OPPOSITION Nо B 3 096 561

Médis - Companhia Portuguesa de Seguros de Saúde, S.A., Av. Dr. Mário Soares (Tagus Park), Edifício 10, Piso 1, 2744 Porto Salvo, Portugal (opponent), represented by Gastão da Cunha Ferreira, Lda., Rua dos Bacalhoeiros, nº 4, 1100-070 Lisbon, Portugal (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Prima Medis d.o.o., Zasavska Cesta 40b, 1231 Ljubljana - Črnuče, Slovenia (applicant), represented by Fabiani, Petrovič, Jeraj, Rejc o.p. d.o.o., Bleiweisova Cesta 30, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia (professional representative).

On 09/11/2020, the Opposition Division takes the following

DECISION:

1. Opposition No B 3 096 561 is upheld for all the contested goods.

2. European Union trade mark application No 18 080 313is rejected in its entirety.

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

REASONS

The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 18 080 313 (figurative mark), namely against elixirs [pharmaceutical preparations]; pharmaceuticals; cachets for pharmaceutical purposes; antioxidant pills; vitamin preparations; ointments for pharmaceutical purposes in Class 5. The opposition is based on, inter alia, Portuguese trade mark registration No 519 701 ‘MÉDIS’ (word mark) in relation to which the opponent invoked Article 8(5) EUTMR.

REPUTATION — ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR

For reasons of procedural economy, the Opposition Division will first examine the opposition in relation to earlier Portuguese trade mark registration No 519 701.

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.

In the present case, the applicant did not claim to have due cause for using the contested mark. Therefore, in the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must be assumed that no due cause exists.

1. Reputation of the earlier trade mark

According to the opponent, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in Portugal within the medical/healthcare field.

Reputation implies a knowledge threshold that is reached only when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services it covers. The relevant public is, depending on the goods or services marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public.

In the present case, the contested trade mark was filed on 10/06/2019. Therefore, the opponent was required to prove that the trade mark on which the opposition is based had acquired a reputation in Portugal prior to that date. The evidence must also show that the reputation was acquired for the services for which the opponent has claimed reputation, namely:

Class 36: Insurance; financial, credit, investment and insurance services, including those provided via the Internet or via other means of telecommunications.

Class 44: Health care, including the services of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.

In order to determine the mark’s level of reputation, all the relevant facts of the case must be taken into consideration, including, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.

On 02/03/2020 the opponent submitted the following evidence to support this claim:

• Printouts from the opponent’s website www.medis.pt summarising the history of the ‘Médis’ brand (1996-2013), and further printouts dated between 2011 and 2019 showing various activities and projects of the opponent, in addition to the provision of health insurance, such as Médis Health System, Health and Wellness Network, Médis Network Pharmacies, and delivery of pharmaceutical products (Docs 2-4, 6-8A, 18 and 19)

• Market surveys concerning the Portuguese health insurance sector conducted in 2005, 2009, 2014 and 2015 by the Portuguese company Causa e Efeito - Gabinete de Pesquisa de Mercado (Doc. 9A), A.C. Nielsen Portugal – Estudos de Mercado (Docs 9B and 9E), and the magazine Marcas que Marcam (Docs 9C and 9D)

• Press and internet articles:

• an article dated April-June 2011 regarding a 24-hour telephone helpline called ‘LINHA MÉDIS’ (Doc. 8B),

• an article dated February 2011 from issue 175 of the publication Marketeer No 175 and a printout dated 06/08/2019 from the website ind.millenniumbcp.pt concerning the opponent’s magazine Mais Médis (Docs. 10 and 11),

• an interview with the opponent’s marketing director (Doc. 13),

• an interview from the publication Mundo Médis with the director of AXA Portugal insurance company on his company’s collaboration with the opponent in the context of health insurance (Doc. 14),

• an interview with the director of Clinic Parque dos Poetas, a health clinic in Portugal, concerning the partnership with ‘Médis’ that began in 2000 (Doc. 14B).

• Awards received by the opponent between 2006 and 2015:

• Superbrands: an extract dated 29/06/2011 from the publication Eurobest referring to the inclusion of ‘Médis’ in the 7th edition of the book Superbrands 2011, further extracts dated 29/09/2006 and 19/03/2008 from Eurobest, a printout from the website of ‘Briefing’ referring to the Superbrands awards also conferred on ‘Médis’ in 2006, 2008 and 2010; and articles from Wikipedia, Superbrands Portugal 2006 and the website superbrands.sapo.pt about the Superbrands awards and their methodology (Docs 12A and 12B),

• ‘Trusted Brands’ by Reader’s Digest Selections: an article presenting the awards and their methodology, and articles concerning the Trusted Brand award granted several times to ‘Médis’ in the category of health insurance between 2009 and 2017 (Docs 12C and 12D),

• Consumer’s Choice and Senior’s Choice awards: a press release from 2014, a printout dated 10/03/2017 from the opponent’s website, printouts dated 22/06/2015 from Youtube, and a press article concerning the awards granted by Consumer’s Choice (Docs 12E and 12F),

• Marktest Reputation Index 2013: a printout dated 05/12/2014 concerning the award received by Médis (Doc. 12G).

• Internet excerpts showing examples of video advertisements and television advertising campaigns published on the website of YouTube in 2013, 2014 and 2016 (Docs 15A-C)

• Invoices addressed to the opponent in 2013 and 2014 for radio, digital, press and television advertisement campaigns (Doc. 15D)

• Evidence concerning various events (such as Mercer Run 4 People, Médis Conference, Médis Rugby Youth Festival, Médis Hotline Cascais Race, Médis Douro Waterfront Race) and the TV show O Nosso Médico sponsored by the opponent in the years 2006-2016 (Docs 15E-G and 16A-F).

• Evidence of social causes supported by the opponent, such as a partnership with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, a social solidarity campaign in the Association of Night Hostels of Lisbon, and a partnership with the NGO Médicos do Mundo (Docs 17A-C).

According to the opponent, the earlier mark ‘Médis’ has been highly reputed since 1995. The opponent states that the degree of brand awareness has increased over the last 20 years due to the its investments in advertising, marketing campaigns and sponsorship activities. Over this period, the earlier mark has become very well known in Portugal and has achieved a high level of recognition. Moreover, the opponent quotes the judgment of the Portuguese Supreme Court of 20/12/2017, process 144/11.3TYLSB.L2.S2, recognising the reputation of the earlier mark.

Having examined the material listed above, the Opposition Division concludes that the evidence submitted by the opponent corroborates its claims and demonstrates that the earlier trade mark has acquired a reputation.

The market studies conducted by the research companies Causa e Efeito in 2005 (Doc. 9A) and Nielsen in 2009 (Doc. 9B) show high brand recognition figures for ‘Médis’ in relation to health insurance (around 70 % spontaneous and over 90 % assisted brand recognition) and that the vast majority of the interviewees perceived ‘Médis’ as a market leader in health insurance. This shows that the earlier mark had already acquired a reputation in the field of health insurance long before the filing date of the contested mark. Furthermore, the 2014 and 2015 surveys by the magazine Marcas que Marcam ranked the opponent first in ‘Top of Mind awareness’ in the health insurance category in those years (Docs 9C and 9D). The market study conducted by Nielsen in 2015 (Doc. 9E) confirmed the trade mark ‘Médis’ as the market leader in terms of recognition, prestige and client satisfaction.

Moreover, the extracts dated 29/06/2011 from the publication Eurobest refer to the inclusion of ‘Médis’ in the 7th edition of the book Superbrands 2011 (Doc. 12A). In 2013 ‘Médis’ was listed among Reader´s Digest’s Trusted Brands for the fifth consecutive year, having achieved 48 % unassisted brand recognition in relation to health insurance (Doc. 12D). In 2013 ‘Médis’ was also ranked first in the Marktest Reputation Index in the insurance category (Doc. 12G).

It is clear from the evidence, and especially from the survey results and the awards received, that the earlier trade mark has been subject to long-standing and intensive use and is generally known in the relevant market, where it enjoys a consolidated position among the leading brands, as has been attested by diverse independent sources. Although the majority of the documents are dated between 2009 and 2015, the evidence from 2017 and 2019 (Docs 11, 12D, 12E, 18 and 19) confirms the continuity of use of the earlier mark.

In light of the above, the Opposition Division concludes that the earlier mark enjoys a significant degree of reputation in Portugal in relation to health insurance in Class 36.

However, it cannot be assumed that this reputation also extends to health care services in Class 44. There is some evidence that refers to medical assistance services rendered via a helpline (Doc. 3), unconventional therapies and check-ups (Doc. 6) and other services belonging to Class 44. However, it does not contain any information that enables the Opposition Division to evaluate consumers’ perception and degree of recognition of the ‘Médis’ trade mark for these services. The evidence of reputation clearly relates to health insurance services only. Moreover, the majority of services in Class 44 seem to be provided in partnership with the opponent, but not directly under the trade mark ‘Médis’.

2. The signs

MÉDIS
Earlier trade mark	Contested sign

The relevant territory is Portugal.

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 composed of a single element ‘MÉDIS’. It is irrelevant that it is written in upper-case letters, since in the case of word marks it is the word as such that is protected and not its written form.

The figurative contested sign is composed of the word element ‘vivamedis’. Despite the lack of separation between the words of this element, the relevant public will easily perceive the elements ‘viva’ and ‘medis’ due to the visual separation caused by the colours used, and their semantic content, as will be explained below.

The common element ‘MÉDIS’/‘medis’ does not have a concrete meaning. Although ‘medis’ coincides with the second person plural of the present tense of the verb ‘to measure’ in Portuguese, it is not likely that this meaning would be perceived by the public, as it is not the verb itself but a specific verbal conjugation. On the other hand, the relevant public is likely to perceive this element as alluding to the medical field or to medicine, because this element shares a common root with the equivalent words in Portuguese, ‘medicina’ and ‘medico’. In the context of the relevant goods and services the public will associate this element with the medical field, and their distinctiveness per se will therefore be low for them.

The remaining word element of the contested sign, ‘viva’, has a concrete meaning in Portuguese, namely the feminine form of ‘alive’ or the exclamation expressing joy, enthusiasm (‘cheers, hurrah, hurray’) (information extracted from Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa on 23/10/2020 at https://dicionario.priberam.org/viva). This second interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the dot of the letter ‘i’ is unusually placed under the letter, forming an exclamation mark. Taking into account the laudatory nature of the element ‘viva’, this element is weak. However, in the context of the relevant goods, it will be perceived as slightly more distinctive than the following element ‘medis’.

The slightly stylised typeface of the contested sign and the colours used are not distinctive per se and will be perceived as merely decorative.

Finally, the red of the dot below the letter ‘i’ does not render the element ‘viva’, written in pale grey, more eye-catching than other parts of the sign, contrary to the applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the contested sign has no element that could be considered more dominant than other elements.

Visually, the sole element of the earlier mark is entirely included (without the accent on the letter ‘e’) in the contested sign. Although its distinctiveness is low, it is clearly recognisable in the contested sign, where it forms an independent element. The signs differ in the additional weak element ‘viva’ at the beginning of the contested sign, the lack of an accent on the letter ‘e’, and the slight stylisation and colours of the contested sign.

Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the syllables ‘me’ and ‘dis’, present identically in both signs, and differs in the additional syllables ‘vi’ and ‘va’ at the beginning of the contested sign, which do not have any counterpart in the earlier mark.

Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Although the signs as a whole do not have any meaning for the public in the relevant territory, the verbal elements ‘MÉDIS’ and ‘medis’ will be associated with the meaning explained above. However, their distinctiveness is low. The element ‘viva’ introduces an additional concept in the contested sign, but even though it is slightly more distinctive than the element ‘medis’, it remains weak due to its laudatory nature.

As seen above, the coincidences between the signs concern the second element of the contested sign. Although, as the applicant correctly points out, consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark, the degree of distinctiveness of the elements of the signs must also be taken into account when comparing the signs.

In summary, and in view of the distinctiveness of the elements composing the signs, the similarity of the signs is below average on all three levels of comparison, the visual, aural and conceptual.

Taking into account that the signs have been found similar, the examination of the existence of a risk of injury will proceed.

c) The ‘link’ between the signs

As seen above, the earlier mark is reputed and the signs are similar. In order to establish the existence of a risk of injury, it is necessary to demonstrate that, given all the relevant factors, the relevant public will establish a link (or association) between the signs. The necessity of such a ‘link’ between the conflicting marks in consumers’ minds is not explicitly mentioned in Article 8(5) EUTMR but has been confirmed by several judgments (23/10/2003, C‑408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 66). It is not an additional requirement but merely reflects the need to determine whether the association that the public might establish between the signs is such that either detriment or unfair advantage is likely to occur after all of the factors that are relevant to the particular case have been assessed.

Possible relevant factors for the examination of a ‘link’ include (27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 42):

• the degree of similarity between the signs;

• the nature of the goods and services, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant public;

• the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation;

• the degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use;

• the existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

This list is not exhaustive and other criteria may be relevant depending on the particular circumstances. Moreover, the existence of a ‘link’ may be established on the basis of only some of these criteria.

The establishment of such a link, while triggered by similarity (or identity) between the signs, requires that the relevant sections of the public for each of the goods and services covered by the trade marks in dispute are the same or overlap to some extent. In the present case, the earlier mark is reputed for health insurance. The application for the contested mark covers elixirs [pharmaceutical preparations]; pharmaceuticals; cachets for pharmaceutical purposes; antioxidant pills; vitamin preparations; ointments for pharmaceutical purposes. Consequently, there is a clear overlap between the relevant sections of the public for the trade marks in dispute, given that both the earlier mark and the contested mark target, among others, the public at large.

The signs are similar to the extent that they share the common element ‘MEDIS’ which is the only element of the earlier mark and is incorporated in the contested sign as its second element. In relation to the goods and services in question, the similarities between the signs clearly relate to elements that are distinctive to a low degree, because they allude to the medical/healthcare field in which both parties operate. However, the differentiating element ‘viva’ is not particularly distinctive. In fact, taking into account the reputation of the earlier mark, the relevant public is likely to perceive the contested mark as a statement praising ‘Médis’ (i.e. ‘Viva Médis!’) - the entity which the public already knows and which operates in a broadly healthcare-related sector. The evidence submitted by the opponent shows that ‘Médis’ cooperates with pharmacies (Docs 18 and 19), and the public may expect that pharmaceutical products bearing the trade mark benefit, for example, from special conditions of ‘Médis’ health insurance.

Therefore, taking into account and weighing up all the relevant factors of the present case, it must be concluded that, when encountering the contested mark, the relevant consumers will be likely to associate it with the earlier sign, that is to say, establish a mental ‘link’ between the signs. However, although a ‘link’ between the signs is a necessary condition for further assessing whether detriment or unfair advantage are likely, the existence of such a link is not sufficient, in itself, for a finding that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T‑301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96).

d) Risk of injury

Use of the contested mark will fall under Article 8(5) EUTMR when any of the following situations arise:

• it takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark;

• it is detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark;

• it is detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

Although detriment or unfair advantage may be only potential in opposition proceedings, a mere possibility is not sufficient for Article 8(5) EUTMR to be applicable. While the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark, it must ‘adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or detriment’ (06/07/2012, T‑60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).

It follows that the opponent must establish that detriment or unfair advantage is probable, in the sense that it is foreseeable in the ordinary course of events. For that purpose, the opponent should file evidence, or at least put forward a coherent line of argument demonstrating what the detriment or unfair advantage would consist of and how it would occur, that could lead to the prima facie conclusion that such an event is indeed likely in the ordinary course of events.

The opponent claims that ‘the link established between the conflicting marks will permit the applicant to take unfair advantage of the opponent’s reputed ‘Médis’ mark, as well as to inflict damage upon such reputation’.

Unfair advantage (free-riding)

Unfair advantage in the context of Article 8(5) EUTMR covers cases where there is clear exploitation and ‘free-riding on the coat-tails’ of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation. In other words, there is a risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods and services covered by the contested trade mark, with the result that the marketing of those goods and services is made easier by their association with the earlier mark with a reputation (06/07/2012, T‑60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 48; 22/03/2007, T‑215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40).

The opponent bases its claim on the following:

• The earlier mark ‘Médis’ is well reputed among the relevant public, and the opponent had to greatly invest in advertising in order to enhance the earlier mark’s distinctiveness and reputation.

• The relevant public would certainly associate the quality of the earlier mark with the goods commercialised under the contested mark, allowing the applicant to free-ride on the opponent’s reputation in order to stimulate the sale of its goods.

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union

… as regards injury consisting of unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, in so far as what is prohibited is the drawing of benefit from that mark by the proprietor of the later mark, the existence of such injury must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

(27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 36).

To determine whether the use of a sign takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment, which takes into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T‑47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, 12/03/2009, C‑320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; 23/10/2003, C‑408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C‑552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).

The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark, or is, or will be, detrimental to it (27/11/2008, C‑252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C‑487/07, L’Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).

The applicant’s intention is not a material factor. Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or repute of a trade mark may be a deliberate decision, for example, where there is clear exploitation and free-riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark, or an attempt to trade upon the reputation of a famous mark. However, taking unfair advantage does not necessarily require a deliberate intention to exploit the goodwill attached to someone else’s trade mark. The concept of taking unfair advantage ‘concerns the risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods and services covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods and services is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with a reputation’ (19/06/2008, T‑93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T‑215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T‑128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).

The earlier mark has obtained a strong reputation among the relevant public in relation to health insurance. It has become an attractive and powerful brand in Portugal. The evidence submitted by the opponent shows that the earlier mark is highly recognisable and enjoys high consumer satisfaction. It has received various awards in the relevant market sector. In addition, it promotes a healthy lifestyle by sponsoring sporting events.

Taking into account the strong reputation of the earlier mark, the similarities between the marks and the relationship between relevant market sectors, the relevant public will make a mental connection between the marks. This association is likely to have a commercial benefit for the applicant. As explained above, the opponent operates, broadly speaking, in the healthcare sector. On the other hand, the contested goods are not limited to any highly specialised pharmaceuticals, but are products that can be bought by the general public without a medical prescription. There is a high probability that the use of the mark applied for may lead to free-riding; that is, it would take unfair advantage of the well-established strong reputation of the earlier mark and the investments undertaken by the opponent to achieve that reputation. The use of the trade mark applied for could also lead to the perception that the applicant is associated with or belongs to the opponent, and could therefore facilitate the marketing of the goods for which protection is sought.

In summary, the contested trade mark is likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

The opponent also argues that use of the contested trade mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the earlier trade mark.

As seen above, the existence of a risk of injury is an essential condition for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply. The risk of injury may be of three different types. For an opposition to be well founded in this respect, it is sufficient if only one of these types is found to exist. In the present case, as seen above, the Opposition Division has already concluded that the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark. It follows that there is no need to examine whether other types also apply.

f) Conclusion

Considering all the above, the opposition is well founded under Article 8(5) EUTMR. Therefore, the contested trade mark must be rejected for all the contested goods.

Given that the opposition is entirely successful under Article 8(5) EUTMR, it is not necessary to examine the remaining ground, namely Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, and the other earlier rights on which the opposition was based.

COSTS

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

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

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

The Opposition Division

Loreto URRACA LUQUE

Zuzanna STOJKOWICZ

Christophe DU JARDIN

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.