It is apparent from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal, first, adopted by implication the examiner’s description of the mark at issue, which is set out in paragraph 23 above, secondly, supplemented it in accordance with what was stated in the grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal, by pointing out the ‘small stroke in the middle of the curve, towards the bottom’ and, lastly, found that that small stroke did not alter the perception of the mark at issue as being ‘a very simple and banal design, which has an exclusively decorative function and not that of identifying the commercial origin of the goods’.
Iz izpodbijane odločbe je razvidno, da je odbor za pritožbe najprej implicitno sprejel opis zadevne znamke, ki ga je podal preizkuševalec in ki je naveden v točki 23 zgoraj, da ga je nato dopolnil v skladu z navedbami iz obrazložitve pritožbe pred odborom za pritožbe, pri čemer je poudaril obstoj „male črte na sredini ukrivljene črte proti spodnjemu delu“ in da je nazadnje ugotovil, da ta mala črta ni spremenila zaznave zadevne znamke kot zelo preprostega, vsakdanjega motiva, ki ima izključno okrasno funkcijo, in ne funkcije trgovskega izvora proizvodov“.EurLex-2 EurLex-2