Traduction de «A priori » (Anglais → Français) :

36. Expresses doubts also about the ineligibility for regional aid of ‘firms in difficulties within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’ (paragraph 11 of the draft guidelines); believes that companies undergoing restructuring should not be exposed to more stringent measures, especially when a priori negative assessment of aid requests from these companies might lead to relocation outside the EU; points out that responsible company restructuring in today’s uncertain and constantly changing business environment is the main measure to provide the long-term sustainability ...[+++]of investment, jobs and growth; notes that the proposed rule as drafted is not only inconsistent with helping firms affected by the economic crisis in assisted regions but also impossible to implement, given that those guidelines explicitly contain no precise definition of firms in difficulty; recalls its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring calling for a legal act on those matters, and requests that the Commission acts without delay;

It is therefore necessary to determine – in the context of an a priori examination and without reference to any actual use of the sign within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – whether the claimed mark will enable the targeted public to distinguish the marked goods or services from those of other undertakings when they come to make a purchasing choice.

The Office is of the opinion that the Court of First Instance was right to assess the distinctiveness of the marks in question, registration of which was applied for under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in the context of an a priori consideration and without reference to any actual use made of the sign.

However, in a manner which was blatantly inconsistent with that statement, the Court of First Instance wrongly restricted itself, at paragraphs 34 and 39 of the contested judgment, to an a priori assessment, without any reference to the use of the mark, by failing to have regard to the evidence relating to the perception by the public of the marks in question following their use.

It should be added that the inability of the mark applied for to indicate, a priori and irrespective of the use made of it within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, the product’s origin is not affected by how many similar tablets are already on the market.

It is therefore appropriate to ascertain – in an a priori examination not involving any consideration of the use made of the sign within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – whether the mark applied for will enable the members of the public targeted to distinguish the products concerned from those having a different trade origin when they come to select a product for purchase.