Decision on the inherent distinctiveness of an application for a European Union trade mark

(Article 7 EUTMR)

Alicante, 25/05/2020

CSY London

10 Fetter Lane

London GB_LND EC4A 1BR

REINO UNIDO

Application No:	018124118
Your reference:	LSH/SE/72719EM1
Trade mark:	HIDDEN LONDON
Mark type:	Word mark
Applicant:	Transport for London (statutory authority) 5 Endeavour Square, Stratford London E20 1JN REINO UNIDO

The Office raised an objection on 18/10/2019 pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) EUTMR because it found that the trade mark applied for is devoid of any distinctive character, for the reasons set out in the attached letter of that date.

The applicant, after requesting and being granted an extension, submitted its observations on 17/02/2020, which may be summarised as follows.

• Arranging and conducting of tours and sightseeing in Class 39 and organisation of guided tours; conducting guided tours; conducting tours of cultural sites for educational purposes, in Class 41 are withdrawn.

• ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ possesses the minimum degree of distinctiveness to be registered. The fact that this expression could be familiar to the general public, does not mean that it cannot function as a trade mark. It is an imaginative term and consumers will not refer to the services as such. The link between ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ and the services against which an objection has been raised is insufficient and there is no direct and specific relationship. Mental steps would need to be taken in order to reach the Office’s conclusion. The sign conveys an allusive and ambiguous message in relation to the services for which protection is sought. According to established case-law, novelty, imaginativeness or creativity is not a requirement for a mark to have a distinctive character. Moreover, and according to the criteria of the Court of Justice, word marks with laudatory connotations can still be appropriate for indicating a business origin.

• In light of the above, the average consumer would understand the trade mark as referring to a specific business origin.

• The Office has not properly examined the mark ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ in relation to each of the services against which an objection has been raised. Only general comments have been provided, and an explanation of how ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ lacks distinctiveness in relation to all the objected services has not been given.

• ‘HIDDEN LONDON’, in relation to the services against which an objection has been raised, would be unusual, imaginative and creative.

• Comments are made in relation to all the entries which the examiner had used to demonstrate that ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ is commonly used in the relevant market.

• Reference is made to EUTM registrations No 4 662 524 ‘HIDDEN’, No 5 602 636 ‘The Hidden Brewery’ and No 3 609 609 ‘HIDDEN ART’, and to the IRs designating the EU No 1 142 389 ‘HiddenCity’, No 1 187 523 ‘HIDDEN PICTURES’, No 1 329 522 ‘HIDDEN SCAR’ and No 1 330 528 ‘HIDDEN KITCHENS’, that are analogous to the case in question.

• If these submissions are unsuccessful, the right to submit evidence demonstrating that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use, as a subsidiary claim, is reserved.

The Office notes the limitation filed by the applicant, which has been accepted by the Office on 25/05/2020.

However, after taking into account the aforementioned limitation, and giving due consideration to the rest of the applicant’s arguments, the Office has decided to maintain the objection.

Under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, ‘trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character’ are not to be registered.

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

The marks referred to in Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR are, in particular, those that do not enable the relevant public ‘to repeat the experience of a purchase, if it proves to be positive, or to avoid it, if it proves to be negative, on the occasion of a subsequent acquisition of the goods or services concerned’ (27/02/2002, T‑79/00, Lite, EU:T:2002:42, § 26).

For a mark to possess distinctive character, it must serve to identify the product or service for which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus enable the consumer or end user, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish that product from products of other undertakings (18/06/2002, C‑299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377; 29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442).

It is settled case-law that ‘[a] sign’s distinctiveness can be assessed only by reference, first, to the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought and, second, to the relevant public’s perception of that sign’ (09/10/2002, T‑360/00, UltraPlus, EU:T:2002:244, § 43).

Although the criteria for assessing distinctiveness are the same for the various categories of marks, it may become apparent, in applying those criteria, that the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same for each of those categories and that, therefore, it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for some categories of mark than for others (29/04/2004, C‑456/01 P & C‑457/01 P, Tabs (3D), EU:C:2004:258, § 38).

Moreover, it is also settled case-law that the way in which the relevant public perceives a trade mark is influenced by its level of attention, which is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (05/03/2003, T‑194/01, Soap device, EU:T:2003:53, § 42; and 03/12/2003, T‑305/02, Bottle, EU:T:2003:328, § 34).

A sign, such as a slogan, that fulfils functions other than that of a trade mark in the traditional sense of the term ‘is only distinctive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR if it may be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question, so as to enable the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the goods or services of the owner of the mark from those of a different commercial origin’ (05/12/2002, T‑130/01, Real People, Real Solutions, EU:T:2002:301, § 20 ; and 03/07/2003, T‑122/01, Best Buy, EU:T:2003:183, § 21).

Article 7(2) EUTMR states that paragraph 7(1) must apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the European Union. In this particular case, the objection is in relation to the English-speaking consumers.

As the Office demonstrated in the objection letter of 18/10/2019, ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ would simply be perceived by the relevant public as a promotional laudatory slogan, the function of which is to communicate an inspirational or motivational statement. Moreover, in the present case, the relevant public will not tend to perceive any particular indication of commercial origin in the sign beyond the promotional information conveyed, which merely serves to highlight positive aspects of the services in question, namely that they will allow/help consumers to know more about / visit hidden parts of London (services in Class 39) or that will be developed in / related to hidden parts of London (services in Classes 41 and 43).

This conclusion cannot be changed by the applicant’s arguments, for the reasons explained below.

1. Lack of distinctiveness

First of all, the applicant argued that the mark ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ possessed the minimum degree of distinctiveness given that it was an imaginative term. Moreover, it stated that it conveyed an allusive and ambiguous message and argued that an imaginative effort would be needed for consumers to reach the Office’s conclusion.

However, the Office does not agree with those findings.

The fact that a sign is, in general, capable of constituting a trade mark within the meaning of Article 4 EUTMR does not mean that this sign necessarily has distinctive character for the purpose of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, in relation to a specific product or service (29/04/2004, C‑456/01 P & C‑457/01 P, Tabs (3D), EU:C:2004:258, § 32).

As the Office demonstrated in its letter of objection of 18/10/2019, the meaning of ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ for English-speaking consumers is clear, namely, parts of London that are hidden / not easy to find.

Coupling together the elements into the expression ‘HIDDEN LONDON’, without any significant graphic or semantic modification, does not imbue them with any additional characteristic so as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant from those of other undertakings (26/10/2000, T‑345/99, Trustedlink, EU:T:2000:246, § 37).

The Office reached the above-mentioned conclusion, taking into account that ‘HIDDEN LONDON’, analysed as a whole, combines meaningful English words in a grammatically correct way. In this regard and contrary to the applicant’s statements, this slogan does not include elements of conceptual intrigue or surprise and is not original. Moreover, it does not trigger in the minds of the relevant public a cognitive process and does not require an interpretative effort. The meaning is clear and unambiguous in relation to the services against which an objection has been raised in Classes 39, 41 and 43, namely, that they will allow/help consumers to know more about / visit hidden parts of London (services in Class 39) or that will be developed in / related to hidden parts of London (services in Classes 41 and 43).

It follows that there is a sufficiently direct link between the sign applied for and the services at issue, for the sign to fall under the absolute ground of refusal of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. The sign ‘HIDDEN LONDON’, as a whole, does not possess any characteristic that would enable consumers to perceive it as a distinctive sign that indicates the commercial origin of the services. Furthermore, for a finding that there is no distinctive character, it is sufficient that the semantic content of the word mark in question indicates to the consumer a characteristic of the goods or services that, whilst not specific, represents promotional or advertising information, which the relevant public will perceive first and foremost as such, rather than as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or service (12/03/2008, T‑130/01, Real People, Real Solutions, EU:T:2002:301, § 29, 30; 5/12/2002, T‑128/07, Delivering the essentials of life, EU:T:2008:72, § 20).

The Office agrees that the sign’s distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR is not subject to a finding of a specific level of linguistic or artistic creativity or imaginativeness on the part of the proprietor of the trade mark. A sign is considered distinctive if, apart from its promotional function, the public perceives it as an indication of the commercial origin of the services in question.

In this regard, the Court of Justice has provided the following criteria that should be used when assessing the distinctive character of the sign:

• it constitutes a play on words and/or

• introduces elements of conceptual intrigue/surprise so that it may be perceived as imaginative, surprising or unexpected and/or

• has some originality or resonance and/or

• triggers in the minds of the relevant public a cognitive process or requires an interpretative effort.

However, as mentioned above, the sign for which registration is sought is not fanciful or arbitrary in relation to the specified services. There is no originality or word play that could set off a cognitive process in the minds of the relevant public, or that would require some interpretation by the relevant public. Furthermore, the sign does not possess any particular resonance that could make it surprising or easy to remember.

Moreover, it cannot be reasonably maintained that the trade mark applied for will merely be perceived as allusive because it is vague and requires clarification, and that it will enable the relevant consumers to identify the origin of the services for which an objection has been raised. In this context, the Office refers to the decision of the Board of Appeal of 13/10/1998, R 62/1998‑3, LASER TRACER, § 11:

a trade mark is considered to be allusive whenever it makes reference to certain characteristics of the products or services in an indirect way (See Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 September 1998, in Case R 36/98‑2, The Oilgear Company, ‘OILGEAR’, paragraph 10), or through a mental association process which requires a special effort on the part of consumers who are expected to transform a suggestive or emotional message, into a rational evaluation. (27/11/1998, R 26/1998‑3, NETMEETING, § 24 and the case-law cited).

This is clearly not applicable in this case, for the reasons explained above.

Even if the meaning of ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ were open to interpretation by consumers or could be perceived as a surprising expression, this would not suffice to make it distinctive. These various characteristics only make the sign distinctive if it can be immediately perceived by the relevant public as an indication of the commercial origin of the applicant’s services, and so enables the relevant public to distinguish, without any possibility of confusion, the applicant’s services from those of a different commercial origin (15/09/2005, T‑320/03, Live richly, EU:T:2005:325, § 84).

Secondly, the applicant argued that the Office had failed to provide enough reasoning for the refusal of the sign ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ in respect of each and every homogeneous category of the services claimed, because it had simply applied a single general statement of reasons to all the contested services.

The Office has noted the applicant’s comments. It is true that the examination of absolute grounds for refusal must be carried out in relation to each of the goods and services for which trade mark registration is sought and that the Office must, in principle, state reasons in respect of each of those goods or services, although a general reasoning may be used where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services (15/02/2007, C‑239/05, The Kitchen Company, EU:C:2007:99, § 34, 37) that are interlinked in a sufficiently direct and specific way, to the point where they form a sufficiently homogeneous category or group (18/03/2010, C‑282/09 P, P@yweb card / Payweb card, EU:C:2010:153, § 40). This is precisely the case for all the services for which protection is sought.

Thus, all the services in Class 39, are related to transport (including means of transport, rental, hiring and booking of transport, issuing of tickets). Services in Class 41 are education, training and related transport and ticketing services, including a wide range of entertainment, booking (including ticketing services) and publication services. Finally, services in Class 43 are a wide range of services related to bars, restaurants, catering and related services such as hiring of places for developing related activities and accommodation services.

In the Office’s opinion, and taking into account the meaning of the expression ‘HIDDEN LONDON’, it is a fact that the relationship between the abovementioned general categories and the sign is sufficiently direct and specific given that all those services will allow/help consumers to know more about / visit hidden parts of London (services in Class 39) or that will be developed in / related to hidden parts of London (services in Classes 41 and 43). In this regard, the Office does not see how those services could not be included in general categories and analysed as such. ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ is clearly referring to parts of London that are hidden / not well known. All the services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 can be developed / related / addressed to explore hidden parts of London. Therefore, the Office considers that the relationship is clear.

Thirdly, the applicant referred to the links provided by the Office in the objection letter of 18/10/2019 and stated that those links would not demonstrate that ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ was commonly used in relation to the services against which an objection was raised.

The applicant stated that the services referred to in the link https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/hidden-london-10-of-the-citys-lesserknown-delights had been removed from the application and, therefore, this entry would not be valid. However, the link includes the sentence ‘HIDDEN LONDON – 10 OF THE CITY’S LESSER KNOWN DELIGHTS’ which, in the Office’s opinion, is very open/ambiguous (KNOWN DELIGHTS) and can refer to various of the services against which an objection was raised, such as cycle routes, entertainment, and restaurants.

With regard to http://www.premiumincoming.com/european-destinations/discover-thehidden-london/ , the applicant stated that, despite including ‘DISCOVER HIDDEN LONDON’ / ‘DISCOVER THE HIDDEN LONDON’, no information had been provided in relation to the services to which this phrase related. However, the Office does not agree with this statement given that on this website, as well as ‘DISCOVER HIDDEN LONDON’ / ‘DISCOVER THE HIDDEN LONDON’, reference is made to ‘EVENTS’ and ‘DESTINATION’ and, therefore, this could be related to travel and events arrangement.

Finally, despite the services excluded by the applicant in the application, https://funlondontours.com/tours/hiddenlondon-walking-tour/ remains relevant given that there are general categories of services such as travel information services, or services for the booking of travel, which could be related to any kind of tours (including walking tours).

It follows from consistent case-law that a finding of a lack of distinctiveness may be lawfully based on matters of common knowledge arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods or services, without specific examples having to be provided (10/11/2004, T‑402/02, Bonbonverpackung, EU:T:2004:330, § 58; 22/06/2006, C‑25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 54; 15/03/2006, T‑129/04, Plastikflaschenform, EU:T:2006:84, § 19).

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 Office considers that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, above all because they do not provide any information on the relevant consumers’ perception of the sign for which registration is sought. Therefore, it remains unknown whether the relevant consumers (and what percentage of them) would be able to identify the services to which an objection has been raised, on the basis of the trade mark.

Therefore, the applicant has not succeeded in convincing the Office that the term ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ will be perceived by consumers as indicating the commercial origin of the contested services. The relevant public cannot, in the absence of prior knowledge, perceive the sign ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ other than in the sense described by the Office.

Therefore, this argument should also be disregarded.

2. Previous trade marks registered by the Office

As a final argument, the applicant referred to different trade mark registrations at European Union (EU) level that, according to the applicant’s reasoning, should be taken into account.

However, they cannot be taken into account by the Office for the reasons explained below.

First of all, the conceptual meaning of all the marks referred to by the applicant is totally different to ‘HIDDEN LONDON’ given that this latter mark clearly refers to a city (LONDON) and unknown (HIDDEN) parts of that city, whereas the marks referred to by the applicant are more ambiguous and would need other additional elements to provide specific information / meanings:

• HIDDENCITY (it is not possible to determine the city that the mark is referring to)

• HIDDEN (it would need an additional element to determined what HIDDEN refers to)

• THE HIDDEN BREWERY (same reasoning as for HIDDENCITY referred to above)

• HIDDEN PICTURES / HIDDEN ART (it is not possible to determine to which pictures/art the mark is referring to)

• HIDDEN SCAR (ambiguous expression)

• HIDDEN KITCHENS (ambiguous expression)

Therefore, those cases cannot be considered analogous to ‘HIDDEN LONDON’.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, according to settled case-law, ‘decisions concerning registration of a sign as a European trade mark are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion’. Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a European trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of the EUTMR, as interpreted by the European judicature, and not on the basis of previous Office practice (15/09/2005, C‑37/03 P, BioID, EU:C:2005:547, § 47 and 09/10/2002, T‑36/01, Glass Pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 35).

It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that observance of the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with observance of the principle of legality according to which no person may rely, in support of their claim, on unlawful acts committed in favour of another. (27/02/2002, T‑106/00, Streamserve, EU:T:2002:43, § 67).

This has been confirmed by case-law.

It must be recalled that EUIPO is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of EU law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. Having regard to those two principles, EUIPO must, when examining an application for registration of a European Union trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not. That said, the way in which the principles of equal treatment and sound administration are applied must be consistent with respect for legality. Consequently, a person who files an application for registration of a sign as a trade mark cannot rely, to his advantage and in order to secure an identical decision, on a possibly unlawful act committed for the benefit of someone else. Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and, indeed, of sound administration, the examination of any trade mark application must be stringent and comprehensive in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered. That examination must be undertaken in each individual case. The registration of a sign as a mark depends on specific criteria, which are applicable in the factual circumstances of the particular case and the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the sign at issue is caught by a ground for refusal.

(21/05/2015, T‑203/14, Splendid, EU:T:2015:301, § 47-60).

Indeed, the Office must take into account decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not. The way in which those principles are applied must, however, be consistent with respect for the principle of legality. Consequently, a person who files an application for registration of a sign as a trade mark cannot rely, to their advantage and in order to secure an identical decision, on a possibly unlawful act committed for the benefit of someone else. Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and, indeed, of sound administration, the examination of any trade mark application must be stringent and full, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered. Such an examination must therefore be undertaken in each individual case (03/12/2015, T‑628/14, FORTIFY, EU:T:2015:769, § 33-37 and 25/09/2015, T‑591/14, PerfectRoast, EU:T:2015:700, § 65 and 57).

Moreover, like the previous EUTMs, the sign for which registration is sought was subject to the rigorous examination required under the EUTMR according to its own merits. Those merits might have been different at the time of filing. The previously registered trade marks could have enjoyed, at the time of filing (some of them were applied for 15 years ago), an unusual character that the mark applied for, due to the evolution of the market and/or perception of the relevant public will not enjoy (06/03/2003, T‑128/01, Representation of a vehicle grille, EU:T:2003:62, § 46). This is particularly relevant in the present case given that most of the previous marks mentioned by the applicant were applied for several years ago.

Therefore, this argument from the applicant should also be dismissed by the Office.

Conclusion

For the abovementioned reasons and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR and Article 7(2) EUTMR, the application for European Union trade mark No 18 124 118 is declared non-distinctive pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in the English-speaking territories of the European Union, namely, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom, for the following services:

Class 39 Transport services; passenger transportation services; rail, bus, taxi, tram, cable car and river transport services; travel services; rental, hire and leasing of bicycles and electric bicycles; booking and reservation services for travel; travel information services; provision of information relating to travel, bicycle hire and cycle routes, including that provided on-line from computer databases or websites on global computer networks; timetable and travel information services; time table and fare enquiry services; services for the booking of travel; ticketing services for travel; issuing of tickets for travel; rental and leasing of machines dispensing tickets for travel; luggage storage services; escorting of passengers; information, advisory and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services; consultancy, advisory and information services relating to passenger transportation services, infrastructure for transport, rolling stock, light rapid transport and integrated transport; advisory and consultancy services relating to the conditions of the carriage of passengers; professional advisory and consultancy services relating to transport.

Class 41 Education and training services relating to ticketing and transportation; entertainment services for children; corporate hospitality (entertainment); entertainment services; entertainment by or relating to television or radio; production, presentation, recording, multi-media recordings, radio and television programmes and animated cartoons; provision of entertainment and cultural facilities; information relating to entertainment, sporting and cultural activities provided on-line from a computer database or the Internet or provided by other means; recreational services and providing recreational facilities; provision of leisure facilities; booking agency services; reservation agency services for entertainment services, theatre, cinema, concert, show, museum, exhibitions; cultural activities; club and nightclub services and recreational activities; organising of competitions for education and entertainment purposes; entertainment by or relating to games, competitions, quizzes; prize draws; provision of on-line electronic publications; publication of books, magazines, newspapers, directories, multi-media recordings; organising and arranging conferences, seminars, courses, workshops and events; arranging and conducting training workshops; arranging and conducting exhibitions, conferences, seminars, courses, workshops and events; provision of consultancy, information and advice relating to all the aforesaid.

Class 43 Services for providing food and drink; cafés; bars; restaurants; grill restaurants; bistros; carvery restaurants; tapas bars; delicatessens [restaurants]; pizza parlours; ice-cream parlours; canteens; canteen services; cafeteria services; tea rooms; coffee shops; providing food and drink via a mobile truck; fast food restaurants; take-out restaurant services; takeaway services; self-service restaurants; self-service cafeteria services; salad bars; juice bars; snack-bar services; serving of alcoholic beverages; bar services; beer garden services; pubs; wine bars; wine tasting services; sommelier services; cocktail lounge services; night club services [provision of food]; club services for the provision of food and drink; private members drinking club services; private members dining club services; personal chef services; provision of information relating to bars and restaurants; reservation services for the booking of meals; consultancy services in the field of food and drink catering; providing reviews of restaurants and bars; hotel services for preferred customers; hotels, hotel services, hostels, boarding houses, holiday and tourist accommodation; boarding house services; guesthouses; guest house services; motels; motel services; resort hotels; resort hotel services; hotel catering services; hotel restaurant services; hiring of marquees, pavilions; hiring of temporary office space; room booking; room hire services; room rental for exhibitions; rental of meeting rooms; rental of rooms for social functions; provision of facilities for board meetings, conferences, exhibitions, conventions; hiring of furniture for conferences, exhibitions, presentations; accommodation services for functions; hospitality services; reception services for temporary accommodation; accommodation bureau services [hotels, boarding houses]; consultancy services relating to hotel facilities; rating of holiday accommodation; electronic information services relating to hotels; hotel reservation services provided via the internet; booking agency services for hotel accommodation; booking of hotel accommodation; tour operator services for booking temporary accommodation; travel agency services for booking accommodation; temporary accommodation reservation services; letting of holiday accommodation; provision of information relating to hotels and temporary accommodation; provision of consultancy and information about the aforesaid services.

According to Article 66(2) EUTMR, you have a right to appeal against this decision which does not terminate the examination proceedings. 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.

Once this decision has become final, the proceedings will be resumed for the examination of the subsidiary claim based upon Article 7(3) EUTMR and Article 2(2) EUTMIR.

Pablo AMAT RODRÍGUEZ