natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the rules applicable to the extension of time limits in inter partes proceedings (i.e. where there are two or more parties involved, such as in opposition, invalidity and/or revocation proceedings), see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, and the Guidelines for Examination of Design Invalidity Applications. 
Pravila primjenjiva na produljenje rokova u postupcima inter partes (odnosno kada su uključene dvije stranke ili više njih kao u postupcima prigovora, proglašenja ništavosti ili opoziva) potražite u Smjernicama, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja i Smjernicama za ispitivanje zahtjeva za proglašenje ništavosti dizajna.
As a general rule the first request for an extension that is received in time will be considered appropriate and will be granted for a period of two months (or less if requested). 
U načelu, prvi zahtjev za produljenje koji je zaprimljen na vrijeme smatra se prikladnim te se odobrava na razdoblje od dva mjeseca (ili manje ako je tako zatraženo).
However, any subsequent request for an extension of the same time limit will be refused unless the party requesting it can explain and justify the ‘exceptional circumstances' that (a) prevented it from carrying out the required action during the previous two periods (i.e. the original time limit plus the first extension) and (b) still prevent the requester from carrying it out, so that more time is needed. 
Međutim, svaki naknadni zahtjev za produljenje istog roka odbija se osim ako stranka koja traži produljenje objasni i opravda „iznimne okolnosti” koje su je (a) spriječile da provede traženu radnju tijekom posljednjih dvaju razdoblja (odnosno izvornog roka i prvog produljenja) i koje je (b) i dalje sprječavaju da provede tu radnju, zbog čega joj je potrebno još vremena.
Examples of justifications that can be accepted: 
Primjeri opravdanja koja se mogu prihvatiti:
‘Evidence is being gathered from distribution channels/all our licensees/our suppliers in several Member States. 
„Prikupljaju se dokazi iz distribucijskih kanala / od svih naših nositelja licencija / od naših dobavljača iz nekoliko država članica.
So far, we have gathered documents from some of them but, due to the commercial structure of the company (as shown in the document enclosed), we have only recently been able to contact the rest.' 
Dosad smo prikupili dokumente od nekih od navedenih izvora, no zbog komercijalne strukture poduzeća (kako je prikazano u priloženom dokumentu), tek smo nedavno uspjeli stupiti u kontakt s ostalima.”
‘In order to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use we started carrying out market research at the beginning of the period (on date X). 
„Kako bismo dokazali da je žig stekao razlikovni karakter uporabom, na početku razdoblja (na datum X) započeli smo s ispitivanjem tržišta.
However, the fieldwork has only recently been concluded (as shown in the enclosed documents); consequently, we need a second extension in order to finish the analysis and prepare our submissions to the Office.' 
Međutim, terenski je rad obavljen tek nedavno (kako je prikazano u priloženim dokumentima); zbog toga nam je potrebno drugo produljenje roka kako bismo završili analizu i pripremili dokumente za podnošenje Uredu.”
‘Death' is also considered an ‘exceptional circumstance'. 
„Smrt” se također smatra „izvanrednom okolnošću”.
The same applies to serious illness, provided that no reasonable substitution was available. 
Isto se odnosi i na ozbiljnu bolest pod uvjetom da nije bila dostupna određena zamjena.
Finally, ‘exceptional circumstances' also include ‘force majeure' situations. 
Naposljetku, „izvanredne okolnosti” uključuju i situacije „više sile”.
‘Force majeure' is defined as a natural and unavoidable catastrophe that interrupts the expected course of events. 
„Viša sila” definira se kao prirodna i neizbježna katastrofa zbog koje dolazi do prekida očekivanog tijeka događaja.
It includes natural disasters, wars and terrorism, and unavoidable events that are beyond the party's control. 
Uključuje prirodne katastrofe, ratove i terorizam te neizbježne događaje koji su izvan kontrole stranke.
4.4 Continuation of proceedings 
Članak 105.
Article 105 EUTMR 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a
Continuation of proceedings is not available in RCD proceedings. 
Nastavak postupka nije moguć u postupcima povezanima s registriranim dizajnom Zajednice.
Article 105 EUTMR provides for the continuation of proceedings where time limits have been missed but excludes various time limits laid down in certain articles of the EUTMR. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a predviđa se nastavak postupka ako su se propustili rokovi, ali se njime isključuju razni rokovi utvrđeni u određenim člancima Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
The excluded time limits are the following: 
Isključeni rokovi jesu sljedeći:
Consequently, the Office will grant further processing for: 
Zbog toga Ured omogućuje daljnju obradu za:
the time limits for the opponent to substantiate its opposition under Article 7 EUTMDR; 
rokove u kojima podnositelj prigovora treba potkrijepiti svoj prigovor na temelju članka 7.
the time limit under Article 8(4) EUTMDR for the opponent to reply; 
Delegirane uredbe o žigu EU-a u kojem podnositelj prijave treba odgovoriti,
The party seeking continuation of proceedings must make the request, for which a fee is charged as established in Annex I of the EUTMR, within two months of the expiry of the original time limit and complete the omitted act by the time the request for continuation is received. 
Stranka koja traži nastavak postupka mora u roku od dva mjeseca nakon isteka prvotnog roka podnijeti zahtjev za koji se plaća pristojba utvrđena u Prilogu I. Uredbi o žigu EU-a i izvršiti propuštenu radnju do trenutka primitka zahtjeva za nastavak.
A request for an extension of time does not constitute the completion of the ‘omitted act'. 
Zahtjev za produljenje roka ne smatra se obavljanjem „propuštene radnje”.
There can be no extension or continuation of the two-month deadline. 
Rok od dva mjeseca ne može se produljiti ili nastaviti.
There is no substantive requirement to be fulfilled such as when requesting restitutio in integrum. 
Ne postoji materijalni zahtjev koji treba ispuniti kao pri podnošenju zahtjeva za povrat u prijašnje stanje.
If the Office accepts the request for continuation of proceedings, the consequences of having failed to observe the time limit will be deemed not to have occurred. 
Ako Ured prihvati zahtjev za nastavak postupka, smatra se da nema posljedica zbog nepoštovanja roka.
If a decision has been taken between the expiry of that time limit and the request for the continuation of proceedings, the department competent to decide on the omitted act will review the decision and, where completion of the omitted act itself is sufficient, take a different decision. 
Ako je između isteka roka i podnošenja zahtjeva za nastavak postupka donesena odluka, odjel nadležan za odlučivanje o propuštenoj radnji preispituje odluku i donosi drugu odluku ako je samo izvršenje propuštene radnje dovoljno.
If, following the review, the Office concludes that the original decision does not need to be altered, it will confirm that decision in writing. 
Ako Ured nakon preispitivanja odluči da prvotnu odluku ne treba mijenjati, potvrđuje tu odluku u pisanom obliku.
4.5 Restitutio in integrum 
4.5 Povrat u prijašnje stanje
A party to proceedings before the Office may be reinstated in its rights (restitutio in integrum) if, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, it was unable to meet a time limit vis-à-vis the Office, provided that the failure to meet the time limit had the direct consequence, by virtue of the provisions of the regulations, of causing the loss of any right or means of redress. 
Stranci u postupku Ureda mogu biti vraćena prava (povrat u prijašnje stanje) ako unatoč svoj dužnoj pažnji koju zahtijevaju okolnosti nije mogla poštovati rok Ureda, pod uvjetom da je nepoštovanje roka za izravnu posljedicu imalo gubitak svih prava ili sredstava za ponavljanje postupka na temelju odredbi tih uredbi.
For further information see the Guidelines, Part A, General Rules, Section 8, Restitutio in Integrum. 
Daljnje informacije potražite u Smjernicama, dio A, Opća pravila, odjeljak 8., Povrat u prijašnje stanje.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part A, General Rules Page 3 
Smjernice za ispitivanje u Uredu, dio A, Opća pravila Stranica 13.
General Principles to Be Respected in the Proceedings 
Opća načela koja treba poštovati tijekom postupka
SECTION 2 
ODJELJAK 2.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO BE RESPECTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS 
OPĆA NAČELA KOJA TREBA POŠTOVATI TIJEKOM POSTUPKA
1 Adequate Reasoning 3 
1 Odgovarajuće obrazloženje 3
2 The Right to Be Heard 3 
2 Pravo na saslušanje 3
3 Other General Principles of EU Law 4 
3 Druga opća načela prava EU-a 4
4 Means of Taking Evidence 5 
4 Načini izvođenja dokaza 5
4.1 Written evidence 6 
4.1 Dokazi u pisanom obliku 6
4.2 Oral evidence and inspections 7 
4.2 Usmeni dokazi i uvidi 7
4.3 Specific means of evidence 7 
4.3 Posebni dokazni materijal 7
4.3.1 Commissioning of experts by the Office 7 
4.3.1 Vještaci koje angažira Ured 7
4.3.2 Affidavits 8 
4.3.2 Izjave pod prisegom 8
4.3.3 Inspections 8 
4.3.3 Uvidi 8
5 Oral Proceedings 9 
5 Usmeni postupci 8
5.1 Summons to oral proceedings 9 
5.1 Pozivanje na usmeni postupak 9
5.2 Language of oral proceedings 10 
5.2 Jezik usmenog postupka 9
5.3 Course of the oral proceedings 10 
5.3 Tijek usmenog postupka 9
5.4 Minutes of oral evidence and of oral proceedings 10 
5.4 Zapisnici o usmenim dokazima i usmenom postupku 10
5.5 Costs of taking evidence in oral proceedings 11 
5.5 Troškovi izvođenja dokaza u usmenom postupku 10
6 Decisions 11 
6 Odluke 11
6.1 Contents 11 
6.1 Sadržaj 11
6.2 Apportionment of costs 12 
6.2 Raspodjela troškova 11
1 Adequate Reasoning 
Odgovarajuće obrazloženje
Articles 94 to 97 and 109 EUTMR 
Članci 94. do 97. i članak 109.
Article 38 CDIR 
Uredbe o dizajnu Zajednice
However, if the Office does not respond to all the arguments raised by the parties, this does not necessarily infringe the duty to state reasons (11/06/2014, T486/12, Metabol, EU:T:2014:508, § 19; 28/01/2014, T600/11, Carrera panamericana, EU:T:2014:33, § 21; 15/07/2014, T576/12, Protekt, EU:T:2014:667, § 78; 18/11/2015, T813/14, Cases for portable computers, EU:T:2015:868, § 15). 
Međutim, ako Ured ne odgovori na sve argumente stranaka, time se nužno ne povrjeđuje dužnost pružanja obrazloženja (11/06/2014, T486/12, Metabol, EU:T:2014:508, § 19; 28/01/2014, T600/11, Carrera panamericana, EU:T:2014:33, § 21; 15/07/2014, T576/12, Protekt, EU:T:2014:667, § 78; 18/11/2015, T813/14, Cases for portable computers, EU:T:2015:868, § 15).
It is sufficient that it sets out the facts and legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision (18/01/2013, T137/12, Vibrator, EU:T:2013:26, § 41-42; 20/02/2013, T378/11, Medinet, EU:T:2013:83, § 17; 03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57-58; 16/05/2012, T580/10, Kindertraum, EU:T:2012:240, § 28; or 10/10/2012, T569/10, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:T:2012:535, § 42-46, 08/05/2014, C591/12 P, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:C:2014:1273). 
Dovoljno je da su navedene činjenice i pravna razmatranja od temeljne važnosti u kontekstu odluke (18/01/2013, T137/12, Vibrator, EU:T:2013:26, § 41-42; 20/02/2013, T378/11, Medinet, EU:T:2013:83, § 17; 03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57-58; 16/05/2012, T580/10, Kindertraum, EU:T:2012:240, § 28; ili 10/10/2012, T569/10, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:T:2012:535, § 42-46; 08/05/2014, C591/12 P, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:C:2014:1273).
The Office can use facts that are a matter of common knowledge as a basis for its reasoning. 
Ured kao temelj svojeg rasuđivanja može upotrijebiti činjenice koje su opće poznate.
Well-known facts are those that are very likely to be known by anyone or may be learnt from generally accessible sources or those that are very likely to be known by anyone with general practical experience of marketing consumer goods and in particular by the consumers of those goods. 
Poznate su činjenice one koje svi vrlo vjerojatno znaju ili koje se mogu saznati iz opće dostupnih izvora ili pak one koje vrlo vjerojatno znaju svi koji imaju opće praktično znanje marketinga potrošačkih proizvoda te konkretno potrošači tih proizvoda.
2 The Right to Be Heard 
Članci 94. do 97. i članak 109.
Articles 94 to 97 and 109 EUTMR 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a
Article 62 CDR 
Članak 62.
In accordance with that principle, the Office may base its decision only on matters of fact or of law on which the parties have been able to set out their views. 
U skladu s tim načelom, Ured može temeljiti svoju odluku samo na činjeničnim ili pravnim pitanjima o kojima su stranke iznijele gledišta.
Consequently, where the Office gathers facts to serve as a basis for its decision, it is obliged to notify the parties of those facts in order that the parties may submit their views on them (07/11/2014, T567/12, Kaatsu, EU:T:2014:937, § 50-51 and case-law cited therein). 
Slijedom toga, kad Ured prikuplja činjenice koje služe kao temelj njegove odluke, obvezan je obavijestiti stranke o tim činjenicama kako bi one mogle iznijeti svoja stajališta o njima (07/11/2014, T567/12, Kaatsu, EU:T:2014:937, § 50-51 and case-law cited therein).
The right to be heard covers all the matters of fact or law and evidence that form the basis for the decision. 
Pravo na saslušanje odnosi se na sva činjenična i pravna pitanja te dokaze na kojima se temelji odluka.
The Office will take legal issues into account, irrespective of whether or not they have been pleaded by the parties. 
Ured u obzir uzima pravna pitanja, bez obzira na to jesu li ih stranke istaknule.
For examination, it will examine the facts on its own motion; however, in opposition, cancellation and design invalidity proceedings, it will restrict its examination of facts, evidence and arguments to those provided by the parties. 
Prilikom ispitivanja, po vlastitom nahođenju ispituje činjenice; no u postupcima prigovora, postupcima brisanja i proglašenja ništavosti ispituje samo činjenice, dokaze i argumente koje su predočile stranke.
Nevertheless, this restriction does not prevent the Office from taking additional well-known facts into consideration. 
Međutim, tim se ograničenjem ne sprječava Ured da u obzir uzme dodatne poznate činjenice.
While the Office must rule on each head of claim (10/06/2008, T85/07, Gabel, EU:T:2008:186, § 20), it is not required to give express reasons for its assessment in respect of each and every piece of evidence submitted or arguments put forward, where it considers that evidence or arguments to be unimportant or irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute (15/06/2000, C237/98 P, Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission, EU:C:2000:321, § 51). 
Iako Ured mora donijeti odluku o svakom tužbenom zahtjevu (10/06/2008, T85/07, Gabel, EU:T:2008:186, § 20), ne mora pružiti izričite razloge za svoju procjenu u pogledu svakog pojedinog podnesenog dokaza ili istaknutog argumenta ako smatra da dokaz ili argument nije važan ili relevantan za ishod spora (15/06/2000, C237/98 P, Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission, EU:C:2000:321,§ 51).
The right to be heard does not apply to the final position to be adopted. 
Pravo na saslušanje ne primjenjuje se na konačno gledište koje treba donijeti.
Therefore, the Office is not bound to inform the parties of its legal opinion before issuing a decision and thus afford them the opportunity to submit their observations on that position or even to submit additional evidence (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 37; 14/06/2012, T293/10, Colour per se, EU:T:2012:302, § 46 in fine; 08/03/2012, T298/10, Biodanza, EU:T:2012:113, § 101; 20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 45-46). 
Stoga Ured nije obvezan obavijestiti stranke o svojem pravnom mišljenju prije izdavanja odluke te im time omogućiti da podnesu svoja očitovanja o tom stajalištu ili čak da podnesu dodatne dokaze (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 37;14/06/2012, T293/10, Colour per se, EU:T:2012:302, § 46 in fine; 08/03/2012, T298/10, Biodanza, EU:T:2012:113, § 101; 20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 45-46).
Changing circumstances arising in the course of the proceedings (e.g. if during opposition proceedings the earlier right on which the opposition was based lapses because it is not renewed or is declared invalid) will also be taken into account and the parties will be informed accordingly. 
Promjenjive okolnosti koje se pojavljuju tijekom postupka (npr. ako tijekom postupka prigovora ranije pravo na kojem se temeljio prigovor prestaje postojati jer nije obnovljeno ili je proglašeno ništavim) također se uzima u obzir te se o tome obavješćuju stranke.
3 Other General Principles of EU Law 
Druga opća načela prava EU-a
The Office must respect the general principles of EU law, such as equal treatment and sound administration (24/01/2012, T260/08, Visual Map, EU:T:2012:23; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73). 
Ured mora poštovati opća načela prava EU-a, kao što su načela jednakog postupanja i dobre uprave (24/01/2012, T260/08, Visual Map, EU:T:2012:23; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51;10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73).
For reasons of legal certainty and of sound administration, there must be a stringent and full examination of all applications in order to prevent trade marks and designs from being improperly registered. 
Radi pravne sigurnosti i dobre uprave, mora se provesti strogo i potpuno ispitivanje svih prijava kako bi se spriječila nepropisna registracija žigova i dizajna.
That examination must be undertaken in each individual case (23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51). 
To se ispitivanje provodi u svakom slučaju zasebno (23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51).
The lawfulness of the Office's decisions must be assessed solely on the basis of EU regulations, as interpreted by the European Union judicature. 
Zakonitost odluka Ureda mora se ocijeniti isključivo na temelju propisa EU-a, kako ih tumači Sud Europske unije.
Accordingly, the Office is not bound either by its previous decision-making practice or by a decision given in a Member State, or indeed a third country, that the sign/design in question is registrable as a national mark/design (23/01/2014, T513/12, Norwegian getaway, EU:T:2014:24, § 63). 
Prema tome, Ured nije vezan svojom prijašnjom praksom odlučivanja ni odlukom koju je donijela država članica ili čak treća zemlja u pogledu toga da se predmetni znak/dizajn može registrirati kao nacionalni žig/dizajn (23/01/2014, T513/12, Norwegian getaway, EU:T:2014:24, § 63).
This is true even if the decision was adopted in a country belonging to the linguistic area in which the word sign in question originated (16/05/2013, T356/11, Equipment, EU:T:2013:253, § 7). 
To vrijedi čak i za odluke koje su donesene u državi koja dijeli isto govorno područje s državom u kojoj je predmetni verbalni znak nastao (16/05/2013, T356/11, Equipment, EU:T:2013:253, § 7).
However, in the light of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, the Office will take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and must carefully consider whether it should decide in the same way or not (10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 74-75; 27/02/2014, T225/12, LIDL express, EU:T:2014:94, § 56; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 12/12/2013, T156/12, Oval, EU:T:2013:642, § 28). 
Međutim, s obzirom na načela jednakog postupanja i dobre uprave, Ured uzima u obzir odluke koje su već donesene u pogledu sličnih prijava te mora pažljivo razmotriti treba li donijeti istu odluku (10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 74-75;27/02/2014, T225/12, LIDL express, EU:T:2014:94, § 56;23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51;12/12/2013, T156/12, Oval, EU:T:2013:642, § 28).
4 Means of Taking Evidence 
Članci 96. do 97.
The means of evidence are as follows: 
Uredbe o dizajnu Zajednice i članku 43.
hearing the parties, 
Načini izvođenja dokaza uključuju sljedeće:
requests for information, 
saslušanje stranaka,
hearing witnesses, 
saslušanje svjedoka,
opinions by experts, 
vještačenje,
sworn or affirmed statements in writing or statements having a similar effect under the law of the State in which they are drawn up, 
izjave pisane pod prisegom, svečane izjave ili izjave sa sličnim učinkom sukladno zakonu države u kojoj su sastavljene,
inspection. 
uvid.
Some of these means, such as requests for information, statements in writing and, in particular, the submission of documents and items of evidence, will be used more frequently than others. 
Neki će se od tih načina upotrebljavati češće, na primjer zahtjevi za informacije, izjave u pisanom obliku te, osobito, predočenje dokumenata i dokaznog materijala.
Hearing the parties, witnesses or experts, and inspections are used only exceptionally. 
Saslušanje stranaka i svjedoka ili vještačenje te uvidi upotrebljavaju se samo u iznimnim slučajevima.
The Office will decide which of these means to use but will use them only when necessary for examining the file. 
Ured odlučuje koje će od tih načina upotrebljavati, ali ih upotrebljava samo kad je to nužno za ispitivanje spisa.
If the Office refuses a request to take evidence, an appeal can only be made together with the appeal against the final decision. 
Ako Ured odbije zahtjev za izvođenje dokaza, žalba se može podnijeti zajedno sa žalbom protiv konačne odluke.
The procedure followed by the Office varies depending on the means of taking evidence proposed. 
Postupak koji poštuje Ured razlikuje se ovisno o predloženom načinu izvođenja dokaza.
4.1 Written evidence 
Dokazi u pisanom obliku
When taking evidence, the Office will confine itself to written evidence in most cases. 
Pri izvođenju dokaza Ured se u većini predmeta ograničava na dokaze u pisanom obliku.
This is the least costly, simplest and most flexible means of taking evidence. 
To je najjeftiniji, najjednostavniji i najfleksibilniji način izvođenja dokaza.
The Office will therefore give preference to the submission of documents and items of evidence. 
U tom smislu, Ured daje prednost predočenju dokumenata i dokaznog materijala.
However, other possible written means of taking evidence include not only a request for information or statements in writing that have been sworn or affirmed or have a similar effect thereto under the law of the State in which they are drawn up, but also opinions by experts, which may consist solely of a written report. 
Međutim, ostali mogući načini izvođenja dokaza u pisanom obliku ne uključuju samo zahtjev za informacije, izjave pisane pod prisegom, svečane izjave ili one sa sličnim učinkom sukladno zakonu države u kojoj su sastavljene, već i vještačenja koja mogu biti ograničena samo na podnošenje izvješća u pisanom obliku.
The Regulations make no provision for any special procedure or formality. 
U Uredbi ne postoje odredbe o bilo kakvom posebnom postupku ili formalnosti.
Therefore, the Office's general rules of procedure apply. 
Stoga se primjenjuju opća pravila postupka Ureda.
In EUTM proceedings, any documents or other items of evidence submitted by one party must be contained in an annex to the submission, be numbered, and be accompanied by an index, a short description of each item of evidence together with the number of pages, if applicable, and the page number of the submission where it is mentioned. 
U postupcima povezanima sa žigovima EU-a, svaki dokument ili drugi dokazni materijal koji podnosi stranka treba priložiti podnesku, pri čemu on treba biti numeriran te mu treba priložiti i kazalo i kratki opis svakog dokaznog materijala, kao i broj stranica, ako je primjenjivo, te broj stranice podneska na kojoj se navodi.