natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although the Office is not bound by findings of the national offices and courts, such decisions must be taken into account and may influence the Office's decision.
Iako Ured nije vezan zaključcima državnih ureda i sudova, takve odluke treba uzeti u obzir i one mogu utjecati na odluku Ureda.
It is important for the Office to have the possibility of considering the kind of evidence that led to the relevant decision at national level.
Važno je da Ured ima mogućnost razmotriti vrstu dokaza koja je dovela do relevantne odluke na nacionalnoj razini.
The Office takes into account the different procedural and substantive requirements that may exist before the respective national body (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23).
Ured uzima u obzir različite postupovne i materijalne uvjete svakog pojedinog nacionalnog tijela (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23).
The opponent may wish to refer to material submitted as proof of use in previous proceedings before the Office (confirmed by the General Court in ‘ELS' quoted above).
Podnositelj prigovora može se pozvati na materijal podnesen kao dokaz o uporabi u prethodnom postupku pred Uredom (potvrdio Opći sud u prethodno citiranom predmetu „ELS”).
The Office accepts such references on condition that the opponent clearly identifies the material referred to and the proceedings in which it was submitted.
Ured prihvaća takva upućivanja ako podnositelj prigovora jasno istakne materijal na koji se poziva i postupak u kojem je on podnesen.
If the reference does not sufficiently identify the relevant material, the Office requires the opponent to clearly specify the material referred to or to file it (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300).
Ako se upućivanjem ne može dostatno utvrditi relevantni materijal, Ured zahtijeva od podnositelja prigovora da jasno naznači materijal na koji se poziva ili da ga podnese (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300).
For further details on the conditions for identifying relevant material, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.
Više pojedinosti o uvjetima za utvrđivanje relevantnog materijala potražite u Smjernicama, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja.
The onus of providing proof of use is on the opponent and not on the Office or the applicant.
Za dokazivanje uporabe odgovoran je podnositelj prigovora, a ne Ured ili podnositelj prijave.
Therefore, a mere indication of the website where the Office can find further information is insufficient, as this does not provide the Office with sufficient indications about place, nature, time and extent of use (31/10/2001, B 260 192).
Prema tome, isključivo upućivanje na mrežno mjesto na kojem Ured može pronaći dodatne informacije nije dostatno zbog toga što to Uredu ne daje dovoljno podataka o mjestu, naravi, vremenu i opsegu uporabe (31/10/2001, B 260 192).
3.3.2.3 Declarations
Izjave
Whereas the means of evidence listed, such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs and newspaper advertisements, do not present any particular problems, it is necessary to consider in some detail declarations as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
Iako navedeni dokazni materijal kao što su ambalaža, etikete, cjenici, katalozi, računi, fotografije i novinski oglasi ne predstavljaju nikakve posebne probleme, izjave treba podrobno razmotriti, kako se navodi u članku 97. stavku 1. točki (f) Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
The opposing party is not obliged to submit an affidavit concerning the sales made under the earlier trade mark.
Stranka koja ulaže prigovor nije obvezna predati ovjerenu izjavu u vezi s prodajom koju je ostvarila pod ranijim žigom.
It is up to the opposing party to select the form of evidence that it considers suitable for the purpose of establishing that the earlier trade mark was put to genuine use during the relevant period (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37).
Ona mora odabrati oblik dokaza koji smatra odgovarajućim kako bi dokazala da je raniji žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi tijekom relevantnog razdoblja (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37).
The role of the affidavit is to give facts or an explanation of the supporting documents, not to give a legal opinion (06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56).
Svrha ovjerene izjave jest pružiti činjenice ili obrazloženje pratećih dokumenata, a ne dati pravno mišljenje (06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56).
Distinction between admissibility and relevance (probative value)
Razlika između dopuštenosti i relevantnosti (dokazna vrijednost)
The importance of declarations has been much debated.
Mnogo se raspravljalo o važnosti izjava.
Only in cases where the statements have not been sworn or affirmed is it necessary to consider the rules of law of the national jurisdiction as to the effects of a written statement (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; confirmed 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49).
Samo u slučajevima kada izjave nisu pisane pod prisegom ili ovjerene potrebno je razmotriti pravna pravila predmetne države članice u pogledu učinaka pisane izjave (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; potvrđeno 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49).
Where there are doubts as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the opponent to submit evidence in this regard.
Podnositelj prigovora dužan je podnijeti dokaze u slučaju dvojbe o tome je li izjava prisegnuta ili ovjerena.
Failing this, the statement will not be considered a statement within the sense of Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
Ako to ne učini, izjava se neće smatrati izjavom u smislu članka 97. stavka 1. točke (f) Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR does not specify by whom these statements should be signed, so there is no reason to consider that statements signed by the parties to the proceedings themselves are not covered by this provision (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46).
U članku 97. stavku 1. točki (f) Uredbe o žigu EU-a nije određeno tko te izjave treba potpisati, dakle nema razloga smatrati da izjave koje su potpisale same stranke u postupku nisu obuhvaćene tom odredbom (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46).
The EUTMR, the EUTMDR and the EUTMIR do not support the conclusion that the evidential value of items of evidence of use of the mark, including affirmations, must be assessed in the light of the national law of a Member State (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53).
Na temelju Uredbe o žigu EU-a, Delegirane uredbe o žigu EU-a i Uredbe o provedbi Uredbe o žigu EU-a ne može se zaključiti da je dokaznu vrijednost dokaza o uporabi žiga, uključujući potvrde, potrebno procijeniti u kontekstu nacionalnog prava države članice (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53).
The probative value of a statement depends first and foremost on the credibility of the account it contains.
Dokazna vrijednost izjave prije svega ovisi o vjerodostojnosti navoda koje dokaz sadržava.
It is then necessary to take account, in particular, of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on the face of it, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42).
Potom posebno treba razmotriti osobu od koje dokument potječe, okolnosti u kojima je nastao, osobu na koju je naslovljen i doima li se dokument, sudeći po njegovu izgledu, valjanim i pouzdanim (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42).
As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, the Office, following the established case-law, makes a distinction between statements coming from the sphere of the opponent themselves or their employees and statements drawn up by an independent source (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54).
Kada je riječ o dokaznoj vrijednosti te vrste dokaza, Ured, u skladu s utemeljenom sudskom praksom, razlikuje izjave koje je sastavio sam podnositelj prigovora ili njegovi zaposlenici od onih koje je sastavio neovisan izvor (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54).
Declarations by the proprietor or its employees
Izjave nositelja ili njegovih zaposlenika
Statements coming from the sphere of the owner of the earlier mark (drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees) are generally given less weight than independent evidence.
Izjavama koje potječu od nositelja ranijeg žiga (koje su sastavile same stranke u postupku ili njihovi zaposlenici) uglavnom se pridaje manja važnost nego neovisnom dokazu.
This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by personal interests in the matter (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 and 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610).
To je zbog toga što osobni interesi u manjoj ili većoj mjeri mogu utjecati na poimanje stranaka u postupku (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 i 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610).
Generalisation should be avoided, since the exact value of such statements always depends on their concrete form and content.
Treba izbjegavati generaliziranje jer točna vrijednost takvih izjava uvijek ovisi o njihovu konkretnom obliku i sadržaju.
Statements including detailed and concrete information have a higher probative value than very general and abstractly drafted statements.
Izjave koje uključuju podrobne i konkretne informacije imaju veću dokaznu vrijednost od vrlo općenitih i apstraktno sastavljenih izjava.
The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in each individual case.
Konačni ishod ovisi o cjelokupnoj procjeni dokaza u svakom pojedinačnom predmetu.
In general, further material is necessary for establishing evidence of use, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources.
Dodatni materijal općenito je potreban za utvrđivanje dokaza o uporabi, s obzirom na to da takve izjave treba smatrati izjavama s manjom dokaznom vrijednošću od fizičkih dokaza (etiketa, ambalaže itd.) ili dokaza koji potječu iz neovisnih izvora.
Therefore, the probative strength of the further material submitted is very important.
Prema tome, vrlo je važna dokazna snaga daljnjeg materijala koji se podnosi.
An assessment should be made of whether the content of the affidavit is sufficiently supported by the further material (or vice versa).
Treba procijeniti je li dodatni materijal dostatno potkrijepljen sadržajem ovjerene izjave (ili obrnuto).
The fact that the national office concerned may adopt a certain practice in assessing such kind of evidence of use does not mean that it is applicable in proceedings concerning European Union trade marks (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.).
Činjenica da predmetni nacionalni ured može primjenjivati određenu praksu u procjenjivanju takve vrste dokaza o uporabi ne znači da je ona primjenjiva u postupcima u pogledu žigova Europske unije (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.).
A change of ownership after the filing or priority date of the EUTM application may render declarations made by the new owners void as the latter generally do not have any direct knowledge to form a basis for making declarations concerning use of the mark by the previous owner (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER).
Promjena vlasništva nakon datuma podnošenja prijave ili datuma prvenstva žiga EU-a može dovesti do toga da izjave novih nositelja postanu ništave jer potonji uglavnom nemaju nikakvo izravno znanje koje bi se moglo smatrati temeljem za sastavljanje izjava o uporabi žiga koji je upotrebljavao prethodni nositelj (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER).
Nevertheless, in the case of a transfer or other succession in title, any new owner may rely on use by their predecessor(s) within the grace period concerned.
Ipak, u slučaju prijenosa ili drugog pravnog sljedništva, svaki novi nositelj može se tijekom predmetnog razdoblja odgode osloniti na uporabu svojih prethodnika.
Use made by the predecessor may be evidenced by the predecessor and by all other reliable means, for instance, information from business records if the predecessor is not available.
Sam prethodnik može dokazati da je prethodnik upotrebljavao žig, ali se može dokazati i uporabom drugih dostupnih sredstava, na primjer, ako prethodnik nije dostupan, mogu se upotrebljavati podatci iz poslovnih knjiga.
Declarations by third parties
Izjave trećih strana
Statements (such as e.g. surveys) drawn up by an independent source, for example by experts, professional organisations, Chambers of Commerce, suppliers, customers or business partners of the opponent, are given more probative weight (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615).
Izjave (kao što su ankete) koje je sastavio neovisan izvor, primjerice stručnjaci, profesionalne organizacije, gospodarske komore, dobavljači, klijenti ili poslovni partneri podnositelja prigovora, imaju veću dokaznu težinu (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615).
This practice is in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice in the Chiemsee judgment (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), where the Court gave some indications of appropriate evidence for proving the acquired distinctiveness of a mark in the market place.
Ta praksa u skladu je sa sudskom praksom Suda u presudi „Chiemsee” (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), u kojoj je Sud iznio neke podatke o odgovarajućem dokazu kojim se dokazuje stečena razlikovnost žiga na tržištu.
Although acquisition of distinctiveness is not per se the same as genuine use, the former does comprise elements of evidence of use of a sign on the market.
Iako stjecanje razlikovnosti nije samo po sebi isto što i stvarna uporaba, prethodno obuhvaća elemente dokaza o uporabi znaka na tržištu.
Consequently, case-law relating to these can be used by analogy.
Slijedom navedenog, analogijom je moguća primjena sudske prakse.
Statements drawn up by the parties themselves are not ‘third-party evidence' whereas all other evidence, such as opinion polls, statements from Chambers of Commerce, or from professional organisations or from experts, does originate from third parties.
Izjave koje su sastavile same stranke ne čine „dokaze trećih strana”, a svi ostali dokazi, kao što su istraživanja javnog mnijenja, izjave gospodarskih komora ili izjave profesionalnih organizacija ili stručnjaka, potječu od trećih strana.
3.4 Reaction from the applicant
Odgovor podnositelja prijave
3.4.1 Forwarding of evidence
Prosljeđivanje dokaza
After having received the evidence of use submitted by the opponent, the Office forwards the complete evidence to the applicant.
Nakon što zaprimi dokaze o uporabi koje mu podnese podnositelj prigovora, Ured podnositelju prijave prosljeđuje cjelovite dokaze.
The Office, in general, allows the applicant 2 months to file its observations in reply to the evidence of use (and to the opposition).
Ured općenito odobrava podnositelju prijave rok od dva mjeseca za podnošenje primjedbi u odgovoru na dokaz o uporabi (i na prigovor).
3.4.2 No evidence or no relevant evidence submitted
Nedostatak dokaza ili nedostatak podnesenih relevantnih dokaza
However, the Office may close the proceedings immediately if, within the time limit given, the opponent has submitted no evidence, or the evidence is manifestly of no relevance, and all the earlier rights of the opposition are affected.
Međutim, Ured može odmah zatvoriti postupak ako u određenom roku podnositelj prigovora ne dostavi nikakve dokaze ili dokaze koji očito nisu relevantni, što utječe na sva prethodna prava na kojima se temelji prigovor.
The rationale behind this practice is to avoid the continuation of proceedings when their outcome is already known, that is, the opposition is to be rejected for lack of proof of use (principle of economy and good administration of proceedings).
Razlog tomu je izbjegavanje nastavka postupka kada je njegov ishod već poznat, odnosno odbacivanje prigovora zbog nedostatka dokaza o uporabi (načelo ekonomičnosti i administrativne učinkovitosti postupka).
In all other cases the evidence is forwarded to the applicant, which is given 2 months to file its observations.
U svim drugim slučajevima dokazi se prosljeđuju podnositelju prijave, kojemu se daje rok od dva mjeseca za podnošenje primjedbi.
The Office must not indicate to the opponent that the sufficiency of the evidence is doubtful, or even invite the opponent to file further evidence in such cases.
Ured ne smije upozoriti podnositelja prigovora na upitnu dostatnost dokaza niti ga pozvati da u takvim okolnostima podnese dodatne dokaze.
Such acts would be against the impartial position of the Office in adversarial proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
Takve radnje protivne su nepristranom položaju Ureda u kontradiktornom postupku (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
3.4.3 No reaction from applicant
Izostanak reakcije podnositelja prijave
If the applicant does not react within the time limit, the Office will give a decision on the basis of the evidence before it.
Ako se podnositelj prijave ne očituje u navedenom roku, Ured donosi odluku na temelju dokaza koji su mu podneseni.
The fact that the applicant does not reply does not mean that it accepts the submitted evidence as sufficient proof of use (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
Činjenica da podnositelj prijave ne dostavlja odgovor ne znači da on prihvaća podneseni dokaz kao dostatan dokaz o uporabi (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
3.4.4 Formal withdrawal of the request
Službeno povlačenje zahtjeva
Where the applicant reacts to the proof of use by formally withdrawing its request for proof of use, the issue will no longer be relevant.
Kada se podnositelj prijave očituje na dokaz o uporabi službenim povlačenjem svog zahtjeva za dokaz o uporabi, to pitanje više neće biti relevantno.
As it is the applicant who sets in motion the respective procedure, the applicant logically is in a position to bring an end to this part of the proceedings by formally withdrawing its request (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
S obzirom na to da je podnositelj prijave taj koji pokreće odgovarajući postupak, podnositelj prijave može logično okončati taj dio postupka službenim povlačenjem svojeg zahtjeva (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
3.5 Further reaction from the opponent
Daljnji odgovor podnositelja prigovora
The opponent is entitled to file observations in reply to the applicant's observations.
Podnositelj prigovora ima pravo podnijeti svoje primjedbe u odgovoru na primjedbe podnositelja prijave.
This is of particular importance in cases where the decision to be taken might be based in part on the arguments put forward by the applicant to the effect that the evidence does not prove the use of the mark.
To je od posebne važnosti u slučajevima kada bi se odluka mogla dijelom temeljiti na obrazloženjima koje iznosi podnositelj prijave, u smislu da ti dokazi ne dokazuju uporabu žiga.
The Board of Appeal has regarded failure to allow the opponent to comment in such a case as a substantial procedural violation (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
Žalbeno je vijeće nedopuštanje podnositelju prigovora da u takvoj situaciji podnese primjedbe smatralo značajnom proceduralnom povredom (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
For further details on the submission of additional evidence, see paragraph 3.3.1 above.
Dodatne pojedinosti o podnošenju dodatnih dokaza potražite u prethodnom odlomku 3.3.1.
3.6 Languages in proof of use proceedings
Jezik u postupku u kojem se ispituje dokaz o uporabi
It is left to the discretion of the Office whether the opponent has to submit a translation of the evidence of use into the language of the proceedings.
Ured odlučuje treba li podnositelj prigovora dostaviti prijevod dokaza o uporabi na jeziku postupka.
In exercising its discretion, the Office balances the interests of both parties.
Pri donošenju te odluke Ured uzima u obzir interese obiju stranaka.
It has to be borne in mind that it might be extremely costly and burdensome for the opponent to translate the evidence of use submitted into the language of the proceedings.
Treba imati na umu da bi za podnositelja prigovora moglo biti vrlo skupo i opterećujuće prevoditi podnesene dokaze o uporabi na jezik postupka.
On the other hand, the applicant has the right to be informed about the content of the evidence submitted in order to be capable of defending its interests.
S druge strane, podnositelj prijave ima pravo biti informiran o sadržaju podnesenog dokaza kako bi mogao braniti svoje interese.
It is absolutely necessary that the applicant is able to assess the content of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.
Podnositelj prijave treba biti potpuno u mogućnosti procijeniti sadržaj dokaza o uporabi koji je podnio podnositelj prigovora.
In this regard, the nature of the documents submitted has to be taken into account.
U tom pogledu, u obzir treba uzeti narav podnesenih dokumenata.
For example, it might be considered that ‘standard' invoices and samples of packaging do not require a translation in order to be understood by the applicant (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (appealed 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
Na primjer, može se procijeniti da „standardne” račune i uzorke ambalaže nije potrebno prevesti kako bi ih podnositelj prijave razumio (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (žalba 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
If the applicant explicitly requests a translation of the evidence in the language of the proceedings, the Office, in principle, will require a translation from the opponent.
Ako podnositelj prijave izričito zahtijeva prijevod dokaza na jezik postupka, Ured načelno traži dostavu prijevoda od podnositelja prigovora.
However, a rejection of such a request is feasible where it appears that the applicant's request, in view of the self-explanatory character of the submitted evidence, is exaggerated or even abusive.
Međutim, odbijanje takvog zahtjeva moguće je kada se zahtjev podnositelja prijave, s obzirom na samorazumljiv karakter podnesenih dokaza, čini pretjeranim ili čak predstavlja zlouporabu.
Where the Office requires translation of the evidence, it gives the opponent a period of 2 months to submit it.
Kada zahtijeva prijevod dokaza, Ured daje podnositelju prigovora rok od dva mjeseca za njegovo podnošenje.
Where the evidence of use submitted by the opponent is voluminous, the Office may explicitly invite the opponent to translate only the parts of the submitted material that the opponent regards as sufficient for establishing genuine use of the mark within the relevant period.
Kada podnositelj prigovora dostavi opsežan dokaz o uporabi, Ured ga može izričito pozvati da prevede samo one dijelove dostavljenog materijala koje podnositelj prigovora smatra dovoljnim za utvrđivanje stvarne uporabe žiga u relevantnom razdoblju.
It is in general up to the opponent to evaluate whether a complete translation of all the evidence submitted is necessary.
Podnositelj prigovora obično procjenjuje je li potrebno u cijelosti prevesti sav podneseni dokazni materijal.