natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Statements drawn up by the parties themselves are not ‘third-party evidence' whereas all other evidence, such as opinion polls, statements from Chambers of Commerce, or from professional organisations or from experts, does originate from third parties. 
Izjave koje su sastavile same stranke ne čine „dokaze trećih strana”, a svi ostali dokazi, kao što su istraživanja javnog mnijenja, izjave gospodarskih komora ili izjave profesionalnih organizacija ili stručnjaka, potječu od trećih strana.
3.4 Reaction from the applicant 
Odgovor podnositelja prijave
3.4.1 Forwarding of evidence 
Prosljeđivanje dokaza
After having received the evidence of use submitted by the opponent, the Office forwards the complete evidence to the applicant. 
Nakon što zaprimi dokaze o uporabi koje mu podnese podnositelj prigovora, Ured podnositelju prijave prosljeđuje cjelovite dokaze.
The Office, in general, allows the applicant 2 months to file its observations in reply to the evidence of use (and to the opposition). 
Ured općenito odobrava podnositelju prijave rok od dva mjeseca za podnošenje primjedbi u odgovoru na dokaz o uporabi (i na prigovor).
3.4.2 No evidence or no relevant evidence submitted 
Nedostatak dokaza ili nedostatak podnesenih relevantnih dokaza
However, the Office may close the proceedings immediately if, within the time limit given, the opponent has submitted no evidence, or the evidence is manifestly of no relevance, and all the earlier rights of the opposition are affected. 
Međutim, Ured može odmah zatvoriti postupak ako u određenom roku podnositelj prigovora ne dostavi nikakve dokaze ili dokaze koji očito nisu relevantni, što utječe na sva prethodna prava na kojima se temelji prigovor.
The rationale behind this practice is to avoid the continuation of proceedings when their outcome is already known, that is, the opposition is to be rejected for lack of proof of use (principle of economy and good administration of proceedings). 
Razlog tomu je izbjegavanje nastavka postupka kada je njegov ishod već poznat, odnosno odbacivanje prigovora zbog nedostatka dokaza o uporabi (načelo ekonomičnosti i administrativne učinkovitosti postupka).
In all other cases the evidence is forwarded to the applicant, which is given 2 months to file its observations. 
U svim drugim slučajevima dokazi se prosljeđuju podnositelju prijave, kojemu se daje rok od dva mjeseca za podnošenje primjedbi.
The Office must not indicate to the opponent that the sufficiency of the evidence is doubtful, or even invite the opponent to file further evidence in such cases. 
Ured ne smije upozoriti podnositelja prigovora na upitnu dostatnost dokaza niti ga pozvati da u takvim okolnostima podnese dodatne dokaze.
Such acts would be against the impartial position of the Office in adversarial proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19). 
Takve radnje protivne su nepristranom položaju Ureda u kontradiktornom postupku (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
3.4.3 No reaction from applicant 
Izostanak reakcije podnositelja prijave
If the applicant does not react within the time limit, the Office will give a decision on the basis of the evidence before it. 
Ako se podnositelj prijave ne očituje u navedenom roku, Ured donosi odluku na temelju dokaza koji su mu podneseni.
The fact that the applicant does not reply does not mean that it accepts the submitted evidence as sufficient proof of use (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79). 
Činjenica da podnositelj prijave ne dostavlja odgovor ne znači da on prihvaća podneseni dokaz kao dostatan dokaz o uporabi (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
3.4.4 Formal withdrawal of the request 
Službeno povlačenje zahtjeva
Where the applicant reacts to the proof of use by formally withdrawing its request for proof of use, the issue will no longer be relevant. 
Kada se podnositelj prijave očituje na dokaz o uporabi službenim povlačenjem svog zahtjeva za dokaz o uporabi, to pitanje više neće biti relevantno.
As it is the applicant who sets in motion the respective procedure, the applicant logically is in a position to bring an end to this part of the proceedings by formally withdrawing its request (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23). 
S obzirom na to da je podnositelj prijave taj koji pokreće odgovarajući postupak, podnositelj prijave može logično okončati taj dio postupka službenim povlačenjem svojeg zahtjeva (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
3.5 Further reaction from the opponent 
Daljnji odgovor podnositelja prigovora
The opponent is entitled to file observations in reply to the applicant's observations. 
Podnositelj prigovora ima pravo podnijeti svoje primjedbe u odgovoru na primjedbe podnositelja prijave.
This is of particular importance in cases where the decision to be taken might be based in part on the arguments put forward by the applicant to the effect that the evidence does not prove the use of the mark. 
To je od posebne važnosti u slučajevima kada bi se odluka mogla dijelom temeljiti na obrazloženjima koje iznosi podnositelj prijave, u smislu da ti dokazi ne dokazuju uporabu žiga.
The Board of Appeal has regarded failure to allow the opponent to comment in such a case as a substantial procedural violation (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20). 
Žalbeno je vijeće nedopuštanje podnositelju prigovora da u takvoj situaciji podnese primjedbe smatralo značajnom proceduralnom povredom (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
For further details on the submission of additional evidence, see paragraph 3.3.1 above. 
Dodatne pojedinosti o podnošenju dodatnih dokaza potražite u prethodnom odlomku 3.3.1.
3.6 Languages in proof of use proceedings 
Jezik u postupku u kojem se ispituje dokaz o uporabi
It is left to the discretion of the Office whether the opponent has to submit a translation of the evidence of use into the language of the proceedings. 
Ured odlučuje treba li podnositelj prigovora dostaviti prijevod dokaza o uporabi na jeziku postupka.
In exercising its discretion, the Office balances the interests of both parties. 
Pri donošenju te odluke Ured uzima u obzir interese obiju stranaka.
It has to be borne in mind that it might be extremely costly and burdensome for the opponent to translate the evidence of use submitted into the language of the proceedings. 
Treba imati na umu da bi za podnositelja prigovora moglo biti vrlo skupo i opterećujuće prevoditi podnesene dokaze o uporabi na jezik postupka.
On the other hand, the applicant has the right to be informed about the content of the evidence submitted in order to be capable of defending its interests. 
S druge strane, podnositelj prijave ima pravo biti informiran o sadržaju podnesenog dokaza kako bi mogao braniti svoje interese.
It is absolutely necessary that the applicant is able to assess the content of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent. 
Podnositelj prijave treba biti potpuno u mogućnosti procijeniti sadržaj dokaza o uporabi koji je podnio podnositelj prigovora.
In this regard, the nature of the documents submitted has to be taken into account. 
U tom pogledu, u obzir treba uzeti narav podnesenih dokumenata.
For example, it might be considered that ‘standard' invoices and samples of packaging do not require a translation in order to be understood by the applicant (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (appealed 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.). 
Na primjer, može se procijeniti da „standardne” račune i uzorke ambalaže nije potrebno prevesti kako bi ih podnositelj prijave razumio (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (žalba 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
If the applicant explicitly requests a translation of the evidence in the language of the proceedings, the Office, in principle, will require a translation from the opponent. 
Ako podnositelj prijave izričito zahtijeva prijevod dokaza na jezik postupka, Ured načelno traži dostavu prijevoda od podnositelja prigovora.
However, a rejection of such a request is feasible where it appears that the applicant's request, in view of the self-explanatory character of the submitted evidence, is exaggerated or even abusive. 
Međutim, odbijanje takvog zahtjeva moguće je kada se zahtjev podnositelja prijave, s obzirom na samorazumljiv karakter podnesenih dokaza, čini pretjeranim ili čak predstavlja zlouporabu.
Where the Office requires translation of the evidence, it gives the opponent a period of 2 months to submit it. 
Kada zahtijeva prijevod dokaza, Ured daje podnositelju prigovora rok od dva mjeseca za njegovo podnošenje.
Where the evidence of use submitted by the opponent is voluminous, the Office may explicitly invite the opponent to translate only the parts of the submitted material that the opponent regards as sufficient for establishing genuine use of the mark within the relevant period. 
Kada podnositelj prigovora dostavi opsežan dokaz o uporabi, Ured ga može izričito pozvati da prevede samo one dijelove dostavljenog materijala koje podnositelj prigovora smatra dovoljnim za utvrđivanje stvarne uporabe žiga u relevantnom razdoblju.
It is in general up to the opponent to evaluate whether a complete translation of all the evidence submitted is necessary. 
Podnositelj prigovora obično procjenjuje je li potrebno u cijelosti prevesti sav podneseni dokazni materijal.
The means of evidence will only be taken into account insofar as a translation has been produced or insofar as the means of evidence are self-explanatory regardless of their textual components. 
Dokazni materijal uzima se u obzir samo ako je izvršen njegov prijevod ili ako je sam po sebi razumljiv, bez obzira na njegove tekstualne dijelove.
3.7 Decision 
Odluka
3.7.1 Competence of the Office 
Nadležnost Ureda
The Office makes its own evaluation of the evidence of use submitted. 
Ured provodi vlastitu procjenu podnesenog dokaza o uporabi.
This means that the probative value of the evidence submitted is evaluated independently of the observations submitted by the applicant in this respect. 
To znači da se dokazna vrijednost podnesenih dokaza procjenjuje neovisno o primjedbama koje je podnositelj prijave dostavio u tom pogledu.
Assessment of the relevance, pertinence, conclusiveness and efficacy of evidence lies within the discretion and power of judgment of the Office, not the parties, and falls outside the adversarial principle that governs inter partes proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN). 
Procjena relevantnosti, primjerenosti, uvjerljivosti i učinkovitosti dokaza prepušta se diskrecijskoj ovlasti i moći prosudbe Ureda, a ne stranaka, i na nju se ne primjenjuje načelo kontradiktornosti koje se primjenjuje na postupak inter partes (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
A declaration by the applicant concluding that use has been proved does not, therefore, have any effect on the Office's findings. 
Prema tome, izjava podnositelja prijave kojom se zaključuje dokazana uporaba nema nikakav utjecaj na zaključke Ureda.
The request for proof of use is a defence plea by the applicant. 
Zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi predstavlja obranu podnositelja prijave.
However, once the defence plea has been raised by the applicant, it is solely up to the Office to carry out the subsequent procedure and evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the opponent is to be regarded as of sufficient probative value. 
Ipak, nakon što podnositelj prijave iznese obranu, Ured provodi naknadni postupak i procjenjuje treba li dokaze koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora smatrati dostatnima u pogledu njihove dokazne vrijednosti.
However, the applicant does have the possibility of formally withdrawing the request for proof of use (see paragraph 3.4.4 above). 
Međutim, podnositelj prijave može službeno povući zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.4.4.).
However, although the Office is bound by the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties, it is not bound by the legal value that the parties may give thereto. 
Ipak, iako je Ured vezan činjenicama, dokazima i obrazloženjima koja stranke dostave, on nije vezan pravnom vrijednošću koju im stranke mogu dati.
Hence, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proved or not, but may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish genuine use (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA). 
Prema tome, stranke se mogu dogovoriti o tome koje su činjenice dokazane, a koje ne, ali ne mogu utvrditi jesu li te činjenice dostatne za utvrđivanje stvarne uporabe (1/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
3.7.2 Need for assessing proof of use 
Potreba procjenjivanja dokaza o uporabi
A decision on whether the obligation of having genuinely used the registered mark has been fulfilled is not always necessary. 
Nije uvijek potrebno donijeti odluku o ispunjenju obveze stvarne uporabe registriranog žiga.
When proof of use of the earlier rights has been requested by the applicant, the Office will also examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision in question. 
Kada podnositelj prijave podnese zahtjev za dokaz o uporabi ranijih prava, Ured ispituje i je li, i u kojoj mjeri, dokazana uporaba ranijih žigova, ako je to relevantno za ishod predmetne odluke.
The examination of proof of use is always necessary and obligatory in cases where the opposition is fully or partially successful on the basis of the earlier mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation. 
Ispitivanje dokaza o uporabi uvijek je neophodno i obvezno u slučajevima kada je prigovor u cijelosti ili djelomično uspješan na temelju ranijeg žiga koji je bio podložan obvezi podnošenja dokaza o uporabi.
The Office may decide not to assess the submitted proof of use where the question whether the earlier mark concerned was genuinely used for the relevant registered goods and/or services is irrelevant for the outcome of the opposition, for example: 
Ured može odlučiti da neće procjenjivati podnesene dokaze o uporabi ako je pitanje je li predmetni raniji žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi za relevantne registrirane proizvode i/ili usluge nevažno za ishod postupka povodom prigovora, na primjer:
under the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, if there is no likelihood of confusion between the contested mark and the earlier mark that is subject to the proof of use obligation (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43); 
ako u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a ne postoji vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu u pogledu osporavanog žiga i ranijeg žiga podložnog dokazu o uporabi (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43);
if the opposition is fully successful on the basis of another earlier mark, which is not subject to the proof of use obligation; 
ako je prigovor u potpunosti uspješan na temelju nekog drugog ranijeg žiga koji nije podložan dokazu o uporabi;
However, in the event that the earlier trade mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation was examined in the decision but the assessment of the proof of use has been omitted, this will be expressly stated in the decision with a brief justification. 
Međutim, ako je raniji žig koji je bio podložan obvezi podnošenja dokaza o uporabi ispitan prilikom donošenja odluke, ali je procjena dokaza o uporabi izostavljena, to će se izričito navesti u odluci uz kratko obrazloženje.
3.7.3 Overall assessment of the evidence presented 
Cjelokupna procjena iznesenih dokaza
As stated in more detail above (see paragraph 2.2 above), the Office has to evaluate the evidence submitted with regard to place, time, extent and nature of use in an overall assessment. 
Kao što je prethodno navedeno (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 2.2.), Ured procjenjuje podnesene dokaze s obzirom na mjesto, vrijeme, opseg i narav uporabe u okviru cjelokupne procjene.
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, § 3).
The principle of interdependence applies, meaning that weak evidence with regard to one relevant factor (e.g. low sales volume) might be compensated by solid evidence with regard to another factor (e.g. continuous use over a long period of time). 
Primjenjuje se načelo međuovisnosti, što znači da se slabi dokazi u odnosu na jedan relevantan čimbenik (npr. mali obujam prodaje) mogu nadoknaditi čvrstim dokazom u odnosu na neki drugi čimbenik (na primjer kontinuirana uporaba tijekom dugog razdoblja).
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account in conjunction with each other in order to determine whether the mark in question has been genuinely used. 
U obzir treba uzeti sve povezane okolnosti konkretnog slučaja kako bi se utvrdilo je li predmetni žig bio u stvarnoj uporabi.
The particular circumstances can include, for example, the specific features of the goods/services in question (e.g. low- or high-priced; mass products versus special products) or the particular market or business area. 
Posebne okolnosti mogu uključivati, na primjer, specifična obilježja predmetnih proizvoda/usluga (na primjer niske/visoke cijene, masovna proizvodnja u odnosu na posebne proizvode) ili određeno tržište ili područje poslovanja.
Indirect/circumstantial evidence, under certain conditions even on its own, can also be suitable for proving genuine use. 
Neizravni/posredni dokaz može pod određenim uvjetima čak i sam za sebe biti primjeren za dokazivanje stvarne uporabe.
As the Office does not assess commercial success, even minimal use (but not mere token or internal use) can be sufficient to be deemed ‘genuine', as long as it is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or acquire a share in the market. 
S obzirom na to da Ured ne procjenjuje komercijalni uspjeh, čak i najmanja uporaba (ali ne i isključivo simbolična ili interna uporaba) može biti dostatna da je se procijeni „stvarnom”, ako je se smatra jamstvom u predmetnom gospodarskom sektoru za održavanje ili stjecanje udjela na tržištu.
The decision indicates what evidence was submitted. 
U odluci su naznačeni podneseni dokazi.
However, in general, only the evidence relevant for the conclusion is mentioned. 
Međutim, općenito se navodi samo dokaz koji je relevantan za zaključak.
If the evidence is found convincing, it suffices for the Office to indicate those documents that were used to come to this conclusion and why. 
Ako se utvrdi da je dokaz uvjerljiv, dostatno je da Ured naznači one dokumente koji su upotrijebljeni za donošenje tog zaključka i razloge zbog kojih se tako postupilo.
Pursuant to Article 113(1) EUTMR, the Office must publish its decisions. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a Ured mora objavljivati svoje odluke.
However, the need to keep certain data confidential does not exempt the Office from the obligation to state the reasons for its decisions. 
Međutim, nužnost čuvanja povjerljivosti određenih podataka ne oslobađa Ured od obveze iznošenja razloga za svoje odluke.
[13: Note, however, that no parts of the file can be kept confidential vis-à-vis the other party to the proceedings due to the right of defence (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.4.4).] 
[13: Ipak, treba imati na umu da se nijedan dio spisa ne može smatrati povjerljivim u odnosu na drugu stranku u postupku radi ostvarivanja prava na obranu (pogledajte Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja, odlomak 4.4.4.).]
Given the public nature of decisions, the justified interest of a party in keeping certain information confidential vis-à-vis the public has to be reconciled with the Office's duty to state reasons. 
S obzirom na to da su odluke po prirodi javne, opravdani interes stranke da sačuva povjerljivost određenih informacija u odnosu na javnost mora se uskladiti s obvezom Ureda da navede razloge za neku odluku.
It may be problematic to reason without divulging confidential business data, but this can be done by referring to those data in a general manner and without disclosing concrete data. 
Može biti problematično obrazložiti odluku bez otkrivanja povjerljivih poslovnih podataka, ali to se može učiniti upućivanjem na te podatke na općenit način i bez otkrivanja konkretnih podataka.
For example, the decision may refer to the invoices submitted, indicate the time span, frequency and territory of sales, the significance of the sales volumes they represent and whether they are sufficient to support the finding of genuine use. 
Na primjer, u odluci se može upućivati na podnesene račune, navoditi razdoblje, učestalost i područje prodaje, važnost obujma prodaje koju predstavljaju te jesu li dostatni za potkrjepljivanje zaključka o stvarnoj uporabi.
What is important is that the decision reflects that the relevant business data were considered and assessed in relation to the kind of goods and services at issue and the characteristics of the relevant market. 
Važno je da odluka odražava činjenicu da su relevantni poslovni podatci razmotreni i procijenjeni u odnosu na vrstu predmetnih proizvoda i usluga te obilježja relevantnog tržišta.
Simply stating whether the relevant factors (time, place, nature and extent of use) have been fulfilled or not is not sufficient to support the final conclusion on the issue of genuine use. 
Jednostavno navođenje jesu li ispunjeni relevantni čimbenici (vrijeme, mjesto, narav i opseg uporabe) nije dostatno za potkrjepljivanje zaključka o stvarnoj uporabi.
Finally, it must be clarified that, notwithstanding the confidentiality of an entire submission or annex, data contained therein that are clearly within the public domain (e.g. in the form of press extracts) can be referred to in the decision. 
Konačno, važno je razjasniti da, bez obzira na povjerljivost čitavog podneska ili priloga, podatci sadržani u njima koji su jasno dio javne domene (npr. u obliku isječaka iz medija) mogu se navesti u odluci.
3.7.5 Examples 
Primjeri
The following cases present some of the decisions of the Office and the Court (with different outcomes) where the overall assessment of the submitted evidence was important. 
Sljedeći slučajevi predstavljaju neke odluke Ureda i Suda (s različitim ishodima) u kojima je cjelokupna procjena podnesenih dokaza bila značajna.
3.7.5.2 Genuine use not accepted 
Prilog: Petogodišnje razdoblje relevantno za procjenu nacionalnih žigova
Annex: 5year period for assessing use of national trade marks 
U skladu s člankom 47. stavkom 2.