OPPOSITION Nо B 3 104 350

Ilse Kubaschewski Stiftung, Maximiliansplatz 5, 80333 München, Germany (opponent), represented by Kunze Rechtsanwälte - Solicitor (England & Wales) PartG mbB, Maximiliansplatz 12 b, 80333 München, Germany (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Gloria Corporation S.A.M., 15 Boulevard des Moulins, 98000 Monaco, Monaco (applicant), represented by Anna Sawaryn, Strażacka 52, 51-180 Wrocław, Poland (professional representative).

On 20/07/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 104 350 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested services:

Class 35: Commercial intermediation services; business intermediary and advisory services in the field of selling products and rendering services; business intermediary services relating to the matching of potential private investors with entrepreneurs needing funding; management assistance to commercial companies; commercial lobbying services; commercial assistance in business management; commercial or industrial management assistance; conducting of business feasibility studies.

Class 36: Brokerage house services; financial advice; investment consultancy; financial consultancy relating to real estate investment; real estate consultancy; financial advisory services for companies; financial advice relating to investment; consultancy services relating to corporate finance; capital investment consultation; financial consultancy in the energy sector; real estate investment advice; consultancy in the purchasing of real estate; financial consultancy services relating to infrastructure investment.

Class 42: Computer engineering consultancy services; technological consultancy; professional consultancy relating to technology; advisory services relating to scientific research; consultancy services relating to technological research; consultancy in the field of industrial research; engineering consultancy services; consultancy services in the field of technological development; technical consultancy relating to product development; consultancy services relating to product engineering; advisory services relating to industrial engineering; advisory services relating to design engineering; product development consultation.

Class 45: Mediation.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 107 401 is rejected for all the above services. It may proceed for the remaining contested services:

Class 42: Advisory services relating to science; technical consulting in the field of pollution detection; consultancy in the field of energy-saving; provision of technical consultancy to the petrochemical industry; technical advice relating to pollution damage; advisory services relating to the use of energy; technological consultancy in the fields of energy production and use; technological consulting services in the field of alternative energy generation; architectural consultancy; engineering consultancy relating to testing; engineering consultancy relating to manufacture; consultancy services relating to nuclear engineering; provision of technical consultancy to the oil refining industry; environmental consultancy services; consultation services relating to interior design; consultation in environment protection; technical consulting in the field of environmental engineering; application system testing consultancy; advisory services relating to the safety of the environment; provision of scientific information, advice and consultancy in relation to carbon offsetting; consultancy services relating to quality control; quality assurance consultancy.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

On 27/11/2019, the opponent filed an opposition against all the services of European Union trade mark application No 18 107 401 ‘Gloria Corporation’ (word mark). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 11 773 661 ‘Gloria’ (word mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PROOF OF USE

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

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

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the European Union trade mark registration No 11 773 661.

In the present case, the date of filing of the contested trade mark is 12/08/2019.

Earlier trade mark No 11 773 661 was registered on 17/02/2018, thus less than five years from the above date. Therefore, as pointed out in the Office’s communication from 13/01/2021, the request for proof of use is inadmissible as the earlier mark has not been registered for at least five years from the contested sign’s application date.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

A likelihood of confusion exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question, under the assumption that they bear the marks in question, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.

a) The goods and services

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

Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, supervision and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines and data processing equipment and computers; communication and telecommunication apparatus; audiovisual, telecommunications, data transmission, television apparatus and instruments, remote controls; film cameras, projectors (projection apparatus), cabinets for loudspeakers, access devices and access control devices for data processing apparatus: authentication apparatus for use in telecommunications networks; memory and microprocessor cards, apparatus for simultaneous programming and selection of television, video and cinema channels; electronic television, cinema and radio programme guides.

Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious materials or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments; key rings, costume jewellery, cuff links, tie pins, tie clips, cases and containers for the aforesaid goods.

Class 16: Paper cardboard; photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging, included in Class 16; stickers, moulded sound and image carrier cases; writing implements, ball-point pens and fountain pens; pencil cases.

Class 18: Leather and imitations of leathers, and goods made of these materials, (not included in other classes); animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery, travelling bags, shopping bags, bags for sports, leisure bags, briefcases, garment bags, rucksacks, small goods of leather, in particular purses and pocket wallets, key cases.

Class 21: Household or kitchen utensils and containers; glassware, porcelain and earthenware (not included in other classes); tableware (other than cutlery).

Class 24: Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed covers; table covers, household linen, bath towels and towels, handkerchiefs of textile.

Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear; all the afore-mentioned goods excluding stockings, socks, leotards, tights and corsets.

Class 28: Games; toys; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees; playing cards.

Class 29: Preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables, eggs, edible oil and fats; potato chips.

Class 30: Sugar, honey, treacles; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices, ice.

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers and wine, and sparkling wine).

Class 34: Tobacco; smokers’ articles; matches; ashtrays for smokers.

Class 35: Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions; provision of advertising space; arranging and conducting of advertising campaigns; market research consultancy; consultancy relating to monitoring the success of advertising and sales activities; radio, television and cinema advertising; sales promotion; production of television and radio advertising broadcasts, including associated games show broadcasts; marketing of advertising time on television and in the cinema through agencies and rental services; commercial consultancy on matters relating to television and cinema advertising; arranging of contracts for goods and services via an e-commerce platform.

Class 36: Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; charitable fund raising.

Class 38: Telecommunication services; broadcasting of radio and television broadcasts and programmes and cinema films via wireless and/or wired networks; news agencies; video-on-demand services, including for others, being digital platforms; on-line services, namely message sending and broadcasting of programmes; providing access to electronic communication networks; broadcasting of cultural, educational and entertainment television programmes, radio programmes and cinema films.

Class 40: Reproduction of films; reproduction of sound and image recordings being video and/or audio cassettes, and data carriers of all kinds.

Class 41: Education; providing of training; sporting and cultural activities; movie showing; production and creation of cultural, educational and entertainment television programmes, radio programmes and cinema films; conducting and performing shows, quizzes and musical events for recording or being live radio, television or cinema broadcasts; production and rental of films; production of sound and image recordings being video and/or audio cassettes, and data carriers of all kinds; arranging exhibitions, conferences, seminars for cultural or educational purposes; booking of seats for shows; rental of devices (apparatus) for access to interactive audio-visual programmes; providing cinema facilities; digital image processing (photography); rental of screens and personal stereos; arranging of radio and television broadcasts and programmes and cinema films via wireless and/or wired networks; entertainment consultancy; development and sale of cinema films and pay TV programmes.

Class 42: Software development, in particular in the field of media; technical consultancy in the field of multimedia interactive television; computer programming, including development of electronic television, video and cinema programme guides; encryption, decryption, conversion, editing of sound and images, news, information and data, digital images and digital music.

Class 43: Temporary accommodation.

Class 45: Granting, providing, rental and other exploitation of licences for film, television and video productions and other image and sound programmes, and for print media and other printed matter; management and exploitation of copyright and industrial property rights; exploitation of film, television and other ancillary copyright in the field of merchandising.

The contested services are the following:

Class 35: Commercial intermediation services; business intermediary and advisory services in the field of selling products and rendering services; business intermediary services relating to the matching of potential private investors with entrepreneurs needing funding; management assistance to commercial companies; commercial lobbying services; commercial assistance in business management; commercial or industrial management assistance; conducting of business feasibility studies.

Class 36: Brokerage house services; financial advice; investment consultancy; financial consultancy relating to real estate investment; real estate consultancy; financial advisory services for companies; financial advice relating to investment; consultancy services relating to corporate finance; capital investment consultation; financial consultancy in the energy sector; real estate investment advice; consultancy in the purchasing of real estate; financial consultancy services relating to infrastructure investment.

Class 42: Advisory services relating to science; technological consultancy; engineering consultancy services; architectural consultancy; environmental consultancy services; professional consultancy relating to technology; consultancy services relating to technological research; consultation services relating to interior design; computer engineering consultancy services; consultation in environment protection; engineering consultancy relating to testing; consultancy services relating to quality control; technical consulting in the field of pollution detection; consultancy in the field of energy-saving; engineering consultancy relating to manufacture; provision of technical consultancy to the petrochemical industry; consultancy in the field of industrial research; consultancy services relating to nuclear engineering; technical consulting in the field of environmental engineering; product development consultation; quality assurance consultancy; consultancy services relating to product engineering; advisory services relating to industrial engineering; application system testing consultancy; advisory services relating to the safety of the environment; technical advice relating to pollution damage; advisory services relating to design engineering; advisory services relating to scientific research; consultancy services in the field of technological development; advisory services relating to the use of energy; technical consultancy relating to product development; technological consultancy in the fields of energy production and use; provision of scientific information, advice and consultancy in relation to carbon offsetting; technological consulting services in the field of alternative energy generation; provision of technical consultancy to the oil refining industry.

Class 45: Mediation.

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 terms ‘in particular’ and ‘including’, used in the opponent’s list of goods and services, indicate that the specific goods and services are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, they introduce 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 goods and 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 goods and services specifically listed.

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice Classification.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or complementary to each other.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested commercial or industrial management assistance; commercial assistance in business management; management assistance to commercial companies; conducting of business feasibility studies are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s business management. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested commercial lobbying services are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s advertising. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested commercial intermediation services; business intermediary and advisory services in the field of selling products and rendering services; business intermediary services relating to the matching of potential private investors with entrepreneurs needing funding are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s business management as they have the same purpose, providers and relevant public.

Contested services in Class 36

The contested consultancy services relating to corporate finance; financial advice relating to investment; capital investment consultation; investment consultancy; financial consultancy relating to real estate investment; real estate investment advice; financial advisory services for companies; financial advice; brokerage house services; financial consultancy in the energy sector; financial consultancy services relating to infrastructure investment are included in the broad category of, or at least overlap with, the opponent’s financial affairs. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested real estate consultancy; consultancy in the purchasing of real estate are included in the broad category of the opponent’s real estate affairs. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested technological consultancy; professional consultancy relating to technology include, as broader categories, or at least overlap with, the opponent’s technical consultancy in the field of multimedia interactive television. Since the Office cannot dissect ex officio the broad categories of the contested services, they are considered identical to the opponent’s services.

The contested advisory services relating to scientific research; consultancy services relating to technological research; consultancy in the field of industrial research are similar to the opponent’s education in Class 41. Universities carry out a lot of research, not only as academic training but as a stand-alone part of what they do. Universities bid on tenders to be able to provide such research services, and this is a service that can be provided to third parties. Therefore, these services have the same purpose of acquiring and/or imparting or disseminating knowledge or skills. Moreover, they coincide in providers and distribution channels.

The contested computer engineering consultancy services; engineering consultancy services; consultancy services relating to product engineering; advisory services relating to industrial engineering; advisory services relating to design engineering; product development consultation are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s software development, in particular in the field of media. They can be offered by the same providers, have the same distribution channels and target the same public.

The contested consultancy services in the field of technological development; technical consultancy relating to product development are at least similar to a low degree to the opponent’s technical consultancy in the field of multimedia interactive television as they can have the same providers, distribution channels and target the same public.

The contested advisory services relating to science; technical consulting in the field of pollution detection; consultancy in the field of energy-saving; provision of technical consultancy to the petrochemical industry; technical advice relating to pollution damage; advisory services relating to the use of energy; technological consultancy in the fields of energy production and use; technological consulting services in the field of alternative energy generation; architectural consultancy; engineering consultancy relating to testing; engineering consultancy relating to manufacture; consultancy services relating to nuclear engineering; provision of technical consultancy to the oil refining industry; environmental consultancy services; consultation services relating to interior design; consultation in environment protection; technical consulting in the field of environmental engineering; application system testing consultancy; advisory services relating to the safety of the environment; provision of scientific information, advice and consultancy in relation to carbon offsetting; consultancy services relating to quality control; quality assurance consultancy are very specific technological services that relate, according to their specifications, to very specific fields such as petrochemical industry, pollution damage, carbon offsetting. They are offered by specialists who have knowledge and expertise in these specific fields. However, the opponent’s services in Class 42 relate to multimedia that has nothing in common with the industries to which the aforementioned contested services are limited. The aforementioned contested services also have nothing in common with the remaining opponent’s goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43 and 45. The contested services and the opponent’s goods and services have a different nature, purpose and method of use. They originate from different undertakings and have different distribution channels. They are neither complementary nor in competition. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 45

The contested mediation is similar to the opponent’s granting, providing, rental and other exploitation of licences for film, television and video productions and other image and sound programmes, and for print media and other printed matter since managing of IP rights always involves elements of negotiation/mediation between IP rights owners and IP rights users. The services in question have the same nature, providers, distribution channels and relevant public.

The applicant alleged that the opponent is a foundation intended for social and charitable purposes, rather than commercial ones. Its aim is to help artists and the elderly, which includes running a retirement home. However, the applicant is an engineering company that provides technical and business advisory services. It is perfectly clear that the parties conduct completely different operations.

The applicant’s argument should be dismissed. For the purpose of these proceedings, it is irrelevant what goods and services both parties actually manufacture or render or to what kind of customers they actually sell. The goods and services have to be compared as they appear on the register and as they are listed in the application before the Office (11/11/2010, R 1327/2010‑2, MONELLA VAGABONDA VIP (FIG. MARK) / VAGABOND et al., § 25).

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

The degree of attention is high. Even though some of the services in question target the public at large, for example financial and real estate services, the degree of attention for these services is also high.

Financial services are specialised services that may have important financial consequences for their users, the consumers’ level of attention would be quite high when choosing them (03/02/2011, R 719/2010‑1, f@ir Credit (fig.) / FERCREDIT, § 15; 19/09/2012, T‑220/11, F@ir Credit, EU:T:2012:444, dismissed; 14/11/2013, C‑524/12 P, F@ir Credit, EU:C:2013:874, dismissed).

The purchase and sale of property are business transactions that involve both risk and the transfer of large sums of money. For these reasons, the relevant consumer is deemed to possess an above-average degree of attention, since the consequences of making a poor choice through lack of attentiveness might be highly damaging (17/02/2011, R 817/2010‑2, FIRST THE REAL ESTATE (FIG. MARK) / FIRST MALLORCA (FIG. MARK) et al., § 21).

c) The signs

Gloria	Gloria Corporation
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

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

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

The verbal elements in the signs are meaningful for the English-speaking part of the public. Since this has an impact on the conceptual comparison of the signs and also enhances the likelihood of confusion, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the English-speaking part of the public.

The coinciding verbal element ‘Gloria’ will be understood by the relevant public as a female name or as ‘a silk, wool, cotton, or nylon fabric used esp for umbrellas; a halo or nimbus, esp as represented in art; any of several doxologies beginning with the word Gloria, esp the Greater and the Lesser Doxologies; a musical setting of one of these’ (information extracted from Collins Dictionary on 20/07/2021 at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gloria). None of these meanings has any relation to the services in question. Therefore, the verbal element ‘Gloria’ has a normal degree of distinctiveness in both signs.

The verbal element ‘Corporation’ of the contested sign will be understood as ‘a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality and having its own powers, duties, and liabilities’ (information extracted from Collins Dictionary on 20/07/2021 at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/corporation). As it merely designates the applicant’s type of company, namely a corporation, it is devoid of an inherent capacity to designate the commercial origin of the contested services. Therefore, it is non-distinctive.

Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the sequence and pronunciation of the letters ‘Gloria’. They differ in the sequence and pronunciation of letters ‘Corporation’ of the contested sign that have no counterparts in the earlier sign.

Given the normal degree of distinctiveness of the coinciding verbal element ‘Gloria’ and its more prominent position before the non-distinctive verbal element ‘Corporation’ in the contested sign, the signs are visually and aurally highly similar.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Both signs will be associated with the meaning of the word ‘Gloria’. The contested sign also bears the concept of the word ‘Corporation’. Since this verbal element is non-distinctive, the relevant public will focus on the other, more distinctive, element of the contested sign.

Therefore, the signs are conceptually highly similar.

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

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the 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.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

Likelihood of confusion 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.

The goods and services are partly identical, partly similar (at least to a low degree) and partly dissimilar. The signs are visually, aurally and conceptually highly similar. The degree of attention is high, and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is normal.

The earlier sign is fully included in the contested sign where it is also the element with the strongest impact because the other verbal element, ‘Corporation’, is non-distinctive. When the earlier mark is fully included in the contested sign, in general terms, this constitutes an indication that the two trade marks are similar (04/05/2005, T‑22/04, Westlife, EU:T:2005:160, § 40).

The earlier sign is also included at the beginning of the contested sign where it first catches the attention of the public. The first part of a sign is generally the part that primarily catches the consumer’s attention and, therefore, will be remembered more clearly than the rest of the sign. This means that in general the beginning of a sign has a significant influence on the general impression made by the mark (15/12/2009, T‑412/08, TRUBION/TriBion Harmonis (fig), EU:T:2009:507, § 40; 25/03/2009, T‑109/07, Spa Therapy, EU:T:2009:81, § 30).

On account of the coinciding distinctive verbal element ‘Gloria’ and the presence of an additional non-distinctive verbal element in the contested sign, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer will perceive the contested mark as a sub-brand, a variation of the earlier mark, configured in a different way according to the type of goods or services that it designates (23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Due to the similarities between the signs, the relevant consumers are likely either to directly confuse the signs or at least believe that the identical and similar services bearing the signs at issue originate from the same undertakings or from economically linked undertakings. This applies also in respect of the services which are at least similar to a low degree because the lower degree of similarity of some of these services is offset by the high degree of similarity between the signs.

In its observations, the applicant argued that there are numerous trade marks in the Office’s register that consist of or contain the word ‘Gloria’.

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 argument does not demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and have become accustomed to, trade marks that consist of or include the verbal element ‘Gloria’. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s claim must be set aside.

Further, the applicant stated that the opponent’s mark has been filed in bad faith. Such an assertion has no impact on the present proceedings since the earlier mark is a registered mark and is a valid ground in the current opposition proceedings.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the English-speaking part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the services found to be identical or similar (at least to a low degree) to those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested services are dissimilar. As the identity or similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the opposition based on this Article and directed at these services cannot be successful.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(3) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the opposition is successful for only some of the contested services, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Gueorgui IVANOV

Ivo TSENKOV

Jakub MROZOWSKI

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.