OPPOSITION No B 2 679 812

Fundacion Sepi, C/ Quintana, 2, 3ª planta, 28008 Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by Javier Ungría López, Avda. Ramón y Cajal, 78, 28043 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

FastFingers Oy, Tietotie 2, 90460 Oulunsalo, Finland (applicant), represented by Ipriq Ltd, Rahtitie 3 Helsinki International Airport, 01530 Vantaa, Finland (professional representative).

On 09/03/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 679 812 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 9: Computer programs and databases, in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; computers, data processing equipment and accessories (electrical and mechanical); communications apparatus and instruments; video recordings; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; data storage devices; batteries, battery chargers; headphones; 3D spectacles; 3D scanners; parts, components and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.

Class 38: Sending, receiving and transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; communication services provided electronically; providing access to electronic communications networks and electronic databases; interactive broadcasting and communications services; providing discussion spaces and groups, chat lines and online bulletin boards on the internet and other data networks; information, analysis, consulting, advice and support relating to any of the foregoing; rental of communications systems.

Class 42: Computer software development, programming, implementation, maintenance and hiring, cloud services and cloud computing, web hosting and software as a service (SaaS), in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; design, development, security, protection and restoration services relating to computers and IT issues; data copying, conversion and encoding; analysis, appraisal, research, data, reporting, planning, advice, consulting, support and information services relating to any of the foregoing; scientific and technological information, consulting, research, analysis and advice; quality control; designing, implementing and maintaining communication systems; designing, managing and monitoring online forums for discussion; design, implementation, maintenance and hiring of reporting systems; engineering services; natural science services; product research, design and development.

2. European Union trade mark application No 14 492 011 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

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 14 492 011. The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 594 717. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(a) and (b) 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.

1. The goods and services

The goods and services on which the opposition is based 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; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus.

Class 16: Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; publications (newspapers, magazines and books); bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); printers’ type; printing blocks; plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes).

Class 41: Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.

Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services with medical purpose; design and development of computer hardware and software; legal services, services rendered by individuals or groups of people in connection with theoretical or practical aspects of complex sectors of activities; such services being rendered by representatives of professions such as: chemists, physicists, engineers, computer experts, services of engineers who are entrusted with evaluations, estimates, research and reports in the fields of science and technology.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Computer programs and databases, in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; computers, data processing equipment and accessories (electrical and mechanical); communications apparatus and instruments; video recordings; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; data storage devices; batteries, battery chargers; headphones; 3d spectacles; 3d scanners; parts, components and accessories for all the aforesaid goods.

Class 25: Shirts; tee-shirts; blousons; underwear; shorts; coats; beachwear; swimwear; sportswear and clothing; leisurewear; rainwear; suits of leather; clothing; footwear; insoles and coverings for footwear; booties; thongs; shoe straps; knitted caps; headgear for sport (except helmets); headgear; ear-muffs; gloves [clothing]; fingerless gloves; socks; tights; slipovers [clothing]; shawls and headscarves; pocket squares; headbands [clothing]; cravats; bowties; belts [clothing]; articles of clothing made of leather; protective overalls and shoes; ski boot bags.

Class 38: Sending, receiving and transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; communication services provided electronically; providing access to electronic communications networks and electronic databases; interactive broadcasting and communications services; providing discussion spaces and groups, chat lines and online bulletin boards on the internet and other data networks; information, analysis, consulting, advice and support relating to any of the foregoing; rental of communications systems.

Class 42: Computer software development, programming, implementation, maintenance and hiring, cloud services and cloud computing, web hosting and software as a service (SaaS), in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; design, development, security, protection and restoration services relating to computers and it issues; data copying, conversion and encoding; analysis, appraisal, research, data, reporting, planning, advice, consulting, support and information services relating to any of the foregoing; scientific and technological information, consulting, research, analysis and advice; quality control; designing, implementing and maintaining communication systems; designing, managing and monitoring online forums for discussion; design, implementation, maintenance and hiring of reporting systems; engineering services; natural science services; product research, design and development.

An interpretation of the wording of the list of goods and services is required to determine the scope of protection of these goods and services.

The term ‘in particular’, used in the applicant’s list of goods and services, indicates that the specific goods and services are only examples of items included in the category and that protection is not restricted to them. In other words, it introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples (see the judgment of 09/04/2003, T‑224/01, Nu‑Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 28(7) EUTMR, goods or services shall not be regarded as being similar or dissimilar to 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

Computers; data processing equipment; magnetic data carriers, recording discs are identically contained in both lists of goods.

The contested accessories (electrical and mechanical) of data processing equipment and computers may be dependent on the opponent’s data processing equipment in order to function; therefore, these goods can be complementary. These goods may target the same relevant public, they can be sold through the same distribution channels and they can be produced by the same companies. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested batteries, battery chargers are appliances or devices for transforming and/or accumulating electricity and energy. These goods are included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus and instruments for transforming and accumulating electricity. These goods are, therefore, identical.

The contested headphones and 3D scanners are devices that can reproduce sound and images. Therefore, they are included in the broad category of the opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images and are identical to the opponent’s goods.

The contested 3D spectacles can, for example, be 3D glasses that are used to watch films in cinemas. Such goods are included in the broad category of the opponent’s optical apparatus and instruments and they are, therefore, identical to the opponent’s goods.

The contested data storage devices include various memory devices, for example discs for data storage. The contested goods are identical to the opponent’s magnetic data carriers, which are carriers that use magnetic technology to operate goods such as floppy discs and have the same purpose as the contested data storage devices (i.e. to store data). The contested data storage devices are therefore in competition with the opponent’s goods. Furthermore, these goods target the same relevant public, they can be distributed through the same distribution channels and they can be produced by the same companies.

The contested video recordings are media with recorded content (e.g. DVDs). Such goods have the same purpose as, and can be in competition with, the opponent’s printed matter in Class 16, for example books (novels) about the same story or topic as in the contested goods. Moreover, these goods target the same relevant public and they are provided by the same producers. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested computer programs, in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages, which are, in essence, computer programs of all kinds, are similar to the opponent’s data processing equipment and computers. These goods can be complementary, since a computer program needs devices such as the opponent’s goods, which process data, in order to function. Furthermore, these goods target the same relevant public, are sold in the same stores and can be produced by the same companies.

The contested databases are similar to the opponent’s design and development of computer software and hardware in Class 42, since the contested goods are designed and developed by the same companies that offer the opponent’s services. Furthermore, such goods and services target the same relevant public.

The contested communications apparatus and instruments are identical to the opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, since the opponent’s broad category includes goods such as smartphones, which are appliances used for communication.

The mere fact that a certain product can be composed of several components does not establish automatic similarity between the finished product and its parts (27/10/2005, T‑336/03, Mobilix, EU:T:2005:379, § 61). Nevertheless, some of the contested parts, components and accessories for all the aforesaid goods can be integral parts of the contested (and finished) goods (e.g. computers) and can be necessary for the finished goods to function (e.g. components such as printed circuit boards). Moreover, such accessories can typically be a mouse or keyboard (used in combination with computers) or phone covers. Therefore, the Opposition Division finds that parts, components and accessories of computer programs and databases, in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; computers, data processing equipment and accessories (electrical and mechanical); communications apparatus and instruments; video recordings; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; data storage devices; batteries, battery chargers; headphones; 3D spectacles; 3D scanners are similar to the finished goods under the opponent’s mark in Class 9, namely optical apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for transforming or accumulating electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; data processing equipment and computers. The contested parts, components and accessories may be complementary to the abovementioned goods of the opponent and they may target the same relevant public. Furthermore, such goods can be produced by the same companies and can be sold in the same stores (e.g. a mouse and keyboard can be produced by the same companies that produce computers and will be sold in the same stores as computers).

Contested goods in Class 25

The contested shirts; tee-shirts; blousons; underwear; shorts; coats; beachwear; swimwear; sportswear and clothing; leisurewear; rainwear; suits of leather; clothing; footwear; insoles and coverings for footwear; booties; thongs; shoe straps; knitted caps; headgear for sport (except helmets); headgear; ear-muffs; gloves [clothing]; fingerless gloves; socks; tights; slipovers [clothing]; shawls and headscarves; pocket squares; headbands [clothing]; cravats; bowties; belts [clothing]; articles of clothing made of leather; protective overalls and shoes; ski boot bags are products whose main purpose and function is to be worn by human beings to protect them against different types of weather.

These goods have a completely different nature, purpose and method of use from, for example, the opponent’s goods in Class 9, which include, inter alia, various electronic devices covered by the broad categories of computers and apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, and the opponent’s goods in Class 16, which are goods made of paper, cardboard and various printed matter. The contested goods are, furthermore, not complementary to or in competition with the opponent’s goods in Classes 9 and 16 and they target different relevant publics. Finally, such goods are not sold through the same distribution channels and are not produced by the same companies. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Moreover, the contested goods differ in their nature, purpose and method of use from the opponent’s services in Class 41, that is, education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities, and services such as design and development of computer hardware and software in Class 42. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, these services serve completely different purposes from the contested goods and their method of use is different. Such goods and services are, furthermore, not complementary or in competition, they target different relevant publics and they are manufactured and/or provided by different undertakings. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 38

The opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images is used to communicate audio or video information over a distance via radio waves, optical signals, etc., or along a transmission line.

The opponent’s computers are devices that compute, in particular programmable electronic machines that perform high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assemble, store, correlate or otherwise process information.

The contested telecommunication services allow people to communicate with one another by remote means.

Consumers use apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, computers when they want to communicate with others.

There is a link between these goods in Class 9 and the contested services in Class 38. They are similar because they are complementary, and although their nature is different, their purposes and distribution channels are the same. Therefore, the contested sending, receiving and transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; communication services provided electronically; interactive broadcasting and communications services, which are various telecommunication services, are similar to the opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images and computers in Class 9.

The contested providing access to electronic communications networks and electronic databases; providing discussion spaces and groups, chat lines and online bulletin boards on the internet and other data networks are similar to the opponent’s design and development of computer software in Class 42. The contested services are needed (technically) to operate websites and communications networks (or applications) created by the opponent’s services in Class 42. These services also coincide in their purpose and distribution channels and are provided by the same companies. Therefore, they may be complementary and may target the same relevant public.

The contested information, analysis, consulting, advice and support of the applicant’s sending, receiving and transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; communication services provided electronically; providing access to electronic communications networks and electronic databases; interactive broadcasting and communications services; providing discussion spaces and groups, chat lines and online bulletin boards on the internet and other data networks refer to the provision of advice and materials about, in this case, various telecommunication services. Such services can be provided by telecommunication operators; for example, when customers have problems with their internet connection or telephone line, they call the same companies (or outlet stores) from which the internet and telephone subscriptions were purchased. Since the opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images include devices in Class 9 for which telecommunication is needed, the Opposition Division finds the applicant’s services to be similar to a low degree to the opponent’s goods in Class 9, since such goods and services target the same relevant public.

The contested rental of communications systems is complementary to the opponent’s apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images and computers and data processing equipment in Class 9, since the opponent’s goods cover the devices (or the objects) of the contested rental services. These goods and services also target the same relevant public, coincide in their distribution channels and can be manufactured or provided by the same companies. Therefore, they are similar.

The contested services in Class 42

The contested computer software development, programming in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages are services related to the development, programming and implementation of computer software. These services are identical to the opponent’s design and development of computer software.

The contested web hosting is similar to the opponent’s development of computer software, as these services can coincide in their producers, relevant public and distribution channels.

The contested computer software implementation and maintenance are similar to the opponent’s design and development of computer software, since they might coincide in their producers and distribution channels and they may target the same relevant public.

The contested computer software hiring refers to the rental of computer software. These services might be provided by the same companies that provide the opponent’s design and development of computer software and such services might target the same relevant public. Therefore, they are similar to a low degree.

The contested cloud services and cloud computing; software as a service (SaaS), design, development, security, protection and restoration services relating to computers and IT issues; data copying, conversion and encoding; designing, implementing and maintaining communication systems; designing, managing and monitoring online forums for discussion; design, implementation, maintenance and hiring of reporting systems cover, inter alia, the design and development of various types of computer hardware and software or cloud computing (i.e. the delivery of hosted services over the internet). Such services are, therefore, at least similar, if not identical, to the opponent’s design and development of computer hardware and software, since these services tend to be offered by the same undertakings active in the IT sector, they may coincide in their nature and purpose and they may target the same relevant public.

The contested analysis, appraisal, research, data, reporting, planning services relating to any of the foregoing [computer software development, programming, implementation, maintenance and hiring, cloud services and cloud computing, web hosting and software as a service (SaaS), in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; design, development, security, protection and restoration services relating to computers and IT issues; data copying, conversion and encoding] are similar to the opponent’s design and development of computer hardware and software, since such services might be complementary, and, although their nature is different, their purposes and distribution channels are the same.

The contested advice, consulting, support and information services relating to any of the foregoing [computer software development, programming, implementation, maintenance and hiring, cloud services and cloud computing, web hosting and software as a service (SaaS), in particular relating to sending, receiving or transmitting signals, text, sound, images, graphics, videos and messages; design, development, security, protection and restoration services relating to computers and it issues; data copying, conversion and encoding] refer to the provision of advice and materials about IT-related services. The purpose of the contested services is, therefore, to provide users with materials about services covered by the opponent’s mark, namely the design and development of computer hardware and software. The contested services are usually offered by the same companies as the opponent’s services and they target the same relevant public. They are, therefore, similar.

The contested natural science services; product research, design and development are synonymous with and identical to the opponent’s scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto.

The contested scientific and technological research and analysis are included in the broad category of the opponent’s scientific and technological services and research; they are, therefore, identical.

The contested scientific and technological information, consulting and advice refer to the provision of advice and materials about the opponent’s scientific and technological services and research. The purpose of the contested services is, therefore, to provide users with materials about services covered by the opponent’s mark. The contested services are usually offered by the same companies as the opponent’s services and they target the same relevant public. They are, therefore, similar.

The contested engineering services are included in the opponent’s scientific and technological services and are identical.

The contested quality control overlaps with the opponent’s industrial analysis and research services with medical purpose to the extent that the contested services relate to the medical field. Therefore, they are identical.

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 goods and services found to be identical or similar to various degrees are directed at the public at large as well as at a specialised public with specific knowledge and expertise within the field of IT. Bearing in mind that (at least some of) the goods and services are rather specialised, the degree of attention may vary from average to high, depending on, for example, the type or cost thereof.

3. The signs

	EESEE
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is 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 earlier mark is a figurative mark composed of the letters ‘Ese*’ in a blue, italic and highly stylised font, in which the upper stroke of the initial ‘E’ extends over the letters ‘se’. The element on the far right of the sign will be perceived by the majority of the relevant public as an upper case letter ‘E’, since it appears as a mirror image replica of the first letter ‘E’ of the sign (whereby the bottom, rather than the top, stroke of the letter ‘E’ extends below, rather than above, the letters ‘se’). The two extended lines lead to the sign being perceived as a verbal element placed within a trapezoidal shape. The word element ‘EseE’ has no meaning in Spanish and will be perceived as a distinctive and fanciful word by the relevant public.

The contested sign is the word mark ‘EESEE’, which has no meaning in Spanish and will be perceived as a fanciful (and distinctive) word. In the case of word marks, the word as such is protected and not its written form. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the word mark is depicted in upper case or in lower case letters, or in a combination thereof.

Conceptually, since neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory, a conceptual comparison is not possible, and the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘E*SEE’ and differ in the additional letter ‘E’ in the second position of the contested sign and in the highly stylised graphical depiction of the earlier mark (e.g. the two mirrored letters ‘E’ and the trapezoid shape). Although the earlier mark’s stylised font creates noteworthy visual differences between the signs, as a whole the signs have four out of the five letters of the contested word mark in common. Therefore, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the earlier mark will be pronounced in Spanish in two syllables, /es/ /ee/, and the contested sign will also be pronounced in two syllables, /ees/ /ee/. The only difference in the pronunciation of the signs is that the contested sign’s first syllable may be pronounced with a slightly longer vowel (i.e. as a double ‘E’). This difference is not very noticeable when the signs are pronounced as a whole. Moreover, the signs’ second syllables will be pronounced identically. Therefore, the signs are aurally highly similar.

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

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

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

According to settled case-law, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29). The likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 16).

According to the same line of case-law, 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). In addition, the global assessment of the risk of confusion entails a certain degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and the similarity of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (23/10/2002, T‑6/01, Matratzen, EU:T:2002:261, § 25).

In this case, the goods and services are identical and similar to various degrees. The signs differ in the graphical depiction of the earlier mark and in the additional letter ‘E’ of the contested sign. However, the signs are visually similar to an average degree overall and are highly similar when pronounced in Spanish. Moreover, a conceptual comparison of the signs is not possible, since neither sign has a meaning in Spanish. Therefore, the consumers must rely on their visual and aural perception of the conflicting signs when comparing them. 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).

Consequently, the public in the relevant territory is likely to think that the goods and services in question, if they bear the marks at issue, come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings. Moreover, some of the relevant services in Classes 38 and 42 are similar only to a low degree. The Opposition Division makes reference in this regard to the principle of interdependence (according to which a higher degree of similarity between the signs outweighs a lower degree of similarity between the goods or services and vice versa).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant Spanish-speaking part of the public and, therefore, the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of Spanish trade mark registration No 259 471.

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 those of the earlier trade mark.

The rest of the contested goods 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 cannot be successful.

For the sake of completeness, it must be mentioned that the opposition must also fail insofar as based on grounds under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR and directed against the remaining goods because the signs and/or the goods are obviously not identical.

COSTS

According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 85(2) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division shall decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the opposition is successful only for part 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

Adriana VAN ROODEN

Christian RUUD

Benoit VLEMINCQ

According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 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 of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.