OPPOSITION No B 3 086 211

Kelemata S.r.l., Corso Re Umberto, 20, 10128 Torino, Italy (opponent), represented by Odra Papaleo, Piazza Solferino 9, 10121 Turin, Italy (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Planet Medical Ltd., 68 Fort Street, George Town, Cayman Islands (applicant), represented by Baker & Mckenzie, Amsterdam N.V., Claude Debussylaan 54,
1082 MD Amsterdam, Netherlands (professional representative)

On 26/08/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 086 211 is upheld for all the contested services.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 019 021 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 18 019 021 for the word mark ‘FROM VENUS’. The opposition is based on the following earlier rights:

-Italian trade mark registration No 1 590 956 ‘VENUS’ (word mark);

-European Union trade mark registration No 13 615 381 (figurative mark).

The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will first examine the opposition in relation to earlier EUTM No 13 615 381 , for which the opponent claimed reputation in the EU.

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

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark, referred to above, has a reputation in the European Union.

Reputation implies a knowledge threshold that is reached only when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services it covers. The relevant public is, depending on the goods or services marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public.

In the present case, the contested trade mark was filed on 05/02/2019. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired a reputation in the European Union prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the goods for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely:

Class 3: Soaps; bath foam; perfumed toilet waters; deodorants and antiperspirants; body butter; non-medicated creams; skin cleansers; skin emollients; exfoliants; essences for skin care; age retardant gel; cleansing gels; moisturising gels [cosmetic]; eye gels; moisturizers; age retardant lotion; bath lotion; cleansing lotions; moisturising skin lotions [cosmetic]; eye lotions; facial lotions [cosmetic]; skin care lotions [cosmetic]; skincare oils [cosmetic]; tonics [cosmetic]; wrinkle removing skin care preparations; skin fresheners; antiperspirants [toiletries]; tissues impregnated with cosmetics; cloths impregnated with a detergent for cleaning; make-up removing preparations; anti-aging creams; day creams; milky lotions for skin care; cosmetics for use in the treatment of wrinkled skin; nutritional creams (non-medicated -); lotions for cellulite reduction; creams for cellulite reduction; cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; creams for firming the skin; shower creams; douching preparations for personal sanitary or deodorant purposes [toiletries]; soaps in liquid form; bath preparations, not for medical purposes; cosmetics; perfumed soaps; scented body spray.

The opposition is directed against the following services:

Class 35: Wholesale and retail services connected with pharmaceutical and medical preparations, namely for birth control, contraceptives, anxiety and hair loss.

In order to determine the mark’s level of reputation, all the relevant facts of the case must be taken into consideration, including, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.

On 20/11/2019 the opponent submitted evidence to support this claim. As the opponent requested that certain commercial data contained in the evidence be kept confidential vis-à-vis third parties, the Opposition Division will describe the evidence only in the most general terms without divulging any such data.

Due to the amount of documents submitted, and for the purpose of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will only describe and analyse the part of the evidence that it considers necessary to reach the conclusion below.

The evidence consists of, inter alia, the following documents:

 The mark’s recognition. Independent sources

The opponent submits as enclosures 5 to 8, extracts of two reports (and translations), namely the ‘Nielsen Report 2008’ and the ‘IRI report 2013-2014’. They contain information about the market share held by the ‘Venus’ brand products in the Italian market with the dates mentioned, as well as the description of the service (i.e. characteristics of the information taken into account for the study, such as product categories, measures released, geographical detail, etc.). Some of the figures shown in the reports correspond to the market share of the ‘Venus’ body care-related products, for ‘shower bath foam’, ‘body creams’, ‘intimate hygiene’, ‘body anticell’ or ‘shower’ (e.g. in the chart ‘hygiene & beauty market, march 2008 update, total in Italy’ in enclosure 5). The reports show important market share figures, the number of which, for confidentiality reasons, cannot be revealed, for the Italian market in relation to these goods, and the first position of ‘Venus’ in the ranking when compared with some competitors (e.g. in enclosure 5).

The opponent explains that the companies carrying out these reports are two of the most prominent market research companies which provide clients with consumer, shopper, and retail market intelligence and analysis focused on the consumer-packaged goods industry. This claim is accompanied by enclosures 9 and 10 that provide information about the companies referred to and their working methods. These enclosures consist of Wikipedia extracts describing IRI and Nielsen N.V. companies, with the printing date 09/07/2015 and 24/03/2016, respectively.

The opponent also explains that the Italian Courts declared that the earlier mark has a high distinctive character at least in Italy. In this regard, the opponent has submitted enclosures 49 and 50, which consist of a decision from the Court of Turin, Specialised Section on Intellectual and Industrial Property (and its translation) dated 11/12/2009, in which the following is concluded, inter alia (from translation):

 Invoices

Evidence of the sales of ‘Venus’ products in Italy from 2009 to 2019 has been submitted as enclosures 34 to 43Ter. These enclosures contain a significant amount of invoices showing the sales of ‘Venus’ products, such as the ones mentioned before. The mark is referred to in the product description part of the invoices as ‘VEN.’. The opponent explains that it constitutes only an abbreviation of the mark, and that the goods listed in the invoices are marked under the earlier mark, as registered. In fact, it can be seen from the documents in enclosures 14 to 17, described below, that the mark used for the products to which the invoices refer, is, in fact, ‘Venus’, as registered.

The invoices contain the opponent’s name in the upper left side of the invoices, and they are issued to clients in different parts of Italy. From the names of the clients and from the huge amount of products purchased of one same reference, it can be inferred that the goods are sold at companies, probably retailers or distributors, and not individuals. Also, the invoices contain the indication ‘LARGA DISTRIBUZIONE’, translated as ‘MASS RETAIL’.

The invoices are accompanied by translations of the most relevant parts. From these, it can be seen that the invoices are issued for the purchase of beauty-care products (face and body), some of which are creams (e.g. sensitive creams, anti-wrinkle creams, day cream, nourish fluid cream, double filler cream), soaps (e.g. antibacterial liquid soap, neutral liquid soap, liquid soap), skin cleaning products (e.g. make-up remover wipes, detergent milk, make-up remover lotion), deodorants or anti-transpirants (e.g. vanilla deo spray, pink orch. deo spray, lime flow deo spray), products to be used in the shower or bath (e.g. bath foam) or for the treatment/prevention of skin problems (e.g. anti-stretch marks, breast firming treatment, stomach flattening treatment).

 Sales volume

The opponent submits as enclosure 32 an internal document dated 2008 in which the second table shows the ‘VENUS’ SALE’S VOLUME IN EUROS’ for the years 2000 to 2007 specified for Italy and for ‘foreign countries UE’, separately. This document is accompanied by a translation. The sales volume of ‘Venus’ products, corresponding to the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, are submitted in enclosure 33, which consist of an Affidavit dated 2019 and signed by a professional accountant. The information is given in the form of tables in which the sales volume is specified for Italy and for ‘foreign countries’, separately. Even if it is clearly a document created under the opponent’s request, the information it contains is usually only known by the opponent or its accountants.

 Advertisement investment

The opponent submits as enclosure 32 an internal document dated 2008 in which the first table indicates the ‘VENUS’ ADVERTISING INVESTMENT COST’ for the years 2000 to 2007. This document is accompanied by a translation. Even if figures will not be disclosed due to the confidentiality request, the Opposition Division notes that the total advertising investments from 2009 to 2019 for the ‘Venus’ trade mark in Italy constitutes a significantly high amount (enclosure 18).

The advertisement campaigns have been conducted mainly through Italian newspapers, magazines and on TV (articles of national and international magazines/newspapers have been submitted as enclosures 19 and 20). The opponent explains that these magazines/newspapers are to be considered some of the most prominent Italian ones and the percentage of their average circulation is very high. In this regard, it submits enclosures 21 and 22, which consist of Wikipedia extracts (and translations) showing the results of searching the names of the magazines referred to in enclosures 19 and 20. These extracts show, inter alia, the information as regards the circulation of the magazines.

The opponent submits also invoices that show that the opponent is promoting the brand ‘Venus’ and ‘Venus’ products with printed advertisement campaigns (enclosure 20bis) and also in television (enclosures 26-31ter) mainly in Italy. Some of these invoices are issued by Italian television networks’ advertising agencies
(enclosure 28). The opponent also submits excerpts of some tele promotion spots (enclosure 24) consisting of images of the television spots, in which the products and the trade mark can be seen.

 Use of the mark

The earlier mark is clearly used, both in word format and in a figurative version, either exactly as registered or with small variations in colour or typeface. The mark is also used in the abbreviated version ‘VEN.’, in the product description column of the invoices, as already referred to above. It is also used for the products (i.e. on packaging) and in the pages of the catalogues. The following are only some examples of how it is used:

 Kind of products

From the evidence already described, it is clear that the earlier mark has been used in relation to a variety of beauty care products (e.g. for the face and body). Besides the aforementioned evidence, the opponent also submits other documents in which a huge variety of beauty-care products under the earlier mark is shown. For instance, enclosures 13 to 16 consist of Venus’ Marketing Books (2010 to 2012) related to ‘Venus’ products which, according to the opponent, were distributed to Italian and foreign distributors, and of ‘Venus’ toiletries catalogues (and translation), showing soap lines branded ‘Venus’ and, in particular cosmetic baths, shower gels, intimate hygiene detergents and a special line called ‘Venus’ ‘La Via Lattea’ (enclosure 17). These Marketing Books contain information for the distributors, such as the strategy to be followed for the launching of new products (e.g. promotional packs, date of the promotions, etc.), the history of the company and of the Venus’ brand, some information as regards the opponent’s and earlier mark’s presence in the market, and information in relation to where and how the products are manufactured/produced. Lastly, enclosure 16 also contains a ‘Training Book’ (in English), in which a huge variety of beauty-care products are shown (pictures of the product in which the mark is clearly visible) and described (i.e. the characteristics being specified by volume in ml, target or skin type, texture, ingredients, actions, results, use, other products it can be combined with).

The Opposition Division considers that it is clear from the evidence described and analysed above that the earlier trade mark has been subject to long-standing and intensive use and is generally known in the relevant market, where it enjoys a consolidated position among the leading brands, as has been attested by diverse independent sources. The sales figures, marketing expenditure and market share shown by the evidence and the various references in the press to its success all unequivocally show that the mark enjoys a high degree of recognition among the relevant public.

However, the reputation is considered to be proven in the territory of Italy, since the evidence described above refers to the use in this part of the territory and there is hardly any reference to other parts of the European Union. The references regarding the sales figures or market share figures to ‘foreign countries’ or ‘other EU countries’ is not specific enough as to understand the presence of the earlier mark in territories different from Italy.

Nevertheless, it is sufficient for an EUTM to be known by a significant part of the public in the European Union. The territory of a Member State may be considered to constitute a substantial part of the relevant territory (06/10/2009, T‑301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611, § 30). In this case, the evidence submitted proving reputation of the earlier mark in Italy is considered to constitute ‘a significant part of the public’, bearing in mind the large size and population (more than 60 000 000 inhabitants). It is therefore considered sufficient to conclude that the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the European Union as a whole.

As regards the kind of products for which reputation has been proven, it is clear from the description of the evidence above that the mark has been widely used and has acquired reputation for a wide variety of products. However, for the purpose of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will proceed with the examination of this decision based on the fact that the reputation of the earlier mark is clearly proven for, at least, skin care lotions [cosmetic] in Class 3.

b) The signs

	FROM VENUS
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 reputation of the earlier mark has been considered proven in Italy. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the Italian-speaking part of the public perceiving ‘Venus’ as meaningless.

The word ‘Venus’ is the Latin term used to refer to a planet and a goddess, of which ‘Venus’ is the name. The equivalent for this term in Italian is ‘Venere’. It cannot be expected that the Italian consumers have enough Latin knowledge as to be aware of any of the meanings of ‘Venus’, and it is therefore likely that the vast majority of these consumers will perceive it as a meaningless term, and, therefore, as of average distinctive character in relation to the goods involved.

The word ‘FROM’ is meaningless in Italian and of average distinctive character in relation to the services involved.

The figurative element of the earlier mark (i.e. an oval shape containing the verbal element) is a commonly used geometrical shape that in this case acts as a mere frame of a decorative nature.

The marks do not contain any element more dominant (visually eye-catching) than others. However, 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). It is, therefore, relevant to note that in this case the coincidences between the signs are found in the verbal element of the earlier mark, as it is described below, and, therefore, in the part of the sign causing stronger impact.

Visually, the signs coincide in ‘venus’ and differ in the colour, typeface and figurative element in the earlier mark, and in the word ‘FROM’ of the contested sign.

The signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘v-e-n-u-s’, present identically in both signs, and differ in the sound of the letters or word ‘from’ in the contested sign.

The marks are aurally similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning for the part of the public referred to above, according to the explanations above. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of the existence of a risk of injury will proceed.

c) The ‘link’ between the signs

As seen above, the earlier mark is reputed and the signs are visually and aurally similar to average degree, and either their conceptual comparison remains neutral or they are not conceptually similar.

In order to establish the existence of a risk of injury, it is necessary to demonstrate that, given all the relevant factors, the relevant public will establish a link (or association) between the signs. The necessity of such a ‘link’ between the conflicting marks in consumers’ minds is not explicitly mentioned in Article 8(5) EUTMR but has been confirmed by several judgments (23/10/2003, C‑408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 66). It is not an additional requirement but merely reflects the need to determine whether the association that the public might establish between the signs is such that either detriment or unfair advantage is likely to occur after all of the factors that are relevant to the particular case have been assessed.

Possible relevant factors for the examination of a ‘link’ include (27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 42):

 the degree of similarity between the signs;

 the nature of the goods and services, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant public;

 the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation;

 the degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use;

 the existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

This list is not exhaustive and other criteria may be relevant depending on the particular circumstances. Moreover, the existence of a ‘link’ may be established on the basis of only some of these criteria.

Reputation has been considered proven to exist in relation to, at least, skin care lotions [cosmetic] in Class 3. The contested services consist of Wholesale and retail services connected with some types of pharmaceutical and medical preparations (i.e. birth control, contraceptives, anxiety and hair loss)

These goods can originate from same kind of undertakings or at least coincide in the fact that they can be found in the same stores (e.g. pharmacies).

Therefore, taking into account and weighing up all the relevant factors of the present case, including the similarities between the signs, together with the analysis of the goods and services carried out above, the Opposition Division concludes that, when encountering the contested mark, the relevant consumers will be likely to associate it with the earlier sign, that is to say, establish a mental ‘link’ between the signs. However, although a ‘link’ between the signs is a necessary condition for further assessing whether detriment or unfair advantage are likely, the existence of such a link is not sufficient, in itself, for a finding that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T‑301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96).

d) Risk of injury

Use of the contested mark will fall under Article 8(5) EUTMR when any of the following situations arise:

 it takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark;

 it is detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark;

 it is detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

Although detriment or unfair advantage may be only potential in opposition proceedings, a mere possibility is not sufficient for Article 8(5) EUTMR to be applicable. While the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark, it must ‘adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment’ (06/07/2012, T‑60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).

It follows that the opponent must establish that detriment or unfair advantage is probable, in the sense that it is foreseeable in the ordinary course of events. For that purpose, the opponent should file evidence, or at least put forward a coherent line of argument demonstrating what the detriment or unfair advantage would consist of and how it would occur, that could lead to the prima facie conclusion that such an event is indeed likely in the ordinary course of events.

The opponent claims that use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark and would be detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the earlier trade mark.

Unfair advantage (free-riding)

Unfair advantage in the context of Article 8(5) EUTMR covers cases where there is clear exploitation and ‘free‑riding on the coat‑tails’ of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation. In other words, there is a risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods and services covered by the contested trade mark, with the result that the marketing of those goods and services is made easier by their association with the earlier mark with a reputation (06/07/2012, T‑60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 48; 22/03/2007, T‑215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40).

The opponent claimed the following (emphasis added):

“The evidence submitted confirms that the earlier trademarks VENUS have acquired a very substantial goodwill, at least in Italy, which makes them attractive to the general public, thanks to its massive use and advertising campaigns. The reputation of the trademark has been built-up, in fact, not only by making strong sales, but also by investing a huge amount of money in advertisement over a very long period.

Furthermore, given the similarity between the products and services, the unfair advantage (free-riding) is likely because the contested sign would exploit the reputation of the earlier trademarks in a neighbouring market.

The Applicant will then benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of the mark VENUS created in years and years of use and advertising, exploiting the marketing efforts made by the proprietor of the mark to build and maintain the mark’s image” (…) “For the same reasons, it is likely that the use of the contested EUTMA would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier TMs, by dispersing the image of the reputed Kelemata’s TMs and the identity in the relevant public’s perception and by potentially changing the economic behaviour of the relevant public” (…)

“a) the evidence provided attests that the trademarks VENUS enjoy a significant degree of market power (see the above-mentioned market shares in the last years). VENUS market share is related to a category (body products) that represents the leading market segment in the area of cosmetic consumption in Italy. Italy is one of the major EU market regarding the cosmetic area. This means that VENUS has a high degree of market penetration both in Italy and EU.

As regards the strength of the reputation and the degree of distinctive character of the earlier marks, the Court already held that the stronger the earlier mark’s distinctive character and reputation, as it is in the case at stake, the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it (see General Motors case, paragraph 30).

The consequence is that VENUS trademarks will more easily lose its distinctive power and, therefore, the risk that the use of the contested EUTMA would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier TMs is higher. In fact, the VENUS mark’s ability to identify the goods for which it is registered and used as coming from the proprietor of that mark is undoubtedly weakened”.

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union

… as regards injury consisting of unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, in so far as what is prohibited is the drawing of benefit from that mark by the proprietor of the later mark, the existence of such injury must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

(27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 36.)

The Opposition Division agrees with the opponent’s claim and reasoning above as regards the unfair advantage (free-riding). The Opposition Division considers that the opponent’s claim is supported by the significant amount of information and documents submitted by the opponent, with the purpose of demonstrating the reputation of the earlier mark, described above, and that reflects the market situation.

For all of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the contested trade mark is likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Other types of injury

As seen in the opponent’s claim above, the opponent also argues that use of the contested trade mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark.

As seen above, the existence of a risk of injury is an essential condition for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply. The risk of injury may be of three different types. For an opposition to be well founded in this respect it is sufficient if only one of these types is found to exist. In the present case, as seen above, the Opposition Division has already concluded that the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark. It follows that there is no need to examine whether other types also apply.

e) Conclusion

Considering all the above, the opposition is well founded under Article 8(5) EUTMR. Therefore, the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested services.

Given that the opposition is entirely successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR, it is not necessary to examine the remaining ground and earlier right on which the opposition was also based.

COSTS

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

Since the applicant is the losing party, it must bear the opposition fee as well as the costs incurred by the opponent in the course of these proceedings.

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

The Opposition Division

Chantal VAN RIEL

María del Carmen SUCH SANCHEZ

Inés GARCÍA LLEDÓ

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.