OPPOSITION Nо B 3 100 173

 

Groupe Canal+ S.A. à directoire et conseil de surveillance, 1 place du Spectacle, 92130 Issy Les Moulineaux, France (opponent), represented by Santarelli, 49, avenue des Champs Elysées, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)

 

a g a i n s t

 

Xi'an Diangao Network Technology Co., Ltd., Rm. 02002, 2f, A3-1 West, Software New City R&d Base Phase 2, No.156, Tianguba Rd., Hi-tech Zone, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, People’s Republic of China (applicant), represented by Viering, Jentschura & Partner, Am Brauhaus 8, 01099 Dresden, Germany (professional representative).

On 07/05/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

 

1. Opposition No B 3 100 173 is upheld for all the contested goods and services.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 092 421 is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 18 092 421 for the figurative mark . The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 8 699 291 , in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR, and French trade mark registration No 4 172 259 , in relation to which 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.

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s French trade mark registration No 4 172 259.

a) The goods and services

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

Class 9: Scientific (other than medical), nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical and electro-optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision) and life-saving apparatus and instruments; diving equipment; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; decoders; electronic data processing apparatus, electric apparatus for measuring and for electronic checking (supervision); teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for the recording, transmission, reproduction, storage, encryption, decryption, transformation and processing of sound or images; communication and telecommunication apparatus; audiovisual, telecommunication, data communication, televisual and remote-controlled apparatus and instruments; tape recorders; video recorders, cinematographic cameras; telephones, portable telephones; personal organizers (PDA); electronic agendas; radios, personal stereos; projectors (projection apparatus); antennas, satellite dishes; cabinets for loudspeakers, amplifiers; computers, computer screens and keyboards, computer peripheral devices, modems, decoders, encoders; devices (apparatus) for providing and controlling access to data processing apparatus; authentication apparatus intended for use with telecommunication networks; signal scrambling, descrambling and retransmitting apparatus; digital terminals; video films; CD-ROMs, sound recording disks, digital video disks (DVDs), audio and video disks, digital disks, videotapes; readers for CD-ROMs, digital video disks, digital disks, magnetic disks, audio and video disks, digital disks, sound recording disks; video game cartridges; video games software; video games designed for use with a television screen; magnetic recording media; encoded cards, magnetic, chip cards, electronic cards; integrated circuits and microcircuits; card readers; electronic components; monitors used for displaying data received from a global computer network; vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; calculating machines and data processing apparatus; satellites for telecommunication and scientific purposes; spectacles (optics), spectacle cases, optical goods; integrated circuit cards; electronic guides for TV and radio programs; apparatus and instruments for television program selection and programming; interactive television apparatus and instruments; television screens; computer software, recorded; fiber-optic cables and optical cables; electrical cells and batteries.

Class 35: Business consulting; professional assistance and consulting in business organization and management for industrial and commercial enterprises; commercial consulting and information; commercial advice for consumers (namely consumer information) in connection with the choice of computer and telecommunication equipment; advertising; rental of advertising space; dissemination of advertising matter; organization of promotional and advertising operations with a view to developing customer loyalty; drafting of advertising mailing; direct mail advertising; mailshots; arranging of audiovisual program, audio and radio program and newspaper subscriptions for others; arranging subscriptions to videograms, phonographic recordings and all audio and audiovisual media; arranging subscriptions to all information, text, sound and/or image media and in particular those in the form of electronic or non-electronic or digital publications and the form of multimedia products; arranging subscriptions to a television channel; arranging subscriptions to a telephone or computer (Internet) service; consulting in regard to Internet data inputting; publication of publicity texts; radio and television advertising; interactive advertising; business management; business administration; office functions; on-line advertising on a computer network; business information or inquiries; business research; commercial or industrial management assistance; employment agencies; business or industrial appraisals; book-keeping; document reproduction; computerized file management; database management services; data input and processing services, namely data input, compilation and systemization; organizing exhibitions and events for commercial or advertising purposes; sales promotion for others; marketing research; auctioneering; teleshopping with offer of sales (sales promotion for others); administrative management of exhibition sites for commercial or advertising purposes; public relations; rental of advertising time on communication media; retail and wholesale sales of clothing articles, leather goods, jewelry, pens, stationery, games, toys, sports goods; retail and wholesale sale of audiovisual, computer and telecommunications products, namely videotapes, television apparatus, video recorders, personal stereos, tape recorders, radio, high-fidelity (hi-fi) equipment, decoders, mobile telephones, computers, magnetic tapes, juke boxes for computers, printed circuits, integrated circuits, computer keyboards, audio-video compact disks, compact optical disks, couplers (data processing equipment), floppy disks, magnetic data media, video screens, scanners, printers for use with computers, interfaces for computers, readers (data processing equipment), computer software, recorded, microprocessors, modems, monitors (computer hardware), monitors (computer programs), computers, computer memories, computer peripheral devices, recorded computer programs, processors (central processing units), recorded computer operating programs, chips (integrated circuits), retail sale of antennas; news clipping services; telephone answering.

Class 38: Telecommunication services.

Class 42: Research and development of new products for others; technical research; surveying (engineers’ services); professional consulting on computer hardware, on video program creation; operating internet search engines; design, updating and rental of computer software; rental of computer apparatus and instruments, namely screens; consultancy in the field of computer hardware, computer rental; design (creation) of systems for encrypting and decrypting and for controlling access to television or radio programmes, in particular nomad systems and data transmission systems of all kinds; design (development) of interactive programs and apparatus; technical standards setting services (standardisation), drawing up technical standards (standardisation), namely drawing up (design) of technical standards for manufactured products and telecommunications services; weather information services; research and development, for others, of electronic, computer and audiovisual, scrambling and access control systems in the fields of television, data processing, telecommunications and audiovisual technology; authentication (origin searches) of electronic messages; conversion into computerized formats of texts and/or images, fixed or animated, and/or sounds (musical or not), ringtones for interactive use or not; services for downloading video games and digitized data; on-line downloading services for films and other audio and audiovisual programs; information concerning computing applied to telecommunications; rental of encoders.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Downloadable image files; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; computer software applications, downloadable; downloadable music files; electronic publications, downloadable; monitors (computer programs); computer programs (downloadable software); computer software, recorded; computer programs, recorded; computer games programmes downloaded via the internet.

Class 35: Commercial information agency services; shop window dressing; advertising; advertising agency services; provision of commercial and business contact information; pay per click advertising; organization of trade fairs for commercial or advertising purposes; systemization of information into computer databases; online advertising on a computer network; rental of advertising time on communication media.

Class 38: Message sending; rental of access time to global computer networks; providing user access to global computer networks; providing online forums; providing access to databases; transmission of digital files; wireless broadcasting; transmission of electronic mail; communications by computer terminals; providing telecommunications connections to a global computer network.

Class 42: Information technology (IT) consultancy; design and development of multimedia products; conversion of data or documents from physical to electronic media; providing search engines for the internet; data security consultancy; research and development of new products for others; conversion of computer programs and data, other than physical conversion; computer software design; providing information on computer technology and programming via a web site; software as a service (SaaS).

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

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. These factors are known as the ‘Canon Criteria’ (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442).

Contested goods in Class 9

Software refers to programs and procedures required to enable a computer to perform a specific task. Computer software comprises programs, routines and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware (principally the computer) and direct its operation. The contested computer software, recorded; computer programs, recorded; computer games programmes downloaded via the internet; computer software applications, downloadable; monitors (computer programs); computer programs (downloadable software) are various more general or specific types of computer software and programmes. They are identical to the opponent’s computer software, recorded, either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the applicant’s goods include, are included in, or overlap with, the opponent’s goods.

Downloadable electronic publications are electronic versions of traditional media, like e-books, electronic journals, online magazines, online newspapers, etc. Bearing in mind the above, the contested electronic publications, downloadable include, as a broader category, or at least overlap with, the opponent’s electronic guides for TV and radio programs, and they are identical. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect ex officio the broad category of the contested goods, they are considered identical to the opponent’s goods.

The contested downloadable image files are similar to the opponent’s electronic guides for TV and radio programs. These goods may have the same purpose and nature. They may coincide in their producer, relevant public and distribution channels.

The contested downloadable music files; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones are similar to the opponent’s computer software, recorded. These good may coincide in their producer, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

Contested services in Class 35

Rental of advertising time on communication media; advertising are identically included in both lists of goods.

The contested commercial information agency services; provision of commercial and business contact information are included in, or at least overlap with, the opponent’s business consulting. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested shop window dressing; advertising; advertising agency services; pay per click advertising; online advertising on a computer network are identical to the opponent’s advertising, either because they are identically contained in both lists or because the applicant’s goods include, are included in, or overlap with, the opponent’s services.

The contested systemization of information into computer databases is identical with the opponent’s office functions. Considering that office functions include the internal day-to-day operations of an organisation, including administrative and support services in the ‘back office’, and that they mainly cover activities that are typical of secretarial services, such as shorthand and typing, compilation of information into computer databases, etc., it is considered that the contested systemization of information into computer databases is included in the broad category of opponent’s office functions.

The contested organization of trade fairs for commercial or advertising at least overlaps with the opponent’s organizing exhibitions and events for commercial or advertising purposes. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 38

All the contested services in this class are included in the broad category of the opponent’s telecommunication services. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 42

Research and development of new products for others is identically included in both lists of services.

The contested information technology (IT) consultancy; providing information on computer technology and programming via a web site cannot be clearly separated from the opponent’s design (development) of interactive programs; design of computer software; information concerning computing applied to telecommunications. As these categories of services overlap substantially, they are considered identical.

The contested data security consultancy cannot be clearly separated from the opponent’s research and development, for others, of access control systems in the fields of television, data processing, telecommunications and audiovisual technology; design (creation) of systems for encrypting and decrypting and for controlling access to television or radio programmes, in particular nomad systems and data transmission systems of all kinds. As these categories of services overlap, they are identical.

The contested design and development of multimedia products; computer software design at least overlaps with the opponent’s design (development) of interactive programs and apparatus. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested conversion of data or documents from physical to electronic media; conversion of computer programs and data, other than physical conversion cannot be clearly separated from the opponent’s conversion into computerized formats of texts and/or images, fixed or animated, and/or sounds (musical or not), ringtones for interactive use or not. As these categories of services overlap substantially, they are considered identical.

The contested providing search engines for the internet is synonymous with the opponent’s operating internet search engines. Therefore, these services are identical.

The contested software as a service (SaaS) refers to a software distribution, licencing and delivery model. These contested services at least overlap with the opponent’s rental of computer software (07/12/2017, R 220/2017-1, CIRCUIT / C1RQUIT, § 16). Therefore, they are identical.

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 or similar are directed at the public at large and business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise.

Specifically, the goods in Class 9 and services in Class 38 target the public at large and business professionals whose degree of attention varies from average to higher than average (09/09/2010, T‑106/09, Archer Maclean’s Mercury, EU:T:2010:380, § 20; 10/10/2019, T‑700/18, Dungeons, EU:T:2019:739, § 35-40; 28/11/2019, T‑665/18, Vibble, EU:T:2019:825, § 21).

The services in Class 35 target largely the professional public with the degree of attentiveness varying from average to high, because some of these services are quite specialised and expensive.

The services in Class 42 include mainly services related to software and website development, hosting and computer systems, they are mainly aimed at a specialised public with a high level of attention. Nonetheless, occasionally some consumers from the general public may make use of computer design, programming and online hosting services. To the extent that such services are expensive or meet a particular technological need, the degree of attention of the relevant consumer will be higher than average (12/02/2015, T‑453/13, Klaes, EU:T:2015:98, § 24; 28/11/2019, T‑665/18, Vibble, EU:T:2019:825, § 23-25).

Therefore, the degree of attention of the public may vary between average and high.

c)  The signs

Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is France.

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 marks are figurative.

The earlier mark is composed of the verbal elements ‘LE CUBE’ in black, bold upper-case typeface followed by the letter ‘S’ in a slightly smaller font inside a square frame. The stylisation of these verbal elements is standard and non-distinctive. The square frame is a basic geometric shape that is commonly used in trade to highlight the information contained within (15/12/2009, T‑476/08, Best Buy, EU:T:2009:508, § 27). Therefore, this element is non-distinctive.

The word ‘LE’ of the earlier mark is a French article introducing the masculine noun and it is of limited distinctiveness (09/09/2020, R 1898/2019‑4, DEVCUBE STUDIO (fig.) / +LE CUBE (fig.), § 37; 24/10/2019, R 2456/2018‑4, gymcube (fig.) / +LE CUBE (fig.), § 24). Additionally, it is conceptually subordinate to the noun that follows it and, therefore, it has a lower impact on the consumer’s perception of the sign.

The word ‘CUBE’ of the earlier mark is a noun referring to a solid object having six plane square faces in which the angle between two adjacent sides is a right angle. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, it is neither descriptive, allusive nor otherwise weak in relation to the relevant goods and services. A similar position was presented in a number of decisions of the Office’s Boards of Appeal, according to which the word ‘CUBE’ refers to a geometric figure, which is not descriptive for the French-speaking public; although some of the goods in Class 9 can have the shape of a cube, this is generally not the shape of these goods, for which it can be considered distinctive (13/08/2018, R 2187/2017‑4, CamCube / LE CUBE (fig.), § 22). This is even more true for the services in Classes 35, 38 and 42. Therefore, the element ‘CUBE’ is considered inherently distinctive for all the relevant goods and services (09/09/2020, R 1898/2019‑4, DEVCUBE STUDIO (fig.) / +LE CUBE (fig.), § 36; 24/10/2019, R 2456/2018‑4, gymcube (fig.) / +LE CUBE (fig.), § 22; 13/08/2018, R 2187/2017‑4, CamCube / LE CUBE (fig.), § 22).

In its observations, the applicant also argued that the earlier trade mark has a low distinctive character given that many trade marks include the word ‘CUBE’. In support of its argument the applicant refers to several trade mark registrations in the Register of the EUIPO.

The Opposition Division notes that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market. In other words, on the basis of register data only, it cannot be assumed that all such trade marks have been effectively used. It follows that the evidence filed does not demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and have become accustomed to, trade marks that include the word ‘CUBE’. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s claims must be set aside.

The letter ‘S’ of the earlier mark will be perceived as the nineteenth letter of the basic modern Latin alphabet. It has no direct meaning for the relevant goods, it is neither allusive nor otherwise weak and, therefore, is distinctive to an average degree.

The contested sign comprises the verbal element ‘Madcube’ in a slightly stylised title case typeface with the letter ‘M’ in blue and green and the remaining letters ‘adcube’ in blue. Although it is composed of one verbal element, the public is likely to break it down into two components, ‘Mad’ and ‘cube’ (09/09/2020, R 1898/2019-4, DEVCUBE STUDIO (fig.) / +LE CUBE (fig.), § 38). According to case-law, the relevant consumer, when perceiving a word, will break it 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). It is possible for the consumer to break down a word mark even if only one of the elements making up that mark is familiar to the consumer (22/05/2012, T‑585/10, Penteo, EU:T:2012:251, § 72; 06/10/2004, T‑356/02, Vitakraft, EU:T:2004:292, § 51). This is justified by the fact that consumers naturally look for a meaning when perceiving a word mark.

The contested sign’s component ‘Mad’, originating from English, is meaningless in French and, therefore, inherently distinctive to an average degree for the contested goods and services. The element ‘cube’ will be understood as explained above and it is inherently distinctive to an average degree for the contested goods and services.

The signs have no elements that could be considered clearly more dominant (eye-catching) than other elements.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letter sequence ‘CUBE’/‘cube’ forming their second verbal element/component. The signs differ in their respective remaining letters, ‘LE’ and ‘Mad’ at the beginning of the signs, and the letter ‘S’ in the square frame in the earlier mark, although these elements are shorter than the coinciding component ‘CUBE’/‘Cube’. The signs differ in their respective stylisations which, however, are either non-distinctive (the earlier mark) or not particularly distinctive (the contested sign) and have a very limited impact on the consumers’ perception of the signs, if any at all. Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the earlier mark will be pronounced in three syllables as ‘LE-CUBE-S’ and the contested sign in two syllables as ‘MAD-CUBE’. Consequently, the signs coincide identically in their second syllable ‘CUBE’, while they differ in their remaining syllables. The purely figurative elements of the signs are not subject to phonetic assessment. 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. The signs coincide in the identical concept evoked by the word/component ‘CUBE’/‘cube’. The earlier mark differs slightly from the contested sign in the concept evoked by the word ‘LE’, although its distinctiveness is limited, and it is conceptually subordinate to the coinciding noun ‘CUBE’. It also differs in the concept of the letter ‘S’, which has no counterpart in the contested sign. Overall, the signs are conceptually similar to an average degree.

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 claimed that earlier European Union trade mark registration No 8 699 291 enjoys enhanced distinctiveness. However, the opponent did not explicitly claim that its French trade mark registration No 4 172 259, to which this examination is limited, 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. 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 some elements with a limited distinctiveness or non-distinctive, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The appreciation of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the earlier mark on the market, the association that can be made with the registered mark and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods or services identified. It must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18; 11/11/1997, C‑251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).

The earlier mark as a whole has a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness for the relevant public, which consists of the public at large and business customers, displaying an average to high degree of attention.

The vast majority of the goods and services are identical and only the contested downloadable image files and downloadable music files; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones in Class 9 are similar to the respective goods and services of the opposing mark. The signs are visually, aurally and conceptually similar to an average degree. Account must be taken of the fact that average consumers, even those who pay a high degree of attention, 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; 21/11/2013, T‑443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54).

The similarity between the signs is on account of the coinciding and normally distinctive element/component ‘CUBE’/‘Cube’. The earlier mark’s differing elements are less relevant. Its French article ‘LE’ has a lesser impact on the consumer’s perception of the marks, because it has limited distinctiveness and is conceptually subordinate to the coinciding noun ‘CUBE’. The earlier mark’s letter ‘S’ is shorter, smaller and located in a less prominent position than the coinciding element.

Even though the contested sign differs in the letters ‘Mad’ located at the beginning, their impact is not overwhelming and, in any event, is insufficient to counteract the similar overall impression created by the signs. The consumer will still note the presence of the word ‘cube’ which is identical in meaning and plays an independent distinctive role in both marks. As follows from case-law, there is no basis for the proposition that the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect will systematically disregard the second part of the word element of a sign to the point of remembering only the first part (09/12/2020, T-190/20, Almea (fig.) / Mea, EU:T:2020:597, § 45; 18/12/2008, T-287/06, Torre Albéniz, EU:T:2008:602, § 56).

The similar impression created by the marks is not affected by their differing stylisations which are either non-distinctive or not particularly distinctive and have a very limited impact on consumers’ perception of the signs, if any at all.

Although the public will not overlook the differences, especially considering that they are located at the beginning of the signs, the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. It covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings. Therefore, even if the marks were not directly confused with one another, there is a likelihood of confusion when the average consumer, although aware of the differences between the signs, nevertheless assumes, owing to the use of the identical and distinctive word ‘CUBE’ for identical and similar goods and services, that they are derived from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings.

Therefore, taking into account the above factors, there is a likelihood of confusion for the relevant public in France. It follows that the contested sign must be rejected in its entirety.

As earlier French trade mark registration No 4 172 259 leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier right invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T‑342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268).

Likewise, since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article 8(5) EUTMR.

COSTS

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

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

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

The Opposition Division

Liliya YORDANOVA

Jakub MROZOWSKI

Anna PĘKAŁA

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.