natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 The order for reference states that, by a judgment of 9 November 2007, the Cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) – acting as a second-instance Community trade mark court on the appeal brought against the judgment of 15 March 2006 by Chronopost – prohibited DHL Express France, subject to a periodic penalty payment in the event of infringement of the prohibition, from continuing to use the signs ‘WEBSHIPPING’ and ‘WEB SHIPPING’ in order to designate an express mail management service accessible, inter alia, via the Internet. The Cour d’appel de Paris regarded such use as infringing the French and Community trade mark WEBSHIPPING.
22 U zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku navodi se da je svojom presudom od 9. studenoga 2007. Cour d’appel de Paris (žalbeni sud u Parizu) – kao drugostupanjski sud za žig Zajednice koji odlučuje povodom Chronopostove žalbe na odluku od 15. ožujka 2006. – DHL-u Express France zabranio da znakove „WEBSHIPPING” i „WEB SHIPPING” nastavi rabiti za označivanje usluge upravljanja ekspresnom poštom koja je dostupna, između ostalog, putem interneta, uz uvjet plaćanja periodične novčane kazne u slučaju povrede te zabrane. Takvu uporabu Cour d’appel de Paris smatrao je povredom francuskog žiga i žiga Zajednice WEBSHIPPING.
23 The appeal in cassation which DHL Express France had brought against that judgment was dismissed by the order for reference.
23 Žalba u kasacijskom postupku koju je DHL Express France podnio protiv te presude odbačena je odlukom kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje.
24 However, in the course of the same proceedings before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), Chronopost has brought a cross-appeal in which it submits that the judgment of 9 November 2007 infringes Articles 1 and 98 of Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the prohibition against further infringement of the Community trade mark WEBSHIPPING, subject to a periodic penalty payment, issued by the Cour d’appel de Paris does not extend to the entire area of the European Union.
24 Međutim, u okviru istog postupka pred Cour de cassation (kasacijski sud), Chronopost je uložio protužalbu u kojoj izjavljuje da odluka od 9. studenoga 2007. predstavlja povredu članaka 1. i 98. Uredbe br. 40/94 po tome što se zabrana povrede žiga Zajednice WEBSHIPPING, uz uvjet plaćanja periodične novčane kazne, koju je izdao Cour d’appel de Paris, ne proteže na čitavo područje Europske unije.
25 According to the Cour de cassation, it follows expressly from the grounds of the judgment of the Cour d’appel de Paris that, although the judgment does not contain any operative words expressly relating to the application to extend the prohibition issued by that court – which is subject to a periodic penalty payment – to the entire area of the European Union, that prohibition subject to a periodic penalty payment must be construed as applying only to French territory.
25 Prema Cour de cassation, iz obrazloženja navedene presude Cour d'appel-a de Paris izričito proizlazi da, iako ta presuda ne sadržava izreku koja se izričito odnosi na zahtjev za proširenje zabrane koju je izdao taj sud – a ta zabrana podliježe uvjetu plaćanja periodične novčane kazne – na čitavo područje Europske unije, tu zabranu koja podliježe uvjetu plaćanja periodične novčane kazne treba tumačiti u smislu da se odnosi samo na francusko državno područje.
26 Since it had doubts as to the interpretation, in that context, of Article 98 of Regulation No 40/94, the Cour de cassation decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
26 Budući da je dvojio o tome kako u tom kontekstu tumačiti članak 98. Uredbe br. 40/94, Cour de cassation odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Must Article 98 of … Regulation [No 40/94] be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court has effect as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the [European Union]?
„1. Treba li članak 98. [...] Uredbe [br. 40/94] tumačiti u smislu da zabrana koju je izdao sud za žig Zajednice ima automatski učinak na čitavom području [Unije]?
2. If not, is that court entitled to apply specifically that prohibition to the territories of other States in which the acts of infringement are committed or threatened?
2. Ako ne, ima li taj sud pravo primijeniti baš tu zabranu na državna područja drugih država u kojima je počinjena povreda ili prijetnja povrede?
3. In either case, are the coercive measures which the court, by application of its national law, has attached to the prohibition issued by it applicable within the territories of the Member States in which that prohibition would have effect?
3. U bilo kojem od ta dva slučaja, jesu li mjere prisile, koje je taj sud primjenom svojeg nacionalnog prava donio uz zabranu koju je izdao, primjenjive unutar državnih područja država članica u kojima bi ta zabrana proizvodila učinak?
4. In the contrary case, may that court order such a coercive measure, similar to or different from that which it adopts pursuant to its national law, by application of the national laws of the States in which that prohibition would have effect?’
4. U suprotnom slučaju, može li navedeni sud odrediti takvu mjeru prisile, koja može i ne mora biti slična mjeri koju taj sud donese na temelju svojeg nacionalnog prava, primjenjujući nacionalno pravo država u kojima bi ta zabrana proizvodila učinak?”
27 As is apparent from its heading, Article 98 of Regulation No 40/94 is concerned with sanctions for Community trade-mark infringement.
27 Kao što proizlazi iz njegovog naslova, članak 98. Uredbe br. 40/94 odnosi se na sankcije za povredu žiga Zajednice.
28 The first sentence of Article 98(1) provides that where a Community trade mark court hearing a case finds that there have been acts of infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark, it is to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with such acts. The second sentence of Article 98(1) provides that that court is required to take such measures in accordance with its national law as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with.
28 Prva rečenica članka 98. stavka 1. predviđa da kada sud za žig Zajednice koji odlučuje u predmetu utvrdi da je došlo do povrede ili prijetnje povrede žiga Zajednice, on izdaje nalog kojim se tuženiku zabranjuje daljnje takvo postupanje. Druga rečenica članka 98. stavka 1. predviđa da je taj sud dužan poduzeti mjere u skladu sa svojim nacionalnim pravom čiji je cilj osigurati poštovanje takve zabrane.
29 Article 98(2) provides that the Community trade mark court is to apply ‘[i]n all other respects … the law of the Member State [in] which the acts of infringement or threatened infringement were committed, including the private international law’.
29 Članak 98. stavak 2. predviđa da sud za žig Zajednice primjenjuje „[u] svim pitanjima [...], pravo države članice u kojoj je povreda ili prijetnja povredom izvršena, uključujući i njezino međunarodno privatno pravo”.
30 It follows from the opening words of Article 98(2), read in the light of the heading of Article 98, and from the various language versions of that provision, in particular the German-language (‘in Bezug auf alle anderen Fragen’), French-language (‘par ailleurs’), Spanish-language (‘por otra parte’) and Italian-language (‘negli altri casi’) versions, that Article 98(2) does not relate to the coercive measures referred to in Article 98(1), which are measures to ensure compliance with a prohibition against further infringement.
30 Iz uvodnih riječi članka 98. stavka 2. koje se tumače s obzirom na naslov članka 98. i iz raznih jezičnih verzija te odredbe, a posebno verzije na njemačkom jeziku („in Bezug auf alle anderen Fragen”), na francuskom jeziku („par ailleurs”), na španjolskom jeziku („por otra parte”) i na talijanskom jeziku („negli altri casi”), proizlazi da se taj članak 98. stavak 2. ne odnosi na mjere prisile iz članka 98. stavka 1., koje su mjere kojima se osigurava poštovanje zabrane daljnje povrede.
31 Since the questions referred by the national court for a preliminary ruling concern only the prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement and the coercive measures to ensure compliance with that prohibition, those questions must therefore be considered to relate to the interpretation of Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94.
31 Budući da se prethodna pitanja koja je postavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev odnose samo na zabranu daljnje povrede ili prijetnje povrede i na mjere prisile kojima se osigurava poštovanje te zabrane, valja smatrati da se ta pitanja odnose na tumačenje članka 98. stavka 1. Uredbe 40/94.
32 By its first question the national court asks, in essence, whether Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement issued by a Community trade mark court has effect as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the European Union.
32 Svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 98. stavak 1. Uredbe br. 40/94 tumačiti u smislu da zabrana daljnje povrede ili prijetnje povrede koju je izdao sud za žig Zajednice ima automatski učinak na čitavom području Europske unije.
33 It must be observed that the territorial scope of a prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark, as provided for in Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94, is to be determined both by the territorial jurisdiction of the Community trade mark court issuing that prohibition and by the territorial extent of the Community trade mark proprietor’s exclusive right which is adversely affected by the infringement or threatened infringement, as that extent results from Regulation No 40/94.
33 Valja istaknuti da je teritorijalno područje primjene zabrane daljnje povrede ili prijetnje povrede žiga Zajednice, kako je predviđeno u članku 98. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 40/94, određeno i mjesnom nadležnošću suda za žig Zajednice koji izdaje tu zabranu i teritorijalnim opsegom, u smislu u kojem taj opseg proizlazi iz Uredbe br. 40/94, isključivog prava nositelja žiga Zajednice u koje povreda ili prijetnja povrede zadire.
34 As regards, first, the territorial jurisdiction of a Community trade mark court, it must be noted at the outset that under Article 14(1) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94, infringement of a Community trade mark is to be governed by the national law relating to infringement of a national trade mark in accordance with the provisions of Title X of that regulation. The rules of procedure to be applied are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Title X, headed ‘Jurisdiction and procedure in legal actions relating to Community trade marks’ and comprising Articles 90 to 104 of that regulation.
34 Što se tiče, kao prvo, mjesne nadležnosti suda za žig Zajednice, valja odmah napomenuti da na temelju članka 14. stavaka 1. i 3. Uredbe br. 40/94, povredu žiga Zajednice uređuje nacionalno pravo o povredama nacionalnog žiga, u skladu s odredbama glave X. te uredbe. Pravila postupka koja se primjenjuju određuju se u skladu s odredbama glave X. pod naslovom „Nadležnosti i sudski postupci koji se odnose na žigove Zajednice” koja obuhvaća članke od 90. do 104. te uredbe.
35 Article 92(a) of Regulation No 40/94 provides that the Community trade mark courts are to have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all infringement actions and – if they are permitted under national law – actions in respect of threatened infringement relating to Community trade marks.
35 Članak 92. točka (a) Uredbe br. 40/94 predviđa da sudovi za žig Zajednice imaju isključivu nadležnost odlučivati u postupcima povodom tužbe zbog povrede žiga i – ako su dopuštene nacionalnim zakonodavstvom – tužbe u odnosu na prijetnju povrede žiga Zajednice.
36 In the present case, it is apparent from the written observations submitted to the Court by Chronopost that the action was brought before the Community trade mark court pursuant to Article 93(1) to (4) of Regulation No 40/94. According to those observations, the application to bring the infringement or threatened infringement to an end is not based on Article 93(5).
36 U ovom predmetu, iz pisanih očitovanja koja je Chronoplast dostavio Sudu proizlazi da je postupak pred sudom za žig Zajednice pokrenut na temelju članka 93. stavaka od 1. do 4. Uredbe br. 40/94. Prema tim očitovanjima, zahtjev da se prekine povreda ili prijetnja povrede ne temelji se na članku 93. stavku 5.
37 Under Article 93(1) to (4) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 94(1) of that regulation, a Community trade mark court, which is established in accordance with Article 91 of that regulation in order to protect the rights conferred by a Community trade mark, is to have jurisdiction, in particular, in respect of acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States.
37 Na temelju članka 93. stavaka 1. do 4. Uredbe br. 40/94 u vezi s člankom 94. stavkom 1. te uredbe, sud za žig Zajednice, koji je osnovan u skladu s člankom 91. te uredbe radi zaštite prava koja proizlaze iz žiga Zajednice, nadležan je posebno s obzirom na počinjene povrede ili prijetnje povrede na državnom području bilo koje države članice.
38 Therefore, a Community trade mark court, such as that hearing the case in the main proceedings, has jurisdiction in respect of acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of one or more Member States, or even all the Member States. Thus, its jurisdiction may extend to the entire area of the European Union.
38 Prema tome, sud za žig Zajednice, kao što je onaj koji odlučuje o predmetu u glavnom postupku, nadležan je u odnosu na počinjene povrede ili prijetnje povrede na državnom području jedne ili više država članica, ili čak svih država članica. To znači da njegova nadležnost može obuhvaćati cijelo područje Unije.
39 Second, the exclusive right of a Community trade mark proprietor, conferred under Regulation No 40/94, extends, as a rule, to the entire area of the European Union, throughout which Community trade marks enjoy uniform protection and have effect.
39 Kao drugo, isključivo pravo nositelja žiga Zajednice, dodijeljeno na temelju Uredbe br. 40/94, u načelu obuhvaća cijelo područje Unije na kojem žigovi Zajednice imaju jedinstvenu zaštitu i proizvode učinke.
40 In accordance with Article 1(2) of that regulation, a Community trade mark is to have a unitary character. Having equal effect throughout the European Union, it may not, in accordance with that provision, be registered, transferred or surrendered or be the subject of a decision revoking the rights of the proprietor or declaring it invalid, nor may its use be prohibited, save in respect of the whole of the European Union. This principle is to apply unless otherwise provided in that regulation.
40 U skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 2. te uredbe, žig Zajednice ima jedinstveni karakter. Budući da na cijelom području Unije ima jednak učinak, ne smije ga se registrirati, prenositi, niti ga se smije odreći, ne smije biti predmetom odluke kojom se opozivaju prava nositelja ili ga se proglašava ništavim, niti se njegova uporaba smije zabraniti, osim u odnosu na cijelu Uniju. To se načelo primjenjuje, osim ako je drukčije određeno istom uredbom.
41 In addition, it follows from the second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 40/94 that the objective pursued by that regulation involves the creation of Community arrangements for trade marks to which uniform protection is given and which produce their effects throughout the entire area of the European Union.
41 Osim toga, iz uvodne izjave 2. Uredbe br. 40/94 proizlazi da cilj te uredbe uključuje uspostavu mehanizama Zajednice s obzirom na žigove, koji imaju jedinstvenu zaštitu i proizvode učinke na području cijele Unije.
42 The unitary character of the Community trade mark is also apparent from the fifteenth and sixteenth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 40/94. These state, first, that the effects of decisions regarding the validity and infringement of Community trade marks must cover the entire area of the European Union, in order to prevent inconsistent decisions on the part of the courts and OHIM and to ensure that the unitary character of Community trade marks is not undermined, and, second, that contradictory judgments should be avoided in actions which involve the same acts and the same parties and which are brought on the basis of a Community trade mark and parallel national trade marks.
42 Jedinstveni karakter žiga Zajednice isto tako proizlazi iz uvodnih izjava 15. i 16. Uredbe br. 40/94. U njima se navodi, kao prvo, da učinci odluka u vezi s valjanošću i povredom žigova Zajednice moraju pokrivati cijelo područje Unije, kako bi se spriječilo donošenje nedosljednih odluka od strane sudova i OHIM-a i osiguralo nenarušavanje jedinstvenog karaktera žigova Zajednice i, kao drugo, da bi trebalo izbjegavati proturječne presude u postupcima koji obuhvaćaju ista djela i iste stranke i koji su pokrenuti na temelju žiga Zajednice i usporednih nacionalnih žigova.
43 In addition, the Court has already held, at paragraph 60 of the judgment in Case C-316/05 Nokia [2006] ECR I-12083, that the objective of Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is the uniform protection, throughout the entire area of the European Union, of the right conferred by the Community trade mark against the risk of infringement.
43 Osim toga, Sud je u točki 60. presude od 14. prosinca 2006., Nokia (C-316/05, Zb., str. I-12083.) već presudio da je cilj članka 98. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 40/94 jedinstvena zaštita prava koje proizlazi iz žiga Zajednice, od opasnosti povrede na cijelom području Unije.
44 In order to ensure that uniform protection, a prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement issued by a competent Community trade mark court must therefore, as a rule, extend to the entire area of the European Union.
44 Prema tome, radi osiguravanja te jedinstvene zaštite, zabrana daljnje povrede ili prijetnje povrede koju izda sud za žig Zajednice u pravilu treba obuhvaćati cijelo područje Unije.
45 If the territorial scope of that prohibition were, on the contrary, limited to the territory of the Member State in respect of which that court had found there to be an act of infringement or threatened infringement or to the territory of only the Member States which gave rise to such a finding, there would be a risk that the defendant would begin to exploit the sign at issue afresh in a Member State for which the prohibition had not been issued. In addition, the new judicial proceedings which the Community trade mark proprietor would be compelled to bring would increase, in a manner proportional to those proceedings, the risk of inconsistent decisions relating to the Community trade mark concerned, in particular because of the factual assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Such a consequence runs counter to the objective of the uniform protection of the Community trade mark pursued by Regulation No 40/94 as well as to the unitary character of that mark, both of which are recalled in paragraphs 40 to 42 above.
45 Ako bi, suprotno tome, teritorijalno područje primjene te zabrane bilo ograničeno na državno područje države članice za koju je taj sud utvrdio postojanje djelovanja koje predstavlja povredu ili opasnost od povrede žiga ili na državno područje samo onih država članica za koje je bilo utvrđeno takvo djelovanje, postojala bi opasnost da tuženik ponovo počne iskorištavati predmetni žig u državi članici za koju zabrana nije bila izdana. Osim toga, novi sudski postupci koje bi nositelj žiga Zajednice morao pokrenuti razmjerno bi povećali opasnost od donošenja nedosljednih odluka koje se odnose na predmetni žig Zajednice, posebno zbog činjenične procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu. Takva posljedica u suprotnosti je s ciljem jedinstvene zaštite žiga Zajednice koji se nastoji postići Uredbom br. 40/94, kao i s jedinstvenim karakterom tog žiga, kako su navedeni u gornjim točkama od 40. do 42.
46 However, the territorial scope of the prohibition may, in certain circumstances, be restricted. The exclusive right of a Community trade mark proprietor, as provided for under Article 9(1) of Regulation No 40/94, is conferred in order to enable that proprietor to protect his specific interests as such, that is, to ensure that the trade mark is able to fulfil its functions. The exercise of that right must therefore be reserved to cases in which a third party’s use of the sign affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 Google France and Google [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
46 Međutim, teritorijalno područje primjene zabrane može u određenim okolnostima biti ograničeno. Isključivo pravo nositelja žiga Zajednice, predviđeno člankom 9. stavkom 1. Uredbe br. 40/94, dodjeljuje se kako bi se tom nositelju omogućila zaštita njegovih posebnih interesa kao takvih, to jest, kako bi se osigurala mogućnost ispunjavanja funkcija tog žiga. Izvršavanje tog prava stoga mora biti pridržano za slučajeve kada bi uporaba žiga od strane treće stranke mogla utjecati na funkcije žiga (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu od 23. ožujka 2010., Google France i Google, od C-236/08 do C-238/08, još neobjavljenu u Zborniku, t. 75. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
47 It follows, as the European Commission has pointed out, that the exclusive right of a Community trade mark proprietor and, hence, the territorial scope of that right, may not extend beyond what that right allows its proprietor to do in order to protect his trade mark, that is, to prohibit only uses which are liable to affect the functions of the trade mark. The acts or future acts of a defendant (namely the person whose use of the Community trade mark is complained of) which do not affect the functions of the Community trade mark, cannot therefore be prohibited.
47 Iz toga proizlazi, kao što je naglasila Europska komisija, da isključivo pravo nositelja žiga Zajednice, a time i teritorijalno područje primjene tog prava, ne smije premašiti ono što na temelju tog prava nositelj smije činiti da bi zaštitio svoj žig, a to je zabraniti samo uporabe koje bi mogle utjecati na funkcije žiga. Stoga se djelovanje ili buduće djelovanje tuženika (odnosno osobe čija je uporaba žiga Zajednice sporna) koje ne utječe na funkcije žiga Zajednice ne može zabraniti.
48 Accordingly, if a Community trade mark court hearing a case in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings finds that the acts of infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark are limited to a single Member State or to part of the territory of the European Union, in particular because the applicant for a prohibition order has restricted the territorial scope of its action in exercising its freedom to determine the extent of that action or because the defendant proves that the use of the sign at issue does not affect or is not liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, for example on linguistic grounds, that court must limit the territorial scope of the prohibition which it issues.
48 Prema tome, ako sud za žig Zajednice koji odlučuje u predmetu u okolnostima poput onih u glavnom postupku utvrdi da je povreda ili prijetnja povrede žiga Zajednice ograničena na jednu državu članicu ili dio područja Unije, posebno zato što je podnositelj zahtjeva za izdavanje naredbe o zabrani ograničio teritorijalno područje svojega djelovanja u okviru izvršavanja svojih ovlasti slobodnog odlučivanja o opsegu tog djelovanja ili zato što je tuženik dokazao da uporaba predmetnog žiga ne utječe i ne bi mogla utjecati na funkcije žiga Zajednice, na primjer iz jezičnih razloga, taj sud treba ograničiti teritorijalno područje primjene zabrane koju izda.