Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)

Alicante, 19/06/2020

Stefano Merico

Via Eschilo, 190 int. 7

00125 Roma

ITALIA

Application No:	018093916
Your reference:	1452/MUE/2019
Trade mark:
Mark type:	Figurative mark
Applicant:	JF Global Holdings LLC P.O Box 590, Horsfords Business Centre, Long Point Road Charlestown, Nevis SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS

The Office raised an objection on 23/07/2019 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR because it found that the trade mark applied for is descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character, for the reasons set out in the attached letter.

On 18/09/2019 the applicant requested an extension of the time limit to submit observations. The time limit was extended on 24/09/2019, with the deadline expiring on 28/11/2019. The applicant submitted its observations on 18/11/2019 and invoked claim under Article 7(3) EUTMR.

The applicant’s observations can be summarised as follows:

1. The consumer will perceive the expression as a single word – depicted entirely in small lower-case italic typeface – that is devoid of meaning and, therefore, original and distinctive.

2. The expression ‘justforex’ may be dissected into various English words, not only to ‘Just’ and ‘Forex’, as suggested by the examiner. For example, the expression could be dissected into ‘just for ex’, meaning ‘intended only for ex’ (previous partner or person), which has no relationship with the services for which protection is sought in Class 36.

3. Even if the expression were dissected into the two words ‘just’ and ‘forex’, it would only reveal the applicant’s services. The results of an internet search for ‘Justforex’ reveal, first and foremost, web pages related to the applicant, and not to generic web pages describing ‘forex’ services.

4. The Office has already accepted similar marks for registration.

5. The Office has not provided any proof that the expression ‘Justforex’ is commonly used in connection with the marketing of the relevant services.

6. A minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient to overcome the objection of lack of distinctiveness. The sign ‘Justforex’ is suggestive, uncommon and cannot be considered a term used in the common parlance of the relevant consumers. Therefore, it exhibits enough distinctiveness to be protected as an EUTM for the services for which protection is sought.

Pursuant to Article 94 EUTMR, it is up to the Office to take a decision based on reasons or evidence on which the applicant has had an opportunity to present its comments.

After giving due consideration to the applicant’s arguments, the Office has decided to maintain the objection.

It is settled case-law that each of the grounds for refusal to register listed in Article 7(1) EUTMR is independent and requires separate examination. Moreover, it is appropriate to interpret those grounds for refusal in the light of the general interest underlying each of them. The general interest to be taken into consideration must reflect different considerations according to the ground for refusal in question (16/09/2004, C‑329/02 P, SAT.2, EU:C:2004:532, § 25).

Under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, ‘trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service’ are not to be registered. Article 7(2) EUTMR provides that this shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the European Union.

By prohibiting the registration as European Union trade marks of the signs and indications to which it refers, Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR

pursues an aim which is in the public interest, namely that descriptive signs or indications relating to the characteristics of goods or services in respect of which registration is sought may be freely used by all. That provision accordingly prevents such signs and indications from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks.

(23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 31).

Furthermore, signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or service in respect of which registration is sought are, by virtue of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, regarded as incapable of performing the essential function of a trade mark, namely that of identifying the commercial origin of the goods or services, thus enabling the consumer who acquired the goods or service designated by the mark to repeat the experience, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition (23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 30; 27/02/2002, T−219/00, Ellos, EU:T:2002:44, § 28).

For a sign to fall under the prohibition set out in that provision, there must be a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods and services in question to enable the public concerned to perceive immediately, without further thought, a description of the goods or services in question or one of their characteristics (20/07/2004, T‑311/02, Limo, EU:T:2004:245, § 30).

Therefore, the mark may only be assessed, first, in relation to the understanding of the mark by the relevant public and, second, in relation to the goods or services concerned (30/11/2004, T‑173/03, Nurseryroom, EU:T:2004:347, § 26; 27/02/2002, T‑34/00, Eurocool, EU:T:2002:41, § 38).

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

The absolute grounds for refusal for a lack of distinctive character and the characteristics of descriptive and common indications each have their own scope of application and are neither mutually dependent nor mutually exclusive. Even though the existence of just one ground for refusal is sufficient, they can also be examined cumulatively. Interpreting the case-law of the courts, it can be concluded that the sign must be refused registration under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR if, on the basis of its most obvious meaning in relation to the goods or services in question, it is devoid of distinctive character.

1. Regarding descriptiveness and lack of distinctive character

The applicant agreed with the Office’s assessment of the relevant public and did not dispute those findings. The Office found that the services in question (in Class 36) – all related to financial services – target both the professional public and the public at large. The level of attention would be elevated considering the nature of the services at issue.

According to case-law, the fact that the relevant public includes professional consumers cannot have a decisive influence on the legal criteria used to assess the distinctive character of a sign. Although it is true that the degree of attention of the relevant specialist public is, by definition, higher than that of the average consumer, it does not necessarily follow that a weaker distinctive character of a sign is sufficient where the relevant public is specialist (12/07/2012, C‑311/11 P, Wir machen das Besondere einfach, EU:C:2012:460, § 48). This is due to the fact that specialists may more easily find substantial, descriptive information included in a sign than the general public (04/10/2019, R 2460/2018‑2, Forex, § 20).

The Office responds to the applicant’s arguments as follows.

1. The Office disagrees with the applicant’s claim that the consumer will perceive the expression as a single word that is devoid of meaning and, therefore, original and distinctive.

In this respect, the Court has held that although consumers normally perceive a mark as a whole and do not proceed to analyse its various details, the fact remains that, when perceiving a word sign, they will break it down into elements which, for them, suggest a specific meaning or which resemble words known to them (13/02/2007, T‑256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57).

The sign at issue is figurative, but, as indicated in the objection letter, its stylisation is minimal (ordinary, black italic typeface, depicted on one line) and it does not endow distinctiveness on the mark as a whole¹.

The Board of Appeal has confirmed that a not insignificant part of the English-speaking public in the EU knows that the term ‘forex’ means ‘foreign exchange market; foreign exchange’. In the professional banking industry, the term ‘forex’ is used as an abbreviation for foreign exchange (i.e. referring to the market in which currencies are traded) (04/10/2019, R 2460/2018‑2, Forex, § 24, 31). At least part of the relevant public would establish, immediately and without any difficulty, a concrete and direct relationship between the mark and the services at issue as referring to the nature (foreign exchange) and intended purpose (just foreign exchange trading) of the services in question.

A mere combination of descriptive terms is descriptive as a whole. Even though the words ‘Just’ and ‘forex’ are not separate, but conjoined, it is noted, that it is common in English to create words by coupling together two other words or abbreviations, each of which has a meaning. Furthermore, the absence of a hyphen or a space between the two words composing the sign for which registration is sought does not amount to evidence of any creative aspect capable of distinguishing the applicant’s products from those of other undertakings (13/11/2008, T‑346/07, Easycover, EU:T:2008:496, § 52). The expression ‘Justforex’ is no more than the mere joining of two words to make a correct and fully understandable expression, in compliance with common English syntax rules. It follows that the relevant consumer will be able to dissect ‘Justforex’ into the two descriptive words and will not see it merely as a meaningless, one word expression.

2. For a trade mark to be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR,

it is not necessary that the signs and indications composing the mark that are referred to in that Article actually be in use at the time of the application for registration in a way that is descriptive of goods or services such as those in relation to which the application is filed, or of characteristics of those goods or services. It is sufficient, as the wording of that provision itself indicates, that such signs and indications could be used for such purposes. A sign must therefore be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods or services concerned’

(23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 32).

Since one of the possible meanings (just forex; only forex) of the sign designates characteristics of the services for which protection is sought, the sign is descriptive and, therefore, the application must be refused.

3. As regards the applicant’s argument that, currently, the results of an internet search for ‘Justforex’ reveal web pages related to the applicant, and thus describe only those services rendered by the applicant, the Office notes that: ‘the distinctive character of a trade mark is determined on the basis of the fact that that mark can be immediately perceived by the relevant public as designating the commercial origin of the goods or service in question … The lack of prior use cannot automatically indicate such a perception.’ (15/09/2005, T‑320/03, Live richly, EU:T:2005:325, § 88).

In addition, it is not important whether only one company offers the goods or services, as a result of a positive or legal monopoly on the filing date, or whether there are currently several competitors. The application of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR does not depend on the actual or genuine need to leave a sign or indication free and it is therefore not relevant to know the number of competitors interested in or likely to have an interest in the use of that sign (04/05/1999, C‑108/97 & C‑109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 35; 12/02/2004, C‑363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 58; 09/12/2009, C‑494/08 P, Pranahaus, EU:C:2009:759, § 57).

Therefore, the fact that no other competitors currently make use of exactly the same combination, does not mean that the sign is not descriptive.

4. Concerning the applicant’s argument that the Office has already accepted similar marks for registrations, according to settled case-law: ‘decisions concerning registration of a sign as a European Union trade mark … are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion’. Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the EUTMR, as interpreted by the Union judicature, and not on the basis of previous Office practice (15/09/2005, C‑37/03 P, BioID, EU:C:2005:547, § 47; and 09/10/2002, T‑36/01, Glass pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 35).

‘It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that observance of the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with observance of the principle of legality according to which no person may rely, in support of his claim, on unlawful acts committed in favour of another’ (27/02/2002, T‑106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 67).

The marks indicated by the applicant are not identical to the sign for which registration is sought, and include both figurative and word marks. This implies, therefore, a different examination and assessment of descriptiveness and non-distinctiveness for these marks. Each trade mark application requires separate examination. Therefore, the reasons for their registrations would not necessarily apply to the applicant’s mark in question.

4. As regards the argument that the Office has not shown that ‘Justforex’ is commonly used in connection with the marketing of the relevant services, the Court has confirmed that there is no such obligation to give examples of such practical experience (15/03/2006, T‑129/04, Plastikflaschenform, EU:T:2006:84, § 19). The relevant public will perceive the sign at issue as describing services associated with foreign exchange (Forex) trading, and thus, ordinary in relation to the services applied for, rather than the trade mark of a particular proprietor.

4. It is true that there is no requirement under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR for a sign to be highly creative or imaginative, and only a minimum degree of distinctive character is sufficient to render a mark distinctive. However, as demonstrated above, the expression ‘Justforex’ will be understood by the relevant public as directly describing the services rendered by the applicant as being related to the foreign exchange market. Signs that are descriptive of characteristics of the services in a way that may immediately be discerned by the relevant consumers are, on that account, usually also devoid of distinctive character in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR (12/02/2004, C‑363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 86), as they are also not perceived by the public as identifying the commercial origin of the goods/services.

The relevant consumers would perceive, first and foremost, the descriptive nature of the sign in question. Therefore, the sign is incapable of performing the essential function of a trade mark, which is to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

Therefore, the applicant has not succeeded in convincing the Office that the sign will be perceived as inherently distinctive and non-descriptive.

2. Regarding the claim of acquired distinctiveness

In addition to the abovementioned arguments, in its reply of 18/11/2019 to the Office’s objection letter of 23/07/2019, the applicant included a claim that the sign applied for had acquired distinctive character through use within the meaning of Article 7(3) EUTMR. On 27/01/2020 the Office requested clarification of whether the claim was intended to be a principal or a subsidiary one pursuant to Article 2(2) EUTMIR. On 21/02/2020 the applicant indicated that this claim was meant as a principal claim.

In its claim, the applicant did not indicate if the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctiveness through use in relation to all the services or part of the services for which protection is sought. Therefore, the Office assumed that the claim under Article 7(3) EUTMR is invoked for all the services claimed, namely:

Class 36: Financial services; foreign exchange market; financial exchange services; exchange brokerage; monetary exchange operations; foreign exchange services; financial consultancy services; financial planning services; financial management; financial analysis; financial sponsorship; financial information; foreign exchange information services; electronic funds transfer.

In support of its claim, the applicant submitted evidence of use on 18/11/2019, in reply to the Office’s objection letter of 23/07/2019.

The evidence to be taken into account is the following.

• Samples of products / use of the trade mark:

• domain names: justforex.com (as of 20/05/2000), justforex.eu (as of 19/05/2011) – (Annex 2 and Annex 2_b);

• advertising and promotional material for the 2016, Berlin Financial Partners EXPO (20-23 October) (Annex a_4) – ‘Justforex’ logo not displayed.

• IPCTRADE INC. Belize broker license, issued by the International Financial Services Commission (Annex a_6).

• letter from CySEC (Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission) confirming that JUSTFOREX LTD is obtaining a license in Cyprus (Annex a_7) with receipt of payment to CySEC (Annex a_8).

• Market share information (turnover and sales figures missing, the sales do not refer to the relevant goods/services):

• 19th place in the Mrforex.com ranking of the best online forex brokers worldwide, updated to 2019 (Annex a_1)

• report of all registered and active Justforex clients, from 2015 to 2019, divided for all EU countries (Annex a_9).

• Google.com analytics report: access (new users and active sessions) to website justforex.com, EU countries, 01/2015 – 09/2019, (Annex c_1).

• Google.com analytics report: access (new users and active sessions) to website justforex.com, Northern EU countries, 01/2015 – 09/2019, (Annex c_2).

• Google.com analytics report: access (new users and active sessions) to website justforex.com, Southern EU countries, 01/2015 – 09/2019, (Annex c_3).

• Google.com analytics report: access (new users and active sessions) to website justforex.com, Western EU countries, 01/2015 – 09/2019, (Annex c_4).

• Advertising expenditure (total amount USD 13 395.37 for the period 12/2014 - 06/2018).

• Berlin Financial Partners EXPO (20-23/10/2016). Justoforex – one of the 30 booths. Sponsoring contract for the event – USD 5 985.00 (Annex a_2, extract from justforex.com, and Annex a_3).

• Facebook.com advertising campaign (29/11/2017, 30/12/2017) – USD 410.37 (Annex b_1).

• Bestfxbonus.com advertising campaign (banner) (01/2018 – 06/2018) – USD 1 500.00 (Annex b_2).

• Tova Group advertising campaign (banner) (31/05/2015) – USD 650.00 (Annex b_3).

• Indo Investasi Premier Forex Forums advertising campaign (sidebar), (05/2015 – 06/2015) – USD 200.00 (Annex b_4).

• Kgforexworld.com advertising campaign (banner) (12/2015-01/2016) – USD 400.00 (Annex b_5).

• MGID Inc. advertising campaign (traffic) – USD 250.00 (Annex b_6).

• Optimal Payments Merchant Services advertising campaign (showcase advertising) (19/12/2014 – 02/01/2015) – USD 500.00 (Annex b_7).

• Seputar Forex advertising campaign (banner + press release + share press release on social + broker review) (10/2017 – 01/2018) – USD 2 950.00 (Annex b_8).

• Skrill Limited advertising campaign (account) (09/2017-10/2017) – USD 550.00 (Annex b_9).

• Online publications; extracts from social media; press clippings:

• JUSTFOREX Official Facebook Page (on 15/10/2019: 61,173 likes, 61,479 followers), (Annex a_5).

• reviews from forexpeacearmy.com (Annex d_1).

• article and reviews from forexdepositbonuses.com (Annex d_2).

• article and reviews from Forex Brokers Reviews & Ratings, DailyForex.com (Annex d_3).

• article from FXRebateClub, Highest Forex Rebates (Annex d_4).

• profile and details from JUSTFOREX on cashbackcloud.co (Annex d_5).

• article from quora.com ‘Which Forex brokers are used in Europe?’ (Annex d_6).

Assessment of the evidence

To demonstrate that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use, the applicant submitted the aforementioned documents.

The relevant point in time for which acquired distinctiveness has to be established is respected, because the evidence provided refers to the time period up to 20/05/2000 (registration of the domain name: justforex.com), – that is to say, before the EUTM application’s filing date (12/07/2019).

As to the substance of the evidence, this must be assessed against the following criteria.

Under Article 7(3) [EUTMR], the absolute grounds for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of that regulation do not preclude registration of a mark if, in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested, it has become distinctive in consequence of the use which has been made of it. In the circumstances referred to in Article 7(3) EUTMR, the fact that the sign which constitutes the mark in question is actually perceived by the relevant section of the public as an indication of the commercial origin of a product or service is the result of the economic effort made by the trade mark applicant. That fact justifies putting aside the public-interest considerations underlying Article 7(1)(b) to (d) EUTMR, which require that the marks referred to in those provisions may be freely used by all in order to avoid conceding an unjustified competitive advantage to a single trader.

First, it is clear from the case-law that the acquisition of distinctiveness through use of a mark requires that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies the products or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark. However, the circumstances in which the condition as to the acquisition of distinctiveness through use may be regarded as satisfied cannot be shown to exist solely by reference to general, abstract data such as specific percentages.

Second, in order to have the registration of a trade mark accepted under Article 7(3) EUTMR, the distinctive character acquired through the use of that trade mark must be demonstrated in the part of the European Union where it was devoid of any such character under Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of that regulation.

Third, in assessing, in a particular case, whether a mark has become distinctive through use, account must be taken of factors such as, inter alia: the market share held by the mark, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been, the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark, the proportion of the relevant class of persons who, because of the mark, identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations. If, on the basis of those factors, the relevant class of persons, or at least a significant proportion thereof, identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark, it must be concluded that the requirement for registering the mark laid down in Article 7(3) EUTMR is satisfied.

Fourth, according to the case-law, the distinctiveness of a mark, including that acquired through use, must also be assessed in relation to the goods or services in respect of which registration is applied for and in the light of the presumed perception of an average consumer of the category of goods or services in question, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect

(10/11/2004, T‑396/02, Karamelbonbon, EU:T:2004:329, § 55-59; 04/05/1999, C‑108/97 & C‑109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 22/06/2006, C‑25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 75; and 18/06/2002, C‑299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 63).

The acquisition of distinctive character through use must be proven for the part of the EU in which the trade mark concerned did not initially have this character. In this particular case, since the refusal on the grounds of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) EUTMR applies in respect of the English-speaking part of the European Union, the evidence should prove that the mark in question has acquired distinctiveness at least in respect of Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom (still Member States on the filing date of the EUTM application), where English is the official language.

The evidence submitted should enable the Office to find that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the relevant public identifies the products or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark (15/12/2015, T‑262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 61 and the case-law cited therein).

In this regard, the Office notes that the only reference to the abovementioned relevant territories and relevant section of the relevant public is included in the following documents.

• Report of all registered and active JUSTFOREX clients (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 01-07/2019, Annex a_9). Summary of the data from the relevant territories (UK data not provided):

Year	Country	Registered user	Active user
2015	Ireland Malta	6 3	1 0
2016	Ireland Malta	13 3	1 0
2017	Ireland Malta	20 13	0 1
2019 (till 12/07)	Ireland Malta	50 14	8 1

• Justforex.com Google.com analytics report on accesses by new users and active sessions in EU countries (01/2015 – 09/2019, Annex c_2). The report shows that only 7-15 % (2015-2019 data) of all new users come from Northern EU countries (among them UK and Ireland) and 6-30 % (2015-2019 data) of all new users come from Southern EU countries (among them Malta²).

• Justforex.com Google.com analytics report on accesses by new users and active sessions in Northern EU countries (01/2015 – 09/2019, Annex c_2).

The evidence submitted shows some use of the sign for which registration is sought, in the relevant countries. However, it is not possible to conclude that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the relevant public in the part of the European Union where it was devoid of inherent distinctiveness, identifies the services as originating from the applicant because of the mark. The number of registered or active users in Ireland and Malta cannot be assessed due to the lack of general information regarding the market and the total number of users operating in these countries. In addition, no concrete data is provided for UK users.

Acquired distinctiveness must be proved with solid evidence – beyond mere speculation or likelihood – and for the services claimed (07/06/2007, R 667/2005‑G, CARDIOLOGY UPDATE). Overall, the evidence is not sufficient to permit acceptation of the mark. The evidence provided (samples of products; use of the sign; market share information; advertising expenditure; online publications) solely refers to general, abstract data which is not enough to prove the acquisition of distinctiveness through use or to conclude that the sign has been used as a badge of origin. No direct evidence, such as opinion polls, surveys, or affidavits, has been provided by the applicant that would prove such use.

In light of the failure to prove acquired distinctiveness through use in the Member States where English is the official language, the claim based on Article 7(3) EUTMR must be dismissed solely on this ground. The applicant failed to demonstrate that, because of its use, the sign will be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of the commercial origin of its services as a result of the economic effort made. Therefore, the Office cannot find any justification for putting aside the public-interest considerations underlying Article 7(1)(c) and (b) EUTMR, which require that the marks referred to in those provisions may be freely used by all in order to avoid conceding an unjustified competitive advantage to a single trader.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the applicant cannot establish that the mark applied for, , had acquired distinctive character in the European Union through use, within the meaning of Article 7(3) EUTMR, at the time when the application for registration was filed.

In conclusion, the requirement for registering the mark laid down in Article 7(3) EUTMR is not satisfied. Therefore, the claim that the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use, pursuant to Article 7(3) EUTMR, is rejected.

Conclusion

The Office finds the sign inherently devoid of any distinctive character pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR for the services in question. In addition, the applicant has failed to show that its mark has acquired distinctiveness through its use, in order to be registered by virtue of Article 7(3) EUTMR. Since the mark lacks any inherent distinctive character, it is not registrable, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR, for the contested services.

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 18 093 916 is hereby rejected for all the services claimed.

The absolute grounds for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR precludes the registration of the sign as a trade mark at least in respect of the Member States where English was one of the official languages (Article 7(2) EUTMR), that is to say, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom (still Member States on the date of filing of the EUTM application).

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

Laima IVANAUSKIENE