According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance held at paragraphs 33, 36 and 37 of the contested judgment that the shapes in question are common and that the average consumer is accustomed to them, that those shapes are commonly found in trade and that the nature of the marks might influence the perception which the targeted public will have of them, without basing those findings on any factual evidence.
Selon elle, en effet, le Tribunal a conclu, aux points 33, 36 et 37 de l’arrêt attaqué, que les formes en cause sont habituelles, que le consommateur moyen y est habitué, que ces formes se rencontrent communément dans le commerce et que la nature des marques influence leur perception par le public visé, sans fonder ces affirmations sur des constatations de fait.