CANCELLATION No 36 920 C (INVALIDITY)

Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Vorstadt 2, 61440 Oberursel (Taunus), Germany (applicant), represented by Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Str. 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

LG Electronics Inc., 128, Yeoui-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-721, Republic of Korea (EUTM proprietor), represented by Hogan Lovells, Avenida Maisonnave 22, 03003 Alicante, Spain (professional representative).

On 13/11/2020, the Cancellation Division takes the following

DECISION

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld.

2. European Union trade mark No 18 025 715 is declared invalid in its entirety.

3. The EUTM proprietor bears the costs, fixed at EUR 1 080.

REASONS

The applicant filed an application for a declaration of invalidity against European Union trade mark No 18 025 715 ‘G8S’ (word mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the EUTM, namely:

Class 9: Smartphones; Cellular phones; Wearable smartphones; Wireless headsets; Headsets; Digital set top boxes; Cellular phone cases; Flip covers for cellular phone; Application software for cellular phone; Downloadable application software; Display for cellular phone; Cameras for cellular phone; Portable computers; Battery chargers; Digital cameras; Batteries for cellular phone; Tablet PC; Audio component system (composed of surround sound speakers, loudspeakers, tuners, sound mixers, equalizer, audio recorders, radio receivers); Apparatus for the recording, transmission or reproduction of sound and images; Handheld media players

The applicant invoked Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR.

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

The case for the applicant

The applicant argues in both its submissions that the term ‘G8S’ lacks distinctive character and is descriptive pursuant to Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR.

It first argues that the public will perceive the sign as a generic term that only indicates the respective generation of the relevant goods (‘G4’, ‘G5’, ‘G6’, ‘G7’, ‘G8’, ‘G9’...). ‘G8S’ merely indicates that the goods registered are the 8th generation ‘mobile phones’ in Class 9 and the addition of letter ‘S’ at the end of the sign corresponds to a common practice as well in the phone industry (see Annex B&B 7).

As is common in the mobile phone sector, ’G8S’ is a typical description of a certain model of a mobile phone series, which does not identify the origin, and is only used in connection with a further distinctive element (which does identify the origin) such as ‘LG’, ‘iPhone’, ‘Galaxy’, etc. The applicant submitted screenshots (Annex B&B 4) to demonstrate that a letter in combination with a digit is only perceived as a descriptive indication of the respective model (generation), not as an indication of commercial origin or reference to a specific manufacturer. Clear evidence for this is the EUTM proprietor’s own branding. The EUTM proprietor and the applicant use the numbers after the letter ‘G’ as an indication of the generation. This is a common branding system for mobile phones, which is also used by Apple, one of the key players in the market, which also gives a new number to each new generation of iPhone.

Finally, ‘G8’ is a typical designation that is common in connection with mobile radio standards. The relevant public associates the sign with the ascending designations of the well-known mobile radio standards (‘3G’, ‘4G’, ‘5G’, etc.) or recognises it as the designation of a specific model or generation of a mobile phone series. Currently, ‘5G’ is the latest generation of cellular mobile communications. As technology is always advancing and standards take some time to consolidate, it is only a matter of time before ‘6G’, ‘7G’ and even better wireless connectivity become available, as shown by a selection of articles (Annex B&B 10).

The EUTM proprietor is already working on its sixth-generation network solution and has opened a ‘6G’ research laboratory, in cooperation with the National Institute of Science and Technology of Korea (KMST), in regard to the core technology of ‘6G’ mobile communications (see Annex B&B 11).

The relevant public, consisting of customers of mobile phones and users of mobile communications, is generally used to those standards as an indication of the quality and speed of mobile data, as well as the practice of using ascending numbers in order to show the particular generation of mobile radio standard. Consequently, the public will not understand the combination of the capital letter ‘G’ with a digit as an indication of origin for one particular undertaking, but as an indication of a particular characteristic of the goods protected by the contested mark.

The addition of the letter ‘S’ in ‘G8S’ does not allow the expression to reach the minimum level of distinctive character, as ‘final ’S’ iare used by other phone manufacturers at the end of their acronyms.

In support of its observations, the applicant filed the following evidence sometimes described in general terms when confidentiality is applicable:

• Annex B&B 1: excerpt of the contested trade mark;

• Annex B&B 2: copy of Office decisions rejecting EUTM applications No 8 271 272 ‘G3’ (word), No 8 271 462 ‘G4’ (word), No 8 271 678 ‘G5’ (word), No 14 973 069 ‘G5 PAY’ (word) and No 8 954 794 ‘G3’ (word);

• Annex B&B 3: copy of Wikipedia article on ‘LG Series’:

• Annex B&B 4: screenshots of typical designations of mobile phones;

• Annex B&B 5: screenshots of designations of mobile phones and smart watches’;

• Annex B&B 6: screenshots of the EUTM proprietor’s home page, www.lg.com;

• Annex B&B 7: Wikipedia article ‘List of mobile phone generations’;

• Annex B&B 8: screenshots showing exemplary fitness applications;

• Annex B&B 9: screenshots of the Office’s register showing trade marks containing ‘Fit’;

• Annex B&B 10: articles regarding future developments of 6G and 7G mobile radio standards;

• Annex B&B 11: articles regarding set up of 6G Research Centre by LG and KAIST;

• Annex B&B 12: Wikipedia article about ‘iPhone’:

• Annex B&B 13: Wikipedia article about ‘Samsung Galaxy’;

• Annex B&B 14: Wikipedia article about ‘Sony Xperia’,

• Annex B&B 15: Wikipedia article about ‘Nokia phone series’:

• Annex B&B 16: article/reviews regarding typical references to mobile phone designations.

The applicant sent a copy of a cancellation decision of 31/07/2020  N° 34 863 C ‘G7’ in a parallel case among the same parties (currently under appeal) after the time limit. This decision was sent to the EUTM proprietor for information.

The case for the EUTM proprietor

In both its submissions, the EUTM proprietor considers that the contested EUTM does not convey any perceptible meaning that could be construed as describing any characteristics of the designated goods in Class 9. The term ‘G8’ in ‘G8S’ cannot, on its own, be construed as meaning ‘generation 8’ or as referring to mobile radio standards. No evidence has been adduced to support the idea that a sign composed of the letter ‘G’ next to a number would necessarily be perceived as meaning ‘generation’ followed by the number of the corresponding generation of goods. In practice, the letter ‘G’ does not stand for ‘generation’ in the EUTM proprietor’s G-Series and the term is arbitrary. In fact, if ‘G8’ were to be construed as an acronym by the relevant public, it is much more likely that it would be considered as standing for ‘Group of Eight, an international intergovernmental economic organisation whose media impact is very important in the European Union, as four of its eight members are countries from the European Union (France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom). In an acronym indicating the generation to which given goods belong, and in which the letter ‘G’ would stand for ‘generation’, the order of the elements would naturally be the opposite. No ‘G8’ acronym can be found on the website www.acronymfinder.com that would relate to technological products.

The ‘mobile radio standards’ to which the applicant refers are those called ‘3G’, ‘4G’, and ‘5G’. It is plain to see that these will not be associated with the contested EUTM. These are a number followed by the letter ‘G’, that is the exact opposite of the contested EUTM. Accordingly, these are not comparable. Furthermore, the standards referred to by the applicant are currently blocked at ‘5G’ and no projects of ‘8G’ standards exist at the moment, nor did they exist when the contested EUTM was filed in 2019. Therefore, there is no chance that the contested EUTM will be associated with or mistaken for ‘mobile radio standards’ as erroneously alleged by the applicant. Finally, due consideration must be given to the fact that the goods at issue target, inter alia, the general public. Accordingly, the relevant public displays an average level of attention.

The EUTM proprietor also submits that the combination of the letter “G”, of the digit “eight” and of the letter “S” in the Contested EUTM could rather be construed as a playful

phonetic transcription of the word “gates” (pronounced /ɡeɪts/), which is also fully distinctive in relation to the goods designated by the Contested EUTM. Therefore, the relevant public will not perceive the Contested EUTM as an acronym and will not attempt

to attribute a meaning to the letter “G” included in it.

At no point does the Applicant provide any explanation as to the meaning that would be perceived in the letter “S” included at the end of the Contested EUTM. The letter “S” included in the Contested EUTM has no meaning whatsoever on its own and does not convey any information as to the characteristics of the goods designated by the Contested EUTM. This finding would still apply even if it had been demonstrated – which it hasn’t – that the use of a final letter “S” was common in the sector of the designated goods.

The numerous assertions made by the applicant as regards the purported lack of distinctive character of the contested EUTM are unfounded, contradictory or irrelevant. The applicant’s reference to the norms and customs of the sector and its allegations that the contested EUTM does not depart from those are plainly inappropriate in the present case as they apply to three-dimensional marks.

Trade marks composed of a single letter have been recognised by the Court of Justice as capable of indicating a commercial origin (09/09/2010, C‑265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508). This is so, a fortiori, for trade marks comprising a letter followed by a number. They are, intrinsically, even more capable of distinguishing the goods of a particular undertaking from those of other undertakings than a single-letter trade mark.

The applicant’s claim that comparable trade marks would be commonly used in the sector of mobile phones has not been substantiated.

Model designations are perfectly able to function as trade marks as long as they are distinctive, either inherently (which is the case of the contested EUTM) or as a result of their intensive use.

The EUTM proprietor gave examples of identical or similar trade marks that have been accepted by the Office.

In addition, the contested trade mark ‘G8S’ includes the letter ‘S’ that, in itself, is capable of providing the distinctive character required.

In support of its observations, the EUTM proprietor filed the following evidence:

With its observations of 04/10/2019:

• Enclosure 1: internet excerpt showing that numerous words other than ‘generation’ start with the letter ‘G’;

• Enclosure 2: internet excerpts providing information as regards the Group of Eight, an intergovernmental economic organisation in the past;

• Enclosure 3: internet excerpts of pages dedicated to the history of the EUTM proprietor’s G-Series, in which it can be seen that the letter ‘G’ is meaningless and does not stand for ‘generation’;

• Enclosure 4: excerpt from the website www.acronymfinder.com showing that it does not reference any ‘G8S’ acronym related to technological products;

• Enclosure 5: eSearch excerpts pertaining to trade marks owned by the applicant and that have very similar characteristics to those of the contested EUTM;

• Enclosure 6: internet excerpts showing that the term ‘version’ is often abbreviated as the letter ‘v’ followed by a number when indicating the version number of a product;

• Enclosure 7: internet excerpts demonstrating that the ‘V3’ and ‘V6’ word marks owned by the applicant comprised the designation of the model of goods provided by it;

• Enclosure 8: eSearch extracts of registered ‘G7’ EUTMs and international registrations designating the EU for goods in the same sector;

• Enclosure 9: eSearch extracts of registered EUTMs and international registrations designating the EU comparable to the contested EUTM for goods in the same sector.

With its observations of 24/04/2020:

• Enclosure 10: Illustrative press clippings showing that the Group of Eight is present in the medias to this day and that the acronym “G8” is commonly used to refer to it in the languages of the EU;

• Enclosure 11: excerpts of EUTM registrations for signs comprising one letter followed by one number in relation to mobile phones;

• Enclosure 12: internet excerpts providing more information on the EUTM proprietor’s ‘thinQ’ brand;

• Enclosure 13: Internet excerpts showing that the products provided by the EUTM Owner under the Contested EUTM are designated as “the G8S” in practice, not as “the LG G8S”, showing that the former is able to function as a badge of origin.

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY — ARTICLE 59(1)(a) EUTMR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 7 EUTMR

According to Article 59(1)(a) and (3) EUTMR, a European Union trade mark will be declared invalid on application to the Office, where it has been registered contrary to the provisions of Article 7 EUTMR. Where the grounds for invalidity apply for only some of the goods or services for which the European Union trade mark is registered, the latter will be declared invalid only for those goods or services.

Furthermore, it follows from Article 7(2) EUTMR that Article 7(1) EUTMR applies notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Union.

As regards assessment of the absolute grounds of refusal pursuant to Article 7 EUTMR, which were the subject of the ex officio examination prior to registration of the EUTM, the Cancellation Division, in principle, will not carry out its own research but will confine itself to analysing the facts and arguments submitted by the parties to the invalidity proceedings.

However, restricting the Cancellation Division to an examination of the facts expressly submitted does not preclude it from also taking into consideration facts that are well known, that is, that are likely to be known by anyone or can be learned from generally accessible sources.

Although these facts and arguments must date from the period when the European Union trade mark application was filed, facts relating to a subsequent period might also allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the situation at the time of filing (23/04/2010, C‑332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225, § 41 and 43).

The registration of a European Union trade mark cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation for the proprietor of that mark with regard to the result of subsequent invalidity proceedings, since the applicable rules expressly allow for that registration to be challenged subsequently in an application for a declaration of invalidity or a counterclaim in infringement proceedings (19/05/2010, T‑108/09, Memory, EU:T:2010:213, § 25).

Otherwise, challenging the registration of an EUTM in the context of invalidity proceedings would, where the subject-matter and the grounds were the same, be deprived of any practical effect, even though such a challenge is permitted under the EUTMR (22/11/2011, T‑275/10, Mpay24, EU:T:2011:683, § 18).

Non-distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

The distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed, first, in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration of the sign is sought and, second, in relation to the perception of the section of the relevant public, which is composed of the consumers of those goods or services (27/11/2003, T‑348/02, Quick, EU:T:2003:318, § 29).

The average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

In the present case, the goods covered by the contested trade mark are in particular mobile phones, electronical media equipment and their respective components and accessories that target both the average consumers and more experienced specialists. Depending on the nature of the goods in question, the awareness of the relevant public will be that of the average consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, or that of a more attentive public with a higher level of attention.

Furthermore, it is settled case-law that the relevant point in time in respect of which the assessment of the claimed descriptive character or lack of distinctiveness of the sign ‘G8S’ must be made is the date of filing of the EUTM or the priority date if applicable. In other words, it is necessary to establish whether or not ‘G8S’ was lacking in distinctiveness in relation to the contested goods on its priority date, namely 01/02/2019.

The marks referred to in Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR are, in particular, those that do not enable the relevant public ‘to repeat the experience of a purchase, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition of the goods or services concerned’ (27/02/2002, T‑79/00, Lite, EU:T:2002:42, § 26). This is the case for, inter alia, signs commonly used in connection with the marketing of the goods or services concerned (15/09/2005, T‑320/03, Live richly, EU:T:2005:325, § 65).

The trade mark at issue, ‘G8S’, is composed by a letter, a numeral and another letter. It is the applicant’s position that on the mobile phone market, and, by extension, the technological goods market, it is extremely common to use alphanumeric codes to indicate the model number of products. Indeed, in the mobile phone sector, it is accepted that letters are used to indicate a particular series preceding and/or following a number to indicate a particular model within that series. As shown in Annexes B&B 3 and 6 (home page of the EUTM proprietor), the EUTM proprietor uses the letter ‘G’ as a series of Android devices first introduced in 2012. The number following the letter ‘G’ indicates the number within the series. Therefore, the contested term ‘G8S’ would be understood for example as fitting a new version of the eight product of Series G.

In the telecommunication sector, alphanumerical combinations are also used, such as ‘1G’ to ‘5G’, and ending with letter ‘S’ as shown in Annex B&B 7. This was true at the relevant date. It is, therefore, likely that an alphanumerical combination using the letter ‘G’ in the mobile phone field would be associated with ‘generation’ when preceded or followed by a single digit number. Even if it is acknowledged that ‘G8’ in ‘G8S’ is not ‘8G’ as argued by the EUTM proprietor, the fact remains that the letter ‘G’ combined with a one-digit number and ending with letter ‘S’ is likely to be perceived as non-distinctive in this technological field. The addition of the letter ‘S’ does not add the minimum distinctive character required since it would be understood as related to a new version of the series of goods and, therefore, not distinctive. It is common knowledge in addition that letter ‘S’ is used in many languages at the end of names to indicate the plural form.

Consumers are accustomed to seeing short combinations of letters and/or digits often used to indicate some technical feature. In everyday life, especially in the field of internet communications technology, consumers are likely to have encountered (e.g. on their mobile phone) similar symbols composed of letters and digits which refer to various mobile communications standards widely used in recent decades. They are also likely to have read about the already widely-advertised ‘5G’ as the successor to these technologies.

It is the nature of the mobile phone sector that consumers will sign up to contracts of finite length, then upgrade to a new contract, a new mobile phone and/or a new generation of telecommunications technology. They are, therefore, aware of the series, new models or new generations of telecommunication technology on the market. They are familiar with multiple manufacturers using identical or similar alphanumeric references to designate a series and model number, alongside the manufacturer and/or product brand. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article (Annex B&B 3), the G-series are designated as ‘LG G series’. Consumers are aware of the developments in technology and even if the current generation is number 5 and it was number 4 at the relevant date, number 8 does not project such a distant future that it would immediately be perceived by consumers as a fanciful indication for the goods. As demonstrated by the applicant, development of ‘6G’ is already the object of studies and investments including by the EUTM proprietor itself (Annexes B&B 10 and 11).

Even assuming that the relevant ‘attentive at least to an average degree’ consumers would not confuse (misread) the element ‘G8’ included in ‘G8S’ with ‘8G’, this does not mean that they would perceive the ‘letter + digit’ combination ‘G8’ as a distinctive trade mark element.

To the contrary, these consumers would immediately notice that the ‘letter + digit’ combination ‘G8’ is very similar in its structure and components to generic indications well known to them and commonly used to indicate some technical feature of electronic goods, or as model references by various undertakings, in the relevant fields. The addition of a final ‘S’ to the acronym would not change this perception.

Therefore, even if these same consumers were unable to ascribe a clear and specific (technical) meaning to the sign ‘G8S’, as claimed by the EUTM proprietor, they would be unlikely to perceive the mere ‘letter + digit’ combination + letter ‘G8S’ as anything more than an indication of some technical feature or as a typical model reference of electronic goods, and are, therefore, unlikely to perceive it as a distinctive trade mark element in itself.

‘8G’ is not that far in the future. Even though the contested trade mark is ‘G8S’, the simple inversion of ‘8G’ and the addition of a final ‘S’ are not sufficient to provide the minimum distinctive character required for it to be perceived as an indication of origin in this particular field of technological goods.

Contrary to the EUTM proprietor’s assertions, the applicant has submitted evidence that comparable trade marks are commonly used in the sector of mobile phones and technological goods. In Annexes B&B 4 and B&B 12-16, the applicant proves that the use of alphanumeric codes for mobile phones, and related goods, is extremely widespread. In these annexes, the applicant demonstrates how the naming convention of a mobile phone manufacturer operates, using different letters and numerals in combination with the house mark.

On the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant, it is hard to see how, in such a saturated market as the mobile phone and telecommunication sector, simple alphanumeric codes can function as a badge of origin. The applicant has succeeded in demonstrating that multiple manufacturers use letters and numbers to identify different product models. However, they do so always in combination with a distinctive house mark. The Cancellation Division is, therefore, persuaded that the relevant consumer would not perceive these codes as a badge of origin, but rather as a product or model number.

Although there may be occasions where an alphanumeric code can function in a distinctive manner, as argued by the EUTM proprietor in the light of some selected case-law, as soon as the premise that it is absolutely commonplace for mobile phones and related goods to bear alphanumeric codes is accepted, any distinguishing capacity of such codes disappears. It is, therefore, impossible for a mark such as ‘G8S’ to enable the relevant public to repeat the experience of a purchase, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition of the goods concerned.

The EUTM proprietor argues that ‘G8S’ is not used to indicate an escalating sequential series and, in the alternative, that the future technological standard of telecommunications would be ‘8G’ and not ‘G8S’. The EUTM proprietor also disputes the meanings provided by the applicant for the letter ‘G’ as standing for ‘generation’ and proposes a totally unrelated meaning. Nevertheless, it is not necessary that the trade mark be found descriptive of a characteristic of the goods (such as technical features, model number, etc.) to fall under the ground of being non-distinctive, for all the reasons described above.

It is the task of the Cancellation Division to assess distinctive character on the date of filing (20/02/2019) or in this case on the priority date (01/02/2019). In addition, it is not necessary to show that the contested trade mark is used by other manufacturers in order to assess its distinctive character as perceived on that date. In the case at issue, the applicant has submitted evidence mainly to prove that the use of simple combinations of alphanumerical codes is, and was on the filing date, very common on the market. What matters here is whether there is frequent use of numbers and letters on the mobile phone market and related goods and this has been amply proved by the applicant.

Even if ‘G8S’ is not directly descriptive, what is relevant is the public’s perception, and the applicant has demonstrated that the public will not inherently identify ‘G8S’ as a mark of origin. Even though a given term might not be clearly descriptive with regard to the goods concerned, with the result that an objection under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR would not apply, it could still be objected to under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR on the ground that it will be perceived by the relevant public as only providing information on the nature of the goods concerned and not as indicating their origin.

The Cancellation Division does not share the EUTM proprietor’s theory according to which the combination of the letter “G”, of the digit “eight” and of the letter “S” in the contested EUTM could rather be construed as a playful phonetic transcription of the word “gates” (pronounced /ɡeɪts/)

On the contrary, the Applicant has demonstrated that the relevant public is likely to perceive the contested EUTM as an acronym indicating the model or the serie of technological goods.

The trade mark ‘G8S’ is, therefore, intrinsically devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, and this was also the situation on the relevant date. Pursuant to settled case-law, it is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal enumerated in Article 7(1) EUTMR applies and only in part of the European Union for a trade mark to be rejected or, as in the case at issue, to be cancelled. (22/05/2014, T‑228/13, exact, EU:T:2014:272, § 63, and 03/12/2015, T‑647/14, DUALSAW, EU:T:2015:932, § 39). Consequently, there is no need to deal with the question of whether the contested EUTM was also registered in breach of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.

The EUTM proprietor’s argument, according to which even a single letter can work as a trade mark, is not relevant in the present case. In the judgement mentioned (09/09/2010, C‑265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508), the Court of Justice ruled that, in the case of trade marks consisting of single letters depicted in standard characters with no graphic modifications, it is necessary to assess whether the sign at issue is capable of distinguishing the different goods in the context of an examination, based on the facts, focusing on the goods concerned (§ 39). This is precisely what the present decision does. Considering the market of mobile phones and telecommunications, it has been demonstrated that the alphanumerical combination ‘G8S’ cannot work as a trade mark for these specific goods.

The fact that the Office has registered identical or similar marks mentioned by the EUTM proprietor is counterbalanced by the fact that the Office has also refused similar marks, as mentioned by the applicant in Annex B&B 2, (although refusals are generally also based on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR). In addition, the Office is not bound by previous decisions.

The EUTM proprietor is not claiming acquired distinctive character pursuant to Article 7(3) CTMR.

Conclusion

In the light of the above, the Cancellation Division concludes that the application is totally successful and the European Union trade mark should be declared invalid for all the contested goods.

COSTS

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

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

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

The Cancellation Division

Janja FELC

Jessica LEWIS

Anne-Lee KRISTIENSEN

According to Article 67 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 68 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.