OPPOSITION Nо B 3 095 087

 

Haufe-Lexware Gmbh & Co. KG, Munzinger Str. 9, 79111 Freiburg, Germany (opponent), represented by Friedrich Graf Von Westphalen & Partner mbB, Kaiser-Joseph-Str. 284, 79098 Freiburg i. Br., Germany (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs N.V., Thomas R. Malthusstraat 5, 1066 Jr Amsterdam, The Netherlands (applicant), represented by Merk-Echt B.V., Keizerstraat 7, 4811 Hl Breda, The Netherlands (professional representative).

 

On 24/11/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1.

Opposition No B 3 095 087 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services: Class 9: Computer software; software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones; computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes; computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with additional functions; notebook computers, computers and media players; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; data processing equipment; electronic and digital publications, downloadable or on data carriers; apparatus for data processing; computers, peripheral devices for computers; parts of the aforementioned goods not included in other classes. Class 35: Business management; Business administration; Office functions; accountancy; Accounting and book-keeping services; Market canvassing, market research and market analysis; Business organisation, business economic and business administration consultancy; Commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of computer software, computer software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones, computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes, computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with extra functions, and parts for the aforesaid goods; Commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of notebook computers, computers and media players, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, data processing equipment, electronic and digital publications being downloadable or stored on carriers, equipment for processing data, computers, computer peripheral devices and parts for the aforesaid goods; Consultancy in the field of business management and business efficiency; Compilation of statistics; Accounting; Tax preparation; Compilation of fiscal data; Strategic business planning; Business analysis of fiscal data; Temporary placement of personnel, Including accountants and consultants; Organisation of events for commercial and advertising purposes; Compilation and management of data files; Consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; The aforesaid services also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet. Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design, development, updating, implementing and providing of software, software packages, software applications, mobile applications and web applications; platform as a service [PaaS]; infrastructure as a service [IaaS]; software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing; data storage and transmission; design, development and updating of computer systems, computer networks and computers; automation services; IT and ICT specialists; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; including the aforesaid services provided via electronic networks, including the internet.

 

2.	European Union trade mark application No 18 047 421 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining services.

 

3.	Each party bears its own costs.

 

REASONS

 

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 18 047 421 ‘TAXMARC’ (word mark), namely against some of the services in Class 35 and all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 42. The opposition is based on EUTM registration No 17 869 061, (figurative mark). The opponent invoked  Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

 

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.

 

a) The goods and services

 

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

 

Class 9: Downloadable electronic publications in the fields of tax, economics and law; Downloadable software on CD-ROMs and other data carriers in the fields of tax, economics and law; Downloadable tax return software; Tax return software on CD-ROMs and other data carriers.

Class 35: Professional business organisational consultancy and information in the fields of economics, tax, data processing, book-keeping and accounting, business management, time management and personnel, including via the internet, included in class 35; Business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work; outsourcing services in the field of IT and EDP, namely business assistance; collation, systemisation, updating and maintenance of data in databases and searchable online databases; organisational project management in the IT and EDP sector; mail order, including via online shops, of software products and printed matter.

Class 42: Software as a service (SaaS); Consultancy relating to software as a service (SaaS); Providing online, non-downloadable software; Rental of software; Computer software design; Electronic data back-up and Software update services; Technical consultancy relating to software technology and software systems; Technological user support services, namely being application service provider (ASP) services; Cloud computing; Technical project management in the field of IT and electronic data processing; Provision of search engines for the Internet; Security in the field of IT and EDP; All of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Computer software; Software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones; Computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes; Computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with additional functions; Notebook computers, Computers and Media players; Magnetic data carriers, recording discs; Data processing equipment; Electronic and digital publications, downloadable or on data carriers; Apparatus for data processing; Computers, peripheral devices for computers; Parts of the aforementioned goods not included in other classes.

Class 35: Business management; Business administration; Office functions; accountancy; Accounting and book-keeping services; Market canvassing, market research and market analysis; Business organisation, business economic and business administration consultancy; Commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of computer software, computer software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones, computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes, computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with extra functions, and parts for the aforesaid goods; Commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of notebook computers, computers and media players, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, data processing equipment, electronic and digital publications being downloadable or stored on carriers, equipment for processing data, computers, computer peripheral devices and parts for the aforesaid goods; Consultancy in the field of business management and business efficiency; Compilation of statistics; Accounting; Tax preparation; Compilation of fiscal data; Strategic business planning; Business analysis of fiscal data; Temporary placement of personnel, Including accountants and consultants;Organisation of events for commercial and advertising purposes; Compilation and management of data files; Consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; The aforesaid services also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet.

Class 36: Financial services; Financial affairs; Monetary affairs; Tax consultancy (not accounting); Services rendered by financial experts; Financial brokerage; Financial analyses, expertise, studies and evaluations; Conducting financial feasibility studies; Financial management; Drawing up financial reports; Financial consultancy in relation to financial risk management; Consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; The aforesaid services also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet.

Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; Industrial analysis and research services; Design, development, updating, implementing and providing of software, software packages, software applications, mobile applications and web applications; Platform as a Service [PaaS]; Infrastructure as a Service [IaaS]; Software as a service [SaaS]; Cloud computing; Data storage and transmission; Design, development and updating of computer systems, computer networks and computers; Automation services; IT and ICT specialists; Consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; Including the aforesaid services provided via electronic networks, including the Internet.

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

The terms ‘such as’ and ‘including’, used in the applicant’s and in the opponent’s lists of goods and services, indicate that the specific goods and services are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (09/04/2003, T-224/01, Nu-Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

 

However, the term ‘namely’, used in the opponent’s list of goods and services to show the relationship of individual goods to a broader category, is exclusive and restricts the scope of protection only to the goods specifically listed.

 

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.

 

Moreover, according to the wording of the applicant’s specification, the services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 are also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet. It must be noted that that indication has no impact on the comparison of these services, since the indication of a particular field of use does not change the basic nature of the services. Therefore, the expressions ‘the aforesaid services also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet’ in Classes 35 and 36 and ‘including the aforesaid services provided via electronic networks, including the Internet’ in Class 42 will not be taken into consideration in the below comparison.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.

Contested goods in Class 9

The contested electronic and digital publications, downloadable or on data carriers overlaps with the earlier downloadable electronic publications in the fields of tax, economics and law. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested computer software; computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes; computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with additional functions; software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones include, as broader categories, or overlap with, the earlier downloadable tax return software. Since the Office cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are considered identical to the earlier goods.

The contested notebook computers, computers and media players; data processing equipment; apparatus for data processing; computers; peripheral devices for computers; parts of the aforementioned goods not included in other classes are similar to the earlier downloadable tax return software as they usually coincide in producer, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore they are complementary.

The contested magnetic data carriers, recording discs; parts of the aforementioned goods not included in other classes are lowly similar to the earlier tax return software on CD-ROMs and other data carriers as they usually coincide in producer. Furthermore they are complementary.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested business management; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services include, as broader categories the earlier business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work. Since the Office cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested services, they are considered identical to the earlier services.

The contested compilation and management of data files; compilation of statistics; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are include as broad categories the opponent’s professional business organisational consultancy and information in the fields of economics, tax, data processing, book-keeping and accounting, business management, time management and personnel, including via the internet, included in class 35. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested strategic business planning; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; temporary placement of personnel, including accountants and consultants are at least similar to the earlier professional business organisational consultancy and information in the fields of economics, tax, data processing, book-keeping and accounting, business management, time management and personnel, including via the internet, included in class 35 because they have the same purpose, they coincide in distribution channels and in end users. Finally, they also coincide in provider.

The contested market canvassing, market research and market analysis; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are at least similar to the earlier business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work because they can coincide in distribution channels, in end user and in provider.

The contested accountancy; accounting; tax preparation; accounting and book-keeping services; compilation of fiscal data; business analysis of fiscal data; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are at least similar to the earlier professional business organisational consultancy and information in the fields of economics, tax, data processing, book-keeping and accounting, business management, time management and personnel, including via the internet, included in class 35 because they can coincide in distribution channels, in end user and in provider.

The contested consultancy in the field of business management and business efficiency; business organisation, business economic and business administration consultancy; business administration; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to the earlier business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work because they have a similar nature, they coincide in distribution channels, in end user and also in provider.

The contested office functions; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to a low degree to the earlier business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work as they usually coincide in providers and relevant public.

The contested commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of computer software, computer software applications and web applications, including for smartphones, mobile telephones, computer software, computer software applications and web applications for administrative, financial and tax purposes, computer software extensions for providing existing computer software with extra functions, and parts for the aforesaid goods; commercial intermediation services in the purchase and sale, and import and export of notebook computers, computers and media players, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, data processing equipment, electronic and digital publications being downloadable or stored on carriers, equipment for processing data, computers, computer peripheral devices and parts for the aforesaid goods; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work as they can coincide in providers and relevant public.

The contested the contested organization of events for commercial and advertising purposes; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to a low degree to the opponent’s business management assistance, namely in the preparation of tax returns, payroll preparation, travel cost invoices, receivables lists, business plans, and in the recording and management of absences from work as they have the same purpose. They usually coincide in producer and relevant public.

Contested services in Class 36

The contested financial services; financial affairs; monetary affairs; tax consultancy (not accounting); financial brokerage; conducting financial feasibility studies; financial management; services rendered by financial experts; financial analyses, expertise, studies and evaluations; drawing up financial reports; financial consultancy in relation to financial risk management; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; the aforesaid services also provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet are dissimilar to all goods and services covered by the earlier right. Indeed, even if the end user may coincide, this is not sufficient because their natures, purposes and methods of use are different. They do not coincide in their producers/providers and do not share the same distribution channels. Furthermore, these services are neither complementary nor in competition.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services include as broader categories the opponent’s software as a service [SaaS]; cloud computing; all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested design, development, updating, implementing and providing of software, software packages, software applications, mobile applications and web applications; scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; design, development and updating of computer systems, computer networks and computers; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are at least similar to a high degree to the earlier computer software design; all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law because they have the same nature, they are complementary and they coincide in distribution channels. Moreover, they also coincide in end users and in providers. Some of these services can also have the same purpose.

The contested industrial analysis and research services; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to the earlier computer software design; all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law as they usually coincide in provider, relevant public and distribution channels.

The contested platform as a Service [PaaS]; infrastructure as a Service [IaaS]; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to the earlier software as a service (SaaS); all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law because they have the same nature, they coincide in distribution channels, in end users and also in providers.

The contested IT and ICT specialists; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to the earlier technical project management in the field of IT; all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law and electronic data processing because they can coincide in distribution channels, in end users and in providers. Moreover, they are also complementary.

The contested data storage and transmission; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s rental of software; all of the aforesaid services in class 42 being solely in the fields of tax, economics and law because they have a similar same purpose. They coincide in distribution channels, in end users and providers.

The contested automation services; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services are similar to a low degree to the earlier technical project management in the field of IT and electronic data processing because they coincide in distribution channels and in providers.

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods and services found to be identical and similar to different degrees target the general and the professional public.

The public’s degree of attentiveness may vary from average (for the magnetic data carriers, recording discs for instance) to high (for the IT and ICT specialists for instance), depending on the price, specialised nature, or terms and conditions of the goods and services purchased.

c) The signs

	TAXMARC
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.

According to the applicant, the public in the relevant territory will recognize the word ‘TAX’ in the signs. Nevertheless, the Opposition Division disagrees that this holds true for everybody in the relevant territory. For part of the public the equivalent to the word ‘TAX’ does not resemble the English word in any way. This is the case of the Bulgarian-speaking part of the public for instance where neither the word ‘TAX’ neither the verbal elements ‘TAXMAN’ of the earlier mark and ‘TAXMARC’ of the contested sign have any meaning. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the Bulgarian-speaking part of the public for which these elements are distinctive.

The applicant argues that the letter ‘X’ in the earlier mark will be understood as the Roman numeral corresponding to the number ten as it would be a known way to communicate the version of a software to consumers. While this may be true for some software products, it cannot be considered as a general rule since it is not used in such a way so often. Moreover, it must be recalled that the public under analysis is the Bulgarian-speaking public, and that in Bulgarian the letter ‘X’ corresponds to the Latin letter ‘H’. As a consequence, as this element will be recognize by the public as the letter ‘H’, and since the meaning of this element is not related in any way to the goods and services in question, its distinctiveness is normal.

Moreover, although the letter ‘X’ is represented in a much bigger size than the other verbal element, the Opposition Division does not consider that it is the most eye-catching element. Indeed, the colours used to represent this element and the verbal element ‘TAXMAN’ contrast with each other bringing the reader's attention to the center of the image where the verbal element ‘TAXMAN’ appears. For this reason, and even if there is no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements, the Opposition Division is of the opinion that consumers will most likely only use the verbal element ‘TAXMAN’ to refer to the sign. The letter ‘X’ will most likely not be pronounced as consumers tend to shorten marks containing several words (03/07/2013, T-206/12, LIBERTE american blend, EU:T:2013:342, § 43-44).

The earlier mark, it is also composed of a background that consists of a simple geometrical shape. This element is non-distinctive as it is of a purely decorative nature.  

 

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.

  

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the letters ‘TAXMA’ and in their sounds. They differ in the last letter/sound ‘N’ of the earlier mark and in the letters/sounds ‘RC’ of the contested sign. Visually, the signs also differ in the letter ‘X’ of the earlier mark that will most likely not be pronounced as explained above, in the background that is non-distinctive and in the colours.

 

Therefore, considering the number of visual and aural coincidences between the signs, they are visually similar to a degree above average and aurally highly similar.

  

Conceptually, although the public in the relevant territory will perceive the meaning of the letter ‘X’ in the earlier mark as explained above, the other sign has no meaning in that territory. Since one of the signs will not be associated with any meaning, the signs are not conceptually similar.

 

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

 

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

 

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

 

The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

 

The applicant questions the distinctiveness of the earlier mark arguing that a parallel application that was filed by the opponent for the word mark ‘TAXMAN’ was refused by the Office ‘on absolute grounds’. Nevertheless, when dealing with the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, the latter should always be considered to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness. Earlier marks, whether EUTMs or national marks, enjoy a ‘presumption of validity’. The Court made it clear, in its judgment of 24/05/2012, C-196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, that ‘in proceedings opposing the registration of a European Union trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question’. The Court added that ‘it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character’.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal, despite the presence of a non-distinctive element in the mark, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

 e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

 

According to settled case-law, the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 16).

Furthermore, 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)

 

In the present case, the goods and services are partly identical and similar to varying degrees and partly dissimilar. The relevant public will display a degree of attentiveness that may vary from average to high.

The signs are visually similar to an above average degree, aurally highly similar and conceptually not similar. Indeed, as explained above the contested sign reproduces the verbal element ‘TAXMAN’ of the earlier mark almost in its entirety. The differences between the signs are mainly confined to elements that will have less impact on consumers either because they are non-distinctive or because they are placed at the end of the signs. As regards the letter ‘X’ in the background of the earlier mark, although it is also distinctive, it will most likely not be pronounced as the public tends to shorten signs that consist of several elements, as already explained above.

Account is also taken of the fact 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). Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T-443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54). In the present case, even if consumers will exercise a certain degree of attention in relation to some of the goods and services at issue, even sophisticated consumers are not immune to trade mark confusion, especially taking into account the overwhelming similarities between the marks in question and the fact that some of the services are identical and some are similar.

 

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17). In the present case, the similarities between the signs are sufficient to counteract the low degree of similarity between some of the services.

 

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

 

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods and services found to be identical or similar to varying degrees, including those similar only to a low degree, to those of the earlier trade mark.

 

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

 

 COSTS

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

The Opposition Division

 

 

Meglena BENOVA

Sandra IBAÑEZ

Valeria ANCHINI

 

 

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.