OPPOSITION No B 2 556 309

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co, 140 Broadway, 17th Floor, 10005-1101 New York, United States of America (opponent), represented by Marchais Associés, 4 Avenue Hoche, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

BBH Partners LLP, 60 Kingly Street, Soho, W1B 5DS London, United Kingdom (applicant), represented by Kilburn & Strode LLP, Lacon London, 84 Theobalds Road, WC1X 8NL London, United Kingdom (professional representative).

On 19/05/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 556 309 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested services:

Class 36: Fund raising services; charitable fundraising services; financial trust management; sponsorship services; administration, information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid.

2. European Union trade mark application No 13 849 104 is rejected for all the above services. It may proceed for the remaining goods and services.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

PRELIMINARY REMARK

As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431, subject to certain transitional provisions. Further, as from 14/05/2018, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431 have been codified and repealed by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626. All the references in this decision to the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR should be understood as references to the Regulations currently in force, except where expressly indicated otherwise.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 13 849 104, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 42 and 45. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 730 119 and United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 394, both for the word mark ‘BBH & CO’, international trade mark registration No 1 017 567 designating the European Union and United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 389, both for the word mark ‘BBH’, in regard to all of the aforementioned the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR; the well-known word mark ‘BBH’ in Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom, in regard to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, and the trade name ‘BBH’ used in the course of trade in Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom, in regard to which the opponent invoked Article 8(4) EUTMR.

SUBSTANTIATION

According to Article 76 (1) EUTMR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part, now Article 95(1) EUTMR), in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office is restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and the relief sought.

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to submit the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

According to Rule 19(2) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), within the period referred to above, the opposing party must also file evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the opposition.

In particular, if the opposition is based on a registered trade mark that is not a European Union trade mark, the opposing party must submit a copy of the relevant registration certificate and, as the case may be, of the latest renewal certificate, showing that the term of protection of the trade mark extends beyond the time limit referred to in paragraph 1 and any extension thereof, or equivalent documents emanating from the administration by which the trade mark was registered - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part).

One of the earlier marks on which the opposition is based is international trade mark registration No 1 017 567 designating the European Union. The Office accepts as evidence of the filing or registration of earlier marks certificates issued by the appropriate official body (WIPO in the case of international trade mark registrations), extracts from official databases (WIPO’s ROMARIN or ‘Madrid Monitor’ databases) and extracts from official bulletins of the relevant national trade mark offices and WIPO. Extracts from TMview are also acceptable evidence concerning international registrations, as long as they contain the relevant data, since they reflect the information obtained directly from the WIPO database. Extracts from commercial databases are not accepted, even if they reproduce exactly the same information as the official extracts. The old practice of accepting printouts from eSearch (previously CTM-Online) for international registrations with EU designation only applies to oppositions with a filing date before 01/07/2012. The filing date of the opposition at issue is 23/07/2015.

In the present case, regarding international trade mark registration No 1 017 567 designating the European Union the opponent only filed a printout from eSearch, which is not sufficient to substantiate the opponent’s earlier trade mark, as explained above.

Furthermore, where the opposition is based on a well-known mark within the meaning of Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, the opposing party must submit evidence showing that this mark is well known in the relevant territory - Rule 19(2)(b) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part).

In the present case, the opponent did not submit any evidence at all concerning the well-known word mark ‘BBH’ in Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom.

Finally, where the opposition is based on an earlier non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposing party must submit evidence showing use of that right in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, as well as evidence of its acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection including, where the earlier right is invoked pursuant to the law of a Member State, a clear identification of the content of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence - Rule 19(2)(d) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part).

In the present case, the opponent did not submit any evidence at all concerning the earlier non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade in Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom ‘BBH’.

According to Rule 20(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), if until expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), the opposing party has not proven the existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier mark or earlier right, as well as its entitlement to file the opposition, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

The opposition must therefore be rejected as unfounded, as far as it is based on the earlier marks or earlier rights mentioned above.

The examination of the opposition will proceed for the remaining earlier rights, namely, European Union trade mark registration No 730 119 for the word mark ‘BBH & CO’, United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 394 for the word mark ‘BBH & CO’, and United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 389 for the word mark ‘BBH’, in regard to which the opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.

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 United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 389 for the word mark ‘BBH’.

1. The goods and services

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

Class 36: Stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services, all included in Class 36.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Electronic publications; printed publications in electronically, magnetically or optically recorded and readable forms; audio cassettes; sound, video and data recordings; films for display; video recording and reproduction apparatus; computer programs; computer games; software; computer application software; computer software applications, downloadable; electrical and electronic games apparatus; cameras; calculating machines; sunglasses; texts encoded in film/fiche form; tapes, disks and records, all bearing or for recordal of sound, video and data; storage and memory devices; compact discs; discs, cassettes and cartridges for all the aforesaid goods; mobile telephones; mobile telephone ringtones; mobile phone games; audio, video still and moving images for mobile phones; refrigerator magnets; credit cards; store cards; debit cards; magnetic key cards; hand-held calculators; sunglasses video and audio discs, cassettes, DVDs, CD-ROMs, mpgs, jpegs, recordings of sound and images stored in digital or analogue form; parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods.

Class 16: Paper goods; calendars; posters; diaries; books; magazines; song books; comics; programmes; printed publications; biographical pamphlets; newsletters; printed stickers; photographs; postcards; greetings cards; gift wrap; gift-wrap cards; stationery; notepads; address books; personal organisers; pens; pencils; pencil top ornaments; erasers, pencil cases; rulers; albums; labels; book marks; picture holders; decorative transfers; printed patterns for items of clothing.

Class 35: Advertising and promotional services; marketing services; marketing consultancy; public relation services; sales promotion services; consultancy services relating to advertising and advertising space; market research; production of commercials; planning, buying and negotiating advertising space; commercial information agency services; economic forecasting; business enquiry and investigations; marketing study services; opinion polling; publication of publicity texts; radio and television advertising; sales promotion for others; organisation of exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; business and commercial research services; provision of business reports and feasibility studies; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; sponsorship search; advertising, including promotion of products and services of third parties through sponsoring arrangements and licence agreements relating to international sports events; advertising, including promotion of products and services of third parties through sponsoring arrangements and licence agreements relating to international entertainment events; brand evaluation services; brand positioning services; brand creation services; assistance in product commercialisation, within the framework of a franchise contract; arranging of commercial and business contacts; negotiation of commercial transactions for third parties; customer loyalty services for commercial, promotional and/or advertising purposes; organisation of fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes; business management of sports people; business management of performing artists; information and advisory services all related to the aforesaid services.

Class 36: Fund raising services; charitable fundraising services; financial trust management; sponsorship services; administration, information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid.

Class 42: Application service provider (ASP) services namely hosting computer software applications of others, computer advisory services; development of computer software application solutions; installation and customisation of computer application software; application service provider (ASP), namely, hosting computer software applications of others; hosting of websites and providing temporary use of online software; creating, updating, and maintaining telecommunication user profiles; design, development, and maintenance of computer programs for transmitting information from the internet; creating, updating, and maintaining customized portal sites; technical data analysis services; software design; software development; software engineering; software installation; software creation; website design services; website hosting services; design, creation, hosting, maintenance of websites for others; design, creation and maintenance of computer software applications for others; none of the aforesaid being rental services relating to computers and computer software.

Class 45: Intellectual property exploitation, management, and protection, exploitation of transmission rights, licensing of intellectual property and management of intellectual property licensing schemes, intellectual property licensing services; information, consultancy, advisory and training services relating to the aforesaid.

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 9

The contested goods in this class cover a range of computer programs, software, electronic publications and other recorded content, magnets for fridges, data storage devices, electronic apparatus and sunglasses. Computer programs and software are created and marketed by IT companies; they are usually offered in specialised sales channels or along with computer hardware, peripherals and accessories, such as data storage devices and electronic apparatus. Electronic publications, depending on their subject matter, are devised and offered by creative content generators such as writers and editors, or specialist copywriters in a given field who prepare technical texts, presentations or tutorials, compile data into systematised databases, etc.

Nowadays, it is common practice to use computer software or electronic publications when rendering many different services, including stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services. Nevertheless, that fact does not lead to the automatic conclusion that these contested goods are similar to services that use them to function more efficiently.

The differences in the natures and purposes of these goods and services are vast. The same applies also to their usual origins and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are neither complementary nor in competition. The mere fact that the goods and services in question can be directed at the same public is insufficient in itself to support a finding of similarity. The remaining goods in class 9, such as sunglasses, are even further removed from the opponent´s services. Therefore, all of the contested goods in Class 9 are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 36.

Contested goods in Class 16

The contested goods in this class are printed matter and stationery. These goods are distributed through commercial channels dealing with printed publications, stationery items, books and periodicals, training and school supplies, etc.

Analogous considerations apply to these goods as to those given above in relation to Class 9. The contested goods have no relevant commonalities with the opponent’s services in Class 36. The mere fact that some of the contested printed matter, for example, can have stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services as its subject matter is not a relevant factor. The differences in the natures and purposes of these goods and services are vast. The same applies also to their usual origins and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are neither complementary nor in competition. The mere fact that the goods and services in question can be directed at the same public is insufficient in itself to support a finding of similarity. Therefore, all of the contested goods in Class 16 are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 36.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested advertising and promotional services; marketing services; marketing consultancy; public relation services; sales promotion services; consultancy services relating to advertising and advertising space; market research; production of commercials; planning, buying and negotiating advertising space; commercial information agency services; economic forecasting; business enquiry and investigations; marketing study services; opinion polling; publication of publicity texts; radio and television advertising; sales promotion for others; organisation of exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; business and commercial research services; provision of business reports and feasibility studies; commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; sponsorship search; advertising, including promotion of products and services of third parties through sponsoring arrangements and licence agreements relating to international sports events; advertising, including promotion of products and services of third parties through sponsoring arrangements and licence agreements relating to international entertainment events; brand evaluation services; brand positioning services; brand creation services; assistance in product commercialisation, within the framework of a franchise contract; arranging of commercial and business contacts; negotiation of commercial transactions for third parties; customer loyalty services for commercial, promotional and/or advertising purposes; organisation of fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes; business management of sports people; business management of performing artists; information and advisory services all related to the aforesaid services are aimed at supporting or helping other businesses to carry out or improve their business. They are in principle directed at the professional public. These services are mainly provided by business management consultants, advertising executives, market researchers and data analysts. Admittedly, there is a certain connection between the contested services in this class and the opponent’s stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services in Class 36, insofar as they can all be seen as services to support other businesses. However, it has to be borne in mind that the opponent’s services are limited to very specific activities which are clearly distinct, in nature and purpose, from the contested services as detailed above. This distinction also tallies with the reality of the marketplace where business management, advertising, marketing or consultancy are provided by agencies that do not normally provide stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services. They operate in different fields of business. The mere fact that they can be directed at the same public is not sufficient in itself to lead to a finding of similarity. Furthermore, they are neither complementary nor in competition. Therefore, all of the contested services in Class 35 are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 36.

Contested services in Class 36

The contested fund raising services; charitable fundraising services; financial trust management; sponsorship services; administration, information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s financial and investment services. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested services in this class are information technology (IT) services aimed at hosting, developing or customising, installing and maintaining software applications and websites for others, as well as providing advice in the field of software. Such services are provided by software developers, IT consultants, and companies specialising in hosting digital content for others.

The contested services have no relevant commonalities with the opponent’s stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services, all included in Class 36. The mere fact that these services can be of interest to the same public or that one may be used in the provision of the other (investment service providers will normally operate a website, for example) is not sufficient for a finding of similarity. Clearly different in nature and purpose, they originate from different undertakings and have different distribution channels. Furthermore, they are neither complementary nor in competition. Therefore, all of the contested services in Class 42 are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 36.

Contested services in Class 45

The contested services in this class are all related to intellectual property exploitation, management, and protection. They are directed at businesses and provided by specialised professionals. They have no relevant commonalities with the opponent’s stockbroking, banking, financial and investment services, all included in Class 36. The mere fact that these services can be of interest to businesses is not sufficient for a finding of similarity. They have different natures and purposes, and they originate from different undertakings. Furthermore, they are neither complementary nor in competition. Therefore, all of the contested services in Class 45 are dissimilar to the opponent’s services in Class 36.

2. 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 target both the specialised business public and also the general public, which is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. However, since such services are specialised services that may have important financial consequences for their users, 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).

3. The signs

BBH	BBH SPORT
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the United Kingdom.

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).

When assessing the similarity of the signs, an analysis of whether the coinciding /differing components are descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak is carried out to assess the extent to which these coinciding components have a lesser or greater capacity to indicate commercial origin. It may be more difficult to establish that the public may be confused about origin due to similarities that pertain solely to non-distinctive elements. Conversely, a difference in an element which has no or limited distinctive character is of little weight in the comparison of the signs.

The signs coincide in the verbal element ‘BBH’, which has no meaning for the relevant public, and is therefore distinctive.

The contested sign also contains the verbal element ‘SPORT’, which refers to ‘an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Since it is common for sporting events to be used as fundraising events or to be sponsored, this element has a low level of distinctiveness for the following contested services: fund raising services; charitable fundraising services; sponsorship services; administration, information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid. It has a normal level of distinctiveness for financial trust management; administration, information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid.

Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the verbal element ‘BBH’, which is the only element of the earlier right and the most distinctive of the contested sign for part of the relevant services. They differ in the verbal element ‘SPORT’ of the contested sign, which is weak for part of the contested services.

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.

Therefore, the signs are similar at least to an average degree, taking into account the varying degree of distinctiveness of the differing element for the different services concerned.

Conceptually, although the public in the relevant territory will perceive the meaning of the verbal element ‘SPORT’ of the contested sign as explained above, the other sign has no meaning in that territory. Since one of the signs will not be associated with any meaning, the signs are not conceptually similar.

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

4. 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 claimed that the earlier trade mark enjoys enhanced distinctiveness but did not file any evidence in order to prove such a claim.

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.

5. 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).

The goods and services are partly identical and partly dissimilar. The signs are visually and aurally similar to at least an average degree, and not conceptually similar. The coinciding element ‘BBH’ plays an independent distinctive role in both signs.

Account is taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks, but must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (22/06/1999, C‑342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 26).

Even consumers who pay a high degree of attention need to rely on their imperfect recollection of trade marks (21/11/2013, T‑443/12, ancotel, EU:T:2013:605, § 54).

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.

Indeed, 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).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, even considering the heightened degree of attention on the part of the public, and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s United Kingdom trade mark registration.

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the services found to be identical to those of the earlier trade mark.

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

The opponent has also based its opposition on the following earlier trade marks:

• European Union trade mark registration No 730 119 for the word mark ‘BBH & CO’ registered for financial services in Class 36;

• United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 349 394 for the word mark ‘BBH & CO’ registered for the same services in Class 36 as the UK trade mark examined.

The other earlier rights invoked by the opponent cover the same scope of services. Therefore, the outcome cannot be different with respect to goods and services for which the opposition has already been rejected; no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to those goods and services.

REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in proceedings before it the Office will examine the facts of its own motion; however, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the Office will be restricted in this examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.

It follows that the Office cannot take into account any alleged rights for which the opponent does not submit appropriate evidence.

According to Rule 19(1) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), the Office will give the opposing party the opportunity to present the facts, evidence and arguments in support of its opposition or to complete any facts, evidence or arguments that have already been submitted together with the notice of opposition, within a time limit specified by the Office.

According to Rule 19(2)(c) EUTMIR (in the version in force at the time of commencement of the adversarial part), when the opposition is based on a mark with reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR, the opposing party must provide evidence showing, inter alia, that the mark has a reputation, as well as evidence or arguments showing that use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

In the present case, the notice of opposition was not accompanied by any evidence of the alleged reputation of the earlier trade marks.

On 02/10/2015 the opponent was given two months, commencing after the end of the cooling-off period (which was extended by 22 months on the same date), to submit the abovementioned material. This time limit expired on 10/10/2017.

The opponent did not submit any evidence concerning the reputation of the trade marks on which the opposition is based.

Given that one of the necessary requirements of Article 8(5) EUTMR is not met, the opposition must be rejected as unfounded insofar as these grounds are concerned.

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

Catherine MEDINA

Helen Louise MOSBACK

Begoña URIARTE VALIENTE

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.