natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The means of evidence will only be taken into account insofar as a translation has been produced or insofar as the means of evidence are self-explanatory regardless of their textual components.
Dokazni materijal uzima se u obzir samo ako je izvršen njegov prijevod ili ako je sam po sebi razumljiv, bez obzira na njegove tekstualne dijelove.
3.7 Decision
Odluka
3.7.1 Competence of the Office
Nadležnost Ureda
The Office makes its own evaluation of the evidence of use submitted.
Ured provodi vlastitu procjenu podnesenog dokaza o uporabi.
This means that the probative value of the evidence submitted is evaluated independently of the observations submitted by the applicant in this respect.
To znači da se dokazna vrijednost podnesenih dokaza procjenjuje neovisno o primjedbama koje je podnositelj prijave dostavio u tom pogledu.
Assessment of the relevance, pertinence, conclusiveness and efficacy of evidence lies within the discretion and power of judgment of the Office, not the parties, and falls outside the adversarial principle that governs inter partes proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
Procjena relevantnosti, primjerenosti, uvjerljivosti i učinkovitosti dokaza prepušta se diskrecijskoj ovlasti i moći prosudbe Ureda, a ne stranaka, i na nju se ne primjenjuje načelo kontradiktornosti koje se primjenjuje na postupak inter partes (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
A declaration by the applicant concluding that use has been proved does not, therefore, have any effect on the Office's findings.
Prema tome, izjava podnositelja prijave kojom se zaključuje dokazana uporaba nema nikakav utjecaj na zaključke Ureda.
The request for proof of use is a defence plea by the applicant.
Zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi predstavlja obranu podnositelja prijave.
However, once the defence plea has been raised by the applicant, it is solely up to the Office to carry out the subsequent procedure and evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the opponent is to be regarded as of sufficient probative value.
Ipak, nakon što podnositelj prijave iznese obranu, Ured provodi naknadni postupak i procjenjuje treba li dokaze koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora smatrati dostatnima u pogledu njihove dokazne vrijednosti.
However, the applicant does have the possibility of formally withdrawing the request for proof of use (see paragraph 3.4.4 above).
Međutim, podnositelj prijave može službeno povući zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.4.4.).
However, although the Office is bound by the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties, it is not bound by the legal value that the parties may give thereto.
Ipak, iako je Ured vezan činjenicama, dokazima i obrazloženjima koja stranke dostave, on nije vezan pravnom vrijednošću koju im stranke mogu dati.
Hence, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proved or not, but may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish genuine use (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
Prema tome, stranke se mogu dogovoriti o tome koje su činjenice dokazane, a koje ne, ali ne mogu utvrditi jesu li te činjenice dostatne za utvrđivanje stvarne uporabe (1/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
3.7.2 Need for assessing proof of use
Potreba procjenjivanja dokaza o uporabi
A decision on whether the obligation of having genuinely used the registered mark has been fulfilled is not always necessary.
Nije uvijek potrebno donijeti odluku o ispunjenju obveze stvarne uporabe registriranog žiga.
When proof of use of the earlier rights has been requested by the applicant, the Office will also examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision in question.
Kada podnositelj prijave podnese zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi ranijih prava, Ured ispituje i je li, i u kojoj mjeri, dokazana uporaba ranijih žigova, ako je to relevantno za ishod predmetne odluke.
The examination of proof of use is always necessary and obligatory in cases where the opposition is fully or partially successful on the basis of the earlier mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation.
Ispitivanje dokaza o uporabi uvijek je neophodno i obvezno u slučajevima kada je prigovor u cijelosti ili djelomično uspješan na temelju ranijeg žiga koji je bio podložan obvezi podnošenja dokaza o uporabi.
The Office may decide not to assess the submitted proof of use where the question whether the earlier mark concerned was genuinely used for the relevant registered goods and/or services is irrelevant for the outcome of the opposition, for example:
Ured može odlučiti da neće procjenjivati podnesene dokaze o uporabi ako je pitanje je li predmetni raniji žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi za relevantne registrirane proizvode i/ili usluge nevažno za ishod postupka povodom prigovora, na primjer:
under the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, if there is no likelihood of confusion between the contested mark and the earlier mark that is subject to the proof of use obligation (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43);
ako u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a ne postoji vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu u pogledu osporavanog žiga i ranijeg žiga podložnog dokazu o uporabi (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43);
if the opposition is fully successful on the basis of another earlier mark, which is not subject to the proof of use obligation;
ako je prigovor u potpunosti uspješan na temelju nekog drugog ranijeg žiga koji nije podložan dokazu o uporabi;
However, in the event that the earlier trade mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation was examined in the decision but the assessment of the proof of use has been omitted, this will be expressly stated in the decision with a brief justification.
Međutim, ako je raniji žig koji je bio podložan obvezi podnošenja dokaza o uporabi ispitan prilikom donošenja odluke, ali je procjena dokaza o uporabi izostavljena, to će se izričito navesti u odluci uz kratko obrazloženje.
3.7.3 Overall assessment of the evidence presented
Cjelokupna procjena iznesenih dokaza
As stated in more detail above (see paragraph 2.2 above), the Office has to evaluate the evidence submitted with regard to place, time, extent and nature of use in an overall assessment.
Kao što je prethodno navedeno (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 2.2.), Ured procjenjuje podnesene dokaze s obzirom na mjesto, vrijeme, opseg i narav uporabe u okviru cjelokupne procjene.
A separate assessment of the various relevant factors, each considered in isolation, is not suitable (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 31).
Odvojena procjena različitih čimbenika, od kojih se svaki razmatra zasebno, neprimjerena je (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 3).
The principle of interdependence applies, meaning that weak evidence with regard to one relevant factor (e.g. low sales volume) might be compensated by solid evidence with regard to another factor (e.g. continuous use over a long period of time).
Primjenjuje se načelo međuovisnosti, što znači da se slabi dokazi u odnosu na jedan relevantan čimbenik (npr. mali obujam prodaje) mogu nadoknaditi čvrstim dokazom u odnosu na neki drugi čimbenik (na primjer kontinuirana uporaba tijekom dugog razdoblja).
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account in conjunction with each other in order to determine whether the mark in question has been genuinely used.
U obzir treba uzeti sve povezane okolnosti konkretnog slučaja kako bi se utvrdilo je li predmetni žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi.
The particular circumstances can include, for example, the specific features of the goods/services in question (e.g. low- or high-priced; mass products versus special products) or the particular market or business area.
Posebne okolnosti mogu uključivati, na primjer, specifična obilježja predmetnih proizvoda/usluga (na primjer niske/visoke cijene, masovna proizvodnja u odnosu na posebne proizvode) ili određeno tržište ili područje poslovanja.
Indirect/circumstantial evidence, under certain conditions even on its own, can also be suitable for proving genuine use.
Neizravni/posredni dokaz može pod određenim uvjetima čak i sam za sebe biti primjeren za dokazivanje stvarne uporabe.
As the Office does not assess commercial success, even minimal use (but not mere token or internal use) can be sufficient to be deemed ‘genuine', as long as it is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or acquire a share in the market.
S obzirom na to da Ured ne procjenjuje komercijalni uspjeh, čak i najmanja uporaba (ali ne i isključivo simbolična ili interna uporaba) može biti dostatna da je se procijeni „stvarnom”, ako je se smatra jamstvom u predmetnom gospodarskom sektoru za održavanje ili stjecanje udjela na tržištu.
The decision indicates what evidence was submitted.
U odluci su naznačeni podneseni dokazi.
However, in general, only the evidence relevant for the conclusion is mentioned.
Međutim, općenito se navodi samo dokaz koji je relevantan za zaključak.
If the evidence is found convincing, it suffices for the Office to indicate those documents that were used to come to this conclusion and why.
Ako se utvrdi da je dokaz uvjerljiv, dostatno je da Ured naznači one dokumente koji su upotrijebljeni za donošenje tog zaključka i razloge zbog kojih se tako postupilo.
Pursuant to Article 113(1) EUTMR, the Office must publish its decisions.
Uredbe o žigu EU-a Ured mora objavljivati svoje odluke.
However, the need to keep certain data confidential does not exempt the Office from the obligation to state the reasons for its decisions.
Međutim, nužnost čuvanja povjerljivosti određenih podataka ne oslobađa Ured od obveze iznošenja razloga za svoje odluke.
[13: Note, however, that no parts of the file can be kept confidential vis-à-vis the other party to the proceedings due to the right of defence (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.4.4).]
[13: Ipak, treba imati na umu da se nijedan dio spisa ne može smatrati povjerljivim u odnosu na drugu stranku u postupku radi ostvarivanja prava na obranu (pogledajte Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja, odlomak 4.4.4.).]
Given the public nature of decisions, the justified interest of a party in keeping certain information confidential vis-à-vis the public has to be reconciled with the Office's duty to state reasons.
S obzirom na to da su odluke po prirodi javne, opravdani interes stranke da sačuva povjerljivost određenih informacija u odnosu na javnost mora se uskladiti s obvezom Ureda da navede razloge za neku odluku.
It may be problematic to reason without divulging confidential business data, but this can be done by referring to those data in a general manner and without disclosing concrete data.
Može biti problematično obrazložiti odluku bez otkrivanja povjerljivih poslovnih podataka, ali to se može učiniti upućivanjem na te podatke na općenit način i bez otkrivanja konkretnih podataka.
For example, the decision may refer to the invoices submitted, indicate the time span, frequency and territory of sales, the significance of the sales volumes they represent and whether they are sufficient to support the finding of genuine use.
Na primjer, u odluci se može upućivati na podnesene račune, navoditi razdoblje, učestalost i područje prodaje, važnost obujma prodaje koju predstavljaju te jesu li dostatni za potkrjepljivanje zaključka o stvarnoj uporabi.
What is important is that the decision reflects that the relevant business data were considered and assessed in relation to the kind of goods and services at issue and the characteristics of the relevant market.
Važno je da odluka odražava činjenicu da su relevantni poslovni podatci razmotreni i procijenjeni u odnosu na vrstu predmetnih proizvoda i usluga te obilježja relevantnog tržišta.
Simply stating whether the relevant factors (time, place, nature and extent of use) have been fulfilled or not is not sufficient to support the final conclusion on the issue of genuine use.
Jednostavno navođenje jesu li ispunjeni relevantni čimbenici (vrijeme, mjesto, narav i opseg uporabe) nije dostatno za potkrjepljivanje zaključka o stvarnoj uporabi.
Finally, it must be clarified that, notwithstanding the confidentiality of an entire submission or annex, data contained therein that are clearly within the public domain (e.g. in the form of press extracts) can be referred to in the decision.
Konačno, važno je razjasniti da, bez obzira na povjerljivost čitavog podneska ili priloga, podatci sadržani u njima koji su jasno dio javne domene (npr. u obliku isječaka iz medija) mogu se navesti u odluci.
3.7.5 Examples
Primjeri
The following cases present some of the decisions of the Office and the Court (with different outcomes) where the overall assessment of the submitted evidence was important.
Sljedeći slučajevi predstavljaju neke odluke Ureda i Suda (s različitim ishodima) u kojima je cjelokupna procjena podnesenih dokaza bila značajna.
3.7.5.2 Genuine use not accepted
Prilog: Petogodišnje razdoblje relevantno za procjenu nacionalnih žigova
Annex: 5year period for assessing use of national trade marks
U skladu s člankom 47. stavkom 2.
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, the proprietor of an earlier EUTM who has given notice of opposition against the registration of an EUTM application must, where the EUTM applicant so requests, submit proof that its earlier EUTM has been put to genuine use in the European Union in connection with the goods or services for which it was registered during the 5 years preceding the filing or priority date of the EUTM application, provided the earlier EUTM has at that date been registered for more than 5 years (‘5-year grace period').
Uredbe o žigu EU-a nositelj ranijeg žiga EU-a koji je podnio obavijest o prigovoru protiv registracije prijave žiga EU-a mora, ako je to zatražio podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a, dokazati da je tijekom petogodišnjeg razdoblja koje je prethodilo datumu podnošenja ili datumu prvenstva prijave žiga EU-a raniji žig EU-a bio u stvarnoj uporabi u Europskoj uniji u odnosu na proizvode ili usluge za koje je registriran tijekom petogodišnjeg razdoblja koje prethodi datumu podnošenja ili prvenstva prijave žiga EU-a, pod uvjetom da je raniji žig EU-a na taj datum bio registriran najmanje pet godina („petogodišnje razdoblje odgode”).
[14: Date of publication of the contested EUTM application in the case of oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, see paragraph 2.5.2.]
[14: Datum objave osporavane prijave žiga EU-a u slučaju prigovora podnesenih prije 23. 3. 2016., pogledajte odlomak 2.5.2.]
[15: Date of publication of the contested EUTM application in the case of oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, see paragraph 2.5.2.]
[15: Datum objave osporavane prijave žiga EU-a u slučaju prigovora podnesenih prije 23. 3. 2016., pogledajte odlomak 2.5.2.]
The date of registration of an EUTM is the date on which it is entered in the Register of European Union trade marks.
Datum registracije žiga EU-a jest datum na koji je on upisan u registar žigova Europske unije.
Consequently, the 5-year grace period of an EUTM commences from its entry in the Register of European Union trade marks.
Slijedom toga, petogodišnje razdoblje odgode žiga EU-a započinje njegovim upisom u registar žigova Europske unije.
In order to determine the date of commencement of the 5-year grace period in respect of a national mark, national law is relevant.
Kada je riječ o nacionalnim žigovima, za utvrđivanje datuma početka petogodišnjeg razdoblja odgode relevantno je nacionalno pravo.
The commencement of this period depends on the registration procedure of the Member States and, in particular, whether a Member State applies a post-registration opposition procedure (this being the case for DK, DE, FI and SE).
Početak tog razdoblja ovisi o postupku registracije u državama članicama i posebno o tome primjenjuje li država članica postupak prigovora koji slijedi nakon registracije (kao što je to slučaj u Danskoj, Njemačkoj, Finskoj i Švedskoj).
The following table makes reference to the relevant national provisions on non-use of a national trade mark and specifies the relevant point in time when the 5-year grace period for a national trade mark commences.
U tablici u nastavku upućuje se na relevantne nacionalne odredbe o neuporabi nacionalnog žiga i navode se relevantni trenuci kada počinje petogodišnje razdoblje odgode za nacionalne žigove.
[16: References are to the national provisions valid on 01/06/2015.]
[16: Upućivanja na nacionalne odredbe koje su na snazi 1. lipnja 2015.]
WELLNESS 15/01/2009, C495/07,EU:C:2009:10 (preliminary ruling)
WELLNESS 15/01/2009, C495/07,EU:C:2009:10 (prethodna odluka)
The opponent owned the mark ‘WELLNESS' in Classes 25 and 32.
Podnositelj prigovora bio je nositelj žiga „WELLNESS” u razredima 25. i 32.
In the context of selling its ‘WELLNESS' clothing, it also used the mark to designate an alcohol-free drink, which was handed out in small bottles as a gift along with the clothing sold.
U kontekstu prodaje odjeće „WELLNESS” podnositelj prigovora upotrebljavao je žig i za označavanje bezalkoholnog pića koje je u malim bocama uručivao kao poklon uz prodanu odjeću.
No drinks were sold separately under the ‘WELLNESS' mark.
Pod žigom „WELLNESS” nisu se odvojeno prodavala pića.
The Court held that, where promotional items are handed out as a reward for the purchase of other goods and to encourage the sale of the latter, the mark loses its commercial raison d'être for the promotional goods and cannot be considered to have been genuinely used on the market for goods in that class (para. 22).
Sud je smatrao da žig gubi svoj trgovački razlog postojanja u pogledu promotivnih proizvoda kada se promotivni materijal uručuje kao nagrada za kupnju drugih proizvoda s ciljem poticanja njihove prodaje pa se, prema tome, ne može smatrati da je žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi na tržištu za proizvode u tom razredu (t. 22.).
The evidence produced to show genuine use of the mark at issue may include catalogues.
Dokazi kojima se nastoji pokazati stvarna uporaba predmetnog žiga mogu uključivati kataloge.
‘It must be pointed out that, in addition to items of clothing designated by different marks, more than 80 different items are offered for sale in that catalogue under the mark PETER STORM.
„Važno je istaknuti da se u katalogu osim odjeće obilježene drugim žigovima za prodaju nudi i više od 80 različitih proizvoda pod žigom PETER STORM.
They comprise men's and women's jackets, jumpers, trousers, tee-shirts, footwear, socks, hats and gloves, the respective characteristics of which are briefly described.
Riječ je o muškim i ženskim jaknama, vestama, hlačama, majicama kratkih rukava, obući, čarapama, šeširima i rukavicama čija se obilježja ukratko opisuju.
The earlier mark appears, in stylised characters, next to each item.
Raniji žig u stiliziranom se obliku pojavljuje pored svakog proizvoda.
In that catalogue, the prices of the items in GBP and the reference number for each item are stated' (paras 3839).
U katalogu se cijene proizvoda navode u GBP, kao i referentni broj svakog proizvoda” (t. 38.39.).
The General Court found that the use of the sign Schuhpark for footwear on advertisements, bags and invoices was not meant to identify the origin of the shoes (which bore their own mark or no mark at all) but rather the company name or trade name of the shoe retailer.
Opći sud utvrdio je da namjera uporabe znaka Schuhpark za obuću u reklamama, na vrećicama i računima nije bila utvrditi podrijetlo cipela (koje su na sebi nosile vlastiti žig ili žiga uopće nije bilo), već istaknuti naziv poduzeća ili trgovački naziv trgovca cipelama.
This was considered insufficient to establish a link between the sign Schuhpark and the shoes.
Sud je to smatrao nedostatnim za uspostavljanje veze između znaka Schuhpark i cipela.
In other words, Schuhpark may well be a mark for the retail of shoes, but it was not used as a trade mark for goods (paras 3132).
Drugim riječima, Schuhpark može biti i žig za maloprodaju cipela, ali on nije bio u uporabi kao žig za proizvode (t. 31.32.).
The earlier trade mark was registered in Class 42 for, inter alia, the services of a patent attorney.
Raniji žig registriran je u razredu 42. za, među ostalim, usluge zastupnika za patente.
Its use on invoices, business cards and business correspondence was considered sufficient to show genuine use in connection with the services of a patent attorney.
Uporaba žiga na računima, posjetnicama i poslovnoj korespondenciji bila je dovoljna da bi se dokazala stvarna uporaba u vezi s uslugama zastupnika za patente.
Where an earlier mark was registered for business management services and used as the title of business magazines, the General Court did not exclude that such use could be considered genuine for the services in question if it were shown that the magazine provides support for the supply of the business management services, i.e. if the services are provided through the medium of a magazine.
Kada je raniji žig bio registriran za usluge poslovnog upravljanja te je bio u uporabi kao naslov poslovnih časopisa, Opći sud nije isključio da se takva uporaba može smatrati stvarnom u odnosu na predmetne usluge ako se dokaže da predmetni časopis pruža podršku u pogledu ponude usluga poslovnog upravljanja, odnosno ako se takve usluge pružaju putem časopisa.
The fact that there is no ‘direct bilateral link' between the publisher and the recipient of the services does not impair such a finding of genuine use.
Činjenica da između izdavača i primatelja usluga ne postoji „izravna obostrana veza” ne utječe negativno na zaključak o stvarnoj uporabi.
This is because the magazine is not distributed free of charge, which could lend credibility to the claim that payment of the price of the magazine constitutes remuneration for the service provided (paras 3135).
Razlog tomu je to što distribucija časopisa nije besplatna, čime bi tvrdnja da plaćanje cijene časopisa predstavlja naknadu za pruženu uslugu mogla dobiti na vjerodostojnosti (t. 31.35.).
Services: services of a publishing company in Class 41.
Usluge: usluge izdavačke kuće u razredu 41.
The Board confirmed that the evidence (consisting of catalogues, press notes and advertisements) read in conjunction was enough to prove genuine use of the trade mark.
Vijeće je potvrdilo da su povezani dokazi (koje čine katalozi, priopćenja za tisak i reklame) bili dostatni za dokazivanje stvarne uporabe žiga.
‘Although the order record and the receipt of the bank account do not provide any information on how and to what extent the mark was used in Spain, the remaining documents, namely the catalogues, press notes and advertisements, when read in conjunction, demonstrate that during the relevant period, the opponent has published in Spain books and magazines under the trade mark BLUME.
„Iako evidencija o izvršenoj narudžbi i izvadak iz bankovnog računa ne pružaju nikakve informacije o tome kako i u kojoj je mjeri žig upotrebljavan u Španjolskoj, preostali dokumenti, odnosno katalozi, priopćenja za tisak i reklame, u kombinaciji pokazuju da je tijekom određenog razdoblja podnositelj prigovora u Španjolskoj objavljivao knjige i časopise pod žigom BLUME.
Even if the opponent does not provide any invoices, orders or sales figures, there is some reason to assume that it advertised its books and magazines, promoted and sold them under the trade mark BLUME.
Čak i ako podnositelj prigovora ne dostavi nikakve račune, narudžbe ili prodajne rezultate, postoji osnova za pretpostavku da je reklamirao, promovirao i prodavao svoje knjige i časopise pod žigom BLUME.