natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.1.2.2 Earlier national marks 63 
3.1.2.2 Raniji nacionalni žigovi 63
3.1.2.3 Earlier international registrations designating a Member State 64 
3.1.2.3 Ranije međunarodne registracije u kojima je naznačena država članica 64
3.1.2.4 Earlier international registrations designating the European Union 66 
3.1.2.4 Ranije međunarodne registracije u kojima je naznačena Europska unija 66
3.1.2.5 Summary of calculation of the grace period 66 
3.1.2.5 Sažetak izračuna razdoblja odgode 66
3.1.3 Request must be unconditional, explicit and unambiguous 66 
3.1.3 Zahtjev mora biti jasan, nedvosmislen i bezuvjetan 66
3.1.4 Applicant's interest to deal with proof of use first 67 
3.1.4 Interes podnositelja prijave da se najprije pobrine za dokaz o uporabi 67
3.1.5 Reaction if request is invalid 68 
3.1.5 Reakcija u slučaju nevažećeg zahtjeva 68
3.2 Express invitation by the Office 68 
3.2 Izričiti poziv Ureda 68
3.3 Reaction from the opponent: providing proof of use 69 
3.3 Reakcija podnositelja prigovora: dostavljanje dokaza o uporabi 69
3.3.1 Time limit for providing proof of use 69 
3.3.1 Rok za dostavljanje dokaza o uporabi 69
3.3.2 Means of evidence 70 
3.3.2 Dokazni materijal 70
3.3.2.1 Principles 70 
3.3.2.1 Načela 70
3.3.2.2 References 72 
3.3.2.2 Upućivanja 72
3.3.2.3 Declarations 73 
3.3.2.3 Izjave 73
3.4 Reaction from the applicant 75 
3.4 Odgovor podnositelja prijave 75
3.4.1 Forwarding of evidence 75 
3.4.1 Prosljeđivanje dokaza 75
3.4.2 No evidence or no relevant evidence submitted 75 
3.4.2 Nedostatak dokaza ili nedostatak podnesenih relevantnih dokaza 75
3.4.3 No reaction from applicant 76 
3.4.3 Izostanak reakcije podnositelja prijave 75
3.4.4 Formal withdrawal of the request 76 
3.4.4 Službeno povlačenje zahtjeva 76
3.5 Further reaction from the opponent 76 
3.5 Daljnji odgovor podnositelja prigovora 76
3.6 Languages in proof of use proceedings 76 
3.6 Jezik u postupku u kojem se ispituje dokaz o uporabi 76
3.7 Decision 77 
3.7 Odluka 77
3.7.1 Competence of the Office 77 
3.7.1 Nadležnost Ureda 77
3.7.2 Need for assessing proof of use 78 
3.7.2 Potreba procjenjivanja dokaza o uporabi 77
3.7.3 Overall assessment of the evidence presented 78 
3.7.3 Cjelokupna procjena iznesenih dokaza 78
3.7.4 Treatment of confidential information 79 
3.7.4 Postupanje s povjerljivim podatcima 79
3.7.5 Examples 79 
3.7.5 Primjeri 79
3.7.5.1 Genuine use accepted 80 
3.7.5.1 Prihvaćena stvarna uporaba 79
3.7.5.2 Genuine use not accepted 81 
3.7.5.2 Neprihvaćena stvarna uporaba 81
Annex: 5year period for assessing use of national trade marks 83 
Prilog: Petogodišnje razdoblje relevantno za procjenu nacionalnih žigova 82
Proof of Use 
Dokaz o uporabi
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 40 
Smjernice za ispitivanje u Uredu, dio C, Prigovor Stranica 85.
1 General Considerations 
Opća razmatranja
1.1 Function of proof of use 
Svrha dokaza o uporabi
European Union legislation on trade marks establishes an obligation for the owner of a registered trade mark to use that mark in a genuine manner. 
Zakonodavstvom Europske unije o žigovima utvrđena je obveza nositelja registriranog žiga da taj žig doista i upotrebljava.
The obligation of use is not applicable immediately after registration of the earlier mark. 
Obveza uporabe ne primjenjuje se odmah nakon registracije ranijeg žiga.
Instead, the owner of a registered mark has a ‘grace period' of 5 years, during which it is not necessary to demonstrate use of the mark in order to rely upon it - including in opposition proceedings before the Office. 
Umjesto toga, nositelju registriranog žiga odobrava se „razdoblje odgode” u trajanju od pet godina, tijekom kojeg on nije obvezan dokazati uporabu žiga kada se na njega poziva, čak ni u postupku prigovora pred Uredom.
After this grace period, the owner may be required to demonstrate use of the earlier mark for the relevant goods and services. 
Nakon tog razdoblja, od nositelja se može zahtijevati dokaz o uporabi ranijeg žiga za relevantne proizvode i usluge.
Before this period lapses, the mere formal registration gives the mark full protection. 
Prije isteka tog razdoblja službena je registracija dostatna za pružanje pune zaštite žigu.
The reason behind the requirement that earlier marks can be required to demonstrate that they have been put to genuine use is to restrict the number of trade marks registered and protected and, consequently, the number of conflicts between them (12/03/2003, T174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68, § 38). 
Razlog zbog kojeg se može zahtijevati dokazivanje stvarne uporabe ranijih žigova jest nastojanje da se ograniči broj registriranih i zaštićenih žigova te samim time i broj sporova među njima (12/03/2003, T174/01, Silk Cocoon, EU:T:2003:68, § 38).
The Office does not inquire ex officio whether the earlier mark has been used. 
Ured ne ispituje po službenoj dužnosti je li raniji žig bio u uporabi ili ne.
Such examination takes place only when the EUTM applicant makes an explicit request for proof of use. 
Takvo ispitivanje provodi se samo kada podnositelj prijave za žig EU-a podnese izričit zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi.
Such a request, if the legal requirements are met, triggers the procedural and substantive consequences laid down in the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR. 
Ako su ispunjeni svi zakonski uvjeti, navedeni zahtjev proizvodi postupovne i materijalne posljedice propisane Uredbom o žigu EU-a, Delegiranom uredbom o žigu EU-a i Uredbom o provedbi Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
1.2 Legislative framework 
Zakonodavni okvir
The legislative framework consists of provisions of the EUTMR, the EUTMDR, the EUTMIR and Directive (EU) 2015/2436 approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (the Directive), as implemented in the national law of the Member States. 
Zakonodavni okvir sastoji se od odredaba Uredbe o žigu EU-a, Delegirane uredbe o žigu EU-a, Uredbe o provedbi Uredbe o žigu EU-a i Direktive (EU) 2015/2436 o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o žigovima (Direktiva), kako se provode u nacionalnom pravu država članica.
1.2.1 EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR 
Članak 18.
Article 18 EUTMR stipulates the basic substantive requirement for the obligation to use registered marks. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a propisuje se osnovni materijalni zahtjev za obveznu uporabu registriranih žigova.
It reads as follows: 
Glasi kako slijedi:
If, within a period of five years following registration, the proprietor has not put the EU trade mark to genuine use in the Union in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the EU trade mark shall be subject to the sanctions provided for in this Regulation, unless there are proper reasons for non-use. 
Ako u petogodišnjem razdoblju od registracije, nositelj nije stvarno rabio svoj žig EU-a u Uniji u odnosu na proizvode ili usluge za koje je registriran ili ako je takva uporaba suspendirana tijekom neprekinutog razdoblja od pet godina, žig EU-a podliježe sankcijama predviđenima ovom Uredbom, osim ako postoje opravdani razlozi za neuporabu.
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR: 
U skladu s člankom 47. stavkom 2.
In the absence of proof to this effect, the opposition shall be rejected. 
Ako nema dokaza o tomu, prigovor se odbacuje.
This wording is the result of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 , which entered into force on 23/03/2016. 
Prije toga petogodišnje razdoblje računalo se unatrag od datuma objave osporavane prijave žiga EU-a.
Previously, the 5-year period was computed backwards from the date of publication of the contested EUTM application. 
[3: Uredba (EU) 2015/2424 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 2015. o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br.
In accordance with Article 47(3) EUTMR: 
U skladu s člankom 47. stavkom 3.
As for Article 8(3) EUTMR, the Office's practice is that requests for proof of use of the earlier right cannot be made. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a, u skladu s praksom Ureda nije moguće podnijeti zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi ranijeg prava.
The reason is that such earlier rights include both trade marks having effect in the EU/EU Member States (EUTMs, national trade marks, IRs) and national non-EUTMs, requests for proof of use of the latter not being possible under the EUTMR. 
Razlog tomu je što takva ranija prava uključuju žigove s učinkom u EU-u / državama članicama EU-a (žigove EU-a, nacionalne žigove, međunarodne registracije) i nacionalne žigove registrirane izvan EU-a, a na temelju Uredbe o žigu EU-a nije moguće podnijeti zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi potonjih.
It would be discriminatory to request proof of use for some countries' trade marks but not for others. 
Bilo bi diskriminirajuće zahtijevati dokaz o uporabi žigova nekih zemalja, ali ne i svih ostalih.
In accordance with Article 10(4) EUTMDR, the evidence must consist of written documents and in principle be confined to supporting documents and items such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs, newspaper advertisements, and statements in writing as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR. 
Delegirane uredbe o žigu EU-a dokazi se moraju sastojati od pisanih dokumenata i moraju se ograničiti na podnošenje popratnih dokumenata i predmeta kao što su ambalaža, oznake, cjenici, katalozi, računi, fotografije, novinski oglasi i pisane izjave iz članka 97. stavka 1. točke (f) Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
Such observations may also be filed together with the observations in reply to the proof of use. 
Te se primjedbe mogu dostaviti i zajedno s primjedbama u odgovoru na dokaz o uporabi.
2 Substantive Law 
Materijalno pravo
2.1 Genuine use: the principles of the Court of Justice 
Stvarna uporaba: načela Suda
The EUTMR, the EUTMDR and the EUTMIR do not define what is to be regarded as ‘genuine use'. 
U Uredbi o žigu EU-a, Delegiranoj uredbi o žigu EU-a i Uredbi o provedbi Uredbe o žigu EU-a nije utvrđeno što se smatra „stvarnom uporabom”.
However, the Court of Justice (the ‘Court') has laid down several important principles as regards the interpretation of this term. 
Međutim, Sud Europske unije („Sud”) propisao je nekoliko važnih načela o tumačenju tog izraza.
In Minimax (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145), the Court established the following principles: 
U presudi u predmetu Minimax (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145), Sud je utvrdio sljedeća načela:
genuine use means actual use of the mark (paragraph 35); 
stvarna uporaba znači stvarnu uporabu žiga (t. 35.);
genuine use must, therefore, be understood to denote use that is not merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the mark (paragraph 36); 
prema tome, stvarna uporaba treba označavati uporabu koja nije samo simbolična i koja ne služi isključivo za očuvanje prava koja proizlaze iz žiga (t. 36.);
genuine use must be consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling the latter, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others that have another origin (paragraph 36); 
stvarna uporaba treba biti u skladu s osnovnom funkcijom žiga, a to je jamčiti potrošaču ili krajnjem korisniku podrijetlo proizvoda ili usluga, omogućujući potonjem da bez bilo kakve zablude razlikuje proizvod ili uslugu od drugih koji imaju drukčije podrijetlo (t. 36.);
genuine use entails use of the mark on the market for the goods or services protected by that mark and not just internal use by the undertaking concerned (paragraph 37); 
stvarna uporaba podrazumijeva tržišnu uporabu žiga za proizvode ili usluge zaštićene tim žigom, a ne samo internu uporabu unutar poduzeća (t. 37.);
genuine use must relate to goods or services already marketed or about to be marketed and for which preparations by the undertaking to secure customers are under way, particularly in the form of advertising campaigns (paragraph 37); 
stvarna uporaba treba se odnositi na proizvode ili usluge koji su već stavljeni na tržište ili će se staviti na tržište, i u pogledu kojih poduzeće već obavlja pripreme da bi ih učinilo dostupnima za potrošače, posebno u obliku reklamnih kampanja (t. 37.);
when assessing whether there has been genuine use, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, in particular whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark (paragraph 38); 
pri procjeni stvarne uporabe treba uzeti u obzir sve činjenice i okolnosti relevantne za utvrđivanje stvarne komercijalne uporabe žiga, posebno smatra li se takva uporaba opravdanom u gospodarskom sektoru radi održavanja ili stvaranja tržišnog udjela za proizvode ili usluge zaštićene žigom (t. 38.);
the circumstances of the case may, therefore, include giving consideration, inter alia, to the nature of the goods or services at issue, the characteristics of the market concerned and the scale and frequency of use of the mark (paragraph 39); 
prema tome, okolnosti slučaja mogu uključivati razmatranje, među ostalim, prirode predmetnih proizvoda ili usluga, obilježja predmetnog tržišta te opsega i učestalosti uporabe žiga (t. 39.);
use need not, therefore, always be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine, as that depends on the characteristics of the goods or services concerned on the corresponding market (paragraph 39). 
dakle, uporaba ne treba uvijek biti količinski značajna da bi se smatrala stvarnom zato što ona ovisi o obilježjima predmetnih proizvoda ili usluga na odgovarajućem tržištu (t. 39.).
In its order of 27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, the Court further elaborated the Minimax criteria as follows: 
U rješenju od 27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, Sud je dodatno razradio kriterije iz predmeta Minimax kako slijedi:
the question whether use is sufficient to preserve or create market share for the goods or services concerned depends on several factors and on a case-by-case assessment. 
pitanje je li uporaba dostatna za očuvanje ili stvaranje tržišnog udjela za predmetne proizvode ili usluge ovisi o nekoliko čimbenika i procjeni od slučaja do slučaja.
The characteristics of the goods and services, the frequency or regularity of the use of the mark, whether the mark is used for the purpose of marketing all the identical goods or services of the proprietor or merely some of them, or evidence that the proprietor is able to provide, are among the factors that may be taken into account (paragraph 22); 
Neki od čimbenika koji se mogu uzeti u obzir uključuju obilježja proizvoda i usluga, učestalost ili redovitost uporabe žiga, pitanje upotrebljava li se žig u svrhu stavljanja na tržište svih istovjetnih proizvoda ili usluga nositelja ili samo nekih od njih, ili dokaze koje nositelj može podnijeti (t. 22.);
use of the mark by a single client that imports the goods for which the mark is registered can be sufficient to demonstrate that such use is genuine, if it appears that the import operation has a genuine commercial justification for the proprietor of the mark (paragraph 24); 
kada jedan korisnik, koji uvozi proizvode za koje je žig registriran, rabi žig, a to može biti dostatno za dokazivanje stvarne uporabe ako se može zaključiti da je za nositelja žiga uvoz stvarno komercijalno opravdan (t. 24.);
a de minimis rule cannot be laid down (paragraph 25). 
primjena pravila de minimis ne može se propisati (t. 25.).
Article 47 EUTMR requires proof of genuine use of the earlier mark. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a zahtijeva se dokaz o stvarnoj uporabi ranijeg žiga.
Genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned (18/01/2011, T382/08, Vogue, EU:T:2011:9, § 22). 
Stvarna uporaba žiga ne može se dokazati vjerojatnostima ili pretpostavkama, nego se mora temeljiti na konkretnim i objektivnim dokazima koji dokazuju učinkovitu i dostatnu uporabu žiga na predmetnom tržištu (18/01/2011, T382/08, Vogue, EU:T:2011:9, § 22).
Moreover, the Office cannot determine ex officio the genuine use of earlier marks. 
Uostalom, Ured po službenoj dužnosti ne može utvrditi stvarnu uporabu ranijih žigova.
Even proprietors of purportedly well-known marks must submit evidence to prove genuine use of the earlier mark(s). 
Čak i nositelji navodno poznatih žigova trebaju podnijeti dokaze kako bi dokazali stvarnu uporabu ranijih žigova.
The Office does not necessarily require a high threshold of proof of genuine use. 
Ured ne zahtijeva nužno visok prag za dokazivanje stvarne uporabe.
The Court has indicated that it is not possible to prescribe, in the abstract, what quantitative threshold should be chosen in order to determine whether use was genuine or not, and accordingly there can be no objective de minimis rule to establish a priori the level of use needed in order for it to be ‘genuine'. 
Sud je ukazao na nemogućnost apstraktnog propisivanja količinskog praga koji treba doseći kako bi se utvrdilo je li riječ o stvarnoj uporabi, pa u skladu s time objektivno pravilo de minimis ne može primjenjivati za a priori utvrđivanje potrebne razine „stvarne” uporabe.
So, whilst a minimum extent of use must be shown, what exactly constitutes this minimum extent depends on the circumstances of each case. 
Iako je potrebno dokazati najmanji opseg uporabe, treba imati na umu da ono što doista čini najmanji opseg zapravo ovisi o okolnostima svakog pojedinog slučaja.
The general rule is that, when it serves a real commercial purpose, even minimal use of the trade mark could be sufficient to establish genuine use, depending on the goods and services, and the relevant market (23/09/2009, T409/07, acopat, EU:T:2009:354, § 35 and case-law cited therein; 02/02/2012, T387/10, Arantax, EU:T:2012:51, § 42). 
Ovisno o proizvodima i uslugama i relevantnom tržištu, opće je pravilo da čak i minimalna uporaba žiga može biti dovoljna za utvrđivanje stvarne uporabe kada služi stvarnoj gospodarskoj svrsi (23/09/2009, T409/07, acopat, EU:T:2009:354, § 35 i navedena sudska praksa; 02/02/2012, T387/10, Arantax, EU:T:2012:51, § 42).
In other words, it is sufficient if the evidence of use proves that the trade mark owner has seriously tried to acquire or maintain a commercial position in the relevant market as opposed to having solely used the mark with the intention of preserving the rights conferred by the mark (token use). 
Drugim riječima, uporaba je dostatna kada se na temelju podnesenih dokaza o uporabi može dokazati da je nositelj žiga ozbiljno nastojao steći ili održati poslovni položaj na relevantnom tržištu, te da žig ne služi isključivo za očuvanje prava koja proizlaze iz žiga (simbolična uporaba).
For instance, in some cases, relatively few sales might be sufficient to conclude that the use is not merely token, in particular with regard to expensive goods (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22). 
Na primjer, u nekim je okolnostima dostatan relativno mali broj prodaja za izvođenje zaključka da uporaba nije samo simbolična, posebno u pogledu skupih proizvoda (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22).
Nonetheless, even if inter alia a very modest amount of use can suffice in certain circumstances, proprietors should adduce comprehensive evidence of use. 
Ipak, unatoč tome što u određenim okolnostima, među ostalim, vrlo skromna uporaba može biti dostatna, nositelji trebaju predočiti sveobuhvatne dokaze o uporabi.
These requirements for proof of use are cumulative (05/10/2010, T92/09, STRATEGI / Stratégies, EU:T:2010:424, § 43). 
Ti su uvjeti za dokazivanje uporabe kumulativni (05/10/2010, T92/09, STRATEGI / Stratégies, EU:T:2010:424, § 43).
This means that the opponent is obliged not only to indicate but also to prove each of these requirements. 
To znači da je podnositelj prigovora obvezan ne samo ukazati na svaki od navedenih uvjeta, već ih treba i dokazati.
However, the sufficiency of the indication and proof as to the place, time, extent and nature of use has to be considered in view of the entirety of the evidence submitted. 
Međutim, dostatnost podataka i dokaza o mjestu, vremenu, opsegu i prirodi uporabe treba razmotriti s obzirom na cjelokupnost podnesenih dokaza.
A separate assessment of the various relevant factors, each considered in isolation, is not suitable (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 31). 
Odvojena procjena različitih čimbenika, od kojih se svaki razmatra zasebno, neprimjerena je (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 31).
Thus, the Office evaluates the evidence submitted in an overall assessment. 
Prema tome, Ured procjenjuje podnesene dokaze u okviru cjelokupne procjene.
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account and all the materials submitted must be assessed in conjunction with each other. 
U obzir treba uzeti sve okolnosti konkretnog slučaja, pri čemu sve podnesene materijale treba procijeniti zajedno s ostalim materijalima.
Therefore, although pieces of evidence may be insufficient by themselves to prove the use of an earlier trade mark, they may contribute to proving use in combination with other documentation and information. 
Stoga, iako dijelovi dokaza sami po sebi mogu biti nedostatni za dokazivanje uporabe ranijeg žiga, oni mogu pridonijeti dokazivanju uporabe u kombinaciji s drugom dokumentacijom i informacijama.
Evidence of use may be of an indirect/circumstantial nature, such as evidence about the share in the relevant market, the importing of the relevant goods, the supply of the necessary raw materials or packaging to the owner of the mark, or the expiry date of the relevant goods. 
Dokaz o uporabi može biti neizravne/sporedne prirode, kao što su dokazi o udjelu na relevantnom tržištu, uvoz relevantnih proizvoda, opskrba nositelja žiga potrebnim sirovinama ili ambalažom te rok valjanosti relevantnih proizvoda.
Such indirect evidence can play a decisive role in the overall assessment of the evidence submitted. 
Takvi neizravni dokazi mogu imati presudnu ulogu u cjelokupnoj procjeni podnesenih dokaza.
Its probative value has to be carefully assessed. 
Njihovu dokaznu vrijednost treba pažljivo procijeniti.
For instance, the judgment of 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq. found that catalogues in themselves could - under certain circumstances - be conclusive evidence of sufficient extent of use. 
Na primjer, u presudi od 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq. utvrđeno je da katalozi sami po sebi u određenim okolnostima mogu biti uvjerljiv dokaz o dostatnom opsegu uporabe.
It is necessary to take into account the specific kind of the goods and services involved when assessing the probative value of the evidence submitted. 
Prilikom procjenjivanja dokazne vrijednosti podnesenih dokaza u obzir treba uzeti specifičnu vrstu predmetnih proizvoda i usluga.
For example, it may be common in a particular market sector for the samples of the goods and services themselves not to bear indications of the place, time, extent and nature of use. 
Na primjer, u određenom tržišnom sektoru može biti uobičajeno da uzorci proizvoda i usluga nemaju oznaku mjesta, vremena, opsega i prirode uporabe.
In these cases it is obviously inappropriate to disregard such evidence of use if indications in this respect can be found in the other evidence submitted. 
U takvim okolnostima očito nije primjereno zanemariti takve dokaze o uporabi ako takve oznake možemo pronaći u ostalim podnesenim dokazima.
Material submitted without any indication of date of use may, in the context of an overall assessment, still be relevant and taken into consideration in conjunction with other pieces of evidence that are dated (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 33). 
Materijal koji je podnesen bez ikakvih oznaka o datumu uporabe može, u kontekstu cjelokupne procjene, i dalje biti relevantan i može se uzeti u obzir u kombinaciji s ostalim dokazima koji posjeduju takvu oznaku (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 33).