither take into account facts known to it as a result of its own private knowledge of the market nor conduct an ex officio investigation, but should exclusively base its findings on the information and evidence submitted by the opponent.

Article 7(2)(f) EUTMDR provides that the burden of putting forward and proving the relevant facts lies with the opponent, by expressly requiring it to provide evidence attesting that the earlier mark has a reputation for the goods claimed.

Indeed, the more independent, reliable and well-informed the source of the information is, the higher the probative value of the evidence will be.

The evidence submitted by the opponent emanates, to some extent, from the opponent directly or from its representative, and includes information originating from Wikipedia (annex 7), its website and the declaration of the opponent’s representative (annex A). As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, the Office makes a distinction between statements coming from the sphere of the opponent itself or its employees and statements drawn up by an independent source. Statements coming from the sphere of the owner of the earlier mark (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 personal interests in the matter (11/01/2011, R 490/2010‑4, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240; 1/08/2010, B 1 568 610). Such evidence cannot in itself sufficiently prove repute and, in general, further material is necessary. Therefore, the probative strength of the further material submitted is very important.

As regards the extracts from the press it is noted that some of them are undated, contain illegible dates or do not have any indication as to where they were published. Further extract refers to an article published in a local paper and only one extract concerns an article (titled ‘Fox’s Biscuits expands Chunkie Cookie range’) published in the magazine dedicated to the bakery sector. Although some of the evidence refers to the longevity of the mark by stating e.g. ‘From a tiny Victorian bakery in northern England over 160 years ago, Fox’s Biscuits has grown to become one of the UK’s leading biscuits brands’, this information is contained in the undated screenshots from a supermarket (annex 1) or from the extract from the local newspaper.

It is emphasized that the probative value of press articles and other publications concerning the opponent’s mark mainly depends on whether such publications are covert promotional matter, or if, on the contrary, they are the result of independent and objective research. No information has been provided by the opponent whether the publications are written by independent professionals. Further, no information has been provided as to the circulation figures attained by the submitted publications.

Further, the marketing figures are provided in the declaration issued by the opponent’s representative and this information has not been fully corroborated by any other item of evidence or any clarification in the opponent’s observations.

As regards the internet extracts from various supermarkets (annex 1), they merely show that the opponent’s products bearing the mark at issue have been offered for sale. However, the mere presence of a trade mark on a website is, of itself, not sufficient to prove that the mark enjoys reputation. Further, the report submitted under annex 2, refers to the number of visitors to the opponent’s website worldwide, but does not support a finding of reputation of the mark at issue, as it does not provide information that the mark is known by a significant part of the public within the relevant territory.

As regards the invoices, even though the relevance and credibility of commercial documents is not disputed, it is difficult to prove reputation on the basis of such materials, given the variety of factors involved and the volume of documents required. This material provides information, in particular on intensity of use and geographical extent, rather than for measuring the success of the mark in the market, and thus may only serve as indirect indications of reputation.

Further, the copy of the email submitted from the UK IPO where the opponent’s mark is referred to as one of the "most iconic UK brands" is taken into account, but this evidence cannot be conclusive of reputation on its own, since it is a general statement lacking quantitative data and necessary information about the actual trade mark awareness.

The evidence concerning promotional activities on social media does not contain any conclusive indication about the trade mark awareness among the relevant public.

The Opposition Division notes that the evidence submitted does not contain any conclusive indication as regards the degree of recognition of the opponent’s mark in relation to the relevant goods. There is lacking information on the market share held by the mark, the amount invested by the opponent in promoting the mark originating from an independent source, the mark awareness, statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations.

Taking into account all the above, it is concluded that the opponent did not provide sufficient reliable evidence on the extent of recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark among the relevant public. There is no sufficient documentation/information from third parties to reflect clearly and objectively what precisely the sign’s position on the market is. There is no direct indication in the EU trade mark Regulations as to which kind of evidence is more appropriate for proving reputation. The opponent may avail itself of all the means of evidence of Article 97(1) EUTMR, provided they are capable of showing that the mark does indeed have the required reputation, including sworn or affirmed statements, decisions of courts or administrative authorities, decisions of the Office, opinion polls and market surveys, audits and inspections, certification and awards, annual reports on economic results and company profiles, advertising and promotional material.

In the absence of any evidence that would enable the Opposition Division to draw solid conclusions about the degree of recognition of the earlier mark by the relevant public at the relevant date, the Opposition Division finds that the opponent failed to prove that its earlier mark has a 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 relevant public. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

In the present case, the goods have been found to be partly similar to at least a low degree and partly dissimilar. Those goods found to be similar to at least a low degree are directed at the public at large, whose degree of attention is average. The signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally similar to a high degree and conceptually identical. The inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the English-speaking part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be similar to at least a low degree to those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested goods are dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the opposition based on this Article and directed at these goods cannot be successful.

The opposition will proceed with the examination of the opposition under the ground of Article 8(5) EUTMR.

REPUTATION - ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Therefore, the grounds for refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met.

 The signs must be either identical or similar.

 The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.

 Risk of injury: use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The abovementioned requirements are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR (16/12/2010, T‑345/08 & T‑357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). However, the fulfilment of all the abovementioned conditions may not be sufficient. The opposition may still fail if the applicant establishes due cause for the use of the contested trade mark.

In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have due cause for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no due cause exists.

a) Reputation of the earlier trade mark

The evidence submitted by the opponent to prove the reputation and highly distinctive character has already been examined above under the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. Reference is made to those findings, which are equally valid for Article 8(5) EUTMR. As concluded above, the evidence submitted by the opponent is not sufficient to establish any degree of reputation of the earlier mark.

As seen above, it is a requirement for the opposition to be successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR that the earlier trade mark has a reputation. Since it has not been established that the earlier trade mark has a reputation, one of the necessary conditions contained in Article 8(5) EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition must be rejected insofar as it is based on this ground.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(3) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the opposition is successful for only some of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Alicia BLAYA ALGARRA

Marzena MACIAK

Helen Louise MOSBACK

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.