natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, if the earlier mark has been registered for a broad category of goods or services but the opponent provides evidence of use only for specific goods or services falling within this category, this raises the question of whether the submitted evidence is to be regarded strictly as proof of use only for the particular goods or services, which are not mentioned as such in the list of goods or services, or for the broad category as specified in the registration. 
Prema tome, ako je raniji žig registriran za široku kategoriju proizvoda ili usluga, ali podnositelj prigovora dostavi dokaz o uporabi samo za određene proizvode ili usluge koji pripadaju toj kategoriji, postavlja se pitanje hoće li se podneseni dokaz smatrati isključivo dokazom o uporabi samo za određene proizvode ili usluge, koji kao takvi nisu navedeni na popisu proizvoda ili usluga, ili za široku kategoriju koja se navodi u registraciji.
Therefore, it is necessary to take account of the breadth of the categories of goods or services for which the earlier mark is registered, in particular the extent to which the categories concerned are described in general terms for registration purposes, and to do so in the light of the goods or services for which genuine use has actually been established (paragraph 44). 
Prema tome, u obzir treba uzeti opseg kategorija proizvoda ili usluga u odnosu na koje je raniji žig registriran, posebno opseg općenitog opisa predmetne kategorije u svrhu registracije, i to samo za proizvode ili usluge za koje je utvrđena stvarna uporaba (t. 44.).
On the other hand, it is not necessary for the opponent to file evidence of all the commercial variations of similar goods or services but merely of those goods or services that are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or subcategories (paragraph 46). 
S druge strane, podnositelj prigovora ne mora podnijeti dokaze o svim komercijalnim varijantama sličnih proizvoda ili usluga, već samo o onim proizvodima ili uslugama koji su dovoljno različiti da čine jasne kategorije ili potkategorije (t. 46.).
The underlying reason is that in practice it is impossible for the proprietor of a trade mark to prove that the mark has been used for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned by the registration. 
Osnovni je razlog taj da nositelj žiga u praksi ne može dokazati da je žig u uporabi za sve zamislive varijante predmetnih proizvoda obuhvaćenih registracijom.
Thus, protection is available only for the subcategory or subcategories to which the used goods or services belong if: 
Prema tome, zaštita je dostupna samo za potkategoriju ili potkategorije kojima proizvodi ili usluge u uporabi pripadaju:
1. a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services: 
ako je žig registriran za kategorije proizvoda/usluga:
(a) that is sufficiently broad to cover a number of subcategories other than in an arbitrary manner; 
koje su dovoljno široke da obuhvate brojne potkategorije, osim proizvoljnih;
(b) that are capable of being perceived as being independent from each other; 
koje se mogu poimati kao neovisne jedna o drugoj;
2. it can be shown that the mark has been genuinely used in relation to only part of the initial broad specification. 
ako se može dokazati da je žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi u pogledu samo dijela početne opsežne specifikacije.
Appropriate reasoning should be given for defining the subcategories and, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the opponent, it must be explained whether use has been shown in relation to only part of the initial broad specification or subcategory/subcategories. 
Potrebno je odgovarajuće obrazloženje za utvrđivanje potkategorija te je na temelju dokaza koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora potrebno razjasniti je li uporaba dokazana u odnosu na samo dio početne opsežne specifikacije ili potkategorije/potkategorija.
See examples in paragraph 2.8.4.3 below. 
Pogledajte primjere u odlomku 2.8.4.3.
2.8.4.2 Earlier mark registered for precisely specified goods/services 
Raniji žig koji je registriran za točno određenu kategoriju proizvoda/usluga
In contrast, proof of genuine use of the mark for some of the specified goods or services necessarily covers the entire category if: 
Suprotno tomu, dokaz o stvarnoj uporabi žiga za neke od navedenih proizvoda ili usluga nužno obuhvaća cijelu kategoriju ako:
(1) a trade mark has been registered for goods or services specified in a relatively precise manner; so that 
je žig registriran za proizvode ili usluge koji su određeni na relativno precizan način tako da
(2) it is not possible, without any artificiality, to make any significant subdivisions within the category concerned (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45). 
nikakva značajna potpodjela unutar predmetne kategorije nije moguća, a da se pritom žig ne izmjeni na neprirodan način (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45).
The decision should duly indicate in which cases it is considered impossible to make subdivisions and, if necessary, why. 
U odluci treba propisno navesti u kojim okolnostima nije moguće napraviti potpodjele i, prema potrebi, zbog čega.
2.8.4.3 Examples 
Primjeri
In order to define adequate subcategories of general indications, the criterion of the purpose or intended use of the product or service in question is of fundamental importance, as consumers do employ this criterion before making a purchase (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37). 
Za određivanje odgovarajućih potkategorija općih oznaka od temeljnog je značaja kriterij svrhe ili namjeravane uporabe predmetnog proizvoda ili usluge zbog toga što potrošači primjenjuju taj kriterij prilikom kupnje (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37).
Other applicable criteria for defining adequate subcategories could be the characteristics of the product or service, for instance the nature of the product or service or the target consumer of the product or service. 
Drugi primjenjivi kriteriji za utvrđivanje odgovarajuće potkategorije mogu biti obilježja proizvoda ili usluge, na primjer vrsta proizvoda ili usluge, odnosno njihov ciljani potrošač.
The geographical origin of the goods is not relevant. 
Zemljopisno podrijetlo proizvoda nije relevantno.
Even if the geographical origin of wines is an important factor when they are being chosen, such a factor is not so important that wines with different appellations of origin could constitute subcategories of goods that could be viewed autonomously (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37). 
Čak i ako je zemljopisno podrijetlo vina važan čimbenik pri njihovu odabiru, taj čimbenik nije toliko važan da bi vina s različitim oznakama izvornosti mogla činiti potkategorije robe koje bi se moglo promatrati samostalno (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37).
Pharmaceutical preparations 
Farmaceutski pripravci
In a number of cases, the Court had to define adequate subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5. 
Sud je u velikom broju slučajeva trebao definirati odgovarajuće potkategorije farmaceutskih pripravaka u razredu 5.
It held that the purpose and intended use of a therapeutic preparation are expressed in its therapeutic indication. 
Smatrao je da su svrha i namjeravana uporaba terapijskog pripravka izražene u njegovoj terapijskoj indikaciji.
Thus, the therapeutic indication is the key for defining the relevant subcategory of pharmaceutical products. 
Prema tome, terapijska indikacija ključna je za utvrđivanje relevantne potkategorije farmaceutskih proizvoda.
Other criteria (such as dosage form, active ingredients, whether it is sold on prescription or over the counter) are irrelevant in this regard. 
Ostali kriteriji (primjerice način doziranja, aktivni sastojci, prodaju li se proizvodi na recept ili bez njega) ovdje su nevažni.
The following subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations were assumed to be adequate by the Court: 
Sud je kao odgovarajuće prihvatio sljedeće potkategorije farmaceutskih pripravaka:
2.8.5 Use of the mark as regards integral parts and after-sales services of the registered goods 
Uporaba žigova u pogledu sastavnih dijelova i postprodajnih usluga registriranih proizvoda
In the Minimax judgment, the Court held that, in certain circumstances, use of the mark may be considered genuine also for ‘registered' goods that had been sold at one time and were no longer available (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.). 
Sud je u presudi „Minimax” presudio da se u određenim okolnostima uporaba žiga može smatrati stvarnom i za „registrirane” proizvode koji su prodani u jednom trenutku i nakon toga više nisu bili dostupni (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.).
This may apply where the proprietor of the trade mark under which such goods had been put on the market sells parts that are integral to the make-up or structure of the goods previously sold. 
To se može primijeniti u slučajevima kada nositelj žiga pod kojim su takvi proizvodi stavljeni na tržište prodaje dijelove koji su važni za sastav ili strukturu prethodno prodanih proizvoda.
The same may apply where the trade mark proprietor makes actual use of the mark for after-sales services, such as the sale of accessories or related parts, or the supply of maintenance and repair services. 
Isto se može primijeniti kada nositelj žiga stvarno upotrebljava žig za postprodajne usluge, primjerice prodaja opreme i pripadajućih dijelova ili pružanje usluga održavanja i popravaka.
However, this finding of the Court should be interpreted strictly and applied only in very exceptional cases. 
Ipak, takav zaključak Suda treba tumačiti strogo i primjenjivati samo u iznimnim slučajevima.
2.9 Use by the proprietor or on its behalf 
Slučajevi u kojima žig rabi nositelj ili se rabi u njegovo ime
2.9.1 Use by the proprietor 
Slučajevi u kojima žig rabi nositelj
These provisions also cover use of the mark by the previous owner during its ownership (10/12/1999, B 74 494). 
Te odredbe obuhvaćaju i slučajeve u kojima je žig upotrebljavao prethodni nositelj dok je žig bio u njegovu vlasništvu (10/12/1999, B 74 494).
2.9.2 Use by authorised third parties 
Slučajevi u kojima žig rabe ovlaštene treće strane
According to Article 18(2) EUTMR, use of the mark with the consent of the proprietor is deemed to constitute use by the proprietor. 
Uporaba žiga uz odobrenje nositelja smatra se slučajem u kojem žig rabi nositelj u skladu s člankom 18. stavkom 2.
Acceptance later is insufficient. 
Kasnije prihvaćanje nije dostatno.
A typical case of use by third parties is use made by licensees. 
Uobičajen način slučajeva u kojima žig rabe treće strane slučajevi u kojim žig rabi stjecatelj licencije.
Use by companies economically related to the trade mark proprietor, such as members of the same group of companies (affiliates, subsidiaries, etc.) is similarly to be considered as authorised use (30/01/2015, T278/13, now, EU:T:2015:57, § 38). 
Kada žig rabe poduzeća koja su gospodarski povezana s nositeljem žiga, kao što su članovi iste grupe poduzeća (tvrtke kćeri, podružnice itd.), to se jednako tako smatra ovlaštenom uporabom (30/01/2015, T278/13, sada, EU:T:2015:57, § 38).
Where goods are produced by the trade mark proprietor (or with its consent), but subsequently placed on the market by distributors at wholesale or retail level, this is to be considered as use of the mark (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73). 
Uporabom žiga smatra se i situacija u kojoj je distributer u veleprodaji ili maloprodaji naknadno na tržište stavio proizvode koje je proizveo nositelj žiga (ili su proizvedeni uz njegovo odobrenje) (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73).
At the evidence stage it is prima facie sufficient that the opponent only submits evidence that a third party has used the mark. 
U dokaznoj je fazi na prvi pogled dovoljno da podnositelj prigovora samo podnese dokaze da je treća strana upotrebljavala žig.
The Office infers from such use, combined with the opponent's ability to present evidence of it, that the opponent has given prior consent. 
Ured na temelju takve uporabe, zajedno s mogućnošću podnositelja prigovora da iznese dokaze o njoj, zaključuje da je podnositelj prigovora dao prethodno odobrenje.
This position of the Office was confirmed by judgment of 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (further confirmed 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310). 
Takav je stav Ureda potvrđen presudom od 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (dodatno potvrđeno 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310).
The Court pointed out that it was unlikely that the proprietor of a trade mark would be in a position to submit evidence if the mark had been used against its wishes. 
Sud je istaknuo da je malo vjerojatno da nositelj žiga ima mogućnost podnijeti dokaze o uporabi žiga protivno njegovoj želji.
There was all the more reason to rely on that presumption, given that the applicant did not dispute the opponent's consent. 
U tom je slučaju postojalo više razloga za oslanjanje na tu pretpostavku zato što podnositelj prijave nije osporavao odobrenje podnositelja prigovora.
However, if the Office has doubts or, in general, in cases where the applicant explicitly contests the opponent's consent, the burden is on the opponent to submit further evidence that it gave its consent prior to use of the mark. 
Ipak, ako Ured izrazi sumnju, ili općenito u slučajevima kada podnositelj prijave izričito osporava odobrenje podnositelja prigovora, podnositelj prigovora obvezan je podnijeti dodatne dokaze o tome da je dao odobrenje prije uporabe žiga.
2.9.3 Use of collective and certification marks by authorised users 
Zajedničke žigove uglavnom upotrebljavaju članovi udruženja, a ne nositelj žiga.
Collective marks are generally used not by the proprietor but by members of an association. 
Kada je riječ o zajedničkim žigovima EU-a, i kako je navedeno u članku 78.
As far as EU collective marks are concerned, this is reflected in Article 78 EUTMR, which provides that use by any authorised person satisfies the user requirement. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a, kada žig rabi bilo koja osoba koja je ovlaštena upotrebljavati takav žig, ispunjava se uvjet uporabe.
Certification marks are not used by their proprietors but by authorised users, for the purpose of guaranteeing to consumers that the goods or services possess a particular characteristic. 
Certifikacijske žigove ne upotrebljavaju njihovi nositelji, već ovlašteni korisnici, u svrhu pružanja jamstva potrošačima da proizvodi ili usluge posjeduju određeno obilježje.
2.10 Legal use 
Zakonita uporaba
Use will be ‘genuine' in this context even if the user violates legal provisions. 
Uporaba je u tom kontekstu „stvarna” čak i ako korisnik prekrši zakonske odredbe.
Use that is deceptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(g) or Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR or under provisions of national law remains ‘genuine' for the purpose of asserting earlier marks in opposition proceedings. 
Uporaba kojom se dovodi u zabludu u smislu članka 7. stavka 1. točke (g) ili članka 58. stavka 1. točke (c) Uredbe o žigu EU-a ili odredaba nacionalnog prava smatra se „stvarnom” u svrhu potvrđivanja ranijih žigova u postupcima prigovora.
The same principle applies where use is made under an illegal licensing arrangement (for example arrangements violating the competition rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or national rules). 
Isto se načelo primjenjuje kada je do uporabe došlo na temelju nezakonitog sporazuma o licenciranju (na primjer sporazuma kojim se krše pravila tržišnog natjecanja iz Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije ili nacionalnih propisa).
2.11 Justification of non-use 
U skladu s člankom 47. stavkom 2.
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, the opponent may alternatively prove that there are justifiable reasons for non-use of its earlier registered mark. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a, podnositelj prigovora može alternativno dokazati da postoje opravdani razlozi za neuporabu ranijeg registriranog žiga.
As an exception to the obligation of use, the concept of proper reasons for non-use is to be interpreted rather narrowly. 
Koncept opravdanih razloga za neuporabu treba tumačiti prilično usko u smislu izuzetka od obveze uporabe.
‘Bureaucratic obstacles' as such, that arise independently of the will of the trade mark proprietor, are not sufficient, unless they have a direct relationship with the mark, so much so that use of the trade mark depends on successful completion of the administrative action concerned. 
„Birokratske prepreke” kao takve, koje nastaju neovisno o volji nositelja žiga, nisu dostatne, osim ako su izravno povezane sa žigom, i to u tolikoj mjeri da uporaba žiga ovisi o uspješnom završetku predmetne upravne radnje.
However, the criterion of a direct relationship does not necessarily imply that use of the trade mark is impossible; it might suffice that use is unreasonable. 
Međutim, kriterij izravne povezanosti ne znači nužno da je uporaba žiga nemoguća, dostatno je da je uporaba nerazumna.
It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether a change in the undertaking's strategy to circumvent the obstacle under consideration would make use of the mark unreasonable. 
Treba procijeniti od slučaja do slučaja bi li promjena u strategiji tog poduzeća u cilju zaobilaženja razmatrane prepreke mogla prouzročiti nerazumnu uporabu žiga.
Thus, for example, the proprietor of a mark cannot reasonably be required to change its corporate strategy and sell its goods in its competitors' sales outlets (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52). 
Prema tome, od nositelja žiga se, na primjer, ne može razumno zahtijevati da promijeni svoju korporativnu strategiju i prodaje vlastite proizvode na prodajnim mjestima konkurenata (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52).
2.11.1 Business risks 
Poslovni rizici
The concept of proper reasons must be considered to refer to circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner that make use of the mark impossible or unreasonable, rather than to circumstances associated with commercial difficulties it is experiencing (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69). 
Treba smatrati da se koncept ispravnih razloga odnosi na okolnosti nastale neovisno o volji nositelja žiga, koje njegovu uporabu čine nemogućom ili nerazumnom, a ne na okolnosti koje imaju veze s poslovnim poteškoćama koje nositelj proživljava (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69).
2.11.2 Government or court intervention 
Intervencija nadležnih tijela ili Suda
Import restrictions include a trade embargo affecting the goods protected by the mark. 
Uvozna ograničenja uključuju trgovinski embargo na proizvode koji su zaštićeni žigom.
Other government requirements can be a state monopoly, which impedes any kind of use, or a state prohibition of the sale of goods for reasons of health or national defence. 
Drugi zahtjevi nadležnih tijela mogu biti državni monopol, kojim se sprječava bilo kakva uporaba, ili državna zabrana prodaje proizvoda zbog zdravstvenih razloga, odnosno zbog razloga nacionalne obrane.
Typical cases in this respect are regulatory procedures such as: 
Tipični slučajevi u tom pogledu uključuju regulatorne postupke kao što su:
clinical trials and authorisation for new medicines (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA); or 
klinička ispitivanja i odobrenje za nove lijekove (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA); ili
the authorisation of a food safety authority, which the owner has to obtain before offering the relevant goods and services on the market. 
odobrenje agencije za sigurnost hrane, koje nositelj treba nabaviti prije nego što ponudi relevantne proizvode i usluge na tržištu.
With regard to Court proceedings or interim injunctions the following must be differentiated: 
S obzirom na sudske postupke ili privremene naloge, treba razlikovati sljedeće:
On the one hand, the mere threat of litigation or a pending cancellation action against the earlier mark should, in general, not exempt the opponent from the obligation to use its trade mark in the course of trade. 
S jedne strane, sama prijetnja parnicom ili postupkom brisanja ranijeg žiga u pravilu ne izuzima podnositelja prigovora od obveze da svoj žig upotrebljava u trgovačkom prometu.
It is up to the opponent, being the attacking party in opposition proceedings, to conduct an adequate risk assessment of its chances to prevail in the litigation proceedings and to draw the appropriate conclusions from this evaluation as to whether or not to continue with use of its mark (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160). 
Podnositelj prigovora, s obzirom na to da je on stranka koja podnosi tužbu u postupku prigovora, obvezan je provesti odgovarajuću procjenu rizika u pogledu svojih mogućnosti da bude uspješan u parničnom postupku i donijeti odgovarajuće zaključke na temelju te procjene o tome treba li nastaviti upotrebljavati žig ili ne (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160).
On the other hand, for example, an interim injunction or a restraining court order in insolvency proceedings, imposing a general prohibition of transfers or disposals on the trade mark owner, can be a proper reason for non-use because it obliges the opponent to refrain from using its mark in the course of trade. 
S druge strane, privremena zabrana ili sudska zabrana u stečajnom postupku, koje nameću opću zabranu prijenosa ili prodaje nositeljima žiga, mogu, na primjer, biti opravdan razlog za neuporabu zbog toga što one obvezuju podnositelja prigovora da se suzdrži od uporabe vlastitog žiga u trgovačkom prometu.
Use of the mark contrary to such a court order would make the trade mark owner liable to damage claims (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51). 
Nositelj žiga koji upotrebljava žig protivno takvoj sudskoj mjeri podliježe odštetnom zahtjevu (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51).
2.11.3 Defensive registrations 
Obrambene registracije
The General Court has clarified that the existence of a national provision recognising what are known as ‘defensive' registrations (i.e. of signs not intended to be used in trade on account of their purely defensive function in relation to another sign that is being commercially exploited) cannot constitute a proper reason for non-use of an earlier trade mark invoked as a basis of an opposition (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46). 
Opći sud pojasnio je da postojanje nacionalne odredbe kojom se prepoznaje ono što nazivamo „obrambenim” registracijama (tj. registracije znakova koji nisu predviđeni za uporabu u trgovačkom prometu na temelju svoje isključivo obrambene funkcije u odnosu na drugi znak koji se komercijalno iskorištava) ne može biti opravdani razlog za neuporabu ranijeg žiga navedenog kao osnova prigovora (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46).
2.11.4 Force majeure 
Viša sila
Further justifiable reasons for non-use are cases of force majeure that hinder the normal functioning of the owner's enterprise. 
Daljnji opravdani razlozi za neuporabu uključuju slučajeve više sile koji ometaju normalno funkcioniranje nositeljeva poduzeća.
2.11.5 Consequences of justification of non-use 
Posljedice opravdanja neuporabe
The existence of justified reasons does not mean that non-use during the period concerned is treated as equivalent to actual use, which would result in a new grace period beginning after the end of the period of justified non-use. 
Postojanje opravdanih razloga ne znači da se neuporaba tijekom predmetnog razdoblja tretira kao ekvivalent stvarnoj uporabi, što bi dovelo do novog razdoblja odgode koje počinje nakon završetka razdoblja opravdane neuporabe.