Finally, as regards the last part of the ground of appeal, first, as is apparent from paragraph 30 of this judgment, the Court of First Instance did not err in law in any way by taking the sweet packaging commonly used in trade into account in assessing whether the mark applied for is, or is not, devoid of any distinctive character.

First, in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance wrongly made the finding that the mark applied for has distinctive character subject to the condition that it be fundamentally different from other forms of presentation of sweet wrappers commonly used in trade, thus imposing stricter requirements than those normally applied for establishing such character.

Finally, the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance failed to ascertain whether the mark applied for possesses in itself, independently of other similar forms of presentation of sweet wrappers on the market, a minimum level of distinctiveness.

Green tea (not fermented) in immediate packings of a content not exceeding 3 kg

If the lot consists of individual packages, then the number of packages which shall be taken to form the aggregate sample is given in Table 2.

1. The costs of sorting and packaging fresh fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market for free distribution referred to in Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 shall be borne by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), at the flat-rate amount of EUR 132 per tonne net weight, in the case of products put up in packages of less than 25 kilograms net weight. The cost of fresh products intended for the manufacture of processed products as referred to in Articles 14a and 14b shall not be so borne.