natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The evidence must relate to each of the goods and services claimed in the EUTM application.
Dokazi se moraju odnositi na sve proizvode i usluge navedene u prijavi žiga EU-a.
After an initial absolute grounds objection under Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR, only the goods and services claimed for which acquired distinctiveness through use has been proven may proceed to registration.
Nakon početnog prigovora na temelju apsolutnih razloga prema članku 7. stavku 1. točkama (b), (c) ili (d) Uredbe o žigu EU-a, mogu se registrirati samo proizvodi i usluge navedeni u prijavi za koje se dokaže da su uporabom stekli razlikovni karakter.
8 Assessment of the Evidence
Procjena dokaza
In establishing acquired distinctiveness, account may be taken of, inter alia, the following factors:
Za utvrđivanje stečene razlikovnosti mogu se uzeti u obzir, među ostalim, sljedeći čimbenici:
the market share held by the mark with regard to the relevant goods or services;
tržišni udio žiga koji obuhvaća relevantne proizvode ili usluge;
how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been;
intenzitet, zemljopisna rasprostranjenost i trajanje uporabe žiga;
the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark for the relevant goods or services;
iznos koji je poduzetnik uložio u promidžbu žiga za relevantne proizvode ili usluge;
the proportion of the relevant public who, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking.
udio relevantne javnosti koja zbog žiga proizvode ili usluge prepoznaje kao one koji potječu od određenog poduzeća.
See judgments of 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32.
Vidjeti presude od 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32.
Examples of evidence that may help to show acquired distinctiveness include, inter alia:
Primjeri dokaza koji mogu pomoći u dokazivanju stečene razlikovnosti uključuju, među ostalim:
sales brochures
prodajne brošure
catalogues
kataloge
price lists
cjenike
invoices
račune
annual reports
godišnja izvješća
turnover figures
iznose prometa
advertising investment figures and reports
iznose ulaganja i izvješća o ulaganjima u reklamiranje
advertisements (press cuttings, billboard posters, TV adverts), together with evidence of their intensity and reach
oglase (izvadci iz tiska, reklamni plakati, televizijski oglasi), uz dokaze o njihovu intenzitetu i dosegu
customer and/or market surveys
ankete s klijentima i/ili tržišne ankete
affidavits.
izjave pod prisegom.
The basic rules on the evaluation of evidence are also applicable here.
Osnovna pravila procjene dokaza primjenjiva su i ovdje.
The Office must make an overall assessment of all the evidence submitted (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49), weighing up each indication against the others.
Ured mora provesti sveobuhvatnu procjenu svih podnesenih dokaza (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49), pri čemu svaku naznaku treba usporediti s drugima.
Applicants should take great care to make sure not only that the evidence shows use of the mark applied for but also that it is sufficient to identify the dates of such use and the specific geographical territory of use within the EU.
Podnositelji prijave trebali bi se pobrinuti da dokazi pokazuju ne samo uporabu žiga za koji je podnesena prijava, nego i da budu dovoljni da utvrde datume takve uporabe i specifično zemljopisno područje uporabe unutar EU-a.
Evidence that cannot be related to a certain point in time will normally be insufficient to show that distinctiveness had been acquired before the filing date, and evidence of use outside the EU cannot show the required market recognition of the relevant public within the EU.
Dokazi koji se ne mogu povezati s određenim trenutkom obično će biti nedovoljni da pokažu da je razlikovni karakter stečen prije datuma podnošenja prijave, a dokazi o uporabi izvan EU-a ne mogu pokazati potrebno prepoznavanje u relevantnoj javnosti na tržištu u EU-u.
Furthermore, evidence that mixes material relating to the EU with that relating to non-EU territories, and does not permit the Office to identify the specific extent of EU-only use, will be similarly devoid of probative value for the relevant EU public.
Nadalje, ako se u dokazima miješaju materijali o područjima unutar EU-a i područjima koja nisu u EU-u te ako se Uredu ne dopušta da utvrdi specifičan opseg uporabe samo u EU-u, ti dokazi isto tako neće imati dokaznu vrijednost za relevantnu javnost u EU-u.
The Court has declared that direct evidence such as declarations by professional associations and market studies are usually the most relevant means for proving acquired distinctiveness through use.
Sud je naveo da su izravni dokazi kao što su izjave strukovnih udruženja i ispitivanja tržišta obično najprikladnija sredstva za dokazivanje razlikovnosti stečene uporabom.
Invoices, advertising expenditure, magazines and catalogues may help to corroborate such direct evidence (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74).
Takvi se izravni dokazi mogu potkrijepiti računima, troškovima oglašavanja, časopisima i katalozima (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74).
In order to assess the evidential value of a document, regard should be had to its credibility.
Kako bi se procijenila dokazna vrijednost dokumenta, treba obratiti pažnju na njegovu vjerodostojnost.
It is also necessary to take into account the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, superficially, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.).
Nužno je uzeti u obzir i osobu od koje dokument potječe, okolnosti pod kojima je nastao, osobu kojoj je upućen te čini li se dokument na prvi pogled razumnim i pouzdanim (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.).
8.1 Opinion polls and surveys
Ispitivanja javnog mnijenja i ankete
Opinion polls concerning the level of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public on the market in question can, if conducted properly, constitute one of the most direct kinds of evidence, since they can show the actual perception of the relevant public.
Ispitivanja javnog mnijenja koja se odnose na mjeru u kojoj relevantna javnost prepoznaje žig na predmetnom tržištu mogu, ako se pravilno provode, činiti jednu od najizravnijih vrsta dokaza jer mogu pokazati stvarnu predodžbu relevantne javnosti.
However, it is not an easy matter to correctly formulate and implement an opinion poll so that it can be seen to be truly neutral and representative.
Međutim, nije tako jednostavno pravilno formulirati i provesti ispitivanje javnog mnijenja kako bi se ono smatralo potpuno neutralnim i reprezentativnim.
Leading questions, unrepresentative samples of the public, and undue editing of responses should be avoided, as these can undermine the probative value of such surveys.
Trebalo bi izbjegavati sugestivna pitanja, nereprezentativne uzorke javnosti i neprimjereno obrađivanje odgovora jer se time može umanjiti dokazna vrijednost takvih anketa.
Accordingly, any opinion poll evidence must be assessed carefully.
U skladu s time, svi dokazi iz ispitivanja javnog mnijenja moraju se pozorno procijeniti.
It is important that the questions asked are not leading ones (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79).
Važno je da postavljena pitanja nisu sugestivna (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79).
The criteria for selecting the public interviewed must be assessed carefully.
Potrebno je pažljivo procijeniti kriterije za izbor javnosti koja se ispituje.
The sample must be indicative of the entire relevant public and must be selected randomly (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88).
Uzorak mora biti indikativan za cjelokupnu relevantnu javnost te mora biti nasumično izabran (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88).
The Court does not exclude that a survey compiled some time before or after the filing date could contain useful indications, although it is clear that its evidential value is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date or priority date of the trade mark application at issue.
Sud ne isključuje mogućnost da bi anketa sastavljena u nekom trenutku prije ili nakon datuma podnošenja prijave mogla sadržavati korisne naznake, iako je jasno da će njezina dokazna vrijednost vjerojatno varirati ovisno o tome je li razdoblje koje anketa obuhvaća bliže ili udaljenije od datuma podnošenja ili datuma prvenstva predmetne prijave žiga.
Furthermore, its evidential value depends on the survey method used (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39).
Nadalje, njezina dokazna vrijednost ovisi o upotrijebljenim anketnim metodama (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39).
However, the Court of Justice has made it clear that the results of a consumer survey cannot be the only decisive criterion in support of the conclusion that distinctive character has been acquired through use (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
Međutim, Sud je jasno utvrdio da rezultati ankete među potrošačima ne mogu biti jedini odlučujući element na temelju kojega se može zaključiti o postojanju razlikovnog karaktera stečenog uporabom (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
They must therefore be complemented by other means of evidence.
Stoga se oni moraju nadopuniti drugim dokaznim sredstvima.
8.2 Market share, advertising and turnover
Tržišni udio, oglašavanje i promet
The market share held by the trade mark in relation to the goods and/or services applied for may be relevant for assessing whether that mark has acquired distinctive character through use, since such market penetration might enable the Office to infer that the relevant public would recognise the mark as identifying the goods or services as originating from a specific undertaking, and thus distinguish them from the goods and services of other undertakings.
Tržišni udio žiga za proizvode i/ili usluge može biti važan za procjenu je li taj žig uporabom stekao razlikovni karakter zato što bi zbog takve prisutnosti na tržištu Ured mogao zaključiti da bi relevantna javnost zahvaljujući žigu prepoznala da proizvodi ili usluge potječu od određenog poduzeća, razlikujući tako te proizvode i usluge od proizvoda i usluga drugih poduzeća.
The investment in advertising or promoting the mark in the relevant market for the goods or services claimed may also be relevant for assessing whether the mark has acquired distinctive character through use (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.).
Ulaganja u oglašavanje ili promidžbu žiga na relevantnom tržištu za navedene proizvode ili usluge također mogu biti važna za procjenu je li žig uporabom stekao razlikovni karakter (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.).
However, many attempts to prove distinctiveness acquired through use fail because the evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to prove a link between the market share and advertising, on the one hand, and consumer perceptions on the other.
Međutim, mnogi pokušaji dokazivanja razlikovnosti stečene uporabom ne uspijevaju jer dokazi koje je dostavio podnositelj prijave nisu dovoljni da bi dokazali postojanje veze između tržišnog udjela i oglašavanja s jedne strane te predodžbe potrošača s druge.
Information concerning turnover and advertising expenses is one of the most readily available forms of evidence.
Informacije o prometu i troškovima oglašavanja jedan su od najdostupnijih oblika dokaza.
These figures can have a significant impact on the assessment of the evidence, but in the great majority of cases are not sufficient alone to prove acquired distinctiveness of a trade mark through use.
Ti iznosi mogu značajno utjecati na procjenu dokaza, no u velikoj većini slučajeva oni sami nisu dovoljni za dokazivanje razlikovnosti žiga stečene uporabom.
This is because turnover/advertising costs alone, without additional corroborative details, are frequently too general to allow specific conclusions to be drawn about the use of one particular trade mark.
Razlog leži u činjenici da su podatci o prometu / troškovima oglašavanja, bez dodatnih pojedinosti koje ih potkrepljuju, obično preopćeniti da bi omogućili donošenje konkretnih zaključaka o uporabi određenog žiga.
It is thus necessary to identify precisely the turnover/advertising figures and evidence relating to the mark applied for, as well as their link to the relevant goods and services.
Stoga je nužno točno utvrditi iznose prometa/oglašavanja i dokaze koji se odnose na žig za koji je podnesena prijava, kao i njihovu vezu s relevantnim proizvodima i uslugama.
Furthermore, it is desirable that the figures be segregated on an annual and market-by-market basis.
Nadalje, poželjno je da su iznosi prikazani na godišnjoj razini i za svako pojedinačno tržište.
The evidence should show the specific period(s) of use (including details of when use commenced), so that the Office is able to establish whether the evidence proves that the trade mark acquired distinctiveness before the filing date.
Dokazi bi trebali prikazati konkretno razdoblje ili razdoblja uporabe (uključujući pojedinosti o tome kad je uporaba započela) kako bi Ured mogao utvrditi da oni dokazuju da je žig stekao razlikovni karakter prije datuma podnošenja prijave.
Goods and services are often marketed under several trade marks, which makes it difficult to see the relevant customer's perception of the EUTM applied for on its own, that is to say, without such perception being affected by the other marks present.
Proizvodi i usluge na tržište se često stavljaju pod nekoliko žigova, što otežava utvrđivanje predodžbe relevantnog potrošača o samom žigu EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava, odnosno bez utjecaja drugih žigova na tu predodžbu.
Turnover and advertising figures can often include sales or promotion of other trade marks, or of significantly different forms of the trade mark at issue (for example, figurative trade marks rather than word marks, or differing word elements in a figurative mark), or are too general to allow identification of the specific markets under consideration.
Iznosi prometa i oglašavanja često mogu uključivati prodaju ili promidžbu drugih žigova ili značajno različitih oblika predmetnog žiga (primjerice, figurativni žigovi umjesto verbalnih žigova ili različiti verbalni elementi u figurativnom žigu) ili su preopćeniti da bi omogućili utvrđivanje specifičnih tržišta koja se razmatraju.
As a consequence, broadly consolidated turnover or advertising figures may not be sufficient to prove whether the relevant public perceives the trade mark at issue as a badge of origin or not.
Slijedom toga, konsolidirani iznosi prometa ili oglašavanja možda neće biti dovoljni za dokazivanje doživljava li relevantna javnost žig o kojemu je riječ kao oznaku podrijetla.
8.3 Declarations, affidavits and written statements
Izjave, izjave pod prisegom i pisane izjave
Pursuant to Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR, ‘statements in writing, sworn or affirmed or having a similar effect under the law of the State in which [they are] drawn up' are valid means of evidence.
U skladu s člankom 97. stavkom 1. točkom (f) Uredbe o žigu EU-a, „pisane izjave, izjave pod prisegom ili ovjerene izjave ili izjave sa sličnim učinkom sukladno zakonu države u kojoj je izjava sastavljena” valjane su kao dokazno sredstvo.
With regard to admissibility, 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).
Kad je riječ o njihovoj dopuštenosti, samo u slučajevima kada izjave nisu dane 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).
In case of doubt as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the applicant to submit evidence in this regard.
U slučaju dvojbe o tome je li izjava dana pod prisegom ili ovjerena, podnositelj prijave dužan je podnijeti dokaze u tom pogledu.
The weight and probative value of statutory declarations is determined by the general rules applied by the Office to the assessment of such evidence.
Težina i dokazna vrijednost službenih izjava određene su općim pravilima koja Ured primjenjuje za procjenu takvih dokaza.
In particular, both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of the contents of the statement to the particular case must be taken into account.
Posebno se treba uzeti u obzir svojstvo osobe koja dostavlja dokaze i važnost sadržaja izjave za određeni slučaj.
Statements from independent trade associations, consumer organisations and competitors are an important means of evidence insofar as they come from independent sources.
Izjave neovisnih trgovinskih udruženja, potrošačkih organizacija i konkurenata važna su dokazna sredstva ako dolaze iz neovisnih izvora.
However, they must be examined carefully, as they might not be enough to prove distinctiveness acquired through use if, for example, they refer to ‘the trade marks of the applicant' instead of to the specific mark in question (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84).
Međutim, nužno ih je pažljivo proučiti jer možda nisu dovoljna za dokazivanje razlikovnog karaktera stečenog uporabom ako se, na primjer, odnose na „žigove podnositelja prijave” umjesto na konkretni žig (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84).
Evidence from suppliers or distributors should, generally, be given less weight, since it is less likely that their evidence will be from an independent perspective.
Dokazima dobavljača ili distributera trebalo bi se općenito dati manji značaj jer je manje vjerojatno da će njihovi dokazi biti neovisni.
In this regard, the degree of independence of the latter will influence the weight to be given to the evidence by the Office (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56).
U tom će pogledu razina neovisnosti potonjih utjecati na značaj koji će Ured pridati dokazima (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56).
Insofar as a declaration is not made by an independent third party, but by a person connected to the applicant through an employment relationship, it cannot in itself constitute sufficient evidence that the mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use.
Ako izjavu nije dala neovisna treća strana, već osoba u radnom odnosu kod podnositelja prijave, izjava sama po sebi ne može biti dovoljan dokaz da je žig za koji je podnesena prijava uporabom stekao razlikovni karakter.
In consequence, it must be treated as merely indicative and needs to be corroborated by other evidence (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS.
Posljedično, izjavu treba smatrati isključivo indikativnom te ona mora biti potkrijepljena drugim dokazima (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS.
As regards statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations and certifications and awards, the Court has noted that such statements and certifications must identify precisely the trade mark applied for (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.).
S obzirom na izjave gospodarskih i industrijskih komora ili drugih trgovinskih i strukovnih udruženja te certifikate i nagrade, Sud je napomenuo da u takvim izjavama i certifikatima mora točno biti naveden žig za koji je podnesena prijava (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.).
However, cease and desist letters against competitors or letters to newspapers complaining against the use of the sign in a generic sense have been considered evidence against acquired distinctiveness (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66)
Međutim, pisma o zabrani i prestanku aktivnosti protiv konkurenata ili dopisi novinama u kojima se prigovara protiv uporabe znaka u generičkom smislu smatraju se dokazima protiv stečene razlikovnosti (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66).
8.4 Prior registrations and acquired distinctiveness
Prethodne registracije i stečena razlikovnost
For evidence that consists of or includes Member State registrations obtained on the basis of acquired distinctiveness, the date to which the evidence submitted at national level refers will usually be different from the filing date of the EUTM application.
U slučaju dokaza koji se sastoje od registracija država članica dobivenih na temelju stečene razlikovnosti ili ih uključuju, datum na koji se odnosi dokaz podnesen na nacionalnoj razini obično će se razlikovati od datuma podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a.
These registrations are not binding, but may be taken into account, provided that the Office is able to assess the evidence submitted to the national IP office in question.
Te registracije nisu obvezujuće, ali se mogu uzeti u obzir pod uvjetom da Ured može procijeniti dokaze koji su predani predmetnom nacionalnom uredu za intelektualno vlasništvo.
The applicant may also refer to prior national registrations where no acquired distinctiveness is claimed.
Podnositelj prijave može se pozvati i na prethodne nacionalne registracije u kojima se ne navode tvrdnje o stečenoj razlikovnosti.
Nevertheless, it is established case-law that such registrations do not bind the Office.
Međutim, ustaljena je sudska praksa da takve registracije nisu obvezujuće za Ured.
Moreover, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions and such cases must be assessed on their own merits (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73).
Nadalje, za Ured nisu obvezujuće njegove prethodne odluke i takvi se slučajevi procjenjuju sami za sebe (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73).
8.5 Manner of use
Način uporabe
Acquired distinctiveness must be demonstrated with respect to the sign applied for.
Stečena razlikovnost mora se dokazati u odnosu na znak za koji je podnesena prijava.
The evidence should show examples of how the trade mark is actually used (brochures, packaging, samples of the goods, etc.).
U dokazima bi se trebali ponuditi primjeri kako se žig stvarno upotrebljava (brošure, pakiranja, uzorci proizvoda itd.).
Only insignificant variations may be acceptable.
Prihvatljive su samo neznatne varijacije.
It is possible to prove acquired distinctiveness of a sign that has been used together with other trade marks (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), provided that the relevant consumer attributes to the sign in question the function of identification (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46).
Stečenu razlikovnost znaka koji je upotrebljavan zajedno s drugim žigovima moguće je dokazati (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), pod uvjetom da relevantni potrošač predmetnom znaku pridaje funkciju identifikacije (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46).