Refusal of application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 and Article 42(2) EUTMR)

Alicante, 21/11/2019

BECK GREENER LLP

Fulwood House 12 Fulwood Place

London WC1V 6HR

REINO UNIDO

Application No:	018097103
Your reference:	DAS/T82985EM
Trade mark:	BESPOKE LONDON
Mark type:	Figurative mark
Applicant:	Inensa SA c/o Safena, 16 rue du Mont Blanc CH-1201 Geneva SUIZA

The Office raised an objection on 16/08/2019 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.

The applicant submitted its observations on 16/10/2019, which may be summarised as follows.

1. The examiner has not fully considered the impact of the mark as a whole on the average consumer, but has simply conducted a dictionary search for the words comprised in the mark and asserted that the average consumer would interpret the mark in the manner suggested by the cited dictionary definitions. In particular, the examiner has not justified the link that must be formed between the existence of a word having a specific dictionary definition and the knowledge and understanding of that word by the relevant consumer. There are many words in the dictionary that are highly obscure and would be understood by very few people. The average consumer would not understand the words comprised in the mark applied for in the manner suggested by the examiner in relation to the relevant goods.

2. Extracts from the English Collins Dictionary, the Collins Paperback German Dictionary and the Collins Paperback French Dictionary have been attached. The word ‘bespoke’ is a British English word only and is defined specifically in relation to suits or jackets and other tailored clothing goods of that sort. Accordingly, the native English speakers, if they were aware of the word ‘bespoke’, would be aware of it as a descriptive term relating specifically to tailored goods such as suits.

3. The word ‘bespoke’ is not a widely used term in English. The mere appearance of this word in the dictionary does not prove the familiarity of the relevant consumers with the meaning of the term. The examiner has not demonstrated that the consumers of the relevant goods, who are native British English speakers, would have been familiar with a dictionary meaning of the word ‘bespoke’. Furthermore, if those relevant consumers were found to be aware of the word ‘bespoke’, they would understand it as relating specifically to high quality tailored suiting. The use of the word ‘bespoke’ for the relevant goods in the application would be unusual and would stand out to those relevant consumers. Accordingly, even if the native British English speakers were to understand the descriptive connotations of the word ‘bespoke’, these would not be understood as relating to the relevant goods. Therefore, the word has a distinctive character for the relevant goods.

4. The majority of non-native English speakers are taught American English rather than British English. In American English, the word ‘bespoke’ is not used. The non-native English speakers would most likely be unaware of the word ‘bespoke’ or its meaning. Therefore, the consumers could not possibly interpret the sign as having any descriptive meaning for the relevant goods.

5. The juxtaposition of the two words comprised in the mark applied for form a syntactically unusual juxtaposition, in that they do not form a grammatically usual phrase that can be directly understood in a descriptive manner. The word ‘BESPOKE’, insofar as the relevant consumer would recognise it as having any descriptive meaning, has no direct descriptive meaning for the word ‘LONDON’. When considering the mark as a whole, the relevant consumer will not consider it to be descriptive in the manner suggested by the examiner, but will recognise the word ‘BESPOKE’, which is an unusual and little used word specific to British English, is placed in a syntactically unusual juxtaposition with the word ‘LONDON’. This case is similar to the ‘BABY DRY’ case where the sign was found to be registrable due to the syntactically unusual juxtaposition of words in that sign and submits that the same logic should apply for the present case.

6. With regard the assessment that the figurative elements of the mark, ‘though they confer upon it a degree of stylisation, is so negligible that it does not endow the trade mark as a whole with distinctive character’, it is argued that the layout, choice of font and differing size of the elements forming the mark would convey to the relevant consumer that the mark was intended to function as a designation of origin. While fashions in branding dictate that signs are currently designed to have a simple appearance, using sans-serif fonts and without highly decorative elements, this does not automatically mean that the figurative elements that are included in the mark applied for are insufficient to convey to the average consumer that the mark is intended to function as a designation of origin.

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.

Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR provides that registration is to be refused in respect of descriptive marks, that is to say marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the categories of services in respect of which registration is applied for.

In addition, Article 7(2) EUTMR states that paragraph 1 of that article shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Union.

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. A ‘characteristic’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR is any feature of the goods that might be instantly perceived as relevant for the target consumer in the context of his/her purchase decision (06/12/2018, C-629/17, adegaborba.pt, EU:C:2018:988, § 19; 10/03/2011, C-51/10, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 50). In light of the public interest underlying the provision, any undertaking must be able to freely use such signs and indications to describe any characteristic of its own goods, irrespective of how significant the characteristic may be commercially (12/02/2004, C-363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 102).

According to case-law, Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR prevents the signs and indications referred to therein from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks. That provision thus pursues an aim in the public interest, which requires that such signs or indications may freely be used by all (16/12/2015, T-381/13 & T-382/13, DAISY & MARGARITAS, EU:T:2015:983, § 49). This provision does not permit such signs or indications to be reserved for use by one undertaking as a result of their registration as trade marks (04/05/1999, C-108/97 & C-109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 25; 27/02/2002, T-219/00, Ellos, EU:T:2002:44, § 27; 08/04/2003, C-53/01, C−54/01 & C−55/01, Linde, EU:C:2003:206, § 73; 06/05/2003, C-104/01, Libertel EU:C:2003:244, § 52; 12/02/2004, C-265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 35−36; 27/04/2016, T-89/15, Niagara, EU:T:2016:244, § 12).

For a sign to be caught by the prohibition set out in Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, there must be a link between the sign and the goods or services in question that is sufficiently direct and specific to enable the public concerned immediately to perceive, without further thought, a description of the goods and services in question or of one of their characteristics (19/04/2016, T-261/15, Daylong (fig.), EU:T:2016:220, § 19; 27/02/2015, T-106/14, Greenworld, EU:T:2015:123, § 16; 07/07/2011, T-208/10, Truewhite, EU:T:2011:340, § 14; 12/06/2007, T−339/05, Lokthread, EU:T:2007:172, § 29; 22/06/2005, T−19/04, Paperlab, EU:T:2005:247, § 25; 20/07/2004, T-311/02, Limo, EU:T:2004:245, § 30; 05/02/2004, C−150/02 P, Streamserve, EU:C:2004:75, § 13; 27/02/2002, T-106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 40; 20/03/2002, T-356/00, Carcard, EU:T:2002:80, § 28).

In this regard, it must be stated that the legislature’s choice of the word ‘characteristic’ highlights the fact that the signs referred to in that provision are merely those which serve to designate a property, easily recognisable by the relevant class of persons, of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought. Thus, a sign may be refused registration on the basis of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR only if it is reasonable to believe that it will actually be recognised by the relevant class of persons as a description of one of those characteristics (11/03/2011, C-51/10, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 50 and the case- law cited therein; 27/04/2016, T-89/15, Niagara, EU:T:2016:244, § 14).

Indeed, only indications which are purely and directly descriptive are subject to the grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, as follows from the word ‘exclusively’ contained in said provision. If, on the other hand, the descriptive content of the indication is not clear and unequivocal, but imprecise and open to a number of interpretations, there is usually no obstacle to registration. Therefore, a sign must be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods/services concerned (04/05/1999, C−108/97 & C−109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 30-31; 20/03/2003, T−355/00, Tele Aid, EU:T:2002,79, § 30; 23/10/2003, C−191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:T:2003:579, § 32; 12/02/2004, C-265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 38).

In the case of word marks consisting of two or more elements, the mark as a whole must be descriptive. However, the mere combination of descriptive elements itself remains descriptive unless because of the unusual manner in which the word elements are combined, the mark creates an overall impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word combination is more than the sum of its parts (12/02/2004, C-265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 39, 43).

The assessment of whether a sign is descriptive can be made only, first, in relation to the goods or services concerned and, second, in relation to the understanding which a given target public has of them (16/12/2010, T-497/09, Kompressor Plus, EU:T:2010:540, § 38; 19/04/2007, C-273/05 P, Celltech, EU:C:2007:224, § 28).

The relevant public and its level of attention

A sign’s descriptiveness can be assessed only by reference to the way in which it is understood by the relevant public and to the goods or services concerned (07/06/2005, T−316/03, MunichFinancialServices, EU:T:2005:201, § 26; 02/04/2008, T−181/07, Steadycontrol, EU:T:2008:86, § 38; 21/05/2008, T‑329/06, E, EU:T:2008:161, § 23; 15/07/2015, T−611/13, HOT, EU:T:2015:492, § 36; 26/02/2016, T−543/14, Hot Sox, EU:T:2016:102, § 20; 02/05/2012, T−435/11, UniversalPHOLED, EU:T:2012:210, § 19 and the case-law cited).

The goods to which an objection has been raised target mainly average consumers. The awareness of the general public for the goods in Class 3 will be that of the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, paying an average level of attention.

In addition, the target public may also include a narrower specialist public (20/07/2004, T‑311/02, Limo, EU:T:2004:245, § 30, 41; 17/09/2008, T‑226/07, Pranahaus, EU:T:2008:381, § 26, 29, 35; 16/12/2010, T‑286/08, Hallux, EU:T:2010:528, § 41-42; 21/11/2013, T‑313/11, Matrix-Energetics, EU:T:2013:603, § 42; 18/11/2015, T‑558/14, TRILOBULAR, EU:T:2015:858, § 22). Professionals are deemed to have a higher level of attention and awareness. Cosmetic products are linked to the health of the consumer, and are not so expensive and are bought quite often. Therefore, the level of attention of the average consumer, who is well informed, observant and circumspect, is average.

Consequently, the Office considers that the public by reference to whom the absolute ground of refusal must be assessed is at least the public in the Member States in which English is an official language, that is, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

The meaning of the sign

The sign applied for contains two English words ‘BESPOKE’ and ‘LONDON’.

In the notice of grounds of refusal, the Office has provided the following definitions for the verbal elements contained in the trade mark applied for:

BESPOKE ‘made for a particular customer or user’ or made to the customer’s specifications (information extracted from Oxford Dictionaries on 16/08/2019 at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bespoke ).

LONDON ‘the capital of the United Kingdom, situated in south-eastern England on the River Thames’ (information extracted from Oxford Dictionaries on 16/08/2019 at https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/london ).

In view of the meanings of the two words composing the mark, the Office maintains its finding that the combination of these words leads to a meaningful expression, which indicates ‘a fragrance made according to the customer’s specifications / a bespoke fragrance made in London’ and this is how it will be perceived by the English-speaking consumers.

It must be evaluated whether the relevant public will establish, immediately and without any difficulty, a concrete and direct relationship between the meaning conveyed by this expression and the goods and services at issue. For the purpose of applying Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, it is necessary only to consider, on the basis of the relevant meaning of the word sign at issue, whether, from the viewpoint of the public addressed, there is a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods and services for which protection is sought (20/07/2004, T‑311/02, Limo, EU:T:2004:245, § 30).

Finally, for the purpose of evaluating the descriptiveness of a mark, it is not necessary, that the combination ‘BESPOKE LONDON’ is the only way of referring to the goods, or that it appears as a description of the kind, features and geographical origin of the goods in question. It is sufficient if there is a direct relationship between the sign and the goods in question that enables the public to immediately perceive, without further thought, a description of one of the characteristics of the goods to which an objection has been raised.

The Office cannot concur with regard to the first argument of the applicant. In this regard, it should be reiterated that a sign must be refused registration under that provision if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods/services concerned (04/05/1999, C‑108/97 & C‑109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 30-31; 20/03/2002, T‑355/00, Tele Aid, EU:T:2002,79, § 30; 23/10/2003, C‑191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:T:2003:579, § 32; 12/02/2004, C‑265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 38).

The Office cannot agree with the applicant’s argument that the word ‘BESPOKE’ is only used by the native British English speakers, who would have been familiar with a dictionary meaning of the word ‘bespoke’, and would understand it as ‘relating specifically to high quality tailored suiting’ and that the use of the word for the relevant goods in the application would be unusual.

According to the dictionary definition, the word ‘BESPOKE’ means ‘made for a particular customer or user’ or made to the customer’s specifications. ‘London’ is a very well-known place where very remarkable perfumes are made and can be purchased to the customer’s specification. Consequently, irrespective of the fact that the majority of the examples refer to the fashion industry, it cannot be excluded that the definition of the word ‘BESPOKE’ could also be applied for other goods that could be made/purchased according to the customer’s specification.

Contrary to what the applicant claims in arguments 1 and 2, the Office maintains that, taken as a whole and in relation to the goods to which an objection has been raised, the average consumer would understand the words comprised in the mark applied for in the suggested manner in the notice of grounds for refusal.

Descriptiveness of the mark in relation to the goods to which an objection has been raised

The goods to which an objection has been raised are:

Class 3 Perfumery; fragrances; eau de parfum; eau de toilette; eau de cologne; aftershave lotions; aftershave gels; aftershave balms; deodorants; antiperspirants; body sprays; body mists; scented body lotions; scented body creams; bath and shower gels; bath and shower foams; body butters; body wash; soap; shaving preparations; shaving creams; shaving gels.

The words in the trade mark application directly indicates to the relevant public that the goods come from London and they have a totally unique, a heaven-sent scent that has been obtained following customer’s specifications.

Therefore, notwithstanding certain figurative elements consisting of arranging of the two words composing the mark on two lines and using different font size for each word, ‘BESPOKE’ also written in bold, the relevant consumer would perceive the sign as providing information about the kind, features and geographical origin of the goods in question.

Consequently, the Office finds that there is a direct relationship between the figurative mark ‘BESPOKE LONDON’ and the characteristics of the goods for which protection is sought.

The relationship between the goods for which protection is sought and the trade mark applied for is, therefore, direct and close. The combination of the words in the trade mark at issue does not create an impression that is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of the meanings of the elements of which it is composed. The relevant public will have no difficulty in comprehending that the trade mark applied for designates the kind, features and geographical origin of the goods in question. The trade mark contains two English words ‘BESPOKE’ and ‘LONDON’, which are descriptive of the goods to which an objection has been raised.

The relevant English-speaking public will therefore understand the meaning of the mark applied for easily and without the need for further reflection (12/02/2015, T‑318/13, LIFEDATA, EU:T:2015:96, § 22), as this meaning as a whole does not go beyond the meaning of the individual words of which the mark is composed (08/05/2008, C‑304/06 P, Eurohypo, EU:C:2008:261, § 45).

With regard to the applicant’s submissions presented at point 5, the Office cannot concur that the two words comprised in the mark applied for form a syntactically unusual juxtaposition, in that they do not form a grammatically usual phrase that can be directly understood in a descriptive manner. The usual order in English is the adjective (‘BESPOKE’) before the noun (‘LONDON’). In addition, the Office fails to see how ‘BESPOKE’ could not have any directly descriptive meaning for the word ‘LONDON’. Furthermore, the Office does not consider this case similar to the ‘BABY DRY’ case, where it was found that the combination of the words has a syntactically unusual juxtaposition (noun before adjective).

Based on the aforementioned arguments, the Office fails to see how the combination of the two words in the mark has a resonance which kicks off a cognitive process in the minds of consumers or how the mark is memorable to the consumer, unique, fanciful and unusual, creating an overall form with enough character to enable it to identify a single entity.

A trade mark consisting of a neologism or a word composed of elements each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought is itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) [EUTMR], unless there is a perceptible difference between the neologism or the word and the mere sum of its parts: that assumes that, because of the unusual nature of the combination in relation to the goods or services, the neologism or word creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of its parts …

(12/01/2005, T‑367/02 - T‑369/02, SnTEM, SnPUR & SnMIX, EU:T:2005:3, § 32).

The mark is a combination of elements that are each on their own grammatically correct, readily understandable and obviously descriptive of the goods for which protection is sought, namely something coming from London and ‘made for a particular customer or user’ or made to the customer’s specifications, such as a fragrance. Merely arranging them together in a label arranged on two lines and using a different font size for each word, with ‘BESPOKE’ in bold, is not unusual and does not add any vagueness or additional meaning that might make an impact on the perception of the consumer.

It is … irrelevant whether the characteristics of the goods or services which may be the subject of the description are commercially essential or merely ancillary. The wording of [Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR] does not draw any distinction by reference to the characteristics which may be designated by the signs or indications of which the mark consists. In fact, in the light of the public interest underlying the provision, any undertaking must be able freely to use such signs and indications to describe any characteristic whatsoever of its own goods, irrespective of how significant the characteristic may be commercially.

(12/02/2004, C‑363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 102).

It is also irrelevant if there are more usual ways of expressing the descriptive meaning (12/02/2004, C‑265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 42).

Even if the Office were to take into account the applicant’s argument that ‘BESPOKE’ is an unknown word to the consumer, especially with regard to the goods for which protection is sought, the provisions of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR preclude the registration of ‘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’.

Moreover, even if not all relevant consumers understand the descriptive meaning of the mark in relation to the goods concerned, the objection under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR is still applicable.

In the ‘Trilobular’ judgment (18/11/2015, T‑558/14, TRILOBULAR, EU:T:2015:858, § 23) the General Court recalled that

[the EUIPO], to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition on registration of descriptive marks contained in Article 7(1)(c) [EUTMR], which seeks to ensure the option, for all economic operators, to freely use the terms, even technical terms, which they market, is entitled to take account of the presence, within the general public, of a narrower class, composed of persons to whom the goods or services covered by the mark for which registration is sought are particularly intended.

Public interest arises regardless of a descriptive prior use or non-use of the combination of the words ‘BESPOKE LONDON’, in relation to the goods to which an objection has been raised, in the course of trade. According to established case-law, prior use of a trade mark applied for is not necessary in order to refuse its registration. It is sufficient, as the wording of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR itself indicates, that such signs and indications might be used for such purposes (19/05/2010, T‑108/09, Memory, EU:T:2010:213, § 35).

Consequently, it follows that there is a sufficient and specific relationship between the trade mark applied for and the goods to which an objection has been raised for the sign to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down by Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR.

As regards the arguments the examiner has not demonstrated that the consumers of the relevant goods, who are native British English speaker, would have been familiar with a dictionary meaning of the word ‘bespoke’ or that the examiner has not justified the link that must be formed between the existence of a word having a specific dictionary definition and the knowledge and understanding of that word by the relevant consumer, it should be pointed out that the Court has confirmed that:

where the Board of Appeal finds that the trade mark sought is devoid of intrinsic distinctive character, it may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods … In such a case, the Board of Appeal is not obliged to give examples of such practical experience.

(15/03/2006, T‑129/04, Plastikflaschenform, EU:T:2006:84, § 19).

In addition, it is on the basis of that acquired experience that the Office submits that the relevant consumers would perceive the trade mark sought as ordinary and not as the trade mark of a particular proprietor. Since the applicant claims that the trade mark sought is distinctive, despite the Office’s analysis based on the abovementioned experience, it is up to the applicant to provide specific and substantiated information to show that the trade mark sought has distinctive character, either intrinsically or acquired through use, since it is much better placed to do so, given its thorough knowledge of the market (05/03/2003, T‑194/01, Soap device, EU:T:2003:53, § 48).

The applicant has failed to provide any specific and substantiated information relating to the relevant market that might persuade the Office to change its assessment.

Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR

In accordance with the standing case-law of the Court of Justice, distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR means that the mark applied for must serve to identify the goods in respect of which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking. It thus serves the purpose of distinguishing the trade marked goods from those of other undertakings (21/10/2004, C-64/02 P, Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit, EU:C:2004:645, § 33).

It is clear from Article 7(1) EUTMR that for a sign to be ineligible for registration as a European Union trade mark, it is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal applies (26/10/2000, T-360/99, Investorworld, EU:T:2000:247, § 26). A descriptive trade mark lacks any distinctive character and falls foul of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, because a descriptive word mark necessarily also lacks distinctiveness (12/02/2004, C-363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 86).

According to settled case-law, the distinctive character of a trade mark, as required under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, must be assessed by reference, first, to the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought and, secondly, to the perception of the relevant persons, namely the consumers of the goods or services (12/02/2004, C−218/01, Perwoll, EU:C:2004:88, § 50).

With regard to the sixth argument of the applicant, the Office maintains its opinion that the figurative elements are not sufficient to render the sign with the minimum distinctive character. The sign as a whole appears as a commonplace label. The fact that the words are written on two lines and that the word ‘BESPOKE’ is written in larger bold font, these elements do not possess any feature regarding the way in which they are combined that allows the mark to fulfil its essential function for the goods for which protection is sought.

In addition, since the sign for which protection is sought was, in part, found to be a purely descriptive indication in respect of the goods for which he objection has been raised, it is therefore, according to case-law, also devoid of any distinctive character for those goods within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR ( 12/02/2004, C-265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 19 and 12/02/2004, C-363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 86).

It is also devoid of distinctive character pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR because it cannot identify the origin of these goods in relation to which it describes the respective characteristics and purposes. It does not thus enable the consumer who acquired them 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 (03/07/2003, T-122/01, Best Buy, EU:T:2003:183, § 20).

For the abovementioned reasons, and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for figurative European Union trade mark No 18 097 103 ´BESPOKE LONDON´ is hereby rejected for all the goods claimed.

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.

Roxana PISLARU