OPPOSITION No B 2 741 786

Laboratorios Normon, S.A., Ronda de Valdecarrizo, 6, 28760 Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain (opponent), represented by Vadimark, S.L., Galería de Vallehermoso, 4 -1º, 28003 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Inpha Duemila Srl; Via Elettrochimica, 37, 23900, Lecco, Italy (applicant), represented by Perani & Partners Spa, Piazza Armando Diaz, 7, 20123 Milano, Italy (professional representative).

On 08/05/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 741 786 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2. European Union trade mark application No 15 338 619 is rejected in its entirety.

3. The applicant bears the costs, fixed at EUR 620.

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As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1431, subject to certain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. 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 all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 338 619, . The opposition is based on, inter alia, Spanish trade mark registration No 2 402 142, 'NORMON'. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8 (5) EUTMR.

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 Spanish trade mark registration No 2 402 142.

PROOF OF USE

In accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, if the applicant so requests, the opponent must furnish proof that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or, where applicable, the date of priority of the contested trade mark, the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the territories in which it is protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered and which the opponent cites as justification for its opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use. The earlier mark is subject to the use obligation if, at that date, it has been registered for at least five years.

The same provision states that, in the absence of such proof, the opposition will be rejected.

The applicant requested that the opponent submit proof of use of the trade mark on which the opposition is based, namely Spanish trade mark registration No 2 402 142 for the word mark 'NORMON' .

The date of filing of the contested application is 15/04/2016. The opponent was therefore required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based was put to genuine use in Spain from 15/04/2011 to 14/04/2016 inclusive.

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

Furthermore, the evidence must show use of the trade mark for the goods on which the opposition is based, namely the following:

Class 5: Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.

According to Article 10(3) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the evidence of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based.

On 05/01/2017, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the Office gave the opponent until 10/02/2017 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark and later extended the time limit until 10/05/2017. On 10/05/2017, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

Taking further into account the evidence already submitted within the time limit for the opponent to substantiate the earlier mark and submit further material, which expired on 04/12/2017, the evidence to be taken into account is the following:

• Certificate of sales of generic products "NORMON", issued by the company IMS HEALTH, S.A on October 17, 2014 and its translation into English. According to this document, IMS HEALTH, S.A. is the leading international and national company in marketing information for the health sector. IMS HEALTH, S.A. is a standard supplier of statistical data on sales of pharmaceutical products to a number of pharmaceutical companies representing a market share very close to 100%. The certificate provides sales and turnover figures and units sold under the ‘NORMON’ trade marks, between 2009 and 2014. The attached list shows several combined marks containing the earlier mark 'NORMON', inter alia, the marks ‘AMBROXOL NORMON’, ‘ATENOLOL NORMON’, ‘ANASTROZOL NORMON’, ‘TRAMADOL NORMON’ and ‘BROMAZEPAM NORMON’. According to this company, the information in the certificate was obtained from different databases, namely EMF2S, Otcem and PERCARE which are owned by IMS HEALTH.

• 2 decisions issued by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office on September 12, 2016 and November 2, 2016, and their translations into English, recognizing the notoriety of the term "NORMON".

• A list of Hospital export products and a list of products of retail, both showing many products under different trade marks (e.g. AClCLOVlR NORMON, ALLOPURINOL NORMON, AMlKAClN NORMON, etc. to which the earlier trade mark is added, "NORMON", both of February of 2013.

• 2 Catalogues:

• Normon 70th anniversary "Experience and Technology Committed to Healthcare" describing its history from 1937 to 2007;

• Normon 75th anniversary "Experience and Technology Committed to Healthcare" describing its history from 1937 to 2012. The documents contain promotional information about the company, for example regarding its history, quality, safety and reliability standards, certifications, regulatory affairs, technology, manufacturing lines and worldwide presence.

• 5 articles:

• "Foundation Reina Sofía and Laboratorios Normon donate 100.000 doses of drugs to Panama" of February 3, 2011 (source: www.noticiasmedicas.es), and its translation into English;

• "The President of the Community of Madrid visits Normon Laboratories on the occasion of the celebration of its 75th anniversary" of April 2, 2012 (source: www.pmfarma.com), and its translation into English;

• "Manolo Santana, protagonist of the new campaign of Normon Laboratories" of December 26, 2012 (source: www.periodicopublicidad.com), and its translation into English;

• "Normon consolidates its position as leader in the Hospital Market in Spain" and subtitled "Normon revalidates its position of company number 1 in units supplied in the Spanish Hospital Market, with more than 165 million units supplied in the period July 12-June 13 "of September 12, 2013 (source: www.pmfarma.com), and its translation into English;

• "Cinfa maintains its leadership in the sale of generic drugs" where Normon appears in third position in the generic sales ranking in Spain, of June 3, 2016, and its translation into English (source: www.elglobal.net).

• 5 invoices dated between the period June 8, 2011 and January 29, 2015 to Spanish customers (relevant territory), showing the sign , for goods which include CEFAZOLINA NORMON, CEFTRIAXONA NORMON, LlSINOPRlL NORMON. Some of the invoices include figures relating to the quantities sold.

• 5 authorizations granted by the AEMPS (Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products) to NORMON medicines between 2011 and 2015.The authorisations relate to goods such as CLORAZEPATO NORMON, GLICLAZIDA NORMON, DEXKETOPROFENO NORMON.

• 3 product catalogues NORMON showing the signs and pictures of packagings such as , , and

• Catalogue 'NORMOLACT' (January 2012) .

• Catalogue 'NORMOVITAL MELATONINA' (October 2012).

• Catalogue NORMON DENTAL dated 2016, the trademark NORMOBIOT appears on pages 16, 17 and 18 and throughout the catalogue appear several of the trademarks NORMON.

• 12 product packaging NORMON, most of them dated between 2011 and 2012 showing for instance the following signs:

		04/07/2012
		28/02/2012
		03/05/2011
		29/03/2011
		13/03/2012

• 17 invoices from Laboratorios Normon, S.A. to customers in Spain dated between April 25, 2011 and January 29, 2016, for goods such as OMEPRAZOL NORMON, AMLODIPINO NORMON.

• 11 invoices from Laboratorios Normon, S.A to customers in Germany dated between July 27, 2011 and February 25, 2016 for goods such as PANTOPRAZOL NORMON.

• 17 invoices from Laboratorios Normon, S.A to customers in Portugal dated between June 1, 2011 and February 24, 2016, for goods such as VANCOMICINA NORMON.

• 2 invoices from Laboratorios Normon, S.A to customers in Holland dated August 31, 2015, for goods such as EPINEFRINA NORMON.

• 3 product brochures NORMON, namely:

• Brochure NORMOLACT dated November, 2012, showing the sign

• Brochure ACETILCISTEINA NORMON dated August, 2016, showing the packaging
  

• Brochure SIMETICONA NORMON dated September, 2016, showing the packaging
  

• 4 NORMON product leaflets in Spanish which all show the sign

• Leaflet 'NORMOVITAL CIST' date of its last revision at the time of November 2012. Leaflet ‘NORMOVITAL MELATONINA’ date of its last revision, at the time, of September 2013.

• Leaflet ‘NORMOVITAL MEMORIA’ date of its last revision, at the time, of November 2012.

• Leaflet ‘NORMOVITAL VISION’ date of its last revision, at the time, of November 2013.

• 3 Vademecums NORMON 2012, 2013 and 2015; showing the sign .

The applicant argues that not all the items of evidence indicate genuine use in terms of time, place, extent, nature and use of the goods for which the earlier mark is registered.

The applicant’s argument is based on an individual assessment of each item of evidence regarding all the relevant factors. However, when assessing genuine use, the Opposition Division must consider the evidence in its entirety. Even if some relevant factors are lacking in some items of evidence, the combination of all the relevant factors in all the items of evidence may still indicate genuine use.

Time and place of use

The invoices, the articles, the catalogues and brochures or vademecum show that the place of use is Spain. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (Spanish), and some addresses in Spain. Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Most of the evidence is dated within the relevant period.

Extent of use

As regards the extent of use, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the nature of the relevant goods or services and the characteristics of the market concerned, the territorial extent of use, and its commercial volume, duration and frequency.

The assessment of genuine use entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. Likewise, the territorial scope of the use is only one of several factors to be taken into account, so that a limited territorial scope of use can be counteracted by a more significant volume or duration of use.

In the present case, it is true that the invoices do not provide the price per unit or the total price for the quantities sold but they do provide the quantities sold. In addition, the certificate of sales of generic products "NORMON", issued by the third company, IMS HEALTH, S.A, on October 17, 2014 provides sales and turnover figures and units sold under the ‘NORMON’ trade marks, between 2009 and 2014. This certificate refers inter alia to goods that are also specifically mentioned in the invoices. Therefore, these documents read in conjunction, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use.

Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that the opponent has provided sufficient indications concerning the extent of use of the earlier mark.

Nature of use: use as a trade mark and use as registered

In the context of Article 10(3) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(3) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the expression ‘nature of use’ includes evidence of use of the sign in accordance with its function, of use of the mark as registered, or of a variation thereof according to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) EUTMR, and of its use for the goods and services for which it is registered.

Although ‘NORMON’ appears in several documents as the name of the laboratory, it also appears, clearly, as a trade mark, for instance on the samples of the packaging of the goods, in the brochures and in the catalogues. In addition it appears alongside with the name of the specific goods in the invoices.

According to Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR, the following will also constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 1: use of the European Union trade mark in a form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor. When examining the use of an earlier registration for the purposes of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR, Article 18 may be applied by analogy to assess whether or not the use of the sign constitutes genuine use of the earlier mark as far as its nature is concerned.

In the present case, the element ‘NORMON’ is mostly used together with other indications such as the active ingredient of the medicine, the dosage, the form in which the medicine is made available, etc. It is also used in combination with a logo such as . Considering that most of these additional elements are descriptive indications that consumers will not perceive as indicators of origin, it is considered that their presence does not alter the distinctive character of the mark as registered. Regarding the use with the logo, 'NORMON' still appears as an individual element. In any event, it should be noted that use in combination with another mark or company name does not alter the mark’s distinctive character within the meaning of Article 15(a) CTMR (8.12.2005, T-29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, §§ 33, 34).

In view of the above, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows use of the sign as registered within the meaning of Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), EUTMR.

The Court of Justice has held that there is ‘genuine use’ of a mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services. Genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. Furthermore, the condition of genuine use of the mark requires that the mark, as protected in the relevant territory, be used publicly and outwardly (11/03/2003, C‑40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145 and 12/03/2003, T‑174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, although the evidence submitted by the opponent is not particularly exhaustive, it does reach the minimum level necessary to establish genuine use of the earlier trade mark during the relevant period in the relevant territory.

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for all the goods covered by the earlier trade mark.

According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, if the earlier trade mark has been used in relation to only some of the goods or services for which it is registered it will, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, be deemed to be registered in respect only of those goods or services.

In the present case, the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark at least for:

Class 5: Pharmaceutical products.

For the remaining goods, the evidence is either more circumstantial or clearly insufficient.

Therefore, and also for reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will only consider the pharmaceutical products in Class 5 in its further examination of the opposition.

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

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

Class 5: Pharmaceutical products.

The contested goods are the following:

Class 5: Dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; pharmaceuticals; veterinary preparations.

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 5

Pharmaceuticals are identically contained in both lists of goods (including synonyms).

The contested veterinary preparations are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s pharmaceutical products. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested dietary supplements and dietetic preparations and the opponent's pharmaceutical preparations are similar as they have the same purpose. They usually coincide in relevant public and distribution channels.

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 found to be identical and similar are directed both at the public at large and at business customers with specific professional knowledge or expertise, namely healthcare professionals (including doctors and pharmacists).

These goods are likely to receive a heightened degree of attention from the general public, given that they are health related. Indeed, it is apparent from case law that, as far as pharmaceutical preparations are concerned, the relevant public’s degree of attention is relatively high, whether or not the goods in question are issued on prescription (15/12/2010, T‑331/09, Tolposan, EU:T:2010:520, §§ 26 and 27).

In particular, medical professionals have a high degree of attention when prescribing or dispensing medicines. Non-professionals also show a higher than average degree of attention, even if the pharmaceuticals are sold without prescription, as these goods affect their health. This also applies to the goods found to be similar as these goods also affect health and the public, whether professional or not, and will also display a high degree of attention in relation to such goods.

3. The signs

NORMON
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).

Contrary to the applicant’s opinion, the earlier mark has no meaning for the relevant public. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details and in the earlier mark. There is nothing in the earlier mark that ushers the relevant public into looking for an element which suggests a concrete meaning or which resemble words known to it. Therefore, the earlier mark is distinctive to an average degree.

In the contested sign, the use of colours clearly allows the public to perceive two verbal elements, ‘NEURO’ and ‘NORM’. Contrary to the applicant’s view, the word ‘NEURO’ is weak in relation to all the contested goods. Indeed, this prefix is commonly used in the medical field to indicate a relationship with the specific neurological field. Therefore, the relevant public, whether or not professional, will establish, rightly or mistakenly, a relationship between the contested sign and this medical field and may perceive ‘NEURO’ as indicating a characteristic of the contested goods, namely that they are intended for treating disorders of a neurological kind. The element ‘NORM’ may be perceived as a prefix related to the word ‘normal’ in Spanish, which denotes normality, and may therefore be understood by part of the public, at least, as an indication of a characteristic of the contested goods, for instance that they are intended to help bring levels, whichever these may be, to normality in relation to neurological disorders. For the part of the public that does not associate ‘NORM’ with any meaning, it is distinctive to a normal degree.

The contested sign also contains a less distinctive figurative element of a purely decorative nature, namely a curved shape placed above the element ‘NORM’. Therefore, the verbal element taken as a whole, ‘NEURONORM’ is more distinctive than the figurative element. In any event, it is to be noted that 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).

While it is true that consumers generally tend to focus on the first element of a sign when being confronted with a trade mark, it must be stressed that this argument cannot hold in all cases and does not, in any event, cast doubt on the principle that the assessment of the similarity of marks must take account of the overall impression created by them, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

Visually, the signs coincide in the sequence of letter ‘NORM’ whereas they differ in the final letters ‘ON’ of the earlier mark and in the initial weak element ‘NEURO’ of the contested sign as well as in the purely decorative device and the remaining graphic elements, including the colours, of this sign. Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛NORM’, present identically in both. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the final letters ‘ON’ of the earlier mark and of the initial letters ‘NEURO’ of the contested sign, which, as seen above form a weak element. Therefore, the signs are similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, although the signs as a whole do not have any meaning for the public in the relevant territory, there is at least one element in the contested sign which will be associated with the meaning explained above. Since in any event the earlier mark 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.

According to the opponent, the earlier mark has been extensively used and enjoys an enhanced scope of protection. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the evidence filed by the opponent to prove this claim does not have to be assessed in the present case (see below in ‘Global assessment’).

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 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 (see Canon, § 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 certain interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trademarks 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 the present case, the contested goods are partly identical and partly similar and they target health professionals and the general public. The earlier mark is assumed to be distinctive to a normal degree and its initial letters ‘NORM’ form the second verbal element in the contested sign which is the more distinctive word for part of the relevant public at least. The signs differ visually and aurally essentially in the initial element ‘NEURO’ of the contested sign which, as seen above, is weak. 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 configured in a different way for those goods that are intended for treating neurological disorders (see 23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

In view of the foregoing, it is likely that a significant part of the relevant consumers associate the signs, especially bearing in mind the principle of imperfect recollection. Indeed, 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, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

Therefore, the opposition is well founded on the basis of the opponent’s Spanish trade mark registration No 2 402 142. It follows that the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

Since the opposition is successful on the basis of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is no need to assess the enhanced degree of distinctiveness of the opposing mark due to its extensive use or reputation as claimed by the opponent. The result would be the same even if the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced degree of distinctiveness.

As the Spanish trade mark registration No 2 402 142 leads to the success of the opposition and to the rejection of the contested trade mark for all the goods against which the opposition was directed, there is no need to examine the other earlier rights invoked by the opponent (16/09/2004, T‑342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268) nor is it necessary to examine the evidence of use filed by the opponent in relation to these earlier rights.

Likewise, since the opposition is fully successful on the basis of the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, there is no need to further examine the other ground of the opposition, namely Article (5) EUTMR.

COSTS

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

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

According to Article 109(1) and (7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR (former Rule 94(3) and (6) and Rule 94(7)(d)(i) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the costs to be paid to the opponent are the opposition fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Begoña URIARTE VALIENTE

Martina GALLE

Christian RUUD

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.

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Opposition Division on request. According to Article 109(8) EUTMR (former Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), such a request must be filed within one month of the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to have been filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 (Annex I A(33) EUTMR) has been paid.