33 Moreover, regarding the impact of the target public, the Court has observed that, in contrast to the situation referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of the trade marks directive, where the perception of the target public must be taken into account since it is essential for the purposes of determining whether the sign filed for registration as a trade mark enables the goods or services concerned to be recognised as originating from a particular undertaking, such an obligation cannot be imposed in the context of paragraph 1(e) of that article (see, to that effect, judgment in Lego Juris v OHIM, EU:C:2010:516, paragraph 75).
33 Osim toga, kad je riječ o utjecaju na ciljanu javnost, Sud je utvrdio da, suprotno slučaju iz članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) Direktive o žigovima, kada se percepcija ciljane javnosti obvezno mora uzeti u obzir jer je bitna za utvrđivanje omogućuje li znak koji je prijavljen kao žig prepoznavanje da predmetni proizvodi ili usluge potječu od konkretnog poduzeća, takva se obveza ne može uvesti u kontekstu stavka 1. točke (e) navedenog članka (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu Lego Juris/OHIM, EU:C:2010:516, t. 75.).EurLex-2 EurLex-2