natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The General Court has held that whether a trade mark should be registered or should be declared invalid must be assessed on the basis of the situation at the date of its application, not of its registration (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; confirmed by 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225).
Opći sud presudio je da bi se procjena toga treba li žig registrirati ili proglasiti ništavim trebala provesti na temelju stanja na datum prijave žiga, a ne na datum njegove registracije (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; potvrđeno 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225).
Generally speaking, any developments or events after the date of application or priority date will not be taken into consideration.
Općenito, bilo kakav razvoj ili događaji nakon datuma prijave ili datuma prvenstva ne uzimaju se u obzir.
For example, the fact that a sign has, after the date of application, become the common term used in the trade for the goods or services for which registration was sought is in principle irrelevant for the purposes of examining an invalidity action (it would only be relevant in the context of a revocation action).
Na primjer, činjenica da je znak nakon datuma prijave postao uobičajen naziv u trgovini za proizvode ili usluge za koje je registracija zatražena u načelu je nebitna za ispitivanje postupka za proglašenje ništavosti (bila bi relevantna samo u kontekstu postupka za opoziv).
However, such facts subsequent to the date of application can nevertheless be taken into account where and to the extent that they allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the situation at the date of application for the EUTM.
Međutim, takve se činjenice nakon datuma prijave ipak mogu uzeti u obzir ako i u onoj mjeri u kojoj omogućuju donošenje zaključaka s obzirom na stanje na datum prijave žiga EU-a.
This might be the case, for example, with dictionary extracts that post-date the application date.
Tako može biti, na primjer, u slučaju izvadaka iz rječnika koji nose datum kasniji od datuma prijave.
Unless rapid development of linguistic usage or living conditions (in the sense of social or technical ‘trends') has taken place after the date of application, words will usually only be listed in dictionaries if their actual use and meaning has been established over a considerable period of time (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39).
Osim ako je nakon datuma prijave došlo do brzih promjena u lingvističkoj uporabi ili životnim uvjetima (u smislu društvenih ili tehnoloških trendova), riječi u rječnicima navode se samo ako su se njihova uporaba i značenje uvriježili tijekom znatnog razdoblja (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39).
3.1.3 Standards to be applied
Standardi koji se primjenjuju
3.2 Defence against a claim of lack of distinctiveness
Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
Since it is an exception, the onus of proof is on the party seeking to rely on it, namely the proprietor of the contested mark.
Budući da je riječ o iznimci, teret dokazivanja leži na stranci koja se želi pozvati na njega, konkretno na nositelju osporavanog žiga.
The proprietor of the contested mark is best placed to adduce evidence in support of the assertion that its mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it (e.g. concerning the intensity, geographical extent, duration of use, promotional investment).
Nositelj osporavanog žiga u najboljem je položaju za podnošenje dokaza koji potkrjepljuju tvrdnju da je njegov žig stekao razlikovni karakter uporabom (npr. u pogledu intenziteta uporabe, njezina zemljopisnog opsega i trajanja, promidžbenih ulaganja).
Consequently, where the proprietor of the contested mark is requested to adduce evidence of distinctive character acquired through use, but fails to do so, the mark must be declared invalid (19/06/2014, joined cases C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.
Stoga, ako se od nositelja osporavanog žiga zatraži da podnese dokaze o razlikovnom karakteru stečenom uporabom, ali on to ne učini, žig treba proglasiti ništavim (19/06/2014, spojeni predmeti C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.
The proprietor must demonstrate that either:
Nositelj mora dokazati sljedeće:
distinctive character was acquired after registration (Article 59(2) EUTMR).
razlikovni karakter stečen je nakon registracije (članak 59. stavak 2.
3.3 Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR
Zla vjera - članak 59. stavak 1. točka (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a
The EUTMR considers bad faith only as an absolute ground for the invalidity of an EUTM, to be relied on either before the Office or by means of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings.
U Uredbi o žigu EU-a zlu vjeru smatra se samo apsolutnim razlogom za ništavost žiga EU-a na koji se može pozvati ili pred Uredom ili putem protutužbe u postupku zbog povrede.
Therefore, bad faith is not relevant in examination or opposition proceedings (for opposition proceedings, 17/12/2010, T192/09, Seve Trophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50).
Stoga zla vjera nije važna u ispitivanju ili postupku prigovora (za postupak prigovora, 17/12/2010, T192/09, SeveTrophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50).
3.3.1 Relevant point in time
Relevantan trenutak
The relevant point in time for determining whether there was bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner is the time of filing of the application for registration.
Pri utvrđivanju postojanja zle vjere kod nositelja žiga EU-a, relevantnim trenutkom smatra se trenutak podnošenja prijave za registraciju.
However, the following must be noted.
Međutim, potrebno je napomenuti sljedeće.
Facts and evidence dated prior to filing can be taken into account for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM.
Činjenice i dokazi s datumima ranijima od datuma podnošenja prijave mogu se uzeti u obzir pri tumačenju namjere nositelja u trenutku podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a.
Facts and evidence dated subsequent to filing can sometimes be used for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM, in particular whether the owner has used the mark since registration (see paragraph 3.3.2.1 below, third paragraph).
Činjenice i dokazi s datumima kasnijima od datuma podnošenja prijave mogu se katkad iskoristiti za tumačenje namjere nositelja u trenutku podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a, posebno u odnosu na to je li vlasnik upotrebljavao žig nakon njegove registracije (pogledajte treći stavak odlomka 3.3.2.1.
As observed by Advocate General Sharpston (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), the concept of bad faith referred to in Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR is not defined, delimited or even described in any way in the legislation.
Kako je istaknula nezavisna odvjetnica Sharpston (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), pojam zle vjere iz članka 59. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a nije definiran, razgraničen pa čak ni na koji način opisan u zakonodavstvu.
However, the Court of Justice provided some guidance on how to interpret this concept in its judgment in the same case, as did the General Court in several cases (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689).
Međutim, Sud Europske unije dao je u svojoj odluci u tom predmetu određene smjernice o tome kako tumačiti taj pojam, a isto je učinio i Opći sud u nekoliko predmeta (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689).
In its preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, the Court of Justice declared that the concept of bad faith is an autonomous concept of European Union law, which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union.
U svojoj je prethodnoj odluci od 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, Sud presudio da je pojam zle vjere autonomni pojam prava Europske unije koji treba ujednačeno tumačiti u cijeloj Europskoj uniji.
One way to describe bad faith is ‘conduct which departs from accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices' (opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, and similarly, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14).
Jedan od načina na koji se može opisati zla vjera bio bi „ponašanje koje odstupa od prihvaćenih načela etičkog ponašanja ili poštenih trgovinskih i poslovnih praksi” (mišljenje nezavisne odvjetnice Sharpston od 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, i, slično, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14).
In order to find out whether the owner had been acting in bad faith at the time of filing the application, an overall assessment must be made in which all the relevant factors of the individual case must be taken into account.
Kako bi se doznalo je li vlasnik djelovao u zloj vjeri u trenutku podnošenja prijave, potrebno je provesti cjelokupnu procjenu u kojoj treba uzeti u obzir sve relevantne čimbenike pojedinog predmeta.
A non-exhaustive list of such factors is given below.
Nepotpun popis tih čimbenika nalazi se u nastavku.
3.3.2.1 Factors likely to indicate the existence of bad faith
Čimbenici koji vjerojatno upućuju na postojanje zle vjere
Case-law shows three cumulative factors to be particularly relevant.
Sudska praksa upućuje na tri posebno važna kumulativna čimbenika:
1. Identity/confusing similarity of the signs: the EUTM allegedly registered in bad faith must be identical or confusingly similar to the sign to which the invalidity applicant refers.
Istovjetnost / zbunjujuća sličnost znakova: žig EU-a koji je navodno registriran u zloj vjeri mora biti istovjetan ili zbunjujuće sličan znaku na koji upućuje podnositelj zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti.
Although the fact that marks are identical or confusingly similar is not in itself sufficient to show bad faith (regarding identity, 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), a dissimilar or not confusingly similar mark will not support a finding of bad faith.
Iako činjenica da su žigovi istovjetni ili zbunjujuće slični nije sama po sebi dovoljna da bi se dokazala zla vjera (u pogledu istovjetnosti, 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), nalaz o zloj vjeri ne može se temeljiti na različitom žigu ili žigu koji nije zbunjujuće sličan.
2. Knowledge of the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign: the EUTM owner knew or must have known about the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign by a third party for identical or similar products or services.
Saznanje o uporabi istovjetnog ili zbunjujuće sličnog znaka: nositelj žiga EU-a znao je ili je morao znati za uporabu istovjetnog ili zbunjujuće sličnog znaka treće strane i to za istovjetne ili slične proizvode ili usluge.
There is knowledge, for example, where the parties have been in a business relationship with each other and, as a result thereof, ‘could not ignore, and was probably aware that the invalidity applicant had been using the sign for a long time' (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), when the reputation of the sign, even as a ‘historical' trade mark, is a well-known fact (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50), or when the identity or quasi-identity between the contested mark and the earlier signs ‘manifestly cannot be fortuitous' (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60).
To saznanje postoji, na primjer, ako su stranke bile u poslovnom odnosu jedna s drugom te zbog toga „nisu mogle ignorirati činjenicu da podnositelj zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti upotrebljava predmetni znak dulje vrijeme, a vjerojatno su i bile svjesne te činjenice” (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), kad je ugled znaka, čak i kao „povijesnog” žiga, dobro poznata činjenica (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50), ili kad istovjetnost ili prividna istovjetnost osporavanog žiga i ranijih znakova „očito ne može biti rezultat slučajnosti” (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60).
Knowledge may be presumed to exist (‘must have known') on the basis, inter alia, of general knowledge in the economic sector concerned or duration of use.
Može se pretpostavljati da postoji to saznanje („morao je znati”) na temelju, među ostalim, općeg znanja u predmetnom gospodarskom sektoru ili trajanja uporabe.
The longer the use of a sign, the more likely it is that the EUTM owner had knowledge of it (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39).
Što je uporaba znaka dulja, veća je vjerojatnost da je nositelj žiga EU-a imao saznanja o njoj (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39).
Depending on the circumstances of the case, this presumption may apply even if the sign was registered in a non-EU country (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71).
Ovisno o okolnostima predmeta, ta se pretpostavka može primijeniti čak i ako je znak bio registriran u nekoj zemlji koja nije članica EU-a (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71).
However, knowledge of an identical or similar earlier sign for identical or similar goods or services is not sufficient in itself to support a finding of bad faith (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49).
Međutim, saznanje o istovjetnom ili sličnom ranijem znaku za istovjetne ili slične proizvode ili usluge nije samo po sebi dovoljno da bi se dokazala zla vjera (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49).
It always depends on the circumstances of the case.
To uvijek ovisi o okolnostima predmeta.
For example, it cannot be excluded that, where a number of producers use, on the market, for identical or similar goods, identical or similar signs that could give rise to confusion with the sign for which registration is sought, the EUTM owner's registration of the sign may be in pursuit of a legitimate objective.
Na primjer, ne može se isključiti mogućnost da se, ako određeni broj proizvođača na tržištu za istovjetne ili slične proizvode upotrebljava istovjetne ili slične znakove koji bi se mogli zabunom zamijeniti sa znakom za koji se traži registracija, registracija znaka nositelja žiga EU-a provede s legitimnom svrhom.
This could be the case where the EUTM owner knows, at the time of filing the EUTM application, that a third undertaking is making use of the mark covered by that application by giving its clients the impression that it officially distributes the goods sold under that mark, even though it has not received authorisation to do so (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27).
Tako bi moglo biti ako nositelj žiga EU-a u trenutku podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a zna da neko treće poduzeće upotrebljava žig obuhvaćen tom prijavom zbog čega njegovi klijenti vjeruju da službeno distribuira proizvode koji se prodaju pod tim žigom, čak i ako nije dobio odobrenje za to (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27).
Similarly, the fact that the applicant knows or should know that, at the time of filing of its application, a third party is using a mark abroad that is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision (preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37).
Slično tome, činjenica da podnositelj prijave u trenutku podnošenja prijave zna ili bi trebao znati da treća strana u inozemstvu upotrebljava žig koji bi se mogao zamijeniti sa žigom za čiju je registraciju podnesena prijava sama po sebi nije dovoljna da bi se donio zaključak da podnositelj prijave djeluje u zloj vjeri u smislu te odredbe (prethodna odluka od 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37).
Knowledge or presumption of knowledge of an existing sign is not required where the EUTM owner misuses the system with the intention of preventing any similar sign from entering the market (see, for example, the artificial extension of the grace period for non-use in paragraph 3(d) below).
Saznanje ili pretpostavka saznanja o postojećem znaku ne predstavlja uvjet ako vlasnik žiga EU-a zloupotrebljava sustav s namjerom sprječavanja ulaska bilo kojeg sličnog znaka na tržište (pogledajte, primjerice, umjetno produljenje razdoblja odgode za neuporabu u točki 3. podtočki (d) u nastavku).
3. Dishonest intention on the part of the EUTM owner: this is a subjective factor that has to be determined by reference to objective circumstances (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).
Neiskrene namjere nositelja žiga EU-a: riječ je o subjektivnom čimbeniku koji se mora utvrditi u odnosu na objektivne okolnosti (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).
Again, several factors can be relevant.
U tom slučaju jednako tako može biti relevantno nekoliko čimbenika.
See, for example, the following case scenarios.
Kao primjer mogu poslužiti mogući scenariji navedeni u nastavku.
(a) Bad faith exists where applications for trade marks are diverted from their initial purpose and filed speculatively or solely with a view to obtaining financial compensation (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145).
Zla vjera postoji kad prijave žigova odstupaju od izvorne svrhe te se podnose špekulativno ili samo radi ostvarivanja novčane naknade (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145).
(b) Bad faith is found when it can be inferred that the purpose of the EUTM applicant is to ‘free-ride' on the reputation of the invalidity applicant's registered marks and to take advantage of that reputation (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), even if those marks have lapsed (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25).
Zla vjera utvrđuje se ako se može zaključiti da je podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a namjeravao parazitski iskorištavati ugled žigova koje je registrirao podnositelj zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti i iz toga crpiti korist (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), čak i ako su predmetni žigovi istekli (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25).
(c) While it is not a requirement of the EUTM system that an EUTM owner must at the time of applying for an EUTM also have the intention of using it, it could be seen as an indication of dishonest intention if it subsequently becomes apparent that the owner's sole objective was to prevent a third party from entering the market (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) and/or to obtain economic advantages (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126).
Iako se u sustavu žigova EU-a ne zahtijeva da vlasnik žiga EU-a u trenutku prijave žiga EU-a mora imati namjeru upotrebljavati taj žig, ako nakon toga postane očito da je jedini cilj vlasnika bio spriječiti određenu treću stranu od ulaska na tržište, to se može smatrati pokazateljem neiskrenih namjera (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) i/ili stjecanja gospodarske koristi (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126).
However, if there is commercial logic to the filing of the EUTM and it can be assumed that the EUTM owner intended to use the sign as a trade mark, this would tend to indicate that there was no dishonest intention.
Međutim, ako postupak podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a slijedi neku poslovnu logiku i ako se može pretpostaviti da je nositelj žiga EU-a imao namjeru upotrebljavati znak kao žig, onda bi to prije upućivalo na to da nije postojala neiskrena namjera.
For example, this could be the case if there is a ‘commercial trajectory', such as the registration of an EUTM after registration of the mark in a Member State (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), if there is evidence of the EUTM owner's intention to develop its commercial activities, for example by means of a licensing agreement (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), or if the EUTM owner had a commercial incentive to protect the mark more widely, for example an increase in the number of Member States in which the owner generates turnover from goods marketed under the mark (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23).
Tako bi, primjerice, moglo biti ako postoji „poslovno usmjerenje”, kao što je registracija žiga EU-a nakon registracije žiga u državi članici (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), ako postoje dokazi o namjeri nositelja žiga EU-a da razvije svoje poslovne aktivnosti, na primjer putem sporazuma o licenciranju (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), ili ako je vlasnik žiga EU-a imao poslovni poticaj da zaštiti žig na širem području, na primjer u obliku povećanja broja država članica u kojima nositelj žiga ostvaruje prihode od proizvoda kojima trguje pod tim žigom (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23).
The existence of a direct or indirect relationship between the parties prior to the filing of the EUTM, for example a pre-contractual, contractual or post-contractual (residual) relationship, can also be an indicator of bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32).
Postojanje izravne ili neizravne povezanosti između stranaka prije podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a, na primjer predugovornih, ugovornih ili postugovornih (rezidualnih) odnosa, također može upućivati na zlu vjeru nositelja žiga EU-a (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32).
The EUTM owner's registration of the sign in its own name in such cases can, depending on the circumstances, be considered a breach of honest commercial and business practices.
U takvim se slučajevima registracija žiga EU-a koju izvršava nositelj u vlastito ime može, ovisno o okolnostima, smatrati kršenjem poštene trgovinske i poslovne prakse.
(d) Bad faith has been found where an EUTM owner tries to artificially extend the grace period for non-use, for example by filing a repeat application of an earlier EUTM in order to avoid the loss of a right as a result of non-use (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27).
Zla vjera utvrđuje se ako vlasnik žiga EU-a pokuša umjetno produljiti razdoblje odgode za neuporabu, na primjer podnošenjem ponovljene prijave ranijeg žiga EU-a kako bi izbjegao gubitak prava zbog neuporabe (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27).
This case needs to be distinguished from the situation in which the EUTM owner, in accordance with normal business practice, seeks to protect variations of its sign, for example, where a logo has evolved (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.).
Taj se slučaj treba razlikovati od situacije u kojoj nositelj žiga EU-a, u skladu s uobičajenom poslovnom praksom, želi zaštititi varijante svojeg žiga, kao na primjer pri razvoju logotipa (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.).
(f) A request for financial compensation made by the EUTM owner to the invalidity applicant may lead to a finding of bad faith if there is evidence that the EUTM owner knew of the existence of the earlier identical or confusingly similar sign and expected to receive a proposal for financial compensation from the invalidity applicant (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72).
Zahtjev za financijsku naknadu koji podnosi nositelj žiga EU-a podnositelju zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti može dovesti do utvrđivanja postojanja zle vjere ako se može dokazati da je vlasnik žiga EU-a bio svjestan postojanja ranijeg istovjetnog ili zbunjujuće sličnog znaka i da je očekivao da će primiti ponudu za financijsku naknadu od podnositelja zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72).