23 However, where OHIM, including its Boards of Appeal, decides to base its decision on a national decision as a piece of evidence, which is, in principle, permissible (see, to that effect, Case T‐122/99 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Soap bar shape) [2000] ECR II‐265, paragraph 61, and Case T‐337/99 Henkel v OHIM (Round red and white tablet) [2001] ECR II‐2597, paragraph 58), it must, in accordance with the principles set out at paragraphs 19 and 20 above, examine with all the required care and in a diligent manner whether that piece of evidence is such as to show the genuine use of an earlier mark.
SMHV (Punainen ja valkoinen pyöreä tabletti), tuomio 19.9.2001, Kok., s. II-2597, 58 kohta), sen on edellä 19 ja 20 kohdassa esitettyjen periaatteiden mukaisesti arvioitava kaikella vaadittavalla huolellisuudella ja tarkkuudella, onko todiste osoitus aikaisemman tavaramerkin tosiasiallisesta käytöstä.EurLex-2 EurLex-2