Pourtant, en contradiction flagrante avec cette affirmation, le Tribunal se serait, aux points 34 et 39 de l’arrêt attaqué, illicitement limité à un examen a priori, en dehors de tout usage de la marque, en ne prenant pas en compte les éléments de preuve concernant la perception par le public des marques en cause après leur usage.
However, in a manner which was blatantly inconsistent with that statement, the Court of First Instance wrongly restricted itself, at paragraphs 34 and 39 of the contested judgment, to an a priori assessment, without any reference to the use of the mark, by failing to have regard to the evidence relating to the perception by the public of the marks in question following their use.
