OPPOSITION Nо B 3 094 967

 

Stage Tec Entwicklungsgesellschaft für Professionelle Audiotechnik mbH, Tabbertstr. 10, 12459 Berlin, Germany (opponent), represented by Patentanwälte Bressel und Partner mbB, Park Kolonnaden Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin, Germany (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

Shenzhen Yijie Technology Co., Ltd., No.b1106,area B,11/f,tiangong Security Electronic Square,longsheng East Rd.,longhua Dist.,, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China (applicant), represented by Isabelle Bertaux, 55 Rue Ramey, 75018 Paris, France (professional representative).

On 10/05/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1.	Opposition No B 3 094 967 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

 

	Class 9: Computer keyboards; computer peripheral devices; mouse [computer peripheral]; stands adapted for laptops; Portable speaker docks; Racks adapted to house audio apparatus; Mounting brackets adapted for computer monitors; Stands for computer equipment; speaker mounting brackets; Wireless computer peripherals; Electronic organizers; Wireless transmitters and receivers; Wireless headphones.
2.	European Union trade mark application No 18 062 421 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

 

3.	Each party bears its own costs.

 

REASONS

 

On 19/09/2019, the opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 062 421 ‘Stageek’ (word mark). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 1 568 062, (figurative mark) and German company name ‘Stage Tec’. The opponent invoked  Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 8(4) EUTMR.

  

PROOF OF USE

  

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

 

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

  

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade mark on which the opposition is based, namely European Union trade mark No 1 568 062 .

 

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

  

The date of filing of the contested application is 07/05/2019/. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in the European Union from 07/05/2014 to 06/05/2019 inclusive.

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark  for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

 

Class 9: Electronic devices; namely sound transmitting devices for sound and filmstudios, acoustic couplers, electric couplings, electricity indicators, sound recording apparatus, computer operating programs, computer software, electronic notice boards, audio receivers, video receivers, remote control apparatus, tape recorders, speed regulators for tape recorders, high-frequency apparatus, interfaces, electric regulating apparatus, loudspeakers, microphones, monitors, video recorders, switchboards, electric apparatus for commutation, distribution consoles, sound recording apparatus, sound locating instruments, sound transmitting apparatus, amplifiers, sound reproduction apparatus. 

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

 

On 06/05/2020, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR, the Office gave the opponent until 06/07/2020 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. This time limit expired after extension on 06/09/2020. On 07/09/2020, within the time limit (since 06/09/2020 was Sunday), the opponent submitted evidence of use. As this evidence was not properly indexed, a deficiency letter was sent to the opponent. The deficiency was remedied on 16/10/2020.

 

As the opponent requested to keep certain commercial data contained in the evidence confidential vis-à-vis third parties, the Opposition Division will describe the evidence only in the most general terms without divulging any such data.

 

The evidence to be taken into account is the following:

  

 Attachments A1-A3 Leaflets describing technical details of an audio routing system Nexus/Nexus Star and a console Auratus platinum. The trade mark, with different colours, is visible on front page and at the last page of the brochure.

 Attachments A4-A5 brochures presenting a remote console Avatus platinum and a mixing console Crescendo Platinum with a trade mark clearly visible on the goods.

 Attachment A6 printout from the opponent’s website www.stagetec.com which states that the company exists since 1993 and specializes in development and manufacture of innovative audio technology.

 Attachments A7- A8 brochures presenting a broadcast mixing desk ‘ON AIR Flex’. The trade mark is visible on front page and at the last page of the brochure.

 Attachment A9 14 invoices covering the period from 25/03/2014-17/12/2019 with the sales to countries such as Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg for different audio processing boards, consoles, its parts and accessories such as microphones, mounting racks, keyboards as well as software, routers, keyboard drawers, script holders, backplane power supply, control interface boards. The invoices are in English and German. The trade mark is depicted at the top of the invoices in the following forms: .

 Attachments 10 and 11 compilation of publications in audio and fair magazines such as ‘RESOLUTION’ from 2015 till September 2019, ‘Frankfurt Daily’ from 2016-2019 ‘The IBC DAILY’ from 2016 with press clips on STAGETEC and its consoles.

 

The invoices show that the place of use is European Union. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (German and English), the currency mentioned (EUR) and some addresses in Germany, Italy, Poland. the Netherlands, Spain and Luxembourg. Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

 

Most of the evidence is dated within the relevant period.

 

Evidence referring to use made outside the relevant timeframe is disregarded unless it contains conclusive indirect proof that the mark must have been put to genuine use during the relevant period of time as well. Events subsequent to the relevant time period may make it possible to confirm or better assess the extent to which the earlier mark was used during the relevant time period and the real intentions of the EUTM proprietor at that time (27/01/2004, C‑259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50).

 

In the present case, the evidence referring to use outside the relevant period confirms use of the opponent’s mark within the relevant period. This is because the use it refers to is very close in time to the relevant period and it merely complements the remaining evidence that mainly falls within the relevant period.

 

The documents filed, namely invoices, brochures, press clips, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use. In the present case, ‘STAGETEC’ trade mark is depicted in a clearly visible position on the invoices and on some products. The invoices are evenly spread over the relevant period and refer to different countries. Therefore, the use is widespread. Consequently, the use of ‘STAGETEC’ on the invoices, together with the remaining evidence, is considered sufficient to prove its use as a trade mark.

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

 

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

 

In the present case, the figurative mark is used in figurative form on the invoices, in brochures and on the goods themselves, namely as . The graphic depiction merely plays a decorative role as it is limited to the colours and backgrounds. Therefore, it is considered that the alterations do not affect the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence does show use of the sign as registered within the meaning of Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR.

As can be seen from the evidence, the earlier mark ‘STAGETEC’ coincides to some extent with the company or trade name of the opponent (‘Stage Tec Entwicklungsgesellschaft für Professionelle Audiotechnik mbH’).

The use of a sign as a company name does not exclude its use as a trade mark. The use of a sign as a business or trade name cannot be regarded as trade mark use, unless the relevant goods or services themselves are identified and offered on the market under this sign (judgment of 13/04/2011, T-209/09, ‘Adler Capital’, § 55 and 56). In general, this is not the case when the business name is merely used as a shop sign (except when proving use for retail services), or appears on the back of a catalogue or as an incidental indication on a label (judgment of 18/01/2011, T-382/08, ‘Vogue’, § 47).

In this regard, it needs to be noted that several signs may be used simultaneously without altering the distinctive character of the registered sign (08/12/2005, T-29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 34). It is quite common in some market areas for goods and services to bear not only their individual mark, but also the mark of the business or product group (‘house mark’). In these cases, the registered mark is not used in a different form, but the two independent marks are validly used at the same time.

is depicted in a clearly visible position on the invoices, in the brochures and press clips and it is importantly visible on some of the goods that appear in the brochures therefore a link between the use of the sign and the relevant goods can be established. Therefore, the use of ‘STAGETEC’ on the invoices, in the form of a logo, is considered sufficient to prove use of it as a trade mark.

 

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

 

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, the evidence submitted by the opponent is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier trade mark during the relevant period in the relevant territory.

 

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods covered by the earlier trade mark.

 

According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, if the earlier trade mark has been used in relation to only some of the goods or services for which it is registered it will, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of those goods or services.

In relation to goods in Class 9, the evidence proves use for various goods such as audio processing boards, consoles, its parts and accessories such as microphones, keyboards, all belonging to the broad category of sound transmitting apparatus in Class 9. As the opponent is not required to prove all the conceivable variations of the category of goods for which the earlier mark is registered and as the goods for which use has been proven do not constitute a coherent subcategory within the broad category in the specification to which they belong, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for sound transmitting apparatus in Class 9.

  

In the present case, the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for the following goods: 

 

Class 9:   Electronic devices; namely sound transmitting devices for sound and filmstudios, audio receivers, sound transmitting apparatus; sound reproduction apparatus. 

Even if some goods appear in the invoices such as mounting racks, routers or backplane power supplies appear they are not covered by the earlier right and therefore the genuine use for these goods cannot be recognized.

  

Therefore, the Opposition Division will only consider the abovementioned goods in its further examination of the opposition.

 

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

 

The goods on which the opposition is based and for which genuine use has been proven are the following:

Class 9:   Electronic devices; namely sound transmitting devices for sound and filmstudios, audio receivers, sound transmitting apparatus; sound reproduction apparatus. 

The contested goods are the following:

 

Class 9: Computer keyboards; computer peripheral devices; mouse [computer peripheral]; stands adapted for laptops; plugs, sockets and other contacts [electric connections]; ducts [electricity]; control panels [electricity]; connections for electric lines; Portable speaker docks; Racks adapted to house audio apparatus; Mouse pads [computer peripheral]; Mounting brackets adapted for computer monitors; Stands for computer equipment; speaker mounting brackets; cable channels (Electric-); cable boxes (Electric); Wireless computer peripherals; Electronic organizers; Wireless transmitters and receivers; Wireless headphones.

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

The term ‘namely’, used in the opponent’s list of goods to show the relationship of individual goods and services 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.

 

 

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.

The contested Wireless computer peripherals; Wireless transmitters and receivers; Wireless headphones overlap with the opponent’s sound transmitting apparatus as both may contain loudspeakers which apart from reproducing sounds, they also transmit sounds by converting electrical audio signals into sound waves. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested electronic organizers are small calculator-sized computers as such they are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s sound transmitting apparatus. Therefore, they are identical.

  

The contested computer peripheral devices; computer keyboards; mouse [computer peripheral]; stands adapted for laptops; Portable speaker docks; Racks adapted to house audio apparatus; Mounting brackets adapted for computer monitors; Stands for computer equipment; speaker mounting brackets are at least similar to the opponent’s sound transmitting apparatus as they can be complementary. They have the same distribution channels and target the same public. Their commercial origin also overlaps.

The remaining contested goods, namely plugs, sockets and other contacts [electric connections]; ducts [electricity]; control panels [electricity]; connections for electric lines; Mouse pads [computer peripheral]; cable channels (Electric-); cable boxes (Electric) have nothing in common with the opponent’s goods. They have different natures and purposes. They are neither complementary nor in competition. These goods have different distribution channels and are manufactured by different undertakings. They are considered dissimilar.

 

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 found to be identical or at least similar are directed at the public at large and at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise.

  

The degree of attention may vary from average to high, depending on the specialised nature of the goods, the frequency of purchase and their price.

 

c) The signs

 

	Stageek
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

 

 

The relevant territory is the European Union.

 

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

 

The unitary character of the European Union trade mark means that an earlier European Union trade mark can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of a European Union trade mark that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C-514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 57). Therefore, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

  

The verbal element ‘STAGE’ and ‘TEC’ are meaningful and weak, if not non-distinctive, for the goods in question, in certain territories, for example in those countries where English is spoken. Moreover, it is very likely that in the contested sign the concept of ‘GEEK’ will be grasped by the relevant public introducing further conceptual difference between the signs. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the non-English-speaking part of the public such as in Spain.

Although the marks are composed of one verbal element, the relevant consumers, when perceiving verbal signs, will break them down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning, or that resemble words that they already know (13/02/2007, T‑256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57; 13/02/2008, T‑146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58).

  

Part of the public, especially professionals working in music industry, can dissect the element ‘STAGE’ present in both signs and associate it with the concept of arranging and performing a play or show or with the area in a theatre that is often raised above ground level and on which actors or entertainers perform (information extracted from Cambridge English Dictionary on 05/05/2021 at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stage?q=stage_1 ). Bearing in mind that the relevant goods are sound transmitting apparatus, this element is weak for these goods as it indicates that they are destined for stage performances. For the remaining part of the public, this element is not likely to be dissected in neither of the signs and therefore it is distinctive.

The word ‘STAGEEK’, taken as a whole, will be perceived as an invented word and as such it is distinctive.

The element ‘TEC’ of the earlier sign is likely to be associated with ‘technology’ by the relevant Spanish public as it is commonly used abbreviation. As it merely indicates that the goods are produced using advanced technologies. This element is therefore considered weak.

The figurative element of the earlier sign represents a treble clef with sounds waves. Bearing in mind that the relevant goods are sound transmitting apparatus, this element is weak for these goods.

The earlier mark has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements. 

  

Visually, the signs coincide in ‘STAGE*E’. 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. The protection of a word mark concerns the word as such, as long as the depiction does not depart from the usual way of writing (standard rules of capitalisation), as is the case here. However, the signs differ in additional letter ‘T’ of the earlier mark and their final letters ‘C’ versus ‘K’.

The signs also differ in the figurative elements of the earlier sign. However, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37).

 

Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

 

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‘STAGE*EC/K’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letter ‛T’ of the earlier sign, which has no counterpart in the contested mark. The earlier mark is composed of three syllables and the contested sign of two syllables and as such their rhythm and intonation differ.

  

Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

 

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 by part of the public on account of the element ‘STAGE’, the signs are conceptually similar to a low degree.

For the remaining part of the public that would grasp only the meaning of ‘TEC’ and the figurative element of the earlier sign. The signs are conceptually not similar however, as this conceptual difference lies in weak elements its impact on the assessment of the similarity of the signs is limited.

  

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.

 

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. Considering what has been stated above in section c) of this decision, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as limited for all the goods in question for a part of the public for whom all the elements are meaningful and weak. The mark has a normal degree of distinctiveness for the remaining part of the public, where it has no meaning in relation to the goods in question, despite the presence of some weak elements in the mark, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

  

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods are partly identical, partly at least similar and partly dissimilar. They target public at large and professionals. The level of attention varies from average to high.

The signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree and as they coincide in six out of seven or eight letters, which are in the same positions; the differences lie at the end of each mark, which may easily go unnoticed by consumers. Conceptually, they are similar to a low degree or not similar. The earlier mark has a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness at least for part of the relevant public.

Account is 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).

Taking into account all the above, the differences are not sufficient to rule out a likelihood of confusion, even for the part of the public who displays a high degree of attention.

 

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Spanish-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 found to be identical or similar to those of the earlier trade mark.

  

The rest of the contested goods 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 goods cannot be successful.

  

For the sake of completeness, it must be mentioned that the opposition must also fail insofar as based on grounds under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR and directed against the remaining goods because the signs and the goods are obviously not identical.

NON-REGISTERED MARK OR ANOTHER SIGN USED IN THE COURSE OF TRADE — ARTICLE 8(4) EUTMR

 

According to Article 8(4) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, the trade mark applied for will not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Union legislation or the law of the Member State governing that sign:

 

(a)   rights to that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the European Union trade mark, or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the European Union trade mark;

 

(b)   that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark.

 

The condition requiring use in the course of trade is a fundamental requirement, without which the sign in question cannot enjoy any protection against the registration of a European Union trade mark, irrespective of the requirements to be met under national law in order to acquire exclusive rights.

 

According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office will be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the relief sought.

 

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

 

According to Article 7(1) EUTMDR, the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to present the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

 

According to Article 7(2) EUTMDR, within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.

 

In the present case, the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence of use of the earlier sign in the course of trade.

 

On 08/10/2019 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the end of the cooling-off period, to submit the abovementioned material. This time limit expired on 13/02/2020.

 

The opponent did not submit any evidence of use in the course of trade of the earlier sign on which the opposition is based within the time limit to substantiate the earlier rights. The evidence submitted to prove genuine use on 07/09/2020 (or 16/10/2020) cannot be taken into account as it was submitted after 13/02/2020.

 

Given that one of the necessary requirements of Article 8(4) EUTMR is not met, the opposition must be rejected as unfounded.

 

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, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

 

 

 

The Opposition Division

 

 

Anna BAKALARZ

Katarzyna ZANIECKA

Monika CISZEWSKA

 

 

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.