natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Given also that a very strong reputation is both easier to harm and more tempting to take advantage of, owing to its great value, the Court underlined that ‘the stronger the earlier mark's distinctive character and reputation the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Imajući u vidu da je vrlo snažnom ugledu lakše nanijeti štetu i da ga je, zbog njegove velike vrijednosti, primamljivije iskoristiti, Sud je naglasio da „što su snažniji razlikovni karakter i ugled ranijeg žiga, to će lakše biti prihvatiti da mu je nanesena šteta” (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Even though the Court did not say so expressly, the same must be accepted as regards the unfair advantage that the applicant might enjoy at the expense of the earlier mark.
Iako Sud to nije izričito izjavio, isto treba prihvatiti i kada je riječ o nepoštenom iskorištavanju koje podnositelj prijave može učiniti na štetu ranijeg žiga.
3.4.2 Assessment of the risk of injury
Procjena rizika od povrede
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court did not deal with the assessment of detriment and unfair advantage in great detail, as this issue was not part of the question referred to it.
U predmetu Chevy (General Motors) Sud se nije detaljno bavio procjenom nanesene štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja jer taj problem nije bio dio upita koji mu je upućen.
It only stated that it ‘is only where there is a sufficient degree of knowledge of that mark that the public, when confronted by the later trade mark, may possibly make an association between the two trade marks … and that the earlier trade mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Sud je samo utvrdio da „kada postoji dovoljna razina poznavanja toga žiga, javnost može, kada je suočena s kasnijim žigom, napraviti određenu asocijaciju između dvaju žigova… te da, shodno tome, ranijem žigu može biti nanesena šteta” (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Even though this statement is too limited to serve as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of the existence of a risk of injury, it gives at least a significant indication, namely that detriment or unfair advantage must be the consequence of an association between the conflicting marks in the minds of the public, made possible by the similarities between the marks, their distinctiveness, the reputation and other factors (see paragraph 3.3 above).
Iako je ova izjava previše ograničena da bi bila temelj sveobuhvatne analize postojanja rizika od povrede, ona je barem bitan pokazatelj činjenice da šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje moraju biti posljedica asocijacije između suprotstavljenih žigova u svijesti javnosti, a koja je omogućena sličnostima između žigova, njihovim razlikovnim karakterom, ugledom i drugim čimbenicima (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.3.).
Thus, if the alleged detriment or unfair advantage is not the result of an association between the marks, but is due to other, extraneous reasons, it is not actionable under Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Stoga, ako navodna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje nisu posljedica asocijacije između žigova, već su prouzročeni drugim, vanjskim razlozima, nisu podložni radnjama u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 5.
This will be easier to establish where the earlier mark is known to the public at large, or where the consumers of the respective goods and services largely overlap.
To će se moći lakše utvrditi kada je raniji žig poznat široj javnosti ili kada se potrošači predmetnih proizvoda i usluga u velikoj mjeri preklapaju.
However, in cases where the goods and services are significantly different from each other and such a connection between the respective publics is not obvious, the opponent must justify why the marks will be associated, by reference to some other link between its activities and those of the applicant, for example where the earlier mark is exploited outside its natural market sector, for instance, by licensing or merchandising (see paragraph 3.3 above).
Međutim, u slučajevima u kojima se proizvodi i usluge znatno razlikuju, a takva veza između odgovarajućih javnosti nije jasna, podnositelj prigovora mora opravdati zašto će žigovi biti povezani upućivanjem na neku drugu vezu između svojih aktivnosti i aktivnosti podnositelja prijave, primjerice kada se raniji žig iskorištava i izvan svojeg prirodnog sektora tržišta licenciranjem ili prodajom (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.3.).
The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or is, or will be, detrimental to it (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Što se neposrednije i snažnije potrošač može prisjetiti ranijeg žiga na temelju kasnijeg žiga, veća je vjerojatnost da se trenutačnom ili budućom uporabom znaka nepošteno iskorištava, ili će se iskorištavati, razlikovni karakter ili ugled žiga ili im se nanosi, ili će im se nanositi, šteta (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Therefore, the evaluation of detriment or unfair advantage must be based on an overall assessment of all the factors relevant to the case (including in particular the similarity of signs, the reputation of the earlier mark, and the respective consumer groups and market sectors), with a view to determining whether the marks may be associated in a way that may adversely affect the earlier trade mark.
Stoga se procjena nanošenja štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja mora temeljiti na sveobuhvatnoj procjeni svih čimbenika relevantnih za određeni slučaj (posebno uključujući sličnost znakova, ugled ranijeg žiga, odgovarajuće potrošačke skupine i tržišne sektore) kako bi se utvrdilo mogu li se žigovi povezati na način kojim se može ugroziti raniji žig.
In MacCoffee/McDonald's, the General Court found that the existence of a ‘Mc' family of marks was a key factor to take into account when assessing whether there was an unfair advantage.
U presudi MacCoffee/McDonald's, Opći sud utvrdio je da je postojanje obitelji žigova „Mc” bio ključan čimbenik koji je trebalo uzeti u obzir pri procjeni je li postojalo nepošteno iskorištavanje.
3.4.3 Types of injury
Vrste povrede
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR applies if any of the following three alternative requirements is fulfilled, namely if use of the contested mark would:
Uredbe o žigu EU-a primjenjuje ako se ispuni bilo koji od sljedećih triju alternativnih uvjeta, odnosno ako bi se uporabom osporavanog žiga:
take unfair advantage of the distinctiveness, or the repute of the earlier mark;
nepošteno iskoristilo razlikovnost ili ugled ranijeg žiga;
cause detriment to the distinctiveness;
nanijela šteta razlikovnosti;
cause detriment to the repute.
nanijela šteta ugledu.
For the sake of completeness, both aspects of the same injury will be dealt with under paragraph 3.4.3.1 below.
Uredbe o žigu EU-a (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47).
There is a rich lexicon of vocabulary that is used in relation to this area of trade mark law.
Postoji bogat rječnik izraza koji se upotrebljavaju u vezi s ovim područjem zakonodavstva o žigovima.
The most common terms are set out below.
U nastavku su opisani najčešći pojmovi.
3.4.3.1 Taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute
Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnosti ili ugleda
The nature of the injury
Priroda povrede
The notion of taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute covers cases where the applicant benefits from the attractiveness of the earlier right by affixing on its goods/services a sign that is similar (or identical) to one widely known in the market and, thus, misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value or exploiting its reputation, image and prestige.
Pojmom nepoštenog iskorištavanja razlikovnosti ili ugleda obuhvaćeni su slučajevi u kojima podnositelj prijave iskorištava privlačnost ranijeg prava tako da svoje proizvode/usluge označuje znakom koji je sličan znaku koji je općepoznat na tržištu (ili istovjetan s njime) te na taj način zloupotrebljava njegovu snagu privlačnosti i promidžbenu vrijednost ili iskorištava njegov ugled, imidž i prestiž.
This may lead to unacceptable situations of commercial parasitism, where the applicant is allowed to take a ‘free ride' on the investment of the opponent in promoting and building up goodwill for its mark, as it may stimulate sales of the applicant's products to an extent that is disproportionately high in comparison with the size of its promotional investment.
To može dovesti do neprihvatljivih situacija trgovačkog nametništva u kojem je podnositelju prijave dopušteno „provlačiti se” na temelju ulaganja podnositelja prigovora pri promidžbi i stvaranju ugleda za svoj žig, što može potaknuti prodaju proizvoda podnositelja prijave u omjeru koji je nerazmjerno visok u usporedbi s veličinom njegovih promidžbenih ulaganja.
In its judgment of 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, the Court indicated that unfair advantage exists where there is a transfer of the image of the mark or of the characteristics that it projects to the goods identified by the identical or similar sign.
U svojoj presudi od 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, Sud je naveo da postoji nepošteno iskorištavanje kada dođe do prijenosa imidža žiga ili obilježja koja se tim žigom projiciraju na proizvode označene istovjetnim ili sličnim znakom.
By riding on the coat-tails of the reputed mark, the applicant benefits from the power of attraction, reputation and prestige of the reputed mark.
Ubacivanjem u područje djelovanja žiga s ugledom, podnositelj prijave iskorištava snagu privlačnosti, ugled i prestiž žiga s ugledom.
The applicant also exploits, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark (§ 41, 49).
Podnositelj prijave, bez plaćanja ikakve financijske naknade, iskorištava i nastojanja u području oglašavanja nositelja žiga kako bi stvorio i održao imidž žiga (t. 41., 49.).
Relevant consumer
Relevantni potrošač
The concept of ‘unfair advantage' focuses on benefit to the later mark rather than harm to the earlier mark; what is prohibited is the exploitation of the earlier mark by the proprietor of the later mark.
Pojam „nepoštenog iskorištavanja” usmjeren je na koristi za kasniji žig, a ne na štetu za raniji žig; zabranjeno je da nositelj kasnijeg žiga iskorištava raniji žig.
Accordingly, the existence of the injury consisting of unfair advantage obtained from the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is applied for (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
U skladu s time, postojanje povrede koju čini nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda ranijeg žiga mora se procijeniti u odnosu na prosječne potrošače proizvoda ili usluga za koje je podnesena prijava za kasniji žig (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of unfair advantage
Procjena nepoštenog iskorištavanja
In order to determine whether the use of a sign takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment, which takes into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, confirmed 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
Kako bi se procijenilo iskorištava li se nepošteno razlikovni karakter ili ugled žiga, nužno je provesti sveobuhvatnu procjenu u kojoj će se u obzir uzeti svi čimbenici relevantni za okolnosti predmeta (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, potvrđeno 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; pogledajte i 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
The misappropriation of the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark presupposes an association between the respective marks, which makes possible the transfer of attractiveness and prestige to the sign applied for.
Nezakonito prisvajanje razlikovnosti i ugleda ranijeg žiga podrazumijeva asocijaciju između odgovarajućih žigova, čime se omogućuje prijenos privlačnosti i prestiža na znak za koji je podnesena prijava.
An association of this kind will be more likely in the following circumstances.
Takva asocijacija vjerojatnija je u sljedećim okolnostima:
1. Where the earlier mark possesses a strong reputation or a very strong (inherent) distinctive character, because in such a case it will be both more tempting for the applicant to try to benefit from its value and easier to associate it with the sign applied for.
kada raniji žig ima snažan ugled ili vrlo snažan (svojstven) razlikovni karakter jer će u tom slučaju podnositelj prijave biti u većem iskušenju da pokuša iskoristiti njegovu vrijednost i bit će ga lakše povezati sa znakom za koji je podnesena prijava.
Such marks will be recognised in almost any context, exactly because of their outstanding distinctiveness or ‘good' or ‘special' reputation, in the sense that it reflects an image of excellence, reliability or quality, or some other positive message, which could positively influence the choice of the consumer as regards goods of other producers (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
Takvi žigovi prepoznatljivi su u gotovo svakom kontekstu upravo zbog svojeg iznimne razlikovnosti ili „dobrog” ili „posebnog” ugleda, u smislu da oni odražavaju imidž izvrsnosti, pouzdanosti ili kvalitete, ili neku drugu pozitivnu poruku koja može pozitivno utjecati na odabir potrošača u pogledu proizvoda drugih proizvođača (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
The stronger the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the more likely it is that, when encountering a later identical or similar mark, the relevant public will associate it with that earlier mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27).
Što je razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga snažniji, vjerojatnije je da će ga, pri susretu s kasnijim istovjetnim ili sličnim žigom, relevantna javnost povezati s ranijim žigom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27);
2. Where the degree of similarity between the signs at issue is high.
kada je razina sličnosti između predmetnih znakova visoka.
The more similar the marks are, the more likely it is that the later mark will bring the earlier mark with a reputation to the mind of the relevant public (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44).
Što su žigovi sličniji, to je vjerojatnije da će se na temelju kasnijeg žiga relevantna javnosti prisjetiti ranijeg žiga s ugledom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44);
3. Where there is a special connection between the goods/services, which allows for some of the qualities of the opponent's goods/services to be attributed to those of the applicant.
kada postoji posebna veza između proizvoda/usluga koja omogućuje da neke od kvaliteta proizvoda/usluga podnositelja prigovora budu pripisane onima podnositelja prijave.
Similarly, the Court has held that certain drinks (Classes 32 and 33) commercialised as improving sexual performance were linked to the properties of the goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and veterinary products and substances) for which the earlier mark, Viagra, was registered (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Slično tomu, Sud smatra da su određena pića (iz razreda 32. i 33.) koja se prodaju kao pića koja poboljšavaju seksualnu izvedbu bila povezana s obilježjima proizvoda iz razreda 5. (farmaceutski i veterinarski proizvodi i tvari) za koje je registriran raniji znak „Viagra” (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Conversely, such a link was not found between credit card services and cosmetics, as it was thought that the image of the former is not transferable to the latter, even though their respective users largely coincide.
S druge strane, takva veza nije pronađena između usluga kreditnih kartica i kozmetičkih proizvoda jer se smatralo da se imidž kreditnih kartica ne može prenijeti na kozmetičke proizvode iako su njihovi korisnici uglavnom isti;
4. Where, in view of its special attractiveness and prestige, the earlier mark may be exploited even outside its natural market sector, for example, by licensing or merchandising.
kada se, zbog njegove posebne privlačnosti i prestiža, raniji žig može iskorištavati i izvan svojeg prirodnog tržišnog sektora, primjerice licenciranjem ili prodajom.
In this case, if the applicant uses a sign that is identical or similar to the earlier mark for goods for which the latter is already exploited, it will obviously profit from its de facto value in that sector (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
U tom slučaju, ako podnositelj prijave upotrebljava znak koji je istovjetan s ranijim žigom ili njemu sličan za proizvode za koje se taj žig već iskorištava, očito je da će ostvariti korist od njegove de facto vrijednosti u tom sektoru (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
The applicant's intention is not a material factor.
Namjera podnositelja prijave nije materijalni čimbenik.
Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or repute of a trade mark may be a deliberate decision, for example where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark, or an attempt to trade upon the reputation of a famous mark.
Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda žiga može biti namjerna odluka, primjerice kada postoji jasno iskorištavanje i ubacivanje u područje djelovanja poznatog žiga ili pokušaj trgovanja ugledom poznatog žiga.
However, taking unfair advantage does not necessarily require a deliberate intention to exploit the goodwill attached to someone else's trade mark.
Međutim, nepošteno iskorištavanje ne zahtijeva nužno smišljenu namjeru iskorištavanja dobrog ugleda povezanog s nečijim žigom.
The concept of taking unfair advantage ‘concerns the risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with a reputation' (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
Pojam nepoštenog iskorištavanja „odnosi se na rizik da imidž žiga s ugledom ili obilježja koja on projicira budu prenesena na proizvode obuhvaćene žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, čime se olakšava oglašavanje tih proizvoda zbog njihove asocijacije s ranijim žigom s ugledom” (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
However, where the evidence shows that the applicant is clearly acting in bad faith, there will be a strong indication of unfair advantage.
Ipak, kada dokazi pokazuju da je podnositelj prijave jasno postupao u zloj vjeri, to će biti snažan pokazatelj nepoštenog iskorištavanja.
The existence of bad faith may be inferred from various factors, such as an obvious attempt by the applicant to imitate an earlier sign of great distinctiveness as closely as possible, or where there is no apparent reason why it chose for its goods a mark that includes such a sign.
O postojanju zle vjere može se zaključiti na temelju niza čimbenika kao što je očiti pokušaj podnositelja prijave da što više imitira raniji znak snažne razlikovnosti ili kada ne postoji očiti razlog zbog kojeg je za svoje proizvode odabrao žig koji obuhvaća takav znak.
Accordingly, advantage taken by a third party of the distinctive character or repute of the mark may be unfair even if the use of the identical or similar sign is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor.
Shodno tomu, iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda žiga za koje je odgovorna treća strana može biti nepošteno, čak i ako se uporabom istovjetnog ili sličnog znaka ne šteti razlikovnom karakteru ili ugledu žiga ili, općenitije, njegovu nositelju.
It is, therefore, not necessary for the opponent to show that the applicant's benefit is detrimental to its economic interests or to the image of its mark (unlike with tarnishing, see below), as in most cases the ‘borrowed' distinctiveness/prestige of the sign will principally affect the applicant's competitors, that is, traders dealing in identical/similar/neighbouring markets, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
Stoga podnositelj prigovora ne treba dokazati da je korist podnositelja prijave štetna za njegov gospodarski interes ili za imidž njegova žiga (za razliku od okaljanja, pogledajte u nastavku) jer će u većini slučajeva „posuđena” razlikovnost/prestiž znaka ponajprije utjecati na konkurenciju podnositelja prigovora, odnosno trgovce koji djeluju na istovjetnom/sličnom/susjednom tržištu jer će ih se time dovesti u nepovoljan položaj.
However, the possibility of simultaneous detriment to the opponent's interests should not be ruled out completely, especially in instances where use of the sign applied for could affect the opponent's merchandising schemes, or would hinder its plans to penetrate a new market sector.
Međutim, mogućnost istodobnog nanošenja štete interesima podnositelja prigovora ne smije se u potpunosti isključiti, posebno u slučajevima u kojima uporaba znaka za koji je podnesena prijava može utjecati na plan prodaje podnositelja prigovora ili se njome mogu omesti njegovi planovi prodiranja u novi tržišni sektor.
Cases on unfair advantage
Slučajevi nepoštenog iskorištavanja
Risk of unfair advantage established
Utvrđen rizik od nepoštenog iskorištavanja
Risk of unfair advantage denied
Odbijen rizik od nepoštenog iskorištavanja
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness
Šteta razlikovnosti
Article 8(5) EUTMR states that a proprietor of a reputed mark may oppose EUTM applications that, without due cause, would be detrimental to the distinctive character of earlier reputed marks.
Uredbe o žigu EU-a navodi se da se nositelj žiga s ugledom može usprotiviti prijavama za žig EU-a kojima bi se, bez opravdanog razloga, naštetilo razlikovnom karakteru ranijih žigova s ugledom.
Clearly, therefore, the object of protection is the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark.
Stoga je jasno da je predmet zaštite razlikovnost ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
For example, if Rolls Royce were used on restaurants, pants, candy, plastic pens, yard brushes, etc., its distinctiveness would eventually be dispersed and its special hold upon the public would be reduced - even in relation to cars, for which it is reputed.
Primjerice, ako se žig „Rolls Royce” upotrebljava za restorane, hlače, slatkiše, plastične kemijske olovke, dvorišne metle itd., njegova će se razlikovnost u konačnici raspršiti, a njegov poseban utjecaj na svijest javnosti smanjiti, čak i u pogledu automobila za koje ima ugled.