OPPOSITION No B 2 765 397

Laboratorio Sys, S.L., Crta. Masía del Juez, 107, 46909 Torrent, Spain (opponent), represented by Lerroux & Fernández-Pacheco, Claudio Coello, 124 4º, 28006 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Jozsef Fuzesi, Isaszegi út 27, 2119 Pécel, Hungary (applicant), represented by Kocsis És Szénássy Ügyvédi Iroda, Fráter György utca 31, 1149 Budapest, Hungary (professional representative).

On 03/10/2018, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 765 397 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:

Class 3: Washing preparations for personal use; cleansing foam.

2. European Union trade mark application No 15 482 409 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 482 409 for the figurative mark . The opposition is based on Spanish trade mark registration No 2 603 062 for the word mark ‘BIO GLOW’. The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

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 Spanish trade mark registration No 2 603 062 ‘BIO GLOW’ on which the opposition is based.

The date of filing of the contested application is 30/05/2016. 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 30/05/2011 to 29/05/2016 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 3: Cosmetics; makeup products; cosmetic lotions for the body, feet, hands and face; cosmetic and reducing creams for the face, hands, arms, body and feet; cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; cosmetic creams, balms, gels and lotions for the face in general, such as moisturizers, humectants, astringents, cleansing, exfoliants, cleansers, invigorating, anti-wrinkle, cosmetic masks. Perfumery products included in this class; essential oils, hair lotions and toothpastes.

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 27/10/2016, in accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR (former Rule 22(2) EUTMIR, in force before 01/10/2017), the Office gave the opponent until 18/01/2017 to submit evidence of use of the earlier trade mark. On 16/01/2017, within the time limit, the opponent submitted evidence of use.

As the opponent requested that certain commercial data contained in the evidence be kept confidential vis-à-vis third parties, the Opposition Division will describe the evidence only in the most general terms without divulging any such data.

The evidence to be taken into account is the following:

• Document 1: catalogues of ‘BIOGLOW’ cosmetic products for 2014 and 2016 (the catalogues are dated 10/01/2014 and 29/12/2015).

• Document 2: two invoices issued by two different graphic art companies in relation to the design and printing of the catalogues for 2013 and 2014.

• Document 3: images showing various examples of display stands, on which the sign ‘BIOGLOW’ appears clearly; four invoices issued between 2012 and 2014 in relation to the design and the preparation of these display stands.

• Document 4: samples of different labels, dated 2015 and 2016.

• Document 5: hundreds of invoices issued to various clients in Spain. They are dated from 2013 to 2016 (Documents 5.1 to 5.4). The sign ‘BIOGLOW’ appears in the invoices. Many of the products listed are perfumes but they also include soaps, rose water, rosemary alcohol, natural deodorant, bath salts, body oils, facial and body exfoliants, bath oils, bath foam and labial balm.

• Document 6: an extensive client list.

• Document 7: a copy of an article published in the magazine Alimarket. The article refers to the mark ‘BIOGLOW’. This item of evidence is dated outside the relevant period (October 2016). However, this document suggests use of the mark in the relevant period.

The applicant argues that the translations of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent at the request of the Office do not fulfil the criteria laid down by it in relation to the translation of documents in proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pursuant to general rules set in Article 146(9) EUTMR and Article 24 EUTMIR, most submissions of the parties in opposition proceedings have to be in the language of the proceedings in order to be taken into account. However, for different submissions there are different rules to be applied. Article 10(6) EUTMDR is lex specialis as regards translations of proof of use. This text does not require specific criteria in relation to the translation of documents.

In the present case, the opponent submitted a translation of the key words of the catalogues, labels and invoices. Furthermore, the opponent translated the format of the invoices. The other documents are self-explanatory, regardless of their word components. Therefore, the Opposition Division considers that the meaning of the substantive content of the evidence submitted can be understood.

Place of use

The documentation as a whole shows that the place of use is Spain. This can be inferred from the language of the documents (Spanish), the currency mentioned (euros) and all the addresses, which refer to various cities in Spain (e.g. in the invoices). Therefore, the evidence relates to the relevant territory.

Time of use

The great majority of the evidence is dated within the relevant period and so are the opponent’s labels and catalogues. Moreover, the invoices are numerous and dated at regular intervals during the relevant period. Therefore, the time of use is proven.

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 documents filed, namely the invoices and catalogues, provide the Opposition Division with sufficient information concerning the commercial volume, the territorial scope, the duration, and the frequency of use. The invoices are numerous and refer to significant quantities. Moreover, they are dated at regular intervals within the five years constituting the relevant period. Finally, they show use of the earlier mark in the entire relevant territory. The volume of the goods sold exceeds several thousands of units in the relevant period and territory, and the monetary amount is significant. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the owner has seriously tried to acquire a commercial position in the relevant market by using its mark for cosmetic products within the relevant period. Consequently, the Opposition Division considers that the opponent has provided sufficient indications concerning the extent of the use of the earlier mark in Spain.

Nature of use

In the context of Article 10(3) EUTMDR (formerly 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.

The evidence shows that the earlier sign was used in such a way as to establish a clear link between the goods and the undertaking responsible for their marketing.

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; 12/03/2003, T‑174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68).

The evidence shows that the mark has been used in accordance with its function.

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 earlier trade mark was registered as the word mark ‘BIO GLOW’. The evidence (e.g. catalogues and labels) shows that the trade mark was used as (1) and (2) .

The typeface used in the trade marks is fairly standard. The additional figurative element depicting a sun inside the second letter ‘O’ (mark 1) and the indefinable figurative element (mark 2) will hardly be noticed by the average consumer due to their relatively small size and position or will be perceived only as decorative elements. They do not alter the distinctive character of the marks. Finally, the omission of the space between the elements ‘BIO’ and ‘GLOW’ is a negligible difference. The signs as used and as registered are broadly equivalent.

Taking into account the evidence in its entirety, the evidence submitted by the opponent is sufficient to prove 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.

According to case-law, when applying the abovementioned provision, the following should be considered:

…if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub‑categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub‑category or sub‑categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong. However, if a trade mark has been registered for goods or services defined so precisely and narrowly that it is not possible to make any significant sub-divisions within the category concerned, then the proof of genuine use of the mark for the goods or services necessarily covers the entire category for the purposes of the opposition.

Although the principle of partial use operates to ensure that trade marks which have not been used for a given category of goods are not rendered unavailable, it must not, however, result in the proprietor of the earlier trade mark being stripped of all protection for goods which, although not strictly identical to those in respect of which he has succeeded in proving genuine use, are not in essence different from them and belong to a single group which cannot be divided other than in an arbitrary manner. The Court observes in that regard that in practice it is impossible for the proprietor of a trade mark to prove that the mark has been used for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned by the registration. Consequently, the concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ cannot be taken to mean all the commercial variations of similar goods or services but merely goods or services which are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or sub‑categories.

(14/07/2005, T‑126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45‑46.)

In the present case, the evidence proves use only for soaps, rose water, rosemary alcohol, natural deodorant, bath salts, body oils, facial and body exfoliants, bath oils, bath foam, labial balm and perfumes belonging to the following category in the specification: cosmetics. As the opponent is not required to prove all the conceivable variations of the category of goods for which the earlier mark is registered and as the goods for which use has been proved do not constitute a coherent subcategory within the broad category in the specification to which they belong, the Opposition Division considers that the evidence shows genuine use of the trade mark for the following goods:

Class 3: Cosmetics; cosmetic lotions for the body, feet, hands and face; cosmetic for the face, hands, arms, body and feet; cosmetic creams, balms, gels and lotions for the face in general, such as moisturizers, humectants, astringents, cleansing, exfoliants, cleansers, invigorating, anti-wrinkle, cosmetic masks. Perfumery products included in this class.

However, the evidence filed by the opponent does not show genuine use of the trade mark for the remaining goods for which the earlier trade mark is registered, namely makeup products; reducing creams for the face, hands, arms, body and feet; cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; essential oils, hair lotions and toothpastes.

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.

Therefore, the Opposition Division will only consider the abovementioned goods 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 which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 3: Cosmetics; cosmetic lotions for the body, feet, hands and face; cosmetic for the face, hands, arms, body and feet; cosmetic creams, balms, gels and lotions for the face in general, such as moisturizers, humectants, astringents, cleansing, exfoliants, cleansers, invigorating, anti-wrinkle, cosmetic masks. Perfumery products included in this class.

The contested goods, after the limitation requested by the applicant on 24/02/2017, are the following:

Class 3: Biological laundry detergents; detergents for automobiles; commercial laundry detergents; household detergents; washing preparations for household purposes; washing preparations for personal use; fruit and vegetable wash; laundry detergents for household cleaning use; detergents, other than for use in manufacturing operations and for medical purposes; rinse aids; rinsing aids for use when washing clothes; rinsing agents for laundry; cleansing foam; furbishing preparations; cleaning agents for deep freezers; automobile cleaners; vehicle cleaning preparations; cleaning preparations for use on tiles; cleaning agents for household purposes; detergents; cleansers for household purposes; alcoholic solvents being cleaning preparations; detergents for household use; scouring powders.

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

The term ‘such as’, used in the opponent’s list of goods, indicates that the specific goods 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 (on the use of ‘in particular’, which has the same function as ‘such as’, see a reference in 09/04/2003, T‑224/01, Nu‑Tride, EU:T:2003:107).

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.

The contested washing preparations for personal use; cleansing foam are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s cosmetics. Therefore, they are identical.

The remaining contested goods, namely biological laundry detergents; detergents for automobiles; commercial laundry detergents; household detergents; washing preparations for household purposes; fruit and vegetable wash; laundry detergents for household cleaning use; detergents, other than for use in manufacturing operations and for medical purposes; rinse aids; rinsing aids for use when washing clothes; rinsing agents for laundry; furbishing preparations; cleaning agents for deep freezers; automobile cleaners; vehicle cleaning preparations; cleaning preparations for use on tiles; cleaning agents for household purposes; detergents; cleansers for household purposes; alcoholic solvents being cleaning preparations; detergents for household use; scouring powders, are detergents or household products for cleaning. They are dissimilar to the goods on which the opposition is based, namely cosmetics and perfumes, since they differ in nature, purpose, method of use, distribution channels and points of sale. They are neither complementary nor in competition, do not target the same consumers and are not likely to come from the same kind of undertakings.

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 are directed at the public at large.

The degree of attention is considered to be average.

3. The signs

BIO GLOW
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 word mark. In the case of word marks, it is the word as such that is protected and not its written form (22/05/2008, T‑254/06, RadioCom, EU:T:2008:165, § 43). Therefore, it is irrelevant whether it is depicted in upper or lower case, or in a combination thereof. Consequently, the difference in the signs under comparison in this regard is immaterial. To simplify the analysis and comparison of the signs, they will both be referred to in title case.

The contested sign is a figurative mark containing the bold red italic letters ‘BioFl*w’. A natural division between the elements ‘Bio’ and ‘Flow’ is made by the size and position of the letters, and by the use of the upper case ‘F’ preceded and followed by lower case letters. A green stylised leaf is displayed above the letter ‘i’, and four droplets forming a circle will be perceived by part of the public as a stylised letter ‘o’. For the purposes of this comparison, and bearing in mind that the similarities between the signs are higher when the contested sign is perceived as ‘BioFlow’, the Opposition Division will assess the signs from this perspective, since this is the best-case scenario for likelihood of confusion to arise.

Nowadays, the prefix ‘Bio’ is widely used in commerce to refer to organic and/or natural and environmentally friendly products. This has been confirmed by the General Court, which held that the term ‘bio’ is used on the market to indicate that the goods in question contribute to environmental sustainability, that they use natural products or that they have been produced organically (10/09/2015, T‑610/14, BIO organic, EU:T:2015:613, § 17; 21/02/2013, T‑427/11, Bioderma, EU:T:2013:92, § 45‑46). Moreover, the element ‘Bio’ is an abbreviation derived from the word ‘biológico’ (‘biological’ in English).

Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that the relevant part of the public will readily discern the element ‘Bio’ in both marks as referring to ‘biological’ or ‘life’ or to organic and natural products. In particular, in relation to the goods in question, the relevant part of the public will immediately grasp the meaning of the prefix ‘Bio’.

Bearing in mind the nature of the goods in question, it is considered that the element ‘Bio’ is non-distinctive for the relevant goods, as it indicates that they are of organic origin and/or are produced using natural methods. The components ‘Glow’ of the earlier mark and ‘Flow’ of the contested mark have no meaning for the relevant part of the public and therefore are of average distinctiveness.

The figurative element of the contested sign depicting a leaf reinforces the idea evoked by the prefix ‘Bio’ and is, therefore, considered weak for the relevant goods. However, the four drops in a circle (forming a stylised letter ‘o’) have no meaning in relation to the relevant goods and therefore are of average distinctiveness.

The contested sign has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant (visually eye-catching) than other elements.

In any event, it is established practice 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). Therefore, in the contested sign, consumers’ attention will be focused on the verbal element itself, rather than on the typeface of the word or the stylisation of the letter ‘o’.

Visually, the signs coincide in the majority of their letters, namely ‘Bio*l*w, placed in the same order. However, the signs differ in the letters ‘G’ and ‘F’, present in the earlier trade mark and in the contested sign, respectively. The signs also differ in the figurative element placed between the letters ‘l’ and ‘w’ of the contested sign, which will be perceived by the part of the public referred to above as a stylised letter ‘o’. Furthermore, the signs differ in the depiction of a leaf in the contested sign, which is a weak element, and in the overall stylisation of that sign (the typeface, layout and colours).

According to settled case-law, in word signs or in signs containing a verbal element the first part is generally the one that primarily catches the consumer’s attention and, therefore, will be remembered more clearly than the rest of the sign. This means that, in general, the beginning of a sign has a significant influence on the general impression made by the mark (15/12/2009, T‑412/08, Trubion, EU:T:2009:507, § 40; 25/03/2009, T‑109/07, Spa Therapy, EU:T:2009:81, § 30). Both signs begin with the prefix ‘Bio’, which, as explained above, is non-distinctive for the relevant goods. Therefore, although it appears at the beginnings of the signs, it will not be viewed by consumers as the most distinctive part. However, the remaining components of the signs, ‘Glow’ and ‘Flow’, have three letters in common placed in the same position (i.e. ‘low’), despite the stylisation of the letter ‘o’ of the contested sign.

Therefore, the signs are visually similar to an average degree.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛Bio*low’. As explained above, ‘Bio’ is non-distinctive for the relevant goods; therefore, although it appears at the beginnings of the signs, it will not be viewed by consumers as the most distinctive part. The pronunciation of the signs differs in the sound of the letters ‘G’ of the earlier mark and ‘F’ of the contested sign.

Therefore, the signs are aurally similar to a high degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Although neither of the signs as a whole has any meaning for the relevant part of the public, the element ‘Bio’, included in both signs, will be associated with the meaning explained above. To that extent and considering the limited impact of the concept ‘Bio’ in both signs, the signs are conceptually similar to a low degree.

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 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

In the present case, the goods are identical and dissimilar. They target the general public. The degree of attention is average. The signs are visually similar to an average degree, aurally similar to a high degree and conceptually similar to a low degree. The earlier mark is deemed to have an average degree of distinctiveness.

The prefix ‘Bio’, which appears at the beginning of the signs, is non-distinctive for the relevant goods. However, the remaining parts of the signs have in common three letters in the same order, ‘low’, despite the stylisation of the letter ‘o’ in the contested sign. Regarding this differing stylisation, and for the reasons explained above, consumers’ attention will be focused on the verbal element itself, rather than on the typeface of the word or the stylisation of the letter ‘o’.

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).

In addition, evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice versa (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

In this case, it is considered that the commonalities between the signs, together with the identity between some of the goods, are enough to outweigh their dissimilarities, and may induce at least part of the public to believe that the conflicting goods found to be identical come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings.

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

It follows from the above that the contested trade mark must be rejected for the goods found to be identical 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, since likelihood of confusion is considered to exist for the part of the public perceiving the stylised ‘o’ in the contested mark as a letter, which is the best-case scenario for likelihood of confusion to arise, there is no need to analyse the signs from the perspective of the remaining part of the public.

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

The Opposition Division

María del Carmen SUCH SANCHEZ

Richard BIANCHI

Eva Inés PÉREZ SANTONJA

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.