Looking at the prohibition of exclusive reliance on general, abstract data, such as specific percentages, in the light of the list of factors indicated in Philips and Windsurfing Chiemsee as capable of being taken into account, it seems to me that the Court’s meaning is that, in addition to figures whose interpretation may be affected by factors such as the extent of competition, 52some evidence must be presented that the mark in issue is actually perceived as linking the products which bear it with a particular undertaking.
Uurides ainult üldistele ja abstraktsetele andmetele, näiteks teatavatele protsentidele toetumise keeldu kohtuotsustes Philips ja Windsurfing Chiemsee loetletud asjaolusid arvestades, tundub mulle, et Esimese Astme Kohus on silmas pidanud, et lisaks andmetele, mille tõlgendamist võivad mõjutada erinevad tegurid, näiteks konkurentsi ulatus, 52 tuleb esitada tõendid selle kohta, et vaatlusalust kaubamärki tajutakse tegelikult nii, et selle all müüdavaid tooteid seostatakse konkreetse ettevõtjaga.