MOUNTAINTOP | Decision 2713959 - EL CORTE INGLES, S.A. v. Weihang Xu
Date Published: Sep 28, 2017
OPPOSITION No B 2 713 959
El Corte Ingles, S.A., Hermosilla, 112, 28009 Madrid, Spain (opponent), represented by J.M. Toro, S.L.P., Viriato, 56 - 1º izda, 28010 Madrid, Spain (professional representative)
a g a i n s t
Weihang Xu, A-1, New City Garden, No.9, Jianshe Road, Xinhua Street, Huadu District, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China (applicant), represented by Arcade & Asociados, C/ Isabel Colbrand 6 - 5ª planta, 28050 Madrid, Spain (professional representative).
On 26/05/2017, the Opposition Division takes the following
DECISION:
1. Opposition No B 2 713 959 is partially upheld, namely for the following contested goods:
Class 28: Whistles [toys]; Knee guards [sports articles]; Elbow guards [sports articles]; Golf gloves; Wrist guards for athletic use; Surfboards; Skis; Climbers’ harness; Bags especially designed for skis and surfboards; Snowshoes.
2. European Union trade mark application No 15 251 911 is rejected for all the above goods. It may proceed for the remaining goods.
3. Each party bears its own costs.
REASONS:
The opponent filed an opposition against all the goods of European Union trade mark application No 15 251 911. The opposition is based on European Union trade mark registration No 13 102 868. 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 goods and services
The goods and services on which the opposition is based are the following:
Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; compact discs, dvds and other digital recording media; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment, computers; computer software; fire-extinguishing apparatus.
Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water.
Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments.
Class 18: Leather and his/her imitations; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery.
Class 22: Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials.
Class 24: Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed covers; table covers.
Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear.
Class 28: Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees.
Class 35: Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions; wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking, life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity, apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, coin-operated apparatus, data processing equipment and computers, vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land, air and water, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological instruments, leather and imitations of leather, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, umbrellas and parasols, walking sticks, harness and saddlery, ropes, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags, raw fibrous textile materials, textiles and textile goods, bed covers, table covers, clothing, footwear, headgear, games and playthings, gymnastic and sporting articles, decorations for Christmas trees.
The contested goods are the following:
Class 8: Blade sharpening instruments; hand tools, hand-operated; cutting tools [hand tools]; knives; hand pumps; sabres; can openers, non-electric; daggers; side arms, other than firearms; table cutlery [knives, forks and spoons].
Class 21: Jugs; cups; utensils for household purposes; cooking pots; kettles [non-electric]; glassware; porcelain ware; drinking vessels; heat-insulated containers; gardening gloves.
Class 28: Whistles [toys]; knee guards [sports articles]; elbow guards [sports articles]; golf gloves; wrist guards for athletic use; surfboards; skis; climbers’ harness; bags especially designed for skis and surfboards; snowshoes.
As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 28(7) EUTMR, goods or services are not regarded as being similar or dissimilar to 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 8
The contested blade sharpening instruments; hand tools, hand-operated; cutting tools [hand tools]; knives; hand pumps; sabres; can openers, non-electric; daggers; side arms, other than firearms; table cutlery [knives, forks and spoons] have nothing in common with the opponent’s goods in Class 9 (scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment, computers; computer software; fire-extinguishing apparatus), Class 12 (vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water), Class 14 (precious metals and their alloys; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments), Class 18 (leather and his/her imitations; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery), Class 22 (ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials), Class 24 (textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed covers; table covers), Class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear) or Class 28 (games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees). They have different natures, intended purposes and methods of use. Their producers and relevant publics are also different. Furthermore, these goods are neither complementary nor in competition. Consequently, they are dissimilar.
Advertising services in Class 35 consist of providing others with assistance in the sale of their goods and services by promoting their launch and/or sale, or of reinforcing a client’s position in the market and acquiring competitive advantage through publicity. Many different means and products can be used to fulfil this objective. These services are provided by specialist companies, which study their client’s needs, provide all the necessary information and advice for marketing the client’s goods and services, and create a personalised strategy for advertising them through newspapers, web sites, videos, the internet, etc.
Advertising services are fundamentally different in nature and purpose from the manufacture of goods or the provision of many other services. The fact that some goods or services may appear in advertisements is insufficient for finding similarity. Therefore, advertising is dissimilar to goods in Class 8 being advertised.
Wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking, life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity, apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, coin-operated apparatus, data processing equipment and computers, vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land, air and water, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological instruments, leather and imitations of leather, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, umbrellas and parasols, walking sticks, harness and saddlery, ropes, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags, raw fibrous textile materials, textiles and textile goods, bed covers, table covers, clothing, footwear, headgear, games and playthings, gymnastic and sporting articles, decorations for Christmas trees are not similar to any of the contested goods in Class 8. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. Retail services consist in bringing together, and offering for sale, a wide variety of different products, thus allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs at one stop. This is not the purpose of goods. Furthermore, goods and services have different methods of use and are neither in competition nor complementary.
Similarity between retail services of specific goods covered by one mark and specific goods covered by another mark can only be found where the goods involved in the retail services and the specific goods covered by the other mark are identical. The same principles apply to services rendered in connection with other types of services that consist exclusively of activities revolving around the actual sale of goods, such as the retail store services, wholesale services, internet shopping, and catalogue or mail order services in Class 35. This condition is not fulfilled in the present case, since the goods at issue are dissimilar.
The contested blade sharpening instruments; hand tools, hand-operated; cutting tools [hand tools]; knives; hand pumps; sabres; can openers, non-electric; daggers; side arms, other than firearms; table cutlery [knives, forks and spoons] have nothing in common with the opponent’s other services in Class 35 (business management; business administration; office functions).
These services of the opponent are intended to support or help other businesses to do or improve their business.
Business management services 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.
Business administration services are usually rendered by specialists, for example business consultants. These services include performing or managing business operations and decision making, both regarding people and other resources, as well as directing activities toward common goals and objectives.
Office functions include services such as carrying out a diverse range of functions within the field of office management, such as customer service, report writing, budget management, database management, systems analysis, process mapping, purchasing, bookkeeping, human resources, recruitment, accounting, sales and marketing, records management, form/template design, website maintenance, project management, management consultancy, facilities management, space management, risk management and payroll.
These services of the opponent are dissimilar to the aforementioned contested goods in Class 8. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. Their producers/providers and relevant publics are also different. Furthermore, these goods and services are neither complementary nor in competition.
The opponent’s argument that there is a clear relationship between the contested goods and its goods and services, as all of them refer to or are used in outdoor activities, cannot alter the above findings because many of the relevant goods and services are not related to outdoor activities (e.g. the opponent’s goods in Class 9 and business management services in Class 35) and, moreover, the mere fact that goods and services are related to outdoor activities is not sufficient to render them similar.
Contested goods in Class 21
The contested jugs; cups; utensils for household purposes; cooking pots; kettles [non-electric]; glassware; porcelain ware; drinking vessels; heat-insulated containers; gardening gloves have nothing in common with the opponent’s goods in Class 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25 or 28. They have different natures, intended purposes and methods of use. Their producers and relevant publics are also different. Furthermore, these goods are neither complementary nor in competition. Consequently, they are dissimilar.
Advertising in Class 35 is dissimilar to goods in Class 21 being advertised, for the same reasons as pointed out above in relation to Class 8.
Wholesaling, retailing and sale via global computer networks of scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking, life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity, apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, coin-operated apparatus, data processing equipment and computers, vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land, air and water, precious metals and their alloys, jewellery, horological instruments, leather and imitations of leather, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, umbrellas and parasols, walking sticks, harness and saddlery, ropes, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags, raw fibrous textile materials, textiles and textile goods, bed covers, table covers, clothing, footwear, headgear, games and playthings, gymnastic and sporting articles, decorations for Christmas trees are not similar to any of the contested goods in Class 21. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. Retail services consist in bringing together, and offering for sale, a wide variety of different products, thus allowing consumers to conveniently satisfy different shopping needs at one stop. This is not the purpose of goods. Furthermore, goods and services have different methods of use and are neither in competition nor complementary.
Similarity between retail services of specific goods covered by one mark and specific goods covered by another mark can only be found where the goods involved in the retail services and the specific goods covered by the other mark are identical. The same principles apply to services rendered in connection with other types of services that consist exclusively of activities revolving around the actual sale of goods, such as the retail store services, wholesale services, internet shopping, and catalogue or mail order services in Class 35. This condition is not fulfilled in the present case, since the goods at issue are dissimilar.
The contested jugs; cups; utensils for household purposes; cooking pots; kettles [non-electric]; glassware; porcelain ware; drinking vessels; heat-insulated containers; gardening gloves] also have nothing in common with the opponent’s other services in Class 35 (business management; business administration; office functions).
These services of the opponent, as explained above, are intended to support or help other businesses to do or improve their business.
They are dissimilar to the aforementioned contested goods in Class 21. Apart from being different in nature, since services are intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs. Their producers/providers and relevant publics are also different. Furthermore, these goods and services are neither complementary nor in competition.
The opponent’s argument that there is a clear relationship between the contested goods and its goods and services, as all of them refer to or are used in outdoor activities, cannot alter the above findings because many of the relevant goods and services are not related to outdoor activities (e.g. the opponent’s goods in Class 9 and business management services in Class 35) and, moreover, the mere fact that goods and services are related to outdoor activities is not sufficient to render them similar.
Contested goods in Class 28
The contested whistles [toys] are included in the broad category of the opponent’s games and playthings. Therefore, they are identical.
The contested knee guards [sports articles]; elbow guards [sports articles]; golf gloves; wrist guards for athletic use; surfboards; skis; climbers’ harness; bags especially designed for skis and surfboards; snowshoes are included in the broad category of the opponent’s sporting articles not included in other classes. Therefore, they are identical.
- Relevant public — degree of attention
The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question.
In the present case, the goods found to be identical are directed at the public at large.
The public’s degree of attention may vary from average to higher than average, depending on the price of the purchased goods.
- 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 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.
The English word ‘MOUNTAIN’ is not meaningful in certain territories, for example in some countries where English is not understood and the respective national equivalent is not similar to the said English term. Consequently, the Opposition Division finds it appropriate to focus the comparison of the signs on the non-English-speaking part of the public which will not associate the word ‘MOUNTAIN’ with a meaning, such as the public in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia.
At the outset, it is noted that both marks are figurative marks.
The earlier sign is composed of three figurative elements and the word elements ‘MOUNTAIN’ and ‘PRO’. ‘MOUNTAIN’ is written in a standard bold black lower case typeface with the letters ‘U’ and ‘N’ merged. ‘PRO’ appears at the lower right-hand side underneath ‘MOUNTAIN’ in a standard bold grey upper case typeface. The word ‘PRO’ is the size of a footnote in comparison with the word ‘MOUNTAIN’.
From the perspective of the relevant public, the word ‘MOUNTAIN’ has no meaning and is therefore not descriptive; it is also not allusive or otherwise weak for the relevant goods. Therefore, it is distinctive.
The relevant public will understand the word ‘PRO’ with the meaning of ‘for’ or ‘in favour of’, and it may well also be understood as relating to ‘professional’ (in this context, see also 11/09/14, T-127/13, Pro outdoor, EU:T:2014:767, § 58). In this sense, the element ‘PRO’ is descriptive of the quality of the relevant goods.
In relation to the figurative elements of the earlier sign, the Opposition Division notes that, although they are distinctive as such, when signs consist of both verbal and figurative components, in principle, the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component. This is because the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). Therefore, the figurative elements will be of secondary importance, in the overall impression of the earlier mark, to the element ‘MOUNTAIN’.
Neither the figurative elements nor the word elements of the earlier trade mark, despite the small size of the verbal element ‘PRO’, may be regarded as being either clearly dominant (visually eye-catching) or negligible.
The contested sign is composed of the word ‘MOUNTAINTOP’, with a stylised, yet legible, first letter, ‘M’, depicted in a form that may bring to mind mountain peaks, crowned by a circle, which may be perceived as a sun or a moon. Although it may not be excluded that a part of the public will single out in the verbal element the words ‘TOP’ (meaning ‘the best’ and, thus, being laudatory and of limited distinctiveness) and ‘MOUNTAIN’ (the above considerations as regards its meaning and distinctiveness equally apply here), a significant part of the relevant public will perceive the verbal element as a meaningless word, which would consequently be of average distinctiveness. For the reasons explained above, the verbal element ‘MOUNTAIN(TOP)’ is considered more distinctive than the figurative elements of the contested sign.
Neither the figurative elements nor the word element of the contested trade mark may be regarded as being either dominant (visually eye-catching) or negligible.
Visually, the signs coincide in their verbal elements’ first string of letters, ‘MOUNTAIN’, which forms the most distinctive element of the earlier mark and also, for part of the public, the most distinctive element of the contested sign.
However, the signs differ in the letters ‘PRO’ of the earlier mark and ‘TOP’ of the contested sign. They further differ in their typefaces, colours and figurative devices, which have no counterparts in the other sign.
It is important to note that the coinciding string of eight letters is at the beginning of the verbal elements of both signs. Consumers generally tend to focus on the beginning of a sign when they encounter a trade mark. This is because the public reads from left to right, which makes the part placed at the left of the sign (the initial part) the one that first catches the attention of the reader.
Taking into account the significant commonality in the signs’ word elements, which lies not only in their beginnings but also in most of their letters, and the principle that the verbal component of the sign usually has a stronger impact on the consumer than the figurative component, there is at least an average degree of visual similarity between the signs, even for the part of the public that would not perceive ‘TOP’ as a weak element.
Aurally, the pronunciation of the signs coincides in the sound of the letters /MOUNTAIN/, present identically in both signs. The pronunciation differs in the sound of the letters /PRO/ and /TOP/ in the earlier and contested signs, respectively. Considering that they have in common the most distinctive element of the earlier mark and the beginnings of the verbal elements of the signs, irrespective of the distinctiveness of ‘TOP’, the signs are aurally similar to an above average degree.
Conceptually, reference is made to the previous assertions concerning the semantic content conveyed by the marks. Considering that the coinciding elements will not be associated with a meaning and the presence of further verbal and figurative elements (albeit less distinctive or non-distinctive) that will be associated with a meaning, the signs are not conceptually similar.
As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.
- Distinctiveness of the earlier mark
The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion.
The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation.
Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its distinctiveness per se. In the present case, the earlier trade mark as a whole has no meaning for any of the goods in question from the perspective of the relevant public. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark must be seen as normal, despite the presence of the descriptive element ‘PRO’ in the mark as stated above in section c) of this decision.
- Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion
The appreciation of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the earlier mark on the market, the association which can be made with the registered mark, the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods or services identified (recital 8 of the EUTMR). It must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (22/06/1999, C-342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 18; 11/11/1997, C-251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
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 higher degree of similarity between signs may be offset by a lower degree of similarity between goods and services and vice versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).
As concluded above, the contested goods are partly identical and partly dissimilar to the opponent’s goods and services. The relevant public consists of the public at large. The degree of attention varies between average and higher than average.
The signs in conflict are visually similar to at least an average degree and aurally similar to an above average degree, but not conceptually similar, as explained in detail above in section c) of this decision.
The differences between the signs are not sufficient to counteract their similarities. This is, in particular, justified by the fact that the signs coincide in the string of letters ‘MOUNTAIN’, which forms the most distinctive element of the earlier mark and also, for part of the public, the most distinctive element of the contested sign. Although the signs differ in further verbal and figurative elements (e.g. the figurative elements in both marks and the verbal element ‘PRO’ in the earlier mark), these elements are non-distinctive and/or secondary in the overall impressions of the signs. Furthermore, the public does not tend to analyse signs and will more easily refer to the signs in question by their verbal element than by describing their figurative elements (14/07/2005, T-312/03, Selenium-Ace, EU:T:2005:289, § 37). It is true that for a part of the public the letters ‘TOP’ at the end of the contested sign will not be perceived as meaningful and weak; however, for this part of the public this difference is also not sufficient to counteract the coincidences in the beginnings of the signs, especially considering the identity between the goods.
Likelihood of confusion covers situations where the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings. Furthermore, it is common practice in the relevant market for manufacturers to make variations of their trade marks, for example by altering the typeface or colours, or adding verbal or figurative elements to them, in order to denote a new product line or to endow a trade mark with a new, fashionable image.
Indeed, it is highly conceivable that the relevant consumer (even if displaying a higher than average degree of attention) will perceive the contested mark as a sub-brand, a variation of the earlier mark, 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, there is a likelihood of confusion at least on the part of the public in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. 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 found to be identical to those of the earlier trade mark.
The rest of the contested goods are dissimilar. As similarity of goods and services is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(1) EUTMR, the opposition based on this article and directed at these goods cannot be successful.
COSTS
According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in opposition proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party. According to Article 85(2) 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 only for part of the contested goods, both parties have succeeded on some heads and failed on others. Consequently, each party has to bear its own costs.
The Opposition Division
Martin EBERL | Frank MANTEY | Denitza STOYANOVA-VALCHANOVA |
According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 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 of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.