4 Het Gerecht heeft zich, zij het indirect, reeds uitgesproken over deze kwestie in zijn arresten van 6 september 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/BHIM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); 13 april 2011, Safariland/BHIM – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), en 29 november 2012, Adamowski/BHIM – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 en T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).
4 The General Court has already ruled, albeit only indirectly, on the issue raised in the present case in its judgments of 6 September 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), of 13 April 2011, Safariland v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), and of 29 November 2012, Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 and T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).EuroParl2021 EuroParl2021