OPPOSITION No B 2 556 374

El Corte Ingles, S.A., Hermosilla, 112, 28009 Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by J.M. Toro, S.L.P., Viriato, 56 - 1º izda, 28010 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Olivier Lepeu, Immeuble Les Oliviers, 17 avenue du Clos, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet, France (applicant).

On 28/02/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 556 374 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 9: For all goods in this class except for dungarees, costumes, gloves or diving masks; clothing for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire; protection devices for personal use against accidents.

Class 35: Advertising; direct mail advertising; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; web site traffic optimisation; exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; on-line advertising on a computer network; rental of advertising time on communication media; publication of publicity texts; rental of advertising space; dissemination of advertising matter; public relations services; business management; business management and organization consultancy; business management for freelance service providers.

Class 42: Design and development of computer hardware and software; design, installation, maintenance, updating and rental of computer software; computer programming; computer system analysis; computer system design; consultancy in the design and development of computer hardware; digitization of documents; software as a service (SaaS); cloud computing; information technology [IT] consultancy; server hosting; electronic data storage.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 015 622 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining goods and services.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 14 015 622 for the word mark “Greatcoast.”, namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42. The opposition is based on, inter alia, Spanish trade mark registrations No 2 223 972, No 2 223 942 and No 1 945 733, all for the figurative mark , and European Union trade mark registration (EUTM) No 8 548 951 for the figurative mark . The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b)EUTMR.

SUBSTANTIATION OF EARLIER SPANISH TRADEMARK REGISTRATION No 2 223 972

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).

On 02/10/2018 and on 10/12/2018 the opponent was given two months to submit an updated registration certificate for the earlier Spanish trade mark registration No 2 223 972. This time limit expired on 15/02/2019.

The opponent did not submit any updated registration certificate concerning the substantiation of this earlier trade mark.

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 this earlier mark.

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 European Union trade mark registration (EUTM) No 8 548 951 and Spanish trade mark registration No 1 945 733.

a) The goods and services

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

EUTM No 8 548 951:

Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus.

Spanish trade mark registration No 1 945 733

Class 35: Advertising services.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; Apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; Magnetic data carriers, recording discs, optical discs; Compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media; Mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; Cash registers; Calculators; Data processing equipment, computers; Tablet computers, Smartphones, Electronic book readers; Game software; Computer software (recorded programs); Peripherals adapted for use with computers; Batteries, electric; Detectors; Electric wires; Relays, electric; Dungarees, costumes, gloves or diving masks; Clothing for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire; Protection devices for personal use against accidents; Fire-extinguishing apparatus; Spectacles (optics); 3D spectacles; Opticians' goods; Spectacle cases; Diagnostic apparatus, not for medical purposes; Smart cards; Computer carrying cases.

Class 35: Advertising; Business management; Business administration; Office functions; Direct mail advertising; Arranging newspaper subscriptions (for others); Arranging subscriptions to telecommunications services for others; Presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; Business management and organization consultancy; Accounting; Document reproduction; Employment agencies; Business management for freelance service providers; Computerised file management; Web site traffic optimisation; Exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; On-line advertising on a computer network; Rental of advertising time on communication media; Publication of publicity texts; Rental of advertising space; Dissemination of advertising matter; Public relations services; Company auditing (business analysis); Business brokerage (concierge services).

Class 42: Engineering evaluations and appraisals in the fields of science and technology; Scientific and technical research; Design and development of computer hardware and software; Research and development for others; Project studies (Technical -); Architecture; Design of interior decor; Design, installation, maintenance, updating and rental of computer software; Computer programming; Computer system analysis; Computer system design; Consultancy in the design and development of computer hardware; Digitization of documents; Software as a service (SaaS); Cloud computing; Information technology [IT] consultancy; Server hosting; Testing [inspection] of vehicles for roadworthiness; Graphic art design; Styling (industrial design); Authenticating works of art; Energy auditing; Electronic data storage.

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

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

Contested goods in Class 9

The contested scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers; calculators; data processing equipment, computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus are identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).

The contested tablet computers are included in the broad category of the opponent’s computers. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested electronic book readers are audio and visual devices. Therefore, they are included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus for reproduction of images. Consequently, they are identical.

The contested optical discs; compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s recording discs. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested smartphones are highly similar to computers as they usually coincide in producers, relevant public, distribution channels and method of use. Furthermore, they are in competition.

The contested game software; computer software (recorded programs) peripherals adapted for use with computers; computer carrying cases are similar to the opponent’s computers as they usually coincide in producer, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested electric wires are used to conduct electricity and are usually made of aluminium or copper. The opponent’s apparatus for conducting electricity are made up of different connecting electric cables and can also be made of aluminium or copper. Therefore, these goods are similar since they can coincide in their nature, producers and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested batteries, electric are included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus for accumulating electricity. The contested detectors are included in the broad category of the opponent’s measuring apparatus and instruments. The contested spectacles (optics); 3D spectacles; opticians' goods are included in the broad category of the opponent’s optical apparatus and instruments. The contested diagnostic apparatus, not for medical purposes are included in the broad category of the opponent’s checking (supervision) apparatus and instruments. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested spectacle cases are similar to the opponent’s optical apparatus and instruments as they usually coincide in producer, relevant public and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested smart cards contain an integrated circuit. Therefore, they are similar to the opponent’s computers as they usually coincide in producers and distribution channels. Furthermore, they are complementary.

The contested relays, electric are included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus and instruments for controlling electricity. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested dungarees, costumes, gloves or diving masks; Clothing for protection against accidents, irradiation and fire; protection devices for personal use against accidents are protective equipment and have a different nature and method of use from those of the opponent’s fire extinguishers. The protective equipment is to be worn while fire extinguishing apparatus are to be used to put out fires The goods are also not complementary: It does not appear plausible that the contested protective clothing is needed or useful when using a fire extinguisher. It remains that protective equipment has a different nature, public and intended purpose than fire extinguishing apparatus and thereby these goods are dissimilar (see also decision of 02/08/2017, R 2064/2016-4 and R 2065/2016-4, G PRO / GoPro, § 26). These goods differ also in all the above mention criteria to the other goods and services of the opponent.

Contested services in Class 35

The opponent’s advertising services consist of providing others with assistance in the sale of their goods and services by promoting their launch and/or sale, or of reinforcing a client’s position in the market and acquiring competitive advantage through publicity. Many different means and products can be used to fulfil this objective. These services are provided by specialist companies, which study their client’s needs, provide all the necessary information and advice for marketing the client’s goods and services, and create a personalised strategy for advertising them through newspapers, websites, videos, the internet, etc.

The contested advertising; direct mail advertising; on-line advertising on a computer network; rental of advertising time on communication media; rental of advertising space; publication of publicity texts; dissemination of advertising matter; public relations services; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes are identically mentioned in both lists, included in the broad category of or overlap with the opponent’s advertising services. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes are similar to the opponent’s advertising services as they have the same purpose. They usually coincide in producers and relevant public.

The contested web site traffic optimisation are those which consist of the process of maximizing the number of visitors to a particular website by ensuring that the site appears high on the list of results returned by a search engine. All these contested services are involved in the process of improving the visibility of a website in a search. These services are similar to the opponent’s advertising services as they are intended for the same public and may be offered by the same companies through the same distribution channels.

The contested business management services are usually rendered by specialist companies such as business consultants. These companies gather information and provide tools and expertise to enable their customers to carry out their business or provide businesses with the necessary support to acquire, develop and expand market share. The services include activities such as business research and assessments, cost and price analyses, organisational consultancy and any consultancy, advisory and assistance activity that may be useful in the management of a business, such as advice on how to efficiently allocate financial and human resources, improve productivity, increase market share, deal with competitors, reduce tax bills, develop new products, communicate with the public, market products, research consumer trends, launch new products, create a corporate identity, etc.

When comparing business management with advertising, advertising is an essential tool in business management because it makes the business itself known in the market. As stated above, the purpose of advertising services is to ‘reinforce a client’s position in the market’ and the purpose of business management services is to help a business ‘acquire, develop and expand market share’. There is no clear-cut difference between the two. A professional who offers advice on how to run a business efficiently may reasonably include advertising strategies in his or her advice because there is little doubt that advertising/marketing plays an essential role in business management. Furthermore, business consultants may offer advertising (and marketing) consultancy as part of their services and the relevant public may thus believe that these two services have the same professional origin. Therefore, they are similar to a low degree.

Since the contested business management and organization consultancy; business management for freelance service providers falls under the category of business management these contested services are also similar to a low degree.

The remaining contested services in Class 35, company auditing (business analysis); business brokerage (concierge services); business administration; office functions; arranging newspaper subscriptions (for others); arranging subscriptions to telecommunications services for others; accounting; document reproduction; employment agencies; computerised file management are either business administration or office function services. These services are dissimilar to the opponent’s advertising services, since a professional who helps with the execution of business decisions or the performance of business operations will not offer advertising strategies. They differ also in their purpose and distribution channels. Furthermore, the remaining contested services are also dissimilar to all the opponent’s goods in Class 9. Apart from being different in their providers, distribution channels and purpose, they differ also in their nature and are not complementary.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested computer programming is the writing of a computer program, which is a set of coded instructions to enable a machine, especially a computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations.

The opponent’s computers are devices that compute, especially programmable electronic machines that perform high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assemble, store, correlate or otherwise process information. Computers need programs to operate.

Therefore, programming services are closely linked to computers. This is because manufacturers of computers will also commonly provide computer- and/or software-related services (as a means of keeping the system updated, for example).

Although the nature of the goods and services is not the same, both the relevant public and the usual producers/providers of the goods and services coincide. Furthermore, these goods and services are complementary. Therefore, they are considered similar. For the same reasoning the contested design and development of computer software; information technology [IT] consultancy are similar to the opponent’s computers.

The contested design and development of computer hardware; computer system analysis; computer system design; consultancy in the design and development of computer hardware; digitization of documents; software as a service (SaaS); cloud computing; server hosting; electronic data storage and the opponent’s computers coincide in their public and distribution channels and are complementary. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested design, installation, maintenance, updating and rental of computer software and the opponent’s computers coincide in their public and producers and are complementary. Therefore, they are similar.

However, the remaining contested services, engineering evaluations and appraisals in the fields of science and technology; scientific and technical research; research and development for others; project studies (technical -); architecture; design of interior decor; testing [inspection] of vehicles for roadworthiness; graphic art design; styling (industrial design); authenticating works of art; energy auditing are all dissimilar the earlier goods and services since they differ in their nature, purpose, providers/manufacturers and distribution channels.

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 and services found to be identical or similar to different degrees are directed at the public at large and at a professional public.

The degree of attention may vary from average to high, depending on the price or specialisation of the goods and services.

c) The signs

(1) EUTM No 8 548 951: (2) Spanish trade mark registration No 1 945 733:	Greatcoast.
Earlier trade marks	Contested sign

The relevant territory is for earlier trade mark (1) the European Union and for earlier mark (2) Spain.

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

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

The common element ‘coast’ is not meaningful in certain territories, for example in those countries where English is not understood and is, therefore, distinctive. The Opposition Division finds it useful to recall that a coincidence in a distinctive element and/or a difference in an element with no or little distinctiveness tends to increase the degree of similarity between the signs. Furthermore, earlier mark (2) covers only the Spanish-speaking public in Spain. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the Spanish-speaking part of the public, namely Spain.

The element ‘essentials’ of the earlier mark (1) will be understood as the equivalent in Spanish language for ‘esencial’, namely something fundamental or indispensable or absolutely necessary, basic. Therefore, this element is non-distinctive in relation to the goods and services (see also refusal of EUTMA 12 032 561).

The pink circle of earlier mark (1) is a figurative element of a purely decorative nature and, therefore, also non-distinctive. The used colours are also commonly used in advertising and, therefore, they are non-distinctive.

The English expression formed by the preposition ‘by’ followed by a personal or company name is commonly used on a worldwide basis in the most disparate trade sectors to indicate the commercial origin of goods and services (11/11/2009, T-162/08, Green by missako, EU:T:2009:432, § 39, 50-51; 04/02/2015, T-372/12, APRO, EU:T:2015:70, § 38; 15/09/2016, T-358/15, Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci, EU:T:2016:490, § 43-45). In the earlier mark (1), the expression ‘by’ will therefore be understood as referring to goods and services coming from ‘Green Coast’. Therefore, ‘by’ is non-distinctive.

The word ‘green’ of the earlier marks will be understood by the public with its English meaning indicating a colour as it is a basic English word. As it can describe the goods and services as environmental friendly it is non-distinctive for the earlier goods and at most weak distinctive for advertising services.

When signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T‑312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37).

The element ‘essentials’ in the earlier mark (1) is the dominant element as it is the most eye-catching. However, since it is non-distinctive the consumer will focus on ‘Green Coast’ since it is the only distinctive verbal element of the mark and still legible.

The stylisation of the letters in earlier mark (2) is commonly used in advertising and, therefore, non-distinctive.

As regards the contested sign, the verbal element ‘Greatcoast’ has no meaning. However, the punctuation mark in form of a dot is non-distinctive (see also decision of 27/11/2019, R 1718/2019-1, Much more than a Window. (fig), § 37). The contested sign is a word mark. This means that not any particular figurative element or appearance was claimed.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘gre’ and ‘coast’. However, they differ in the additional letters ‘en’ of the earlier marks and of the letters ‘at’ of the contested sign. In addition, they differ in the figurative element, colours and additional verbal elements of the earlier mark (1) and the stylisation of the letters in earlier mark (2) which are, however, non-distinctive and the non-distinctive punctuation mark of the contested sign. Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the in the sound of the letters ‛gre‑coast’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the in the sound of the letters ‛en’ of the earlier marks as well in the sound of the non-distinctive letters ‘essentials’ and ‘by’ of earlier mark (1) and in the sound of the letters ‘at’ of the contested sign. The punctuation mark will probably not be pronounced.

Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning as a whole. Although the elements ‘essentials by’ of earlier mark (1) and ‘green’ of both earlier marks will evoke a concept, they cannot indicate the commercial origin as these elements are non-distinctive. The attention of the relevant public will be attracted by the additional fanciful verbal element, which has no meaning. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, 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 mark

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

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

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier marks will rest on their distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade marks as a whole have no meaning for any of the goods and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier marks must be seen as normal, despite the presence of some non‑distinctive elements in the marks, as stated above in section c) of this decision.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

Likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be assessed globally, and that global assessment implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and in particular similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between these goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the signs, and vice versa (29.9.1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

The earlier trade marks enjoy an average degree of inherent distinctive character. The signs are visually and aurally similar to an average degree. The differences between the signs, especially with regard to earlier mark (1) are limited mostly to non-distinctive elements. The respective signs’ stylisation and graphic elements are not of such nature so as to significantly catch the consumer’s attention when selecting the goods and services at issue. The signs’ distinctive elements coincide in their beginnings and endings.

The goods are partly identical, partly highly similar, partly similar and partly dissimilar. The level of attention varies between average and high. The contested services are partly identical, partly similar to a low degree and partly dissimilar.

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).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, with regard to the earlier EUTM with regard to the Spanish-speaking part of the public and therefore the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registration (EUTM) No 8 548 951 and Spanish trade mark registration No 1 945 733. As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

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

The opposition is also successful insofar as the services that are similar to a low degree are concerned due to the average degree of visual and aural similarity of the signs.

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 Spanish trade mark registration No 2 223 942, registered for goods in Class 9. Since this mark is identical to the earlier Spanish mark that has been analysed above and covers a narrower scope of goods, the outcome cannot be different with respect to goods and services for which the opposition has already been rejected. Therefore, no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to those goods and services.

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 goods and services, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Gonzalo BILBAO TEJADA

Martin EBERL

Claudia MARTINI

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.