natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Rolls Royce mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor would be weakened in the sense that consumers of the goods for which the reputed mark is protected and reputed will be less inclined to associate it immediately with the owner that has built up the trade mark's reputation.
Zbog toga, sposobnost žiga „Rolls Royce” da se njime utvrde proizvodi/usluge za koje je registriran i za koje se upotrebljava kao oznaka da potječe od svoga nositelja bila bi oslabljena u smislu da bi potrošači proizvoda za koje je žig s ugledom zaštićen i poznat bili manje skloni neposredno ga povezati s nositeljem koji je izgradio ugled žiga.
This is because, for those consumers, the mark now has several or many ‘other' associations, where it previously had only one.
To je zbog toga što za te potrošače žig sada ima nekoliko ili mnogo „drugih” asocijacija, a prethodno je imao samo jednu.
Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier reputed mark must be assessed by reference to the average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
Šteta za razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga s ugledom mora se procijeniti u odnosu na prosječne potrošače proizvoda i usluga za koje je taj žig registriran, a koji su razumno dobro informirani te razumno pažljivi i obazrivi (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
The assessment of detriment to distinctiveness
Procjena štete za razlikovnost
Detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark occurs where use of a later similar mark reduces the distinctive quality of the earlier reputed mark.
Šteta za razlikovnost ranijeg žiga s ugledom nastaje kada se uporabom kasnijeg sličnog žiga smanji razlikovna kvaliteta ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
However, this cannot be found to occur merely because the earlier mark has a reputation and is identical with or similar to the mark applied for - such an approach would apply an automatic and indiscriminate finding of likelihood of dilution against all marks that are similar to reputed trade marks and would negate the requirement of proving detriment.
Međutim, to se ne može dogoditi samo zato što raniji žig ima ugled i istovjetan je sa žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, ili njemu sličan; u okviru takvog pristupa primijenio bi se automatski i sveobuhvatni nalaz o vjerojatnosti razblaživanja za sve žigove koji su slični žigovima s ugledom te bi se negirao uvjet dokazivanja štetnosti.
The Court has further elaborated on the concept of ‘change in the economic behaviour of the average consumers' in its judgment of 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
Sud je pobliže pojasnio pojam „promjena gospodarskog ponašanja prosječnih potrošača” u svojoj presudi od 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
It indicated that it is an autonomous objective condition, which cannot be deduced solely from subjective elements such as how consumers perceive the dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity.
Istaknuo je da je riječ o autonomnom objektivnom uvjetu o kojem se ne može zaključiti samo na temelju subjektivnih elemenata kao što je način na koji potrošači shvaćaju raspršivanje imidža i istovjetnosti žiga s ugledom.
The mere fact that consumers note the presence of a new similar sign that is likely to undermine the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods for which it is registered as coming from the mark's proprietor, is not sufficient by itself to establish the existence of detriment or a risk of detriment to the distinctive character of the reputed mark (paras 35 to 40).
Činjenica da potrošači zamjećuju novi slični znak kojim će se vjerojatno narušiti sposobnost ranijeg žiga da se njime proizvodi za koje je registriran povežu s nositeljem žiga nije sama po sebi dovoljna kako bi se utvrdilo postojanje štete ili rizika od štete za razlikovni karakter žiga s ugledom (t. 35. - 40.).
The Court insists on a ‘higher standard' for establishing dilution.
Sud inzistira na „normi više razine” kako bi se utvrdilo razblaživanje.
The following two autonomous conditions must be substantiated by the opponent and reasoned by the Office.
Sljedeća dva autonomna uvjeta mora potkrijepiti podnositelj prigovora, a obrazložiti Ured.
Dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity in the relevant public's perception (subjective condition).
Raspršivanje imidža i istovjetnosti žiga s ugledom prema predodžbi relevantne javnosti (subjektivni uvjet).
A change in the economic behaviour of this public (objective condition).
Promjena gospodarskog ponašanja te javnosti (objektivni uvjet).
Whilst the opponent does not need to submit evidence of actual detriment, it must convince the Office by adducing evidence of a serious future risk - which is not merely hypothetical - of detriment.
Iako podnositelj prigovora ne treba podnijeti dokaze o stvarnoj šteti, mora uvjeriti Ured iznošenjem dokaza u pogledu ozbiljnog budućeg rizika od štete, koji nije samo hipotetski.
The opponent may do this by submitting evidence that proves a likelihood of detriment on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities (and not mere suppositions), and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, as cited in 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; confirmed 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
Podnositelj prigovora to može učiniti tako da dostavi dokaze kojima upućuje na vjerojatnost štete na temelju logičkih zaključaka donesenih analizom vjerojatnosti (a ne samo pretpostavki) i tako da uzme u obzir uobičajenu praksu u relevantnom trgovačkom sektoru te sve ostale okolnosti predmeta (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, kako se citira u predmetu 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; potvrđeno 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
First use
Prva uporaba
Detriment to distinctive character is characterised by an ‘avalanche effect', meaning that the first use of a similar mark in a distinct market may not, in itself, dilute the identity or ‘uniqueness' of the reputed mark but, over time, this would be the result, because this first use may trigger further acts of use by different operators, thus leading to its dilution or detriment to its distinctive character.
Štetu za razlikovni karakter obilježava „učinak lavine”, što znači da se prvom uporabom sličnog žiga na različitom tržištu samom po sebi ne mora razblažiti istovjetnost ili „jedinstvenost” žiga s ugledom, ali će s vremenom do toga doći jer se prvom uporabom može potaknuti njegova daljnja uporaba među različitim subjektima, što može dovesti do njegova razblaživanja ili štete za njegov razlikovni karakter.
The Court has held that the first use of an identical or similar mark may suffice, in some circumstances, to cause actual and present detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark or to give rise to a serious likelihood that such detriment will occur in the future (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75).
Sud je utvrdio da prva uporaba istovjetnog ili sličnog žiga u određenim okolnostima može biti dovoljna da se njome prouzroči stvarna i trenutačna šteta za razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga ili potakne ozbiljna vjerojatnost da će do takve štete doći u budućnosti (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75).
In opposition proceedings before the Office, use of the contested sign may not have occurred at all.
U postupcima prigovora pred Uredom do uporabe osporavanog znaka možda nije ni došlo.
In this regard, the Office takes into account that future use of the contested sign, even if it were first use, may trigger further acts of use by different operators, under particular circumstances that are to be provided by the opponent, therefore leading to dilution by blurring.
U tom smislu Ured uzima u obzir činjenicu da bi se budućom uporabom osporavanog znaka, čak i ako bi to bila prva uporaba, različite gospodarske subjekte u određenim okolnostima koje treba dokazati podnositelj prigovora potaknulo na daljnju uporabu, što bi dovelo do razblaživanja zamagljivanjem.
Nevertheless, as set out above, the opponent bears the burden of showing that actual or future use causes, or is likely to cause, detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark.
Bez obzira na to, kao što je prethodno navedeno, podnositelj prigovora dužan je dokazati da se stvarnom ili budućom uporabom prouzročilo, ili će se vjerojatno prouzročiti, šteta razlikovnom karakteru ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
Inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Svojstvena razlikovnost ranijeg žiga
The Court has stated that ‘the more “unique” the earlier mark appears, the greater the likelihood that the use of a later identical or similar mark will be detrimental to its distinctive character' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458).
Sud je utvrdio da „što se raniji žig čini „jedinstvenijim”, to je veća vjerojatnost da će se uporabom kasnijeg istovjetnog ili sličnog žiga naštetiti njegovu razlikovnom karakteru” (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458).
Indeed, the earlier mark must possess an exclusive character in the sense that it should be associated by the consumers with a single source of origin - since it is only in this case that a likelihood of detriment to distinctiveness may be envisaged.
Zaista, raniji žig mora imati ekskluzivni karakter u smislu da bi ga potrošači trebali povezivati s jednim podrijetlom, jer se samo u tom slučaju vjerojatnost nanošenja štete razlikovnosti može predvidjeti.
If the same sign, or a variation thereof, is already in use in connection with a range of different goods, there can be no immediate link with any of the goods it distinguishes and, thus, there will be little or no room for further dilution.
Ako je isti znak, ili njegova varijanta, već u uporabi u vezi s nizom različitih proizvoda, ne može postojati izravna veza ni s jednim od proizvoda koje on označava te bi stoga ostalo malo ili nimalo prostora za daljnje razblaživanje.
Accordingly, ‘… the risk of dilution appears, in principle, to be lower if the earlier mark consists of a term which, because of a meaning inherent in it, is very common and frequently used, irrespective of the earlier mark consisting of the term at issue.
U skladu s time „[…] rizik od razblaživanja u načelu je manji ako se raniji žig sastoji od pojma koji je zbog svojeg svojstvenog značenja vrlo uobičajen i često se upotrebljava, bez obzira na to sastoji li se raniji žig od predmetnog pojma.
In such a case, reuse of the term in question by the mark applied for is less likely to result in a dilution of the earlier mark' (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38).
U tom je slučaju manje vjerojatno da će se ponovnom uporabom predmetnog pojma u osporavanom žigu razblažiti raniji žig” (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38).
If, therefore, the mark is suggestive of a characteristic shared by a wide range of goods, the consumer is more likely to associate it with the specific feature of the product that it alludes to rather than with another mark.
Stoga, ako se žigom upućuje na obilježje koje dijeli niz proizvoda, potrošač će ga prije povezati s posebnom značajkom proizvoda na koji se njime upućuje, a ne s drugim žigom.
Thus, if the applicant shows that the earlier sign or the element that gives rise to similarity is commonplace and is already used by different undertakings in various sectors of the market, it may successfully refute the existence of a likelihood of dilution, because it will be difficult to accept that the attractiveness of the earlier mark risks being diluted if it is not particularly unique.
Zbog toga, ako podnositelj prijave dokaže da je raniji znak ili element kojim se potiče sličnost uobičajen te se već upotrebljava u različitim poduzećima u raznim sektorima tržišta, može uspješno opovrgnuti postojanje vjerojatnosti razblaživanja jer će biti teško prihvatiti da je privlačnost ranijeg žiga izložena riziku od razblaživanja ako nije osobito jedinstvena.
Cases on dilution by blurring
Slučajevi razblaživanja zamagljivanjem
Dilution established
Utvrđeno razblaživanje
Dilution denied
Odbijeno razblaživanje
3.4.3.3 Detriment to repute
Šteta ugledu
It can be seen as a step beyond blurring in that the mark is not merely weakened but actually degraded by the link that the public makes with the later mark.
To se može smatrati korakom dalje od zamagljivanja u smislu da žig nije samo oslabljen, već je i narušen vezom koju javnost uspostavlja s kasnijim žigom.
Detriment to repute, also often referred to as ‘dilution by tarnishing' or simply as ‘tarnishing', relates to situations where use of the contested mark without due cause is likely to devalue the image or the prestige that a mark with reputation has acquired among the public.
Šteta za ugled koja se često naziva i „razblaživanje okaljanjem” ili samo „okaljanje” odnosi se na situacije u kojima postoji vjerojatnost da će se uporabom osporavanog žiga bez opravdanog razloga obezvrijediti imidž ili prestiž koji je taj žig s ugledom stekao u javnosti.
The reputation of the earlier trade mark may be tainted or debased in this way, either when it is reproduced in an obscene, degrading or inappropriate context, or in a context that is not inherently unpleasant but that proves to be incompatible with a particular image the earlier trade mark has acquired in the eyes of the public due to the promotional efforts of its owner.
Na taj način ugled ranijeg žiga može biti okaljan ili narušen, bilo da se reproducira u opscenom, omalovažavajućem ili neprikladnom kontekstu, ili u kontekstu koji nije sam po sebi nelagodan, ali koji nije u skladu s određenim imidžom koji je raniji žig stekao u očima javnosti zbog promidžbenih napora njegova nositelja.
The likelihood of such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that the goods or services offered by the third party possess a characteristic or a quality that is liable to have a negative impact on the image of the mark (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
Vjerojatnost takve štete može proizlaziti iz činjenice da proizvodi ili usluge koje pruža treća strana sadržavaju obilježje ili kvalitetu koja može negativno utjecati na imidž žiga (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
For example, if a reputed mark for gin were used by a third party on liquid detergent, this would reverberate negatively on the reputed mark in a way that makes it less attractive.
Primjerice, ako žig s ugledom za džin treća strana upotrebljava na tekućim deterdžentima, to će se negativno odraziti na žig s ugledom na način da će ga učiniti manje privlačnim.
In short, tarnishment occurs where there is an association between the earlier reputed mark, at the level of either the signs or the goods, that is injurious to the earlier trade mark's repute.
Ukratko, do okaljanja dolazi kada postoji asocijacija između ranijeg žiga s ugledom, na razini znakova ili na razini proizvoda, koja je uvredljiva za ugled ranijeg žiga.
As with dilution by blurring, detriment to the reputation of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
Kao što je slučaj i s razblaživanjem zamagljivanjem, šteta za ugled ranijeg žiga mora se procijeniti upućivanjem na prosječne potrošače proizvoda i usluga za koje je taj žig registriran, a koji su razumno dobro informirani te razumno pažljivi i obazrivi (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of tarnishment
Procjena okaljanja
In order to establish detriment to the repute of an earlier mark, the mere existence of a connection in the mind of the consumer between the marks is neither sufficient nor determinative.
Kako bi se utvrdila šteta ugledu ranijeg žiga, samo postojanje veze između žigova u svijesti potrošača nije ni dovoljno ni odlučujuće.
Such a connection must certainly exist, but, in addition, either the signs or the goods/services covered by the later mark must provoke a negative or detrimental impact when associated with the reputed mark.
Takva veza mora postojati, ali, osim toga, znakovi ili proizvodi/usluge obuhvaćeni kasnijim žigom moraju prouzročiti negativan ili štetan učinak kada ih se povezuje sa žigom s ugledom.
For example, if a mark that is associated in the minds of the public with an image of health, dynamism and youth is used for tobacco products, the negative connotation conveyed by the latter would contrast strikingly with the image of the former (see further examples below).
Primjerice, ako se žig koji je u svijesti javnosti povezan s imidžom zdravlja, dinamičnosti i mladosti upotrebljava za duhanske proizvode, negativna konotacija koju imaju ti proizvodi bit će u velikoj suprotnosti s prethodno navedenim imidžom (pogledajte dodatne primjere u nastavku).
For tarnishment to occur, therefore, the goods/services on which the contested mark is used must have characteristics or qualities that are potentially detrimental to the reputation of the earlier mark (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 67).
Stoga, da bi došlo do okaljanja, proizvodi/usluge na kojima se upotrebljava osporavani žig moraju imati obilježja ili kvalitete kojima se može naštetiti ugledu ranijeg žiga (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 67).
Frequently, opponents argue that the applicant's goods/services are of inferior quality or that the opponent cannot control the quality of such goods/services.
Podnositelji prigovora često tvrde da su proizvodi/usluge podnositelja prijave lošije kvalitete ili da podnositelj prigovora ne može nadzirati kvalitetu takvih proizvoda/usluga.
The Office does not accept such an argument, per se, as a means of demonstrating detriment.
Ured takav argument sam po sebi ne prihvaća kao način dokazivanja štete.
Proceedings before the Office do not provide for assessing the quality of goods and services, which, apart from being highly subjective, would not be feasible in cases where the goods and services are not identical or in situations where the contested sign has not yet been put to use.
U postupcima pred Uredom ne izvršavaju se procjene kvalitete proizvoda i usluga koje, osim što su vrlo subjektivne, ne bi bile izvedive u slučajevima u kojima proizvodi i usluge nisu istovjetni ili u situacijama u kojima osporavani znak još nije stavljen u uporabu.
Therefore, when assessing whether use of the contested trade mark is likely to damage the reputation of an earlier trade mark, the Office can only consider the goods and services as indicated in the specification of each trade mark.
Stoga, prilikom procjene može li se uporabom osporavanog žiga nanijeti šteta ugledu ranijeg žiga Ured može samo razmatrati proizvode i usluge navedene u specifikacijama svakoga žiga.
Consequently, for the purposes of the Office's analysis, the harmful effects of use of the contested sign in connection with the goods and services applied for must derive from the nature and usual characteristics of the goods at issue in general, not their quality in particular instances.
Shodno tomu, u svrhu analize koju provodi Ured, štetni učinci uporabe osporavanog znaka u kombinaciji s proizvodima i uslugama za koje je podnesena prijava moraju općenito proizlaziti iz prirode i uobičajenih obilježja predmetnih proizvoda, a ne njihove kvalitete u određenim slučajevima.
This approach does not leave the opponent without protection, because, where a later mark is used on low-quality goods/services in a manner that calls to mind an earlier reputed mark, this would in any case normally take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark or be detrimental to its distinctiveness.
Taj pristup ne podrazumijeva da će podnositelj prigovora ostati bez zaštite jer kada se kasniji žig upotrebljava za proizvode/usluge lošije kvalitete na način kojim se u svijest priziva neki raniji žig s ugledom, time bi se u svakom slučaju nepošteno iskorištavali razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili bi se štetilo njegovoj razlikovnosti.
Cases on dilution by tarnishing
Slučajevi razblaživanja okaljanjem
Tarnishment established
Utvrđeno okaljanje
Tarnishment denied
Odbijeno okaljanje
3.4.4 Proving the risk of injury
Dokaz rizika od povrede
3.4.4.1 Standard and burden of proof
Norma i teret dokaza
In opposition proceedings actual detriment or unfair advantage will occur only exceptionally, since in most cases the applicant will not have effectively used its mark when the dispute arises.
U postupcima prigovora stvarna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje nastaju samo u iznimnim slučajevima jer u većini slučajeva podnositelj prijave nije učinkovito upotrebljavao svoj žig u vrijeme nastanka spora.
Nevertheless, such a possibility should not be ruled out completely and if there is evidence of actual use or damage, it will have to be considered and given appropriate weight.
Bez obzira na to, takvu mogućnost ne treba u potpunosti isključiti te će je, ako postoje dokazi stvarne uporabe ili štete, trebati razmotriti i odvagnuti.
The risk of detriment or unfair advantage must be serious, in the sense that it is foreseeable (i.e. not merely hypothetical) in the ordinary course of events.
Rizik od štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja mora biti ozbiljan, u smislu da se može predvidjeti (odnosno da nije samo teorijski) u uobičajenom tijeku događaja.
Therefore, it is not enough to merely show that detriment or unfair advantage cannot be excluded in general, or that it is only remotely possible.
Stoga nije dovoljno samo pokazati da se šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje ne mogu općenito isključiti ili da su mogući samo izdaleka.
The proprietor of the earlier mark must adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or of detriment (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).
Nositelj ranijeg žiga mora iznijeti dokaze prima facie o budućem riziku, koji nije hipotetski, od nepoštenog iskorištavanja ili štete (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).
As explained below, it is insufficient for the opponent only to refer in general terms to unfair advantage being taken of, or to detriment to, the distinctive character or reputation of its earlier marks without submitting convincing evidence of actual detriment or cogent arguments establishing a serious, not merely hypothetical, potential risk of detriment.
Kao što je objašnjeno u nastavku, nije dovoljno da podnositelj prigovora samo općenito uputi na nepošteno iskorištavanje ili štetu u pogledu razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda svojih ranijih žigova bez podnošenja uvjerljivih dokaza o stvarnoj šteti ili odlučnih argumenata kojima se utvrđuje ozbiljan, ne samo hipotetski, potencijalni rizik od nanošenja štete.