OPPOSITION Nо B 3 087 545

 

S.A.M. Marques de l'Etat de Monaco - Monaco Brands, L'Estoril 31 avenue Princesse Grace, 98000 Monaco (opponent), represented by Nony, 11, rue Saint Georges, 75009 Paris, France (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

Jessica Stockmann, Heimweg 8, 20148 Hamburg, Germany (applicant), represented by Schlarmannvongeyso, Veritaskai 3, 21079 Hamburg, Germany (professional representative).

On 11/08/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

 

1.	Opposition No B 3 087 545 is rejected in its entirety.

 

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

 

REASONS

 

On 28/06/2019, the opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 18 017 219 (figurative mark). The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

1. International trade mark registration designating France No 1 069 254 MONACO (word mark).

2. International trade mark registration designating Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Benelux, Cyprus, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Finland, France and Lithuania No 1 439 126, (figurative mark).

The opponent invoked  Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as regard these two earlier rights and also Article 8(5) EUTMR with regard to International trade mark registration registration No 1 069 254 designating France.

PRELIMINARY REMARK

In its submissions in reply to the opposition the applicant argued that the earlier International registrations identified above were not substantiated and that the opposition was also not well founded with regard to these earlier trade marks. However, it did not provide any indication as to why the existence and validity of these earlier International registrations have not been sufficiently substantiated.

In the Notice of Opposition of 28/06/2019, the opponent accepted that the necessary information for the earlier International trade mark registrations be imported from the relevant online official database, accessible through TMview, and that this source be used for substantiation purposes, without prejudice to its right or obligation to provide any additional information that may be necessary to comply with the substantiation requirements of Article 7(2) and (4) EUTMDR.

As all of the relevant details of the earlier International trade mark registrations are available through a combination of the contents of the Notice of Opposition and online substantiation via the TMview database, the Opposition Division is satisfied that the earlier marks have been duly substantiated. Therefore, this submission of the applicant must be dismissed as unfounded.

PROOF OF USE

 

In accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or, where applicable, the date of priority of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

 

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the earlier International registration designating France No 1 069 254 MONACO (word mark).

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

The date of filing of the contested application is 31/01/2019. The opponent was therefore required to prove that this International registration on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in France from 31/01/2014 to 30/01/2019 inclusive.

 

Furthermore, the evidence must show use in France of this International registration for the services on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

Class 43:   Services for providing food and beverages; temporary accommodation; bar services; catering services; hotel services.

On 04/06/2020 in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR, the Office gave the opponent until 09/08/2020 to submit evidence of use of this earlier International registration. On 10/07/2020 the opponent requested an extension of the time limit given for submitting evidence of use. By means of the Office’s communication of 11/07/2020 the time limit for providing proof of use was extended until 09/10/2020. On 08/10/2020, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

The evidence submitted by the opponent to be taken into account is, inter alia, the following:

 Handwritten affidavit in French dated 01/10/2020 and signed by the General Manager of Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine and Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo, both located in Beausoleil (France). It indicates that they have been using ‘MONACO’ for many years as ‘mother trade mark’ (umbrella mark) to offer the services on which the opposition is based, and confirms continuous use of the same for the previous five years by means of a licence agreement concluded with the opponent. Translation of this document in the language of proceedings was submitted.

 Screenshots from the websites of the aparthotels ‘Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo’ and ‘Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine’ with guest reviews dated within the relevant period , accompanied by various photographs of the hotels, stays and rooms.

 Printouts from the websites of the specialized hotel reservation companies Booking, Accor, Expedia where the hotel services of Aparthotel Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo and Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine are offered. They also reproduce customers and guest reviews dated within the period under study.

 Various invoices issued by Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine and Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo regarding hotel services within the relevant period, all dated in year 2018.

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

These requirements for proof of use are cumulative (05/10/2010, T‑92/09, STRATEGI / Stratégies, EU:T:2010:424, § 43). This means that the opponent is obliged not only to indicate but also to prove each of these requirements. However, the sufficiency of the indication and proof as to the place, time, extent and nature of use has to be determined by considering the entirety of the evidence submitted.

The applicant contests the evidence of use filed by the opponent on the grounds that the use of ‘MONACO’, as shown in the evidence, does not correspond to a ‘mother trade mark’ as claimed by the opponent; it claims that the use of ‘MONACO’ in the evidence is not use as a trade mark but as a local description of the place where the services are offered and that use, as appearing in the evidence, modifies the sign as registered and does not serve to prove use of the earlier International registration.

For reasons of procedural economy, the Office will focus on one of the above cumulative requirements, i.e. whether the use of the earlier International registration ‘MONACO’, as appearing in the evidence, corresponds to use of the earlier mark or a valid ‘variation’ that does not alter the mark as it was registered.

With regard to this factor, linked to the nature of the use, in accordance with Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the expression ‘nature of use’ includes evidence of use of the sign  in accordance with its function, of use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof according to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, and of its use for the goods and services for which it is registered.

 

According to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR, the following will also constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 1: use of the European Union trade mark in a form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor. When examining the use of an earlier registration for the purposes of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, Article 18 may be applied by analogy to assess whether or not the use of the sign constitutes genuine use of the earlier mark as far as its nature is concerned.

Where a mark is composed of several elements, only one or some of which are distinctive and have rendered the mark as a whole registrable, an alteration of that/those distinctive element/s or its/their omission or replacement by another/other element/s will generally mean that the distinctive character is altered.

In the present case, all the evidence shows use of the word ‘MONACO’ for the services in question in combination with other words, i.e. as ‘Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo’ and ‘Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine’. Here are some of the examples of use as appearing in this evidence:

At the invoices:

Screen shoots of the opponent’s website and websites from specialized hotel reservations companies:

The General Court has held that ‘the assessment of the distinctive or dominant character of one or more components of a complex trade mark must be based on the intrinsic qualities of each of those components, as well as on the relative position of the different components within the arrangement of the trade mark’ (24/11/2005, T‑135/04, Online Bus, EU:T:2005:419, § 36).

With regard to additions:

 several signs may be used simultaneously without altering the distinctive character of the registered sign (08/12/2005, T‑29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 34);

 if the addition is not distinctive, is weak and/or is not dominant, it does not alter the distinctive character of the registered trade mark (30/11/2009, T‑353/07, Coloris, EU:T:2009:475, § 29-33 et seq.; 10/06/2010, T‑482/08, Atlas Transport, EU:T:2010:229, § 36 et seq.).

None of the evidence submitted refers to the use of the earlier mark ‘MONACO’ alone but always in combination with other verbal elements such as ‘Adagio’ ,‘ Palais Joséphine’ or ‘Monte Cristo’.

Admittedly, there are some situations where additions are acceptable if they constitute non-dominant elements, have a generic or descriptive meaning or are insignificant (punctuation marks, plural or singular forms, indications of type of enterprise). However, in the present case, the additional verbal elements shown in the evidence introduce significant differences with respect to the registered form of the sign, i.e. the sign ‘MONACO’ alone.

In this case, the element ‘Adagio’ and even ‘Palais Joséphine’ have a higher inherently distinctive character than the geographic indication ‘MONACO’ of which the earlier mark consists. The General Court in the case concerning the designation of the European Union of International Registration No 1 069 254 ‘MONACO’ considered that, for the relevant services in Class 43 of ‘temporary accommodation’, the word MONACO would be perceived as the name of a principality which is known across the world (15/01/2015, T‑197/13, MONACO, EU:T:2015:16, § 52). This is also valid for the relevant public where this earlier International registration is protected , i.e. France. In fact, it is the State surrounding all the frontiers of the Principality of Monaco.

Therefore, the additional terms used in combination with the earlier sign ‘MONACO’, i.e. ‘Aparthotels Adagio --- Monte Cristo’ and ‘Aparthotels Adagio --- Palais Joséphine, and mostly the term ‘Adagio’ (unrelated to the services in question), are more than a mere variation of the earlier mark ‘MONACO’. The word ‘MONACO’, as appearing in the evidence, would be associated with a geographic indication of the place where the services are offered, or, in the case at hand, in the surrounding area of such place, the Principality of Monaco. In this regard, it is to be noted that Beausoleil, although it is a village located in France, has limits with this geographic place.

Therefore, the use of the sign ‘MONACO’, as appearing in the evidence, differs from the form in which it was registered in more than only negligible elements.

Moreover, the inclusion of the sign ‘MONACO’ in the ‘Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo’ and ‘Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine’ signs would be perceived by the relevant French public as a geographic designation of the place where the services are offered. Therefore, this use does not correspond to trade mark use.

Consequently, the Opposition Division considers that the use of ‘MONACO’’ as appearing in the evidence’ cannot be considered trade mark use nor a broadly equivalent use of the earlier International registration ‘MONACO’ (word mark) as registered. This is because the signs as used are strongly characterised by the presence of a distinctive element, ‘Adagio’ and include other elements which are also more distinctive than the geographic indication ‘MONACO’, for instance ‘Palais Joséphine’.

The Court of Justice has held that there is ‘genuine use’ of a mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services. Genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition of genuine use of the mark requires that the mark, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly (11/03/2003, C‑40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145; 12/03/2003, T‑174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence does not show use as a trade mark nor of the sign as registered within the meaning of Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR.

As to the affidavit submitted where it is indicated that ‘MONACO’ is used as a house/umbrella mark in the signs ‘Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Monte Cristo’ and ‘ Aparthotels Adagio Monaco Palais Joséphine’ it must be recalled that the use of ‘MONACO’ as appearing in the evidence would not be perceived by the public as a trade mark, but as a geographic indication. In the absence of any other evidence of use corroborating that the public perceives ‘MONACO’ as a trade mark, for the reasons indicated above, this assertion must be set aside.

The four factors for establishing genuine use of the earlier mark are cumulative and the nature of use of the earlier mark in this case has clearly not been established. Therefore, the Opposition Division concludes that the evidence furnished by the opponent is insufficient to prove that the earlier trade mark was genuinely used in the relevant territory during the relevant period of time.

Therefore, the opposition based on International trade mark registration designating France No 1 069 254 ‘MONACO’ must be rejected pursuant to Article 47(2) EUTMR and Article 10(2) EUTMDR. This refusal is valid for both grounds claimed with regard to this International registration, Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) EUTMR.

The Opposition Division will not proceed with the examination on the basis of the other earlier mark, namely International registration No 1 439 126.

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 services

 

The earlier international trade mark registration designating Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Benelux, Cyprus, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Finland, France, Lithuania No 1 439 126, (figurative mark) is registered for the following services:

Class 43: Services for providing food and beverages; temporary accommodation; bar services; catering services; hotel services.

The contested services are the following:

 

Class 43: Rental of temporary accommodation in holiday homes and flats; hotels, hostels and boarding houses, holiday and tourist accommodation.

The contested rental of temporary accommodation in holiday homes and flats; hotels, hostels and boarding houses, holiday and tourist accommodation are included in the broad category of the opponent’s temporary accommodation. Therefore, they are identical.

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.

As regards temporary accommodation services in Class 43, the level of attention of the relevant public will be at least above average. This is because temporary accommodation is either booked for leisure or professional purposes (business trips) and needs to meet customers’ specific preferences. The consumers will usually carefully check the services, for example, the security of payment transaction, cancellation options, etc. This level of attention is also due to their higher price, infrequent purchase and availability of specific facilities that influence the choice.

 

c) The signs and distinctiveness of the earlier International Registration

 

Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

 

The relevant territories are  Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Benelux, Cyprus, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia, Hungary, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Finland.

 

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 consists of the word ‘MONACO’ above which there are three vertical parallel lines of equal length, the middle line being in a higher position than the side lines. The letter ‘M’ is represented with three vertical lines, the middle line being slightly shorter than the rest, whereas the remaining letters are written in standard bold capital characters.

The contested sign consists of a figurative representation of a Greek temple with five columns followed by the verbal elements ‘VILLA MONACO’ written in standard capital letters.

As indicated above, the General Court considered that ‘it is clear that ‘Monaco’ is the name of a principality which is known across the world, despite its area of about 2 km² and its population of no more than 40 000, not least because of the fame of its royal family and the fact that a Formula 1 grand prix and a circus festival are held there. There is an even greater degree of familiarity with the Principality of Monaco among citizens of the EU, due especially to its frontier with a Member State, France, its proximity to another Member State, Italy, and the fact that the principality — a third State — uses the same currency as 19 of the 28 Member States, the euro’. Therefore, ‘regardless of the language spoken by the relevant public, there is no doubt that the word ‘monaco’ will evoke the geographical territory of the same name’ (15/01/2015, T-197/13, MONACO, EU:T:2015:16, § 52-3). Consequently, in the earlier mark the verbal element ‘MONACO’ would be identified by the relevant public as the place where the accommodation services are rendered or offered. This is valid for the public in all the relevant territories since the Court considered that this notion would be grasped ‘across the world’.

For the sake of completeness, the Opposition Division notes that part of the Italian-speaking consumers may associate the earlier word mark (and the respective element of the contested sign) ‘MONACO’ with the German city of Munich, since this is its Italian name. In any event, the element in this case is likewise of utterly restricted distinctiveness, since it denotes the geographical origin.

Therefore, the distinctive character of the earlier figurative International registration lays more in its figurative part and in the particular stylisation of the letter ‘M’ than in the concept identifying the geographic location of ‘MONACO’ which was held by the General Court as descriptive and non-distinctive for the services in question.

The element ‘VILLA’ at the contested sign is understood across the European Union as referring to a large and luxurious country house, due to its common use and/or because it exists as such in many languages of the European Union (e.g. in Spanish, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian) or has very close equivalents (e.g. ‘vila’ in Portuguese, Czech and Lithuanian). Therefore, for the services at hand this element would be seen as weakly distinctive.

Another very minor part of the public might not associate ‘VILLA’ with a particular meaning and would perceive this term as fanciful and distinctive.

Nevertheless, the word combination of the contested sign, ‘VILLA MONACO’, forms a logic conceptual unit which would be identified as such by the vast majority of relevant public, i.e. a country house named (or identified by the name) ‘MONACO’.

The figurative element, which resembles a Greek temple, would be associated with the representation of the house or place where the relevant services are offered or provided, in this case, as specified by the following word combination a Villa named Monaco. This sign is averagely distinctive since it identifies as a logic conceptual unit referring to a particular undertaking offering its services in a county house named ‘VILLA MONACO’.

In the trade marks composed of figurative and verbal parts the verbal element of a sign does not automatically have a stronger impact (31/01/2013, T-54/12, Sport, EU:T:2013:50, § 40) and in certain cases, the figurative element of a composite mark may, owing to, inter alia, its shape, size, colour or position within the sign, rank equally with the word element (23/11/2010, T-35/08, Artesa Napa Valley, EU:T:2010:476, § 37).

The dominant (most eye-catching) element of the earlier mark is its figurative part since, in addition to being larger than the word part, ‘MONACO’ occupies a secondary position and merely indicates a geographical indication for the services in question. This is applicable to all the relevant public.

The contested sign has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements.

Visually, the signs coincide in ‘MONACO’ which on its own would be seen in the earlier mark as denoting a geographic location, i.e. the Principality of Monaco. They differ in their length, in their figurative parts and in the first verbal element of the contested sign, ‘VILLA’.

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.

Considering that the differentiating elements do not go unnoticed in the overall impression, it is concluded that the sign are visually similar to a low 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 ‘MONACO’, while they differ in the sound of the initial part of the contested sign, ‘VILLA’.

 

Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

  

Conceptually, reference is made to the earlier statements relating to the semantic content conveyed by the trade marks. The earlier International trade mark registration would be linked with a geographical place, the Principality of Monaco, whereas the public identifying the concept of VILLA’, would associate the contested sign, ‘VILLA MONACO’, with a country house named Monaco. For this part of the public, the signs are conceptually dissimilar.

With regard to the minor part of the public who might not grasp the meaning of ‘VILLA’, both signs would be linked with the geographic notion of the Principality of Monaco. Therefore, they are conceptually similar. However, this conceptual similarity has a very limited impact in the assessment of likelihood of confusion, because it would be seen as a descriptive/non-distinctive term for the services in question.

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

d) 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).

It should also be taken into account that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

The contested services were held identical and they target the public at large with an above average degree of attention. The signs in question are visually similar to a low degree, phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually dissimilar or similar depending on whether the public perceives a meaning in ‘VILLA’ or not.

The signs coincide in ‘MONACO’ which, on the one hand, is not the dominant part of the earlier mark and, on the other hand, was considered as descriptive and non-distinctive for the services at hand by the General Court. The association of ‘MONACO’, when isolated, with the geographic indication for the services would be grasped by the public in all the relevant territories.

It should be stressed that when the marks share an element with a low degree of distinctiveness, the assessment of likelihood of confusion will focus on the impact of the remaining components on the overall impression of the marks, as assessed in the comparison of signs. That assessment takes into account the similarities/differences and distinctiveness of the non-coinciding components. Here the figurative part of the earlier mark, as well as the particular position of the different elements composing the sign, was held to be the most distinctive part. As to the contested sign, it consist of different elements which, for the majority of the relevant public, would be associated with a logic conceptual unit different from the pure geographical indication of the earlier mark, i.e. that it is a luxury country house named MONACO.

Whilst it is true that an average consumer only rarely has the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks and must place trust in the imperfect picture of them that he or she has kept in mind, this fact does not entail that the similarities of the signs which lay essentially in their respective weak elements (or as in the case at hand descriptive and non-distinctive) become automatically more important than the differences. Rather, the consumer, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect and who understands the common part ‘MONACO’, is aware that this element serves to denote the place where the services in question are offered (15/01/2015, T-197/13, MONACO, EU:T:2015:16, § 52-3).

As a consequence, even if all the contested services are identical, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public because the similarities between the signs concern the part of the signs which describes geographically the place where the services are offered and the remaining elements are different. This is valid for the public identifying a different logic conceptual unit in both signs, but also for those who would not see any meaning in ‘VILLA’. The association of both signs with a certain geographic indication is unable to create a likelihood of confusion, nor a likelihood of association.

The opponent refers to previous decisions of the Office to support its arguments. Namely the following decision of the Opposition and Cancellation Division:

However, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions, as each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities, mostly when none of the above cases concerned the use of ‘MONACO’ with regard to services of temporary accommodation, held by the General Court as descriptive and non-distinctive for the European Union public.

This practice has been fully supported by the General Court, which stated that, according to settled case-law, the legality of decisions is to be assessed purely with reference to the EUTMR, and not to the Office’s practice in earlier decisions (30/06/2004, T‑281/02, Mehr für Ihr Geld, EU:T:2004:198).

While the Office does have a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration, the way in which these principles are applied must be consistent with respect to legality. It must also be emphasised that each case must be examined on its own individual merits. The outcome of any particular case will depend on specific criteria applicable to the facts of that particular case, including, for example, the parties’ assertions, arguments and submissions. Finally, a party in proceedings before the Office may not rely on, or use to its own advantage, a possible unlawful act committed for the benefit of some third party in order to secure an identical decision.

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.

 

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

 

 

Helena GRANADO CARPENTER

Julia GARCÍA MURILLO

Chantal VAN RIEL

 

 

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.