OPPOSITION No B 2 788 688

Avoris Retail Division S.L., José Rover Motta, 27, 07006 Palma de Mallorca, Spain (opponent), represented by Clarke, Modet y Cía. S.L., Rambla de Méndez Núñez, Nº 21-23, 5º A-B, 03002 Alicante, Spain (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Break a new ground AB, Skeppsbron 28, SE 111 30 Stockholm, Sweden (applicant), represented by Wistrand Advokatbyrå, Box 7543, SE 103 93 Stockholm, Sweden (professional representative).

On 21/08/2019, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 2 788 688 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods and services:

Class 9: All the goods applied for in this Class.

Class 35: All the services applied for in this Class.

Class 39: All the services applied for in this Class.

Class 41: All the services applied for in this Class.

Class 42: All the services applied for in this Class.

2. European Union trade mark application No 15 604 507 is rejected for all the above goods and services. It may proceed for the remaining services.

3. Each party bears its own costs.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 15 604 507 , namely against all the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42. The opposition is based on the following earlier marks:

1. European Union trade mark registration No 15 306 939 ‘WÄY

2. European Union trade mark registration No 14 580 419

3. European Union trade mark registration No 13 261 276 ‘wäy by barceló viajes’

4. European Union trade mark registration No 15 398 076 ‘WÄY TRENDING TROPIC’.

The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(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.

The opposition is based on more than one earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division finds it appropriate to first examine the opposition in relation to the opponent’s European trade mark registrations No 15 306 939 ‘WÄY’ and No 14 580 419 .

1. The goods and services

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

1. European Union trade mark registration No 15 306 939 ‘WÄY’

Class 9: Software and applications for mobile devices; computer-software; computer interfaces; e-books; digital books downloadable from the internet; software platform that facilitates the provision of information, peer-to-peer interaction and transactions, and the booking of temporary accommodations in the fields of travel, lodging, dining, and entertainment; application programming interface (API) software; downloadable software; downloadable publications; computer software applications, downloadable; downloadable sound, video and image files.

Class 42: Information technology services, namely development, design, programming and implementation of computer software; hosting of websites and rental of computer software relating to travel; data processing services; computer network services; data processing services; research, development and implementation of systems; updating internet pages; operation of search engines for the internet; management of data on servers; processing of digital data; scientific studies; investigations, research in databases and on the internet for third parties; data security services; data warehousing; providing of a website and mobile applications, enabling users to give assessments, reviews and recommendations relating to events and activities in the field of travel and leisure; hosting of computer sites (websites and mobile applications); providing temporary access to non-downloadable software to enable sharing of multimedia content and comments among users; design and development of computer hardware and software; providing temporary use of non-downloadable, web-based, and cloud-based software; software as a service (SAAS) services; platform as a service (PAAS) services; providing an online non downloadable, web-based and cloud-based software platform; providing an online non-downloadable, web-based, and cloud-based connected software platform that facilitates the provision of information, peer-to-peer interaction and transactions, and bookings in the fields of travel, lodging, dining, and entertainment; application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software; creating and maintaining websites for mobile phones.

2. European Union trade mark registration No 14 580 419

Class 35: Loyalty, incentive and bonus program services; advertisement via mobile phone networks; advertising; organisation of events for commercial and advertising purposes; business management of hotels; dissemination of advertising material [leaflets, brochure and printed matter]; organization of events, exhibitions, fairs and shows for commercial, promotional and advertising purposes; advertising services relating to hotels; radio and television advertising; electronic billboard advertising; advertising by mail order; dissemination of advertising matter; sales promotion for others; promotion [advertising] of travel; advertising through all public communication means; advertising; loyalty card services; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes; publicity and sales promotion services.

Class 39: Travel booking agencies; escorting of travellers; travel and passenger transportation; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement; travel and passenger transportation; travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation; travel agency; travel and passenger transportation; booking agency services relating to travel; agency services for arranging travel; arranging of passenger transport.

Class 43: Travel agency services for booking accommodation; hotel restaurant services; booking of accommodation for travellers; hotels, hostels and boarding houses, holiday and tourist accommodation; temporary accommodation; booking of accommodation for travellers; restaurant services provided by hotels; travel agency services for booking accommodation; catering; arranging of meals in hotels; room reservation services; catering; hotel-reservation services; hotel restaurant services; hotel restaurant services; corporate hospitality (provision of food and drink).

After limitation of 30/10/2018, which was accepted by the Office on 12/11/2018 and duly notified to the opponent on 13/11/2018 the contested goods and services are the following:

Class 9: Application software for use in the transport industry; computer software, in particular in relation to transport and the delivery industry; computer platforms with computer hardware/built-in programs/computer software relating to transport and the delivery industry, accessible from a global computer network; communications servers/computer programs for use in the transport industry.

Class 35: Business consultancy, in particular in the fields of transportation and logistics; analyses (cost price analysis); compilation of statistics; market research; opinion polling; arranging of commercial transactions, including within the framework of e-commerce; arranging of contracts, for others, in relation to purchasing and selling of services, in particular transport and logistics.

Class 36: Electronic payment services; financial affairs; monetary affairs; credit services; invoicing relating to payment of transport services; commercial loans; electronic payment services; factoring.

Class 39: Transport services; logistics in the transport sector; tracking in the transport sector; logistics consultancy in the transport sector; information in the field of transport; courier transport; transport brokerage; traffic information; transportation logistics; transportation information, including but not limited to taxi transport information; travel and itinerary planning services; consultancy for travel planning of routes; planning, arranging and booking of travel, including but not limited to taxi transport; providing information relating to the planning and booking of travel and transport, via electronic means; route planning services.

Class 41: Providing of training and education relating to transport.

Class 42: Scientific and industrial research; computer programming, computer consultancy in the field of transport/logistics and services associated therewith; development of computer software application solutions; collection of information relating to environmental impact.

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 terms ‘in particular’, ‘including’, 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 (09/04/2003, T‑224/01, Nu‑Tride, EU:T:2003:107). However, the term ‘namely’, used in the opponent’s list of goods and services to show the relationship of individual goods and services to a broader category, is exclusive and restricts the scope of protection only to the goods and services specifically listed.

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

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

Contested goods in Class 9

The contested application software for use in the transport industry; computer software, in particular in relation to transport and the delivery industry; computer platforms with computer hardware/built-in programs/computer software relating to transport and the delivery industry, accessible from a global computer network; communications servers/computer programs for use in the transport industry are included in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s computer-software of earlier mark No 15 306 939. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 35

The contested business consultancy, in particular in the fields of transportation and logistics; analyses (cost price analysis); compilation of statistics; market research; opinion polling; arranging of commercial transactions, including within the framework of e-commerce; arranging of contracts, for others, in relation to purchasing and selling of services, in particular transport and logistics are business management services that are usually rendered by specialist companies such as business consultants. These companies gather information and provide tools and expertise to enable their customers to carry out their business or provide businesses with the necessary support to acquire, develop and expand market share. The services include activities such as business research and assessments, cost and price analyses, organisational consultancy and any consultancy, advisory and assistance activity that may be useful in the management of a business, such as advice on how to efficiently allocate financial and human resources, improve productivity, increase market share, deal with competitors, reduce tax bills, develop new products, communicate with the public, market products, research consumer trends, launch new products, create a corporate identity, etc. The abovementioned contested services either include, or are included in, or overlap with, the opponent’s business management of hotels of earlier mark No 14 580 419. Therefore, they are identical.

Contested services in Class 36

The contested electronic payment services; financial affairs; monetary affairs; credit services; invoicing relating to payment of transport services; commercial loans; electronic payment services; factoring are various financial services provided by the finance industry (e.g., banks or Commercial Finance Associations) in relation to receiving, lending, exchanging, investing and safeguarding of money, and the issuing of notes and transacting of other financial business. These services do not have the same nature, intended purpose or methods of use as the opponent’s goods and services in Class 9 (various kinds of software), Class 35 (advertising and business management services), Class 39 (transport, travel arrangement services), Class 42 (information technology, data processing, research and related services) and Class 43 (temporary accommodation and restaurant services) of earlier marks No 15 306 939 and No 14 580 419. Financial companies operate in a different field of business from providers of software, business consultants, advertising, transport or travel agencies, or developers of computer hardware and software. The opponent’s goods and services and the contested services will not be offered by the same providers. They are neither in competition nor complementary. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 39

The contested transport services; logistics in the transport sector; tracking in the transport sector; logistics consultancy in the transport sector; information in the field of transport; courier transport; transport brokerage; traffic information; transportation logistics; transportation information, including but not limited to taxi transport information; travel and itinerary planning services; consultancy for travel planning of routes; planning, arranging and booking of travel, including but not limited to taxi transport; providing information relating to the planning and booking of travel and transport, via electronic means; route planning services are identical to the opponent’s travel and passenger transportation; travel arrangement, either because they are identically contained in both lists (including synonyms) or because the opponent’s services include, are included in, or overlap with, the contested services.

Contested services in Class 41

The contested providing of training and education relating to transport is similar to the opponent’s e-books; digital books downloadable from the internet in Class 9 of earlier mark No 15 306 939, as during training, or when providing other education related services, corresponding literature or training material (including in the form of e-books or other downloadable electronic publications) are usually distributed or recommended. Therefore, the contested services and the opponent’s goods may have the same producer, distribution channels and target the same relevant public. Moreover, they are complementary.

Contested services in Class 42

The contested scientific and industrial research includes, as a broader category or overlaps with, the opponent’s scientific studies; investigations, research in databases and on the internet for third parties in Class 42 of earlier mark No 15 306 939; the contested computer programming, computer consultancy in the field of transport/logistics and services associated therewith are included in the broad category of the opponent’s information technology services, namely development, design, programming and implementation of computer software in Class 42 of earlier mark No 15 306 939; the contested development of computer software application solutions are included in the broad category of the opponent’s design and development of computer hardware and software in Class 42 of earlier mark No 15 306 939; and the contested collection of information relating to environmental impact is included in the broad category of the opponent’s scientific studies in Class 42 of earlier mark No 15 306 939. Therefore, all these services 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 are directed at the public at large and at professionals with specific knowledge or expertise. The relevant public’s degree of attention may vary from average to high depending on the price, (specialised) nature, or terms and conditions of the goods or contracted services that may have a serious and long-term impact on the purchaser’s business. For example, the relevant consumer may be highly attentive when acquiring the services related to business administration in Class 35 or research, development, design and programming services in Class 42.

3. The signs

WÄY Earlier mark No 15 306 939 Earlier mark No 14 580 419
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is the European Union.

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

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

Earlier mark 1) is a word mark ‘WÄY’. Earlier mark 2) is a figurative mark consisting of the verbal element ‘WÄY’ depicted in stylised blue letters with two green dots above the letter ‘A’. Below this element, there are much smaller verbal elements ‘by B the travel brand’ depicted in blue fairly common typeface with a green dot to the right of the top of the letter ‘B’. The verbal element ‘WÄY’ clearly stands out in the overall visual composition of earlier mark 2) when compared with the expression ‘by B the travel brand’ which, due to its much smaller size and clearly subordinate position, may not even be noticed by the relevant consumers at first sight.

The contested sign is a figurative mark consisting of the words ‘WAY WAY’, depicted in standard green upper-case letters, written in two lines.

The English-speaking part of the public may perceive the contested sign and the earlier marks (irrespective of the presence of the diacritical mark ( ¨ ) above the letter A in the latter) as composed of (or containing) the English word ‘WAY’ (which is repeated twice in the contested sign). However, this will not be the case for the non-English-speaking part of the public. Therefore, taking into account that similarities between signs are higher where the coincidences reside in distinctive elements, and in particular bearing in mind that when understood as an English word ‘WAY’, the distinctiveness of this common element may be lower for some of the relevant services, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the non-English-speaking part of the public, such as, the Bulgarian-, Italian-, Latvian-, Lithuanian-, Polish- and Spanish-speaking part of the public, that perceive the words ‘WÄY’ and ‘WAY’ as meaningless and, therefore, having an average degree of distinctiveness.

The phrase ‘by B the travel brand’ in earlier mark 2), if it is perceived at all by the relevant consumers considering its much smaller size, is composed of English words that are commonly used in, inter alia, travel and transport sectors. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that the relevant consumers will grasp the meanings of at least some of these words. Due to the presence of the word ‘by’ at the beginning and the clearly subordinate nature of the whole phrase, the expression ‘by B the travel brand’ will be seen by the relevant consumers as mere explanatory information related to the undertaking offering the services in question, irrespective of whether the whole phrase or only part of it will be understood. Therefore, the relevant consumers will not attribute any trade mark significance to it and will focus their attention on the distinctive and dominant element ‘WÄY’.

Visually, the earlier marks and the contested sign coincide in the string of letters ‘WAY’. The signs differ in the diacritical mark ( ¨ ) above the letter ‘A’ in the earlier marks, the fact that the string of letters ‘WAY’ appears twice in the contested sign, in the colours of the verbal elements in earlier mark 2) and in the contested sign, as well as in stylisation and insignificant verbal element ‘by B the travel brand’ in earlier mark 2).

Although, the depiction of ‘WAY WAY’ in two lines in the contested sign creates some perceptible visual differences from the earlier marks, the fact that the second ‘WAY’ is not a different string of letters but only a repetition of the first ‘WAY’ will not go unnoticed by the relevant consumers. The presence of the diacritical mark in the earlier marks, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, will not have much influence on the consumers’ perception, since the earlier marks will still be perceived as being composed of the same string of letters ‘WAY’ as the contested sign.

The applicant also emphasises the high stylisation of earlier mark 2) and claims that it creates a different impression from that of the contested sign. However, although the stylisation, colours (of earlier mark 2) and the contested sign) and additional almost illegible verbal elements (of earlier mark 2)) will have some visual impact, they will be seen as rather decorative features or mere additional information (as explained above) and will not distract the consumers’ attention from the distinctive (and dominant in the case of earlier mark 2)) verbal elements ‘WÄY’ and ‘WAY WAY’.

Therefore, the earlier marks and the contested sign are considered visually similar to at least an average degree.

Aurally, irrespective of the presence of the diacritical mark, the verbal element ‘WÄY’ in the earlier marks and ‘WAY’ in the contested sign will be pronounced in the same way. The pronunciation differs in the fact that the word ‘WAY’ will be pronounced twice in the contested sign. However, since it is the same word, this repetition will not create any different sounds or any significant aural differences between the contested sign and the earlier marks. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the Opposition Division does not consider that the element ‘by B the travel brand’ in earlier mark 2), even if it is perceived, is the dominant element creating a clear aural difference from the contested sign. This element is of such a small size and so insignificant (for the reasons explained above) that it is very unlikely that the relevant consumers will even refer to it aurally.

Considering all the above, the earlier marks and the contested sign are aurally similar to a high degree.

Conceptually, neither of the distinctive elements of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. As the element ‘by B the travel brand’ will not be attributed any trade mark significance by the relevant consumers, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, it is not capable of creating any conceptual differences between earlier mark 2) and the contested sign even if perceived. Consequently, a conceptual comparison between the earlier marks and the contested sign is not possible and the conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

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

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 marks will rest on their distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade marks as a whole have no meaning for any of the goods and services in question from the perspective of the public in the relevant territory. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier marks must be seen as normal, despite the presence of a non-distinctive element in earlier mark 2), as stated above in section c) of this decision.

5. Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

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

As concluded above, the contested goods and services are partly identical, partly similar and partly dissimilar to the opponent’s goods and services, and they target both the public at large and business consumers, whose degree of attention will vary from average to high. The distinctiveness of the earlier marks is average.

The signs are visually similar to at least an average degree, aurally highly similar and the conceptual aspect has no impact on the assessment of similarity between the signs. As detailed in section c), the same string of letters that composes the entire distinctive (and dominant in the case of earlier mark 2)) verbal elements of the earlier marks is incorporated in the contested sign, with the difference that this element appears twice in the contested sign and the distinctive elements of the earlier marks have the diacritical mark on their middle letter. In addition, earlier mark 2) and the contested sign contain additional figurative aspects, namely colours and stylisation, as well as an additional verbal element (expression) in earlier mark 2), which, however, being almost illegible due to its small typeface, will not be attributed any trade mark significance by the relevant consumers. Since all the abovementioned differences are either secondary or have a lesser impact, they are clearly insufficient to offset the commonalities in the distinctive elements of the signs under comparison.

Therefore, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumers, even those with a high degree of attention, will make a connection between the conflicting signs and assume that the goods and services in question are from the same or economically linked undertakings. Consequently, it cannot be safely excluded that the relevant consumer will confuse the marks or alternatively perceive the contested sign as a sub-brand or a variation of the earlier marks, configured in a different way according to the type of goods or services that it designates (23/10/2002, T‑104/01, Fifties, EU:T:2002:262, § 49).

Considering all the above, the Opposition Division finds that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Bulgarian-, Italian-, Latvian-, Lithuanian-, Polish- and Spanish-speaking part of the public and, therefore, the opposition is partly well founded on the basis of the opponent’s European Union trade mark registrations No 15 306 939 ‘WÄY’ and No 14 580 419 . As stated above in section c) of this decision, a likelihood of confusion for only part of the relevant public of the European Union is sufficient to reject the contested application.

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

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

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

European Union trade mark registration No 13 261 276 ‘wäy by barceló viajes’ for the following services:

Class 35: Advertising; dissemination of advertising matter (brochures, printed matter, prospectuses, samples); publicity columns preparation; demonstration of goods; advertising and commercial information services, via the internet, exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; business marketing services; presentation of goods on all kinds of communications media for retail purposes, retailing of clothing, footwear, headgear, sporting articles, stationery, apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, books, video games, playthings, dolls, newspapers, magazines, glasses, mugs, printed publications, pins, badges, key rings, tickets, jewellery, wristwatches, gift items relating to football, bags, towels, flags, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, smokers’ articles and confectionery; electronic commerce services, namely providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising and sales purposes; sales promotion for others; business management.

Class 39: Travel arrangement; travel and passenger transportation; arranging of passenger transport; escorting of travellers.

Class 43: Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.

European Union trade mark registration No 15 398 076 ‘WÄY TRENDING TROPIC’ for the following services:

Class 35: Promotion [advertising] of travel; radio and television advertising.

Class 38: Transmission of videos, movies, pictures, images, text, photos, games, user-generated content, audio content, and information via the internet.

Class 39: Tour operator services; tour reservation services; travel booking agencies; escorting of travellers; passenger transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement; travel and passenger transportation; travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation; travel agency; passenger transport; booking agency services relating to travel; agency services for arranging travel; arranging of passenger transport; arranging of excursions; sightseeing, tour guide and excursion services.

Since both these earlier rights cover the same or a narrower scope of services in Classes 35, 39 and 43 in relation to which similarity has already been assessed in section a) of this decision, the outcome cannot be different with respect to the services in Class 36 for which the opposition has already been rejected. As regards the opponent’s services in Class 38 of European Union trade mark registration No 15 398 076, namely transmission of videos, movies, pictures, images, text, photos, games, user-generated content, audio content, and information via the internet, they have a completely different nature and purpose from the contested financial services in Class 36, namely electronic payment services; financial affairs; monetary affairs; credit services; invoicing relating to payment of transport services; commercial loans; electronic payment services; factoring. Taking into account that the services relate to completely different fields of business, the relevant consumers will not expect them to be offered by the same undertakings. Their providers and distribution channels also differ. Moreover, the contested services and the opponent’s services serve different needs and are neither in competition nor complementary. Therefore, they are dissimilar. Consequently, no likelihood of confusion exists with respect to the contested services in Class 36.

COSTS

According to Article 109(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 109(3) EUTMR, where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or if reasons of equity so dictate, the Opposition Division will decide a different apportionment of costs.

Since the opposition is successful for only some of the contested goods and services, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.

The Opposition Division

Loreto URRACA LUQUE

Rasa BARAKAUSKIENE

Ferenc GAZDA

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.