OPPOSITION Nо B 3 087 373

Officine Meccaniche Aeronautiche S.P.A. (In Sigla O.M.A. S.P.A.), Via Cagliari 20, 06034 Foligno (PG), Italy (opponent), represented by Alessandro Legnante, Via Cantagalli 4 / i, 50125 Firenze, Italy (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Magnaghi Aeronautica S.P.A., Via Galileo Ferraris 76/80, 80142 Napoli, Italy (applicant), represented by Barzanò & Zanardo Roma S.P.A., Via Piemonte, 26, 00187 Roma, Italy (professional representative).

On 08/02/2021, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 087 373 is rejected in its entirety.

2. The opponent bears the costs, fixed at EUR 300.

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods and services of European Union trade mark application No 18 035 116 (figurative mark). The opposition is based on EUTM registration No 15 958 011 (figurative mark) and EU well-known mark (figurative mark). The opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, as well as Article 8(5) 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.

a) The goods and services

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

Class 7: Machines namely electromechanical machines for aerospace industry; motors and engines except for land vehicles; machine coupling and transmission components except for land vehicles; aeroplane engines; propulsion mechanisms for aircraft; turbines, other than for land vehicles; auxiliary propulsion mechanisms, other than for land vehicles; tools parts of machines; mechanical tools, power-operated tools, machine tools; aeronautical machines; drives, motors and engines and propulsion mechanisms other than for land vehicles; drive systems and drive mechanisms for helicopters and aircrafts; actuators; actuators for helicopters and aircrafts; pneumatic actuators for helicopters and aircrafts; hydraulic valves, motorised valves, pneumatic valves, pressure valves and servo valves for use in helicopters and aircrafts; power-operated blowing machines for use in helicopters and aircrafts; pumps, electric pumps, hydraulic pumps and pneumatic pumps for use in helicopters and aircrafts; cylinders for helicopters and aircrafts; electric jacks, lifting cylinders, hydraulic jacks, pneumatic jacks for use in helicopters and aircrafts; machines and machine tools for the manufacture, production, maintenance, servicing, repair and rebuilding of helicopters and aircrafts; motors and engines, drives and propulsion mechanisms for helicopters and aircrafts; servomotors for helicopters and aircrafts; gears and gear cases, gear boxes for helicopters and aircrafts; drive shafts and power transmission shafts for helicopters and aircrafts; hydraulic actuators and drives for helicopters and aircrafts; hydraulic engines and motors and hydraulic drives for helicopters and aircrafts; hydraulic regulators and controllers for motors and engines and drives for helicopters and aircrafts; actuating mechanisms for controlling aircraft landing gears, actuating mechanisms for operating aircraft landing gears; power transmission couplings for aircraft, power trains for aircraft, power transmissions for aircraft; motorized valves; control valves; solenoid valves, relief valves; pressure regulators [parts of machines]; non return valves [parts of machines]; sequence valves; filters [parts of machines]; manifolds [parts of machines]; parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods.

Class 12: Aircraft; helicopters; aircraft fuselages; helicopter fuselages; wings for aircraft; bodies for aircraft and helicopters; structural parts for aircraft and helicopters; wheels brakes, brakes for aircraft and helicopters; disc brakes, shock absorbers for aircraft and helicopters; landing gear for aircraft and helicopters; landing gear wheels for aircraft and helicopters; brake linings for aircraft landing gears; rotor brakes for helicopters; rudders; structural parts for aircraft and helicopters; monocoque structures for aircraft; plastic struts for use on aircraft and helicopters; plastic strakes for use on aircraft and helicopters, rotor blades for helicopters; shrouded tail rotors for helicopters; apparatus and machine equipment and devices for aviation and space travel; parts and fittings for all of the aforesaid goods.

Class 42: Technical and professional consultancy related to devices and systems and components and equipment for aircraft and helicopters; research related to devices and systems and components and equipment for aircraft and helicopters and space craft and design, engineering, surveying, testing, development, technical support and engineering management services, related to devices and systems and components and equipment for aircraft and helicopters and space craft; testing, study or advice of science and technology; testing or study of machinery apparatus; designing and engineering of machines, equipment or apparatus (including these parts) or installation which consist of the above; technical consultation and research, writing, design, and testing of new products for others; technical consultation and assistance related to the design, manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, and modification of aircraft, aircraft parts, helicopter, helicopter parts; Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; technical and professional consultancy, research, design, engineering, surveying, testing, development, technical support and engineering management services, all related to devices, systems, components and equipment for aircraft, helicopters and space craft; testing, study or advice of science and technology; engineering.

The contested goods and services are the following:

Class 12: Landing gear [aircraft parts]; launching gear for air vehicles; parts and fittings for air and space vehicles; aircraft landing wheels; aeroplanes towing vehicles; structural parts for aircraft.

Class 37: Repair, servicing and maintenance of vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by air.

Some of the contested goods and services are identical or similar to goods and services on which the opposition is based. For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will not undertake a full comparison of the goods and services listed above. The examination of the opposition will proceed as if all the contested goods and services were identical to those of the earlier mark which, for the opponent, is the best light in which the opposition can be examined.

b) Relevant public — degree of attention

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods and services of the earlier mark target the general public (for tools parts of machines) and the professional public, and the contested goods and services target a professional public exclusively. Therefore, the relevant public for assessing likelihood of confusion will be the professional public only (14/07/2005, T‑126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 81). As these goods and services are highly specialised goods and services, the level of attention is considered high.

c) The signs

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 verbal element ‘MA’ of the contested sign has no meaning for the relevant public and is, therefore, distinctive.

The verbal element ‘GROUP’ of the contested sign will be perceived as referring to an association of companies under a single ownership. As this word is similar to its equivalents in many languages and due to its common use on the market, it will be understood throughout the European Union. This element is considered non-distinctive as it merely refers to the corporate structure of the provider/producer of the goods and services.

The element ‘OMA’ of the earlier sign will be perceived as an acronym of ‘Officine Meccaniche Aeronautiche’, which is written below it. This Italian expression means ‘Aeronautical Mechanical Workshops’, in English. In relation to the contested goods and services, these elements are weak since they merely indicate the field of activity for which the goods and services are destined, at least for the Italian-speaking part of the public. It is distinctive for the part of the public that will not perceive them as meaningful.

Even though both signs contain a circle placed in the same position in the signs, they are part of the figurative elements, which differ substantially with regard to their colour and additional figurative elements/components. Moreover, the circle in the contested sign will not been seen as a letter ‘O’ as there is nothing in the sign that will lead the relevant consumer to perceive it as such. Due to its position, size, shape, visual composition in the sign, it will be seen as one of the components of the figurative element and not the letter ‘O’.

The figurative element of the earlier sign, as a whole, might be perceived as a stylised depiction of an airplane or a tailplane placed on a circle. For the part of the public that will make this association, especially for the public that perceives the verbal elements as meaningful, this element/component is considered weak. For the remaining part of the public that will perceive it as meaningless, it is considered distinctive to a normal degree.

The circle in the contested sign contains a fanciful figurative element composed of three parallel horizontal lines followed by three oblique lines. This element can be associated with a pilot’s badge (Pilot wings), at least by part of the public. For this part of the public, this element is weak. For the remaining part of the public for which this element has no clear and evident meaning, it is considered distinctive.

The contested sign has no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements.

The figurative elements of the earlier trade mark together with the verbal element ‘OMA’ overshadow the remaining verbal elements of the mark by virtue of their central position and size. Therefore, these are the visually dominant elements of the earlier trade mark.

Visually, the signs coincide in the letters ‘MA’ and they both include a circle. However, they differ in the initial letter ‘O’ of the earlier sign, the expression ‘Officine Meccaniche Aeronautiche’, and in the word ‘GROUP’ of the contested sign. The signs also differ in their other figurative elements and graphic depiction, such as background and colour.

Therefore, the signs are similar to a low degree.

Aurally, irrespective of the different pronunciation rules in different parts of the relevant territory, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters ‛MA’, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letter ‛O’ of the earlier sign, which has no counterpart in the contested mark. The remaining verbal elements: ‘Officine Meccaniche Aeronautiche’ of the earlier mark and ‘GROUP’ of the contested sign, due their secondary position in the sign and/or lack of distinctiveness (at least for part of the relevant public), are not likely to be pronounced by the public. In this regard, the Court has stated that elements that have a descriptive nature or are superfluous because of the nature of the goods and services are generally not pronounced (03/07/2013, T‑206/12, LIBERTE american blend, EU:T:2013:342, § 43; 03/06/2015, T‑544/12, PENSA PHARMA, EU:T:2015:355; 03/06/2015, T‑546/12, pensa, EU:T:2015:355, § 107). Moreover, consumers generally refer to the dominant elements while less prominent elements are not pronounced (03/07/2013, T‑206/12, LIBERTE american blend, EU:T:2013:342, § 44). Finally, economy of language might be another reason for assuming that some elements will be pronounced while others will be omitted, particularly in the case of very long marks (11/01/2013, T‑568/11, interdit de me gronder IDMG, EU:T:2013:5, § 44).

Therefore, the signs are similar to at most a below-average degree.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. At least part of the public will perceive the concept of Aeronautical Mechanical Workshops in the earlier sign. All the public will understand the word ‘GROUP’ of the contested sign, however, as this element is non-distinctive, it has minimal, if any, impact on the comparison of the signs. Therefore, even though the signs are conceptually not similar, this conceptual difference has little, if any, impact on the comparison of the signs.

However, for the part of the public that will associate the figurative elements as referring to airplanes (airplane or airplane tail and wings), the signs are conceptually similar to a low degree as this coincidence arises from weak elements.

The presence of a circle in both signs does not render them conceptually similar as this is a simple geometric shape that has a merely decorative role.

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

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the European Union in connection with all the goods and services for which it is registered. This claim must be properly considered given that the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark must be taken into account in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. Indeed, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore marks with a highly distinctive character because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C‑39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).

The opponent submitted the following evidence.

 A leaflet of ‘OMA Officine Meccaniche Aeronautiche’ in Italian presenting airplanes and parts of airplanes. This document is undated.

 A leaflet titled ‘OMA Foligno-Italy’ in English, stating, inter alia, that ‘OMA is a premier supplier to the global commercial and military aerospace market of highly engineered aerostructure subassemblies, hydraulic and electromechanical systems and components.’ It also presents its main customers (inter alia, Boeing), certifications and programmes. This document is undated.

 A screenshot from the website www.omafoligno.it, dated 21/02/2008, regarding 50 years of company history.

Having examined the material listed above, the Opposition Division concludes that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through its use.

Most of the evidence is undated and, although it cannot be completely ignored, this evidence does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character or reputation at the time the contested trade mark was filed, in fact only one document is dated and it shows the opponent’s website. Despite showing some use of the trade mark, the evidence provides no information on the extent of such use since it does not indicate the sales volumes, market share of the trade mark or the extent to which the trade mark has been promoted. The evidence does not provide any indication of the degree of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public. The opponent claims that its company has been present on the market for 50 years and it is a key partner in several international programmes conducted by the most important aerospace industries worldwide, but no independent evidence has been submitted to support this claim. Under these circumstances, the Opposition Division concludes that the opponent has failed to prove that its trade mark has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through its use.

On 07/10/2020, after expiry of the time limit, the opponent submitted additional evidence.

According to Article 7(5) EUTMDR, the Office will not take into account written submissions, or parts thereof, which have not been submitted in or not been translated into the language of the proceedings, within the time limit set by the Office.

According to Article 8(1) EUTMDR, if until expiry of the period referred to in Article 7(1) EUTMDR, the opposing party has not submitted any evidence, or where the evidence submitted is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient to meet the requirements of laid down in Article 7(2) EUTMDR, the opposition will be rejected as unfounded.

Article 8(1) EUTMDR is an essentially procedural provision and it is apparent from the wording of that provision that when the evidence of enhanced distinctiveness or reputation is submitted within the time limit set by the Office pursuant to Article 7(1) EUTMDR is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient to meet the requirements laid down in Article 7(2) EUTMDR, the opposition must be rejected as unfounded. It follows that the Office cannot take into account evidence submitted after expiry of the time limit when the evidence submitted within the time limit is manifestly irrelevant or manifestly insufficient for the purposes of establishing the enhanced distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark.

The evidence submitted by the opponent within the set time limit consists of only two leaflets and a screenshot from the opponent’s website. This evidence does not give any indication with regard to the recognition of the earlier mark by the relevant public. Moreover, it is not supported by any independent evidence that originates from third parties as all evidence comes from the opponent. It is considered to be manifestly insufficient for the proceedings in question. Therefore, the evidence submitted on 07/10/2020, after expiry of the time limit, cannot be taken into account.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. Considering what has been stated above in section c) of this decision, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as low for all the goods and services in question, at least for the Italian-speaking public. The mark has a normal degree of distinctiveness for the remaining part of the relevant territory, where it has no meaning in relation to the goods and services in question.

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

The goods and services that have been assumed to be identical target a professional pubic displaying a high level of attention.

The signs are visually similar to a low degree and aurally similar to a below-average degree. Conceptually, they are not similar or similar to a low degree. As mentioned above, the conceptual comparison has little, if any, impact on the comparison of the signs as the differences/similarities lie in weak or non-distinctive elements and their impact is limited. The earlier mark has a low or average degree of distinctiveness depending on the perception of the public.

Although coincidences are evident in the distinctive (at least for part of the public) elements of the signs: ‘OMA’ and ‘MA’, a coincidence in a string of two letters is not necessarily an indicator of a likelihood of confusion. The General Court has held that since the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which, moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable that many words will have the same number of letters and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone, be regarded as visually similar (25/03/2009, T‑402/07, ARCOL / CAPOL, EU:T:2009:85, § 81-82 confirmed by 04/03/2010, C‑193/09 P, ARCOL / CAPOL, EU:C:2010:121).

However, these verbal elements are short, as they are composed of only three or two letters. In short words, small differences may frequently lead to a different overall impression. The difference in the additional letter ‘O’ of the earlier sign and additional elements such as other verbal and figurative elements will not be overlooked, especially considering that the public is composed of professionals displaying a high level of attention. Even though the signs’ arrangements are to some extent similar, the signs show significant differences in their figurative and verbal elements, as explained above. This is a relevant factor for the assessment of likelihood of confusion between the marks, as it leads to a sufficiently different impression of the signs overall, even for the goods and services that are assumed to be identical.

Considering all the above, even assuming that the goods and services are identical, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected.

EARLIER WELL-KNOWN MARK – ARTICLE 8(2)(c) EUTMR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8(1)(b) EUTMR

According to Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, for the purposes of Article 8(1) EUTMR ‘earlier trade marks’ means:

marks, which, on the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark, or, where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of the application for registration of the EU trade mark, are well known in a Member State, in the sense in which the words ‘well known’ are used in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention.

Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, in general, defines the earlier trade marks only ‘for the purposes of paragraph 1’ and, therefore, does not provide an independent relative ground for refusal. Therefore, the grounds for refusal and opposition are those provided by Article 8(1) EUTMR.

In order for Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1) EUTMR to be applicable, the following has to be established:

 the earlier marks were well-known in the relevant territory on the date when the contested EUTM application was filed

and, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR:

 because of identity between the contested mark and the earlier well-known marks, and the identity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks,

or in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR:

 because of identity or similarity between the contested mark and the earlier well-known marks, and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the relevant territory.

These conditions are cumulative. Therefore, where a mark does not satisfy one of these conditions, the opposition based on the well-known trade marks under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR cannot succeed.

With regard to the first condition, the opponent needs to prove, before the end of the substantiation period, that it is the owner of the well-known mark and that this mark became well known to the relevant public, at least, in a substantial part of the relevant territory before the filing date of the contested trade mark, which is 12/03/2019.

Even though the terms ‘well-known’ (a traditional term used in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention) and ‘reputation’ denote distinct legal concepts, there is a substantial overlap between them, as shown by a comparison of the way in which well-known marks are defined in WIPO Recommendations with the way reputation was described by the Court in its judgment of 14/09/1999, C‑375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22 (concluding that the different terminology is merely a ‘… nuance, which does not entail any real contradiction …’).

In practical terms, the threshold for establishing whether a trade mark is well known or enjoys reputation will usually be the same. Therefore, it is not unusual for a mark, which has acquired well-known character to have also reached the threshold for marks with reputation, and vice versa, given that in both cases the assessment is principally based on quantitative considerations regarding the degree of knowledge of the mark among the public, and that the thresholds required for each case are expressed in quite similar terms (‘known or well-known at the relevant sector of the public ‘for well-known marks’, as against ‘known by a significant part of the relevant public’ as regards marks with reputation’).

This has also been confirmed by case-law. In its judgment of 22/11/2007, C‑328/06, Fincas Tarragona, EU:C:2007:704, § 17, the Court qualified the notions of ‘reputation’ and ‘well known’ as kindred notions (‘notions voisines’), underlining the substantial overlap and relationship between them.

Therefore, in analysing whether the earlier mark is well known, the criteria established by the Court as regards marks with reputation can be validly applied. In this regard, the Court concluded that in order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, the earlier marks must be known by a significant part of the public concerned for the goods or services covered by those trade marks. In making such an assessment, all the relevant factors must be considered and, in particular, the market share held by the trade marks, the intensity, geographic extent and duration of its use, and the size of investment made by the undertaking in promoting it (14/09/1999, C‑375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22, 23, 25, 27; 25/05/2005, T‑67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34).

The evidence submitted by the opponent to prove the reputation and highly distinctive character of the earlier trade mark has already been examined above. Reference is made to those findings, and the Opposition Division finds that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier trade mark has acquired a well-known character.

Consequently, one of the necessary conditions for Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR to be applicable is not fulfilled, namely that the earlier mark is well known in the relevant territory.

The opposition must, therefore, be rejected insofar as it is based on Article 8(2)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, the contested trade mark will not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier European Union trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

Therefore, the grounds for refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met.

 The signs must be either identical or similar.

 The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.

 Risk of injury: use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The abovementioned requirements are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR (16/12/2010, T‑345/08 & T‑357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). However, the fulfilment of all the abovementioned conditions may not be sufficient. The opposition may still fail if the applicant establishes due cause for the use of the contested trade mark.

a) Reputation of the earlier trade mark

The evidence submitted by the opponent to prove the reputation and highly distinctive character of the earlier trade mark has already been examined above under the grounds of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. Reference is made to those findings, which are equally valid for Article 8(5) EUTMR.

The Opposition Division finds that the evidence submitted by the opponent does not demonstrate that the earlier mark has acquired a reputation through use as it does not provide any indication of the degree of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public. Furthermore, the evidence does not indicate sales volumes, market share or the extent to which the trade mark has been promoted. As a result, the evidence does not show the degree of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public.

As seen above, it is a requirement for the opposition to be successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR that the earlier trade mark has a reputation. Since it has not been established that the earlier trade mark has reputation, one of the necessary conditions contained in Article 8(5) EUTMR is not fulfilled, and the opposition must be rejected also on the ground of Article 8(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 opponent is the losing party, it must bear the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.

According to Article 109(7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(i) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the applicant are the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Opposition Division

Anna BAKALARZ

Katarzyna ZANIECKA

Christian STEUDTNER

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.