20 In the third place, the applicant argues that the Board of Appeal carried out an assessment, in particular in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the contested decision, which cannot be described as impartial by using only its own understanding of the word element ‘cannabis’ and by associating it, first, with an incorrect perception of the representation of the leaves reproduced in the sign which is the subject of the trade mark application as being the leaves of a plant which does not exist, namely marijuana, and, second, with the geographical indication ‘Amsterdam’.
Po druhé, rozdiel medzi VÚ a VPT LOD sa zakladá na použití LOD, t. j. LOD vhodné na rôzne použitie na rozdiel od LOD, ktoré je možné použiť len na zvláštne použitieEurlex2019 Eurlex2019