OPPOSITION Nо B 3 106 258

 

Ayr Ltd, 65a Hopton Street, SE1 9LR London, United Kingdom (opponent), represented by Origin Limited, Twisden Works, Twisden Road, NW5 1DN London, United Kingdom (professional representative) 

 

a g a i n s t

 

Airscream UK Limited, Ashville Park, Short Way, BS35 3UU Thornbury, United Kingdom, Airscream Australia Pty Ltd., 10 Feather Place, 3030 Point Cook, Australia (applicants), represented by Arcade & Asociados, C/ Isabel Colbrand, 6 - 5ª Planta, 2805 Madrid, Spain (professional representative).

On 09/03/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

 

 

DECISION:

  

1.	Opposition No B 3 106 258 is rejected in its entirety.

 

2.	The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

 

REASONS

 

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 119 706 ‘AIRSCREAM’ (word mark). The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 12 619 763 (figurative mark), EUTM registration No 15 500 895 ‘AYR’ (word mark), EUTM registration No 16 400 467 ‘VAPE AYR’ (word mark) and EUTM registration No 14 876 528 ‘AYR’ (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 European Union trade mark registration No 12 619 763 , on which the opposition is, inter alia, based.

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

 

On 16/10/2020 the opponent was given two months (until 21/12/2020) to file the requested proof of use.

 

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the use of the mentioned earlier trade mark on which the opposition is based. It did not argue that there were proper reasons for non-use either. 

 

According to Article 10(2) EUTMDR, if the opposing party does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition.

 

Therefore, the opposition must be rejected pursuant to Article 47(2) EUTMR and Article 10(2) EUTMDR insofar as based on this earlier EUTM No 12 619 763 (presently also under cancellation proceedings). The Opposition Division will continue to examine the opposition in relation to the remaining opponent’s rights, namely EUTM No 15 500 895, EUTM No 16 400 467 and EUTM No 14 876 528.

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

 

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

 

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s EUTM registration EUTM No 14 876 528 ‘AYR’.

Section A: EUTM No 14 876 528 ‘AYR’

a) The goods and services

 

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

 

EUTM registration No 14 876 528:

Class 9: Computer software (downloadable) for controlling and monitoring electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (downloadable) for enabling cartridges of e-liquid used in e-cigarettes to be ordered from an electronic-fulfillment service.

Class 42: Research, design and development services relating to electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (non-downloadable) for controlling and monitoring electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (non-downloadable) for enabling cartridges of e-liquid used in e-cigarettes to be ordered from an electronic-fulfillment service; computerized data storage services.

The contested goods are the following:

 

Class 25: T-shirts; Tee-shirts; Tennis shirts; Turtleneck shirts; Printed t-shirts; Mock turtleneck shirts; Short-sleeved T-shirts; Clothing; Footwear; Headgear.

Class 34: Electronic cigarettes; Electric cigarettes [electronic cigarettes]; Cases for electronic cigarettes; Liquids for electronic cigarettes; Liquid for electronic cigarettes; Holders for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges for electronic cigarettes; Refill cartridges for electronic cigarettes; Smoking sets for electronic cigarettes; Liquid nicotine solutions for electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; Liquid solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; Liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; Tobacco tar for use in electronic cigarettes; Flavourings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; Personal vaporisers and electronic cigarettes, and flavourings and solutions therefor; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavourings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes.

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 goods in Classes 25 and 34

The contested goods are items of clothing, footwear, headgear and smoker’s goods and articles. The opponent’s goods and services are computer software and research, design and development services. Although the subject of specialization of the opponent’s goods and services is related to cigarettes and similar related articles, these sets of goods and services are not similar to each other. The contested goods differ from the opponent’s goods and services in nature, purpose and method of use. Their producers, trade origin and distribution channels are usually quite distinct. In addition, these goods and services are not in competition. Even if some complementarity might exist between some of contested goods and the opponent’s goods/services, complementarity is not usually conclusive on its own for finding similarity between goods/services and, in the present case, there is sufficient distance between the respective goods and services and no relevant similarity can be found. Therefore, the compared goods and services are dissimilar.

b) Interim Conclusion

 

According to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the similarity of the goods or services is a condition for a finding of likelihood of confusion. Since the goods and services are clearly dissimilar, one of the necessary conditions of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition must be rejected insofar as based on the opponent’s EUTM No 14 876 528 ‘AYR’.

The examination will continue in relation to the remaining opponent’s rights, namely EUTM No 15 500 895 and EUTM No 16 400 467.

Section B: EUTM No 15 500 895 ‘AYR’ and EUTM No 16 400 467 ‘VAPE AYR’

a) The goods and services

 

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

EUTM No 15 500 895:

Class 34: Electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; liquids, capsules and cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers; cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; tobacco substitutes; electronic cigarettes as alternative to traditional cigarettes; tobacco free electronic cigarettes replacement cartridges for medical purposes; flavouring for electronic cigarettes; cases for charging electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; electric vaporisers for the vaporisation of tobacco and other herbal matter; parts, fittings and equipment for the aforesaid goods.

Class 35: On-line retail store services featuring e-cigarettes, vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid and accessories; retail stores that bring together, for others, goods relating to electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; management, organization, operation and supervision of an incentive reward program to promote sale of electronic cigarettes and accessories.

Class 39: Filling and packaging of e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

Class 40: Manufacture of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

EUTM registration No 16 400 467:

Class 9: Batteries and other power sources for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (downloadable) for controlling and monitoring electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (downloadable) for enabling cartridges of e-liquid used in e-cigarettes to be ordered from an electronic-fulfillment service.

Class 11: Apparatus for heating tobacco and tobacco products.

Class 34: Electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; liquids, capsules and cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers; cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; tobacco substitutes; electronic cigarettes as alternative to traditional cigarettes; tobacco free electronic cigarettes replacement cartridges for medical purposes; flavouring for electronic cigarettes; cases for storing as well as charging electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; electric vaporisers for the vaporisation of tobacco and other herbal matter; parts, fittings and equipment for the aforesaid goods.

Class 35: On-line retail store services featuring e-cigarettes, vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid and accessories; retail stores that bring together, for others, goods relating to electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; management, organization, operation and supervision of an incentive reward program to promote sale of electronic cigarettes and accessories.

Class 39: Filling and packaging of e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

Class 40: Manufacture of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

Class 42: Research, design and development services relating to electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cartridges of e-liquid, nicotine and non-nicotine substances used in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers, cases for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, mouthpieces for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers, e-liquid for electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (non-downloadable) for controlling and monitoring electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers; computer software (non-downloadable) for enabling cartridges of e-liquid used in e-cigarettes to be ordered from an electronic-fulfillment service; computerized data storage services.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 25: T-shirts; Tee-shirts; Tennis shirts; Turtleneck shirts; Printed t-shirts; Mock turtleneck shirts; Short-sleeved T-shirts; Clothing; Footwear; Headgear.

Class 34: Electronic cigarettes; Electric cigarettes [electronic cigarettes]; Cases for electronic cigarettes; Liquids for electronic cigarettes; Liquid for electronic cigarettes; Holders for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges for electronic cigarettes; Refill cartridges for electronic cigarettes; Smoking sets for electronic cigarettes; Liquid nicotine solutions for electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarettes for use as an alternative to traditional cigarettes; Liquid solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; Liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; Tobacco tar for use in electronic cigarettes; Flavourings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; Personal vaporisers and electronic cigarettes, and flavourings and solutions therefor; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavourings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes.

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 goods in Class 25

 

The contested goods are items of clothing, footwear, headgear. These goods are dissimilar to the opponent’s goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 34, 35, 39, 40 and 42, covered by the two examined opponent’s marks. These sets of goods and services have no relevant points of contact that could justify finding a level of similarity between them. They differ in nature, purpose and method of use. They do not have the same producers/providers or distribution channels and are neither in competition, nor complementary.

Contested goods in Class 34

The contested goods in Class 34 consist of electronic cigarettes, as well as related articles thereof, including flavourings, liquids, cartridges, etc. The opponent’s goods in Class 34 covered by both earlier marks, also includes various electronic cigarettes, as well as related articles and parts thereof, such as liquids, flavouring, capsules and cartridges, etc. The majority of the contested goods, if not all, are identical to the opponent’s goods in this class. For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will not undertake a full comparison of the goods in this class. The examination of the opposition will proceed as if all the contested goods in this class were identical to the goods in Class 34 of the earlier marks which, for the opponent, is the best light in which the opposition can be examined.

 

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

 

In the present case, the goods found to be identical are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is considered to be high. Indeed, although smoker’s products are relatively cheap articles for mass consumption, smokers are considered particularly careful and selective about the brand of cigarettes they smoke, so a higher degree of brand loyalty and attention is assumed when smoker’s products are involved. This has been confirmed by several Board of Appeal decisions (e.g. 07/09/2016, R1737/2015-5, VILLA / VILLA DOMINICANA (fig.); 26/02/2010, R 1562/2008-2, victory Slims (fig.) / VICTORIA et al., where it was stated that the consumers of Class 34 goods are generally very attentive and brand loyal; 25/04/2006, R 61/2005-2, GRANDUCATO / DUCADOS et al.).

 

c) The signs

 

AYR (1) EUTM No 15 500 895 VAPE AYR (2) EUTM No 16 400 467	AIRSCREAM
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).

 

All marks are word marks and as such have no element(s) that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements.

Earlier mark 1 contains the verbal element ‘AYR’ and earlier mark 2 contains the two verbal elements ‘VAPE AYR’. The element ‘AYR’ of the earlier marks has no meaning for the relevant public in the relevant territory and its inherent distinctiveness is normal. The verbal element ‘VAPE’ of earlier mark 2 will be perceived by the English-speaking part of the public as referring to ‘a device used for inhaling vapour containing nicotine and flavouring; inhale and exhale vapour containing nicotine and flavouring produced by a device designed for this purpose’ (extracted from LEXICO Powered by Oxford at https://www.lexico.com/definition/ vape). This element is non-distinctive in relation to some of the relevant goods (personal vaporisers and electronic cigarettes), as it merely refers to their relevant characteristics, such as their nature and purpose. The distinctiveness of this element is seen as low, at best, for the remaining relevant goods which include cartridges, liquids, flavourings, parts and fittings, etc. for vaporisers and electronic cigarettes, as it strongly alludes to the idea that these goods are intended to, or can, be used for/with vaporisers or electronic cigarettes. For the part of the public that will perceive the verbal element ‘VAPE’ as meaningless, its distinctiveness is normal.

The contested sign consists of the verbal element ‘AIRSCREAM’. It should be borne in mind that the relevant consumers, when perceiving such a word, will break it down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning, or that resemble words that they already know (13/02/2007, T 256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57; 13/02/2008, T-146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58). Therefore, in view of the underlying concepts, the English-speaking part of the public such as the public in Ireland and Malta, will perceive the contested sign as the juxtaposition of the words ‘AIR’ and ‘SCREAM’. The term ‘air’ will be associated with ‘the mixture of gases which forms the Earth's atmosphere’ and ‘scream’ with ‘a sudden sharp loud cry’. Neither ‘air’, nor ‘scream’, or their combination thereof, have any direct or otherwise weak meaning in relation to the relevant goods and their distinctiveness is normal. For the remaining part of the public, the term ‘AIRSCREAM’ is meaningless and distinctive.

Visually, earlier mark 1 and the contested sign coincide in the letters ‘A*R’ and differ in ‘Y’ of the earlier mark 1 and ‘*I*SCREAM’ of the contested sign. The signs coincide in their first and third letters but their length is entirely different (three letters vs. nine letters). The length of the signs may influence the effect of the differences between them. The shorter a sign, the more easily the public is able to perceive all of its single elements. Therefore, in short words, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression. Indeed, in the present case, in spite of the coincidence in the letters ‘A*R’, the differences in the remaining letters and the significant difference in length renders the signs an entirely different visual outlook. Therefore, it is considered that earlier sign 1 and the contested sign are not visually similar.

As to earlier mark 2, its structure is quite distinct from that of the contested sign (two relatively short words vs. a long nine-letter word). In view of the structure of the signs, the coinciding letters between them are barely noticeable, if at all, as they appear at entirely different positions within the signs. Although the word ‘VAPE’ of the earlier mark 2 is non-distinctive for a part of the public and it is likely to attract less attention as a trade origin identifier, it still introduces its visual impact in the layout of the earlier mark 2. Therefore, bearing in mind the different structure of the signs as well as the fact that the coinciding letters are lost within the signs and hardly identifiable therein, it is considered that earlier sign 2 and the contested sign are not visually similar.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs is closest when the elements ‘AYR’ of the earlier signs is pronounced in the same way as ‘AIR’ appearing in the beginning of the contested sign. The pronunciation of the signs differs in the sound of the letters of the additional verbal elements ‘VAPE’ of earlier mark 2 and ‘SCREAM’ of the contested sign. However, even in that closest possible pronunciation scenario, the degree of aural similarity between the signs is not more than low. This is because the length of pronunciation of earlier mark 1 and the contested sign is considerable. As to earlier mark 2, in spite of the low and non-distinctive character of ‘VAPE’ for part of the relevant public, this element will be pronounced and it appears at the beginning of the sign, thereby blurring the aural coincidence between ‘AYR’ and ‘AIR’ (of ‘AIRSCREAM’). Therefore, although ‘AYR’ and ‘AIR’ will be aurally identical for a part of the public, the length of pronunciation is different (earlier mark 1 and the contested sign) and the structure of the syllables of earlier mark 2 and the contested sign is quite distinct. Consequently, in view of the above, the signs being compared are aurally similar to a low degree, at best.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the verbal elements of the marks. The English-speaking part of the public will associate the contested sign with a meaning, whereas earlier mark 1 is meaningless and earlier mark 2 will be associated with a different concept on account of ‘VAPE’. Indeed, although ‘vape’ is of non- or lowly distinctive character, it is perceptible and understood by the relevant public. Therefore, the signs are not conceptually similar for the English-speaking part of the public, as the contested sign has a meaning that is not present in earlier mark 1 and the earlier mark 2 will be associated with a different meaning.

For the remaining part of the public for which neither of the signs has a meaning, a conceptual comparison is not possible and the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

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 marks

 

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 marks are particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.

 

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier marks will rest on their distinctiveness per se. In the present case, earlier trade mark 1 as a whole has no meaning for the goods in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of earlier mark 1 must be seen as normal. In relation to earlier mark 2, as a whole, it has no meaning in relation to the goods, despite the presence of a non-/lowly distinctive element in the mark as regards part of the relevant public, as stated above in section c) of this decision. Therefore, the distinctiveness of earlier mark 2 must be seen as normal as well.

 

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

 

A likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be assessed globally which implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between the goods and/or 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).

The contested goods in Class 25 are dissimilar and the contested goods in Class 34 are deemed to be identical to the opponent’s goods. The relevant goods are directed at the public at large and the degree of attention is high. The degree of distinctiveness of the earlier marks is normal.

The earlier trade marks and the contested sign are not visually similar. The signs are aurally similar to a low degree, at best. Depending on the understanding of the relevant public, the signs are not conceptually similar, or they are conceptually neutral.

The earlier marks and the contested sign are similar insofar as they have the letters ‘A*R’ in common, and due to the aural coincidence between ‘AYR’ of the earlier marks and ‘AIR’ of the contested sign, for a part of the public, as explained above. However, considering that earlier mark 1 is a short sign, consisting of only three letters, whereas the contested sign is much longer, the coincidences between earlier mark 1 and the contested sign are not sufficient to induce a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in spite of the assumed identity of the goods. Even if the signs may be aurally similar to a low degree for a part of the consumers, this similarity is not sufficient to lead to confusion between the signs. With regard to earlier mark 2, its structure differs from that of the contested sign and the presence of the additional ‘vape’ in front of ‘ayr’, albeit lowly or non-distinctive for part of the public, blurs any existing similarities between the signs in question.

As explained in detail in section c), the overall composition and/or length of the contested sign differs from the earlier marks to such extent that the signs under comparison are visually not similar. Moreover, in the most favourable scenario, only a low degree of aural similarity was established between the signs due to the differences in their length, structure, rhythm and/or intonation. In the absence of any visual similarity, and as the signs are not conceptually similar or they are conceptually neutral, it is considered that the differences between the signs are sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion, including likelihood of association, even taking into account the abovementioned principle of interdependence and even in relation to identical goods. It should be recalled that, in the present case, the degree of attention is high, since the relevant consumers are particularly careful and selective about the brand when choosing the relevant goods.

Consequently, it can be concluded that the differences between the signs are striking enough to rule out any likelihood of confusion between the signs. Therefore, a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association, on the part of the relevant public can be safely excluded, even assuming that the goods in Class 34 are identical.

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected also in relation to the opponent’s EUTM No 15 500 895 and EUTM No 16 400 467.

f) Final conclusion

Considering all the above, the opposition must be rejected in its entirety.

 

COSTS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

The Opposition Division

 

 

Justyna GBYL

Liliya YORDANOVA

Anna PĘKAŁA

 

 

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