OPPOSITION No B 3 095 966

Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd., Aoyama Taiyo Building, 1-7-6 Shibuya, 150, Tokyo, Japan (opponent), represented by D Young & Co LLP, Theatinerstraße 11, 80333 München, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Sapone Di Un Tempo Srl Unipersonale, via M.Ferraro 12/1, 61122 Pesaro, Italy (applicant), represented by Marco Valerio Pozzi, via Monserrato 29, 00186 Roma, Italy (professional representative).

On 25/06/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 095 966 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 061 916 (figurative). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 692 897 (figurative). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

For the sake of completeness, it is noted that the opposition was initially based on three more earlier rights, in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR, namely on the United Kingdom No 1 046 523, No 1 046 522 and No 996 393, all for the figurative mark . However, in the course of the proceedings, in particular in its observations of 19/02/2020, p.2, the opponent withdrew these earlier right as basis of the opposition and, as result, the opposition is now based only on the earlier European Union trade mark No 692 897 referred to above.

As a further remark, the request for demonstrating genuine use of the earlier mark(s) is a defending right reserved for the applicant in opposition proceedings. Indeed, when proof of use of the earlier right(s) has been requested by the applicant, the Office will also examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision in question.

In the present case, even though the opponent submitted evidence on its own motion referring to it as ‘evidence of use’, the Opposition Division notes that the applicant has not exercised its right to request proof of use at any point of the proceedings. Consequently, the opponent was under no obligation to submit such evidence, hence, neither does the Opposition Division need to proceed with the analysis thereof. To that extent, the below assessment of the submitted evidence will only relate to the other relevant claims such as enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier mark, in relation to which it is taken into account.

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.

1. The goods

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

Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices; false nails; false eyelashes.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 3: Perfumed soaps.

The contested goods are included in the broad category of the opponent’s soaps. Therefore, they are identical.

2. Relevant public — degree of attention

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

In the present case, the goods found to be identical are directed at the public at large, who will display an average degree of attention upon purchasing these goods.

3. The signs

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 earlier mark is a purely figurative sign consisting of a black device reminiscent of a flower with five petals radiating equally out of its center, the floret disc, outlined in white. Given the nature of the goods in Class 3, the motif of depicting a flower is considered fairly banal since it is often used to convey the idea of natural products, pure from chemicals, or made of organic ingredients. Moreover, in the present case, it may simply allude to the floral character of the products (by way of example, as floral soaps) or their floral scent. However, due to its particular depiction, the mark as a whole may be seen as endowed with a normal distinctiveness.

The contested sign, on the other hand, is a figurative mark consisting of a verbal element, ‘Amorevole’, bearing some fanciful stylisation on the letters ‘O’, namely a heart and a flower, and a blue five-petals flower device containing a small pink heart in its centre (or the floret disc). The element will be understood by a part of the public, in particular by the Italian speakers, as an existing adjective meaning ‘feeling or showing love and affection‘. Another part of the public, even if not understanding the entire word, may associate its initial part ‘amor/e’ with the hearts depicted in the letters ‘o’ and to that extent perceive the concept of ‘love’ in the mark. For the rest of the public, this element is meaningless. In any of the above events, the verbal element is considered of a normal degree of distinctiveness as it is not descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak for the goods in question.

As far as its figurative element is concerned, similar findings apply as in the earlier mark, and despite that the motif of a flower may also be seen as weak on its own, the entire fanciful stylisation confers it a normal degree of distinctiveness. Account is further taken of the fact that when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T‑312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). Consequently, in the contested sign, consumers will rather focus on the verbal element when addressing the sign, and pay less attention to the flower depicted above, most likely perceiving it as a mere embellishment borne by the sign for the purposes of attracting consumers’ attention.

Finally, the contested sign has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements, as both the flower device and the verbal element are of fairly equal size and central position.

Visually, the signs coincide in the motif of a five-petals flower with a clearly expressed central part (or floret disc). However, the flower devices display some differences, in particular - while the earlier mark is black and white, the contested sign’s figurative element bears a combination of colours, blue and pink. Moreover, its floret disc represents a heart, that is to say, there is an added imaginative element in its structure. By contrast, the earlier mark is a very simplified sketch of a flower without further elaboration and details on it. In addition, the contested sign contains a distinctive verbal element that has no counterpart in the earlier mark.

Therefore, to the extent that the signs coincide in the depiction of a flower, yet taking into account the particularities of these depictions, the signs are, at best, visually similar to a low degree.

Purely figurative signs are not subject to a phonetic assessment. As one of the signs is purely figurative, it is not possible to compare them aurally.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. As the signs will be associated with a similar meaning produced by the flower elements, for the public that perceives no meaning in the verbal element of the contested sign, the signs are conceptually similar to an average degree. Account is nevertheless taken of the fact that the concept of a flower is with reduced distinctiveness when seen in connection to the goods in question.

For the consumers who understand the word of the contested sign partially or entirely, this conceptual similarity may be somewhat reduced by the additional concept of the contested sign (‘love’) and reach only a low degree.

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

4. Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark, attributed the reference ‘Daisy Mark’ by the opponent, has been used throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union since 1960s in relation to fashion and cosmetics, that is to say, the opponent claims that the earlier mark enjoys a high degree of recognition among the relevant public in the European Union as a result of its long and extensive use in connection with all the goods for which it is registered, namely the goods in Class 3.

This claim must be properly considered given that the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark must be taken into account in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18). Given that the contested sign was filed on 07/05/2019, the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark should be proven as pertaining to a period prior to that date.

On 19/02/2019, within the time limit for substantiating the opposition set by the Office until 21/02/2020, 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.

Listing of the evidence

The evidence consists of the following documents:

Annex 1: A witness statement signed on 17/02/2020 by the Secretary of Mary Quant Limited (subsidiary of the opponent’s company), in which the witness provides relevant information on the opponent’s brand history and development. As the statement reads: it was

‘established by the fashion designer Mary Quant in the 1960s who was credited with inventing the miniskirt and giving rise to the “swinging London” cultural movement. Mary is the subject of a major retrospective at the Victoria & Albert Museum (the V&A) in London, which opened in April 2019 and examined how a fashion revolution on the British high street was launched.’

According to the witness, the Mary Quant brand, of which the figurative mark of the opponent has become an iconic badge (referred to as the ‘Daisy mark’), has been born from the doodles of the young Mary Quant and has become an emblem of the freedom and desire to break social norms. Today, the brand offers a wide range of cosmetic products, including 120 eye shadow shades, 36 lipstick shades and 72 nail polish colours. The witness additionally provides information on the several exhibits accompanying its statement, in particular the following:

• MA1: Copies of the covers, as well as of two inside pages from a book entitled ‘Mary Quant’ and devoted to the eponymous fashion designer, published by the V&A in March 2019. The earlier mark may be seen along the name ‘Mary Quant’ on the cover page and the inner pages contain references to advertisement of cosmetic products, namely a varnish and a lipstick, dating back in 1966: . The exhibit additionally contains copies of pages from the magazine Harper’s Bazaar, dated May, 2019 (Circulation: 112491), containing an article, entitled ‘Life, Love & Liberty’, about the fashion designer and her boutique in London and showing illustrations on which the earlier sign appears in a colourful version across the pages: (with no link to particular products), as well as on cosmetic items . The illustrations are again taken back from the 1960s. The article finally refers to the exhibition at the V&A Museum open between 06/04/2019 and 16/02/2020 and sponsored by the King’s Road (Quant’s boutique).

• MA2: Screenshots from the opponent’s website www.maryquant.co.uk taken via the Wayback Machine web archive and dated between November, 1999 and March, 2019. As may be seen, coloured versions of the earlier mark have been consistently displayed at the header of or alongside each webpage, as well as on the product packaging of various cosmetics products, e.g. , , , . According to the opponent, the website offers an online store for skincare and makeup products of the brand for consumers throughout the entire EU.

• MA3: Screenshots from the Mary Quant online store, available at www.store.maryquant.co.uk, on which various cosmetic items are displayed, in particular skin lotion, face wash, foundation, cheek blush, mascara, lips gloss, nail polish and body cream, together with their price references. The earlier mark appears on the products (albeit in colourful depictions), along with the name ‘Mary Quant’, as well as independently: , , , . According to the opponent, 400.000 visitors of the exhibition have been exposed to cosmetic products branded with the earlier mark at the physical shop of V&A Museum, and even wider audience to the online shop. While the webpages bear no dates, the screenshots have been taken on 11/02/2020.

• MA4 (marked as confidential): a sample of order invoices demonstrating sales of cosmetics to clients within the EU, namely Germany, Ireland, France, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Denmark, Greece and Spain, for the period between 2017–2019. The opponent points out that this sample has only a representative character, that is to say, it is not exhaustive on the opponent’s total sales and the sensitive data has been modified accordingly. Moreover, although it is not depicted next to the products shipped, these are obviously goods referred to in the previous extracts that feature the sign. By way of example, the products ‘blush baby’ may be cross-referenced from the screenshots and found in the invoices.

• MA5: Screenshots taken from the V&A Museum online shop, dated 10/02/2020, illustrating various fashion items, as well as two lipsticks, branded with the earlier mark and available for sale in the Museum in London, in particular

• MA6 (marked as confidential): An invoice issued by Mary Quant Europe and addressed to V&A Enterprises Ltd, dated March, 2019, and regarding the sale of 560 articles in total (nail polish and lipstick products). The figurative mark appears on the cover page of the invoices next to the name ‘Mary Quant’ of the company.

• MA7: An extract containing an article from the Standard newspaper, available online at www.standard.co.uk, regarding the Mary Quant exhibition at V&A Museum, dated 11/02/2020. The article reads: ‘Mary Quant exhibition becomes V&A’s third most popular fashion display ever with 400.000 visitors [in the frame of 10 months]’, whereas it sits behind the exhibitions of Christian Dior in 2019 and Alexander McQueen in 2015. The article further provides information on the exhibition compiling the legacy of over 120 items from clothes and accessories to sketches and photographs.

• MA8 (marked as confidential): An invoice issued by Mary Quant Europe and addressed to the Fashion and Textile Museum in London, dated January, 2019, and concerning the sale of various branded products, including mascara, eye shadow and eye liner, 105 items in total.

• MA9: Screenshots taken from social media pages such as the accounts of Mary Quant on Facebook and Instagram, where various cosmetics are illustrated featuring the mark, dated between 2015 and 2019. The pages contain references to cosmetics products featuring the sign, already referred to previously. As the opponent comments, the accounts are available for consumers in the UK, as well as across the EU.

Annex 2: Copies from well-established case-law handling, inter alia, reputation cases (e.g. Royal Shakespeare, General Motors, Wolf head image, Intel, etc.), as well as a copy of the Och-Ziff decision, EWHC 2599, 2010 handled by the UK Court and considered by the opponent pertinent to the present dispute.

Annex 3: Printouts, dated 18/02/2020, from the V&A Museum’s website, www.vam.ac.uk, referring, inter alia, to the exhibition of Mary Quant.

Preliminary remarks

In general, by performing the present assessment, the relevant factors should be assessed with a view not only to establishing the degree of recognition of the mark amongst the relevant public, but also to ascertaining whether the other requirements related to reputation are fulfilled, for example, whether the alleged reputation covers a significant part of the territory concerned or whether the reputation had indeed been acquired by the filing/priority date of the contested EUTM application. The same kind of test is applied to ascertain whether the trade mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through use for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

The opponent’s submission is accompanied by a written statement, in which various facts are provided. In that respect, the Opposition Division notes that the weight and probative value of statutory declarations depends on both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of such evidence to the particular case. The witness in the present case is evidently not an independent party in the proceedings and the information provided thereof needs to be cautiously assessed and considered only upon corroboration with the rest of the evidence.

Finally, account is taken of the fact that evidence derived from the opponent itself, forming an interested party in the opposition proceedings, will in principle have less probative character than evidence acquired from third parties.

Assessment and conclusion

Having examined the material listed above, the Opposition Division concludes that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through its use, nor that the mark enjoys reputation on the European Union market.

Despite showing some use of the trade mark, the evidence provides little information on the extent of such use. In particular, the evidence does not provide any indication of the degree of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public. Furthermore, the evidence does not provide sufficient information about the sales volumes, the market share of the trade mark or the extent to which the trade mark has been promoted. As a result, the Opposition Division cannot rely on any convincing indications that would serve the conclusion that the earlier mark is known on the respective market.

To start with, a significant part of the evidence, in particular Annex 3, MA1 and MA7, consists of references to an exhibition that took place partially after the relevant period, from 06/04/2019 to 16/02/2020, namely – to a large extent outside of the relevant period examined, the date prior to the filing of the contested sign, 07/05/2019. While this evidence cannot be completely ignored, it certainly does not demonstrate that a reputation existed at the time of filing of the contested trade mark. Obviously, one of the exhibition’s purposes may have been to popularise the fashion designer Mary Quant, hence, to promote the brand she has created and developed, including the figurative mark in dispute. However, the results of such an event would, in first place, have occurred after the relevant date, and second, do not form part of the submission in a collaborative way. The opponent merely refers to the total of visitants (without any reference to total number of EU visitants) of the exhibition the subject of which was the designer but does not proceed to prove a link between this success of the exhibition, presented with a number of visitants, and the factual number of consumers who do or would associate the figurative sign with that particular origin only by having visited the exhibition. Consequently, the opponent failed to reason how and whether the exhibition of the designer had impacted the perception of the relevant public regarding the allegedly emblematic ‘Daisy mark’. Moreover, the mere facts presented in the exhibition, including the visual references to the figurative mark, relate to a period with a time distance of almost 60 years (advertisements of the products dated in the 1960s). In the absence of supporting evidence revealing the market situation nowadays, i.e. prior to the filing of the contested sign, these references cannot have a conclusive character.

The rest of the evidence, that may be seen as dated within the relevant period, concerns materials originating directly from the opponent, in particular screenshots from its websites (MA2 and MA3), together with the products offered on the market nowadays, as well as order invoices related to the sporadic sales of such products (MA4, MA5 and MA8) and social media references (MA9). This evidence, despite originating from the interested party, merely serves to prove use of the trade mark, however, it does not constitute a solid indication that the opponent’s mark is being recognised and known by a significant part of the public. While the opponent presents some sales figures, it lacks to present an overview of its financial activity and success (by way of example, providing audited financial reports or reports of market share prepared by third parties) and to put these into the relevant context, namely to ascertain that its trade mark has acquired a stable market niche among other leading competitors in the cosmetics field.

Finally, it is to be noted that the earlier figurative mark only rarely appears on the packaging of the products without the reference of the name ‘Mary Quant’ afterwards. This is an important factor to be considered when assessing the reputation of a mark that is usually incorporated in a more complex sign containing a further verbal element. Indeed, to establish the reputation of a trade mark on the basis of evidence relating to the use and well-known nature of a different trade mark, the former must be included in the latter and play therein ‘a predominant or even significant role’ (21/05/2005, T-55/13, F1H20 / F1 et al., EU:T:2015:309 § 47). When the earlier mark has been used as part of another mark, it is incumbent on the opponent to prove that the earlier mark has independently acquired a reputation (12/02/2015, T-505/12, B, EU:T:2015:95, § 121). In the present case, the opponent did not provide any evidence, e.g. a survey, opinion poll, press articles, where the earlier mark has been recognised on its own as a mark related to the opponent’s undertaking or has been considered a badge to be associated with those particular goods and having a particular commercial origin (namely, that of the opponent).

As a result, the evidence does not show that the trade mark is known by a significant part of the UK or European Union public, as claimed by the opponent. Under these circumstances, the Opposition Division concludes that the opponent failed to prove that its trade mark enjoys any enhanced distinctiveness, let alone, a reputation in the territory of the EU.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. Following the considerations regarding the earlier mark’s component in section c) of this decision, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods are identical and the degree of attention paid by the relevant public, the public at large, is considered to be average.

As has been concluded in section d) of this decision, the earlier mark enjoys only a normal degree of distinctiveness in relation to the goods.

The signs were found visually similar to a low degree, at best, and conceptually similar to an average degree for a part of the consumers, and to a low degree, for the remainder. The signs cannot be compared aurally since one of them is purely figurative. There is no doubt that the signs display visual resemblances on account of the depictions of flowers of both of them. However, in the opinion of the Opposition Division, these similarities are rather banal and out-weighed by other factors.

Firstly, although both signs feature flowers, the flower devices are different in each case. In the earlier mark, it is minimalistic, more like a geometrical pattern, than a depiction of a flower. In the later sign, it is a more stylised and fanciful flower which has an imaginative element to it, namely the pink heart in the middle. Moreover, the contested mark includes a word element, which is not present in the earlier mark and contributes to create a sufficient distance between the overall impressions given by the marks visually. Indeed, as apparent from the case-law, if a figurative mark also includes a word element, in general it will be through the use of that word element that the relevant public will refer to the mark (07/05/2015, GELENKGOLD, T 599/13, EU:T:2015:262, § 53). It follows that, in the case at hand, the relevant public will refer to the mark applied for by pronouncing its word element.

Finally, although considered of a normal distinctiveness as a whole due to their particular depictions, the flower motif present in both signs is not particularly distinctive itself, especially when the reference concerns a little elaborated flower depiction that cannot be immediately identified as a particular flower sort and may bear the characteristics of a generalized perception of a flower. Certainly, it cannot be assumed that the signs are similar just because the same abstract image motif is represented, or as in the present case - petals (decision of 28/01/2016 – R 651/2015-1 – Representation of a marked tomato (Fig.) /Representation of a tomato (Fig.) § 21; 2/12/2005, R 273/2004-4, Device of a bull (fig.) / Device of a bull (fig.), § 21). To that extent, even recognising that there may exist some degree of conceptual similarity between the signs, the Opposition Division recalls that where the earlier mark is not especially known to the public and consists, as in this case, of an image (or pattern) of little imaginative content, the mere fact that the two marks are conceptually somewhat similar is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 25). Therefore, the common concept of ‘flowers’ is not decisive here. When that is borne in mind, it becomes evident that the multiple differences between the marks, compared against several rather banal similarities, must be sufficient to avoid a risk of confusion, even if the marks are displayed on identical cosmetic or personal care products.

Considering all the above, even taking into account the identity of the goods in question, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

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

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

• The signs must be either identical or similar.

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

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

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

1. Reputation of the earlier trade mark

The evidence submitted by the opponent to prove the reputation and highly distinctive character of the earlier trade mark has already been examined above under the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. Reference is made to those findings, which are equally valid for Article 8(5) EUTMR.

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

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

COSTS

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

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

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

The Opposition Division

Valeria ANCHINI

Manuela RUSEVA

Meglena BENOVA

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.