natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, it is up to the applicant to show that it has due cause to use the mark applied for. 
Stoga podnositelj prijave mora pokazati da ima opravdani razlog za uporabu žiga za koji je podnesena prijava.
This is an application of the general rule according to which ‘he who asserts must prove', which is the expression of the ancient rule ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23). 
Riječ je o primjeni općeg pravila prema kojem „onaj koji tvrdi, mora i dokazati”, što je fraza iz starog pravila ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23).
Case-law clearly establishes that when the proprietor of the earlier mark has shown that there is either actual and present injury to its mark or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury will occur in the future, it is for the proprietor of the later mark to establish that there is due cause for the use of that mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39). 
Sudskom je praksom jasno utvrđeno da, kada je nositelj ranijeg žiga dokazao da postoji stvarna i trenutačna povreda njegova žiga ili, u nedostatku navedenog, ozbiljan rizik da će do takve povrede doći u budućnosti, dužnost je nositelja kasnijeg žiga da utvrdi postojanje opravdanog razloga za uporabu toga žiga (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39).
In the absence of any indications in the evidence providing an apparent justification for the applicant's use of the contested mark, lack of due cause must be generally presumed (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 and case-law cited therein; 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, dismissing the appeal). 
Ako u dokazima kojima se očito opravdava činjenica da podnositelj prijave upotrebljava osporavani žig ne postoje nikakvi pokazatelji koji upućuju na to, nedostatak opravdanog razloga općenito se mora pretpostaviti (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 i citirana sudska praksa; 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, o odbacivanju žalbe).
However, the applicant may avail itself of the possibility of rebutting such a presumption by showing that it has a legitimate justification that entitles it to use the mark. 
Ipak, podnositelj prijave može iskoristiti mogućnost odbacivanja takve pretpostavke na način da dokaže da ima legitimno opravdanje kojim mu se daje pravo na upotrebu tog žiga.
The Court gave further detailed factors to be considered when assessing due cause on account of prior use. 
Sud je iznio dodatne podrobne čimbenike koje treba razmotriti pri procjeni opravdanog razloga na temelju prethodne uporabe.
The case-law below shows that due cause may be found where the applicant establishes that it cannot reasonably be required to abstain from use of the mark (for example, because its use of the sign is a generic use to indicate the type of goods and services - whether by generic words or generic figurative devices), or where it has some specific right to use the mark for the goods and services (for example, it shows that a relevant coexistence agreement permits its use of the sign). 
U sudskoj praksi navedenoj u nastavku pokazuje se da opravdani razlog može postojati kada podnositelj prijave utvrdi da se od njega ne može opravdano tražiti da ne upotrebljava žig (primjerice, jer je uporaba znaka opće prirode i njome se upućuje na vrstu proizvoda i usluga, generičkim riječima ili generičkim figurativnim elementima) ili kada on ima neko posebno pravo na uporabu žiga za proizvode i usluge (primjerice, kada dokaže da mu je na temelju relevantnog sporazuma o supostojanju dopuštena uporaba znaka).
The condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that (a) the sign is particularly suitable for identifying the products for which it is used, (b) the applicant has already used this sign for these products or similar products within and/or outside the relevant territory of the European Union, or (c) the applicant invokes a right ensuing from a filing over which the filing of the opponent's trade mark takes precedence (inter alia 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.) 
Uvjet opravdanog razloga nije ispunjen samo zbog činjenice (a) da je znak posebno prikladan za utvrđivanje proizvoda za koje se upotrebljava, (b) da je podnositelj prijave već upotrebljavao taj znak za te proizvode ili slične proizvode unutar i/ili izvan relevantnog državnog područja Europske unije, ili (c) da se podnositelj prijave poziva na pravo koje proizlazi iz podnošenja prijave pred kojim podnošenje prijave za žig podnositelja prigovora ima prednost (među ostalim 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.)
Mere use of the sign is not enough - what must be shown is a valid reason justifying that use. 
Sama uporaba znaka nije dovoljna: mora se dokazati valjani razlog kojim se opravdava njegova uporaba.
3.5.1 Examples of due cause 
Primjeri opravdanog razloga
3.5.1.1 Due cause was accepted 
Opravdani je razlog prihvaćen
3.5.1.2 Due cause was not accepted 
Opravdani razlog nije prihvaćen
Case No Comment 
Broj predmeta Objašnjenje
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.) / FERNANDO ALONSO All the evidence submitted by the opponent related to the fame of Fernando Alonso as a champion racing driver and to the use of his image by different undertakings to promote their goods and services. 
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.) / FERNANDO ALONSO Svi dokazi koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora odnosili su se na slavu Fernanda Alonsa kao vrhunskog vozača utrka i uporabu njegova ugleda među različitim poduzećima za promidžbu vlastitih proizvoda i usluga.
There was no proof of reputation for use of the earlier mark as registered for the relevant goods and services (paras 44 and 48). 
Nisu postojali dokazi ugleda za uporabu ranijeg žiga kako je registriran za relevantne proizvode i usluge (točke 44. i 48.).
The only items of evidence regarding reputation of the earlier mark submitted within the time limit, namely a page showing websites containing the word ‘BALMAIN', a Wikipedia extract about the French designer Pierre Balmain, and five extracts from the website www.style.com referring to the ‘BALMAIN' wear collection, were clearly not sufficient to establish the reputation of the earlier mark in the EU. 
Jedini dokazi ugleda ranijeg žiga koji su podneseni u roku, odnosno stranica na kojoj su prikazana mrežna mjesta s riječju „BALMAIN”, izvadak s Wikipedije o francuskom dizajneru Pierreu Balmainu te pet izvadaka s mrežnpg mjesta www.style.com na kojem se upućuje na kolekciju odjeće „BALMAIN” nisu bile dovoljne za utvrđivanje ugleda ranijeg žiga u EU-u.
Therefore, the opposition was rejected as unsubstantiated (paras 36 and 37). 
Stoga je prigovor odbijen kao neosnovan (točke 36. i 37.).
The documents submitted by the opponent showed promotional efforts in such a way that the distinctiveness was increased through use. 
Dokumentima koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora dokazana su promidžbena nastojanja na takav način da se razlikovni karakter pojačao uporabom.
However, the use was not enough to reach the threshold of reputation. 
Međutim, uporaba nije bila dovoljna za postizanje praga ugleda.
None of the documents referred to the recognition of the earlier trade mark by the relevant end consumers; nor was any evidence submitted about the market share of the opponent's goods (para. 61). 
Nijedan dokument nije se odnosio na prepoznatljivost ranijeg žiga među relevantnim krajnjim potrošačima niti su dostavljeni dokazi u pogledu tržišnog udjela proizvoda podnositelja prigovora (t. 61.).
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Taking into account the nature of the goods for which the opponent claims reputation, namely mineral water, the relevant public is the public at large (para. 44). 
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Uzimajući u obzir prirodu proizvoda za koji se podnositelj prigovora poziva na ugled, odnosno mineralna voda, relevantna je javnost šira javnost (t. 44.).
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. The goods for which the sign enjoys reputation are medicinal preparations for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. 
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. Proizvodi za koje znak ima ugled ljekoviti su pripravci za liječenje seksualne disfunkcije.
The relevant public is the general public and professionals with a high level of attention (para. 64). 
Relevantna su javnost šira javnost i stručnjaci s visokom razinom pozornosti (t. 64.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl The goods for which the earlier mark enjoys reputation are pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles. 
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; potvrđeno 0/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl Proizvodi za koje raniji žig ima ugled jesu farmaceutski pripravci za tretiranje bora.
The evidence of the promotion of the earlier mark ‘BOTOX' in English in the scientific and general-interest press was sufficient to establish the mark's reputation amongst both the general public and health-care professionals (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67). 
Dokazi o promidžbi ranijeg žiga „BOTOX” na engleskom jeziku u znanstvenim i općim tiskovinama bili su dovoljni za utvrđivanje ugleda žiga u široj javnosti i među zdravstvenim djelatnicima (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67).
Therefore, both these categories of consumers have to be taken into account. 
Stoga treba uzeti u obzir obje kategorije potrošača.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The relevant services are stock exchange price quotation services in Classes 35 and 36, which normally target professionals. 
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Relevantne usluge jesu usluge kotacije cijena na burzi iz razreda 35. i 36. koje su obično namijenjene stručnjacima.
The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark ‘NASDAQ' appears almost daily in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe. 
Podnositelj prigovora podnio je dokaze koji pokazuju da se žig „NASDAQ” pojavljuje svakodnevno u brojnim novinama i na brojnim televizijskim programima koji se mogu čitati/gledati diljem Europe.
Therefore, the Board was right to hold that the reputation of the trade mark ‘NASDAQ' had to be determined for European consumers not only among the professional public, but also in an important subsection of the general public (paras 47 and 51). 
Stoga je Vijeće ispravno zaključilo da ugled žiga „NASDAQ” treba utvrditi za europske potrošače i to ne samo u profesionalnoj javnosti, već i u znatnom dijelu šire javnosti (t. 47. i 51.).
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 The evidence submitted in respect of reputation supports and reinforces the fact that the relevant public for theatre productions is the public at large and not a limited and exclusive circle. 
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 Dokazom podnesenim u pogledu ugleda potkrjepljuje se i dodatno potvrđuje činjenica da je relevantna javnost za kazališne produkcije šira javnost, a ne ograničen i ekskluzivan krug.
The intervener's activities were advertised, presented and commented on in numerous newspapers targeting the public at large. 
Aktivnosti posrednika oglašavale su se, iznosile i komentirale u brojnim novinama namijenjenima široj javnosti.
The intervener toured different regions throughout the United Kingdom and performed before a wide public in the United Kingdom. 
Posrednik je posjetio različite dijelove Ujedinjene Kraljevine i nastupao pred širom javnošću u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
An activity on a large scale and, hence, a service offered to the public at large, is reflected both in the high turnover and the high box-office sales. 
Aktivnost velikih razmjera te, stoga, usluga koja se pruža široj javnosti, odražava se i u velikim prihodima te znatnoj prodaji na blagajnama.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents submitted by the intervener that the intervener received substantial annual sponsorship income from undertakings in diverse sectors that also reach the public at large, such as banks, undertakings in the alcoholic drinks sector and car manufacturers (paras 35 and 36). 
Nadalje, iz dokumenata koje je posrednik podnio jasno je da je primio znatna sredstva od godišnjih sponzorstava poduzeća iz raznih sektora koja jednako tako obuhvaćaju širu javnost, kao što su banke, poduzeća u sektoru alkoholnih pića i proizvođači automobila (t. 35. i 36.).
Article 8(5) EUTMR can only be invoked if the trade mark affirmed to be well known/renowned is a registered trade mark and if the goods/services for which this reputation/renown is claimed appear on the certificate (para. 49). 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a može se pozivati samo ako je žig za koji se tvrdi da je dobro poznat / renomiran registrirani žig te ako se proizvodi/usluge za koje se zahtijeva ugled/renomiranost nalaze na potvrdi (t. 49.).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe The goods that were assessed to be reputed in Germany by the decision and order referred to only concern articles of skin and body care and children's cream. 
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Proizvodi za koje je odlukom procijenjeno da imaju ugled u Njemačkoj i na koje se nalog odnosio obuhvaćaju samo proizvode za njegu kože i tijela te dječje kreme.
These articles are not identical to the earlier mark's goods in Class 3, make-up products; nail treating products; namely nail lacquer and remover. 
Ti proizvodi nisu istovjetni s proizvodima ranijeg žiga iz razreda 3., odnosno proizvodima za njegu noktiju; odnosno lakovima za nokte i odstranjivačima laka za nokte.
Therefore, the opponent did not prove reputation for the earlier German mark in the relevant territories (para. 31). 
Stoga podnositelj prigovora nije dokazao ugled ranijeg njemačkog žiga na relevantnim državnim područjima (t. 31.).
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE The Board concluded that the enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier marks did not concern the opponent's G&S, which were considered to be identical or similar to the contested G&S. 
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE Vijeće je zaključilo da se naglašena razlikovnost i ugled ranijih žigova ne odnose na proizvode i usluge podnositelja prigovora koji se smatraju istovjetnima s osporavanim proizvodima i uslugama ili njima sličnima.
For these G&S no enhanced distinctiveness or reputation was proven, with the exception of computer software in Class 9 (para. 43). 
Za te proizvode i usluge nisu dokazani naglašeni razlikovni karakter ili ugled, uz iznimku računalnog softvera iz razreda 9. (t. 43.).
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrated that the ‘ARENA' brand was known by a significant part of the relevant public. 
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. Podneseni dokazi u dovoljnoj su mjeri pokazali da je robna marka „ARENA” bila poznata znatnom djelu relevantne javnosti.
However, the evidence did not include any relevant information that could allow the level of brand awareness of the ‘ARENA' brand in sectors other than swimwear and swimming articles to be determined (paras 58 and 60). 
Međutim, dokazi nisu obuhvaćali nikakve relevantne informacije na temelju kojih bi se mogla utvrditi razina svjesnosti o robnoj marki „ARENA” u sektorima osim sektora plivačkih kostima i plivačke opreme (t. 58. i 60.).
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 The case concerned a European Union trade mark with a reputation throughout Austria. 
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 Predmet se odnosio na žig Europske unije s ugledom diljem Austrije.
The Court indicated that a European Union trade mark must be known in a substantial part of the EU by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark. 
Sud je naveo da žig Europske unije mora biti poznat u znatnom dijelu EU-a znatnom dijelu javnosti kojoj su namijenjeni proizvodi ili usluge obuhvaćeni tim žigom.
In view of the facts of the particular case, the territory of the Member State in question (Austria) was considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the EU (paras 29 and 30). 
Imajući na umu činjenice ovog konkretnog predmeta, za državno područje predmetne države članice (Austrije) smatralo se da tvori znatan dio državnog područja EU-a (t. 29. i 30.).
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Although the evidence submitted showed use of the mark in 17 restaurants in France in 2002, this figure was considered rather low for a country of 65 million inhabitants. 
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Iako su dostavljeni dokazi upućivali na uporabu žiga u 17 restorana u Francuskoj 2002., ta se brojka smatrala relativno niskom za zemlju od 65 milijuna stanovnika.
Therefore, the reputation was not proven (para. 22). 
Stoga ugled nije dokazan (t. 22.).
Consequently, the opponent cannot successfully claim to hold a well-known mark in the EU (para. 53). 
Stoga podnositelj prigovora ne može s uspjehom tvrditi da posjeduje dobro poznati žig u EU-u (t. 53.).
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (appeal dismissed in 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent maintained in the notice of cancellation that reputation was claimed for the territory of the UK. 
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (žalba odbačena 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Tuženik je u obavijesti o brisanju tvrdio da se ugled traži za državno područje Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
However, the international registration only designated Spain, France and Portugal and, therefore, did not extend to the territory of the UK. 
Međutim u međunarodnoj registraciji navedene su samo Španjolska, Francuska i Portugal, stoga njome nije bilo obuhvaćeno državno područje Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
In addition, the respondent did not file any evidence of a reputation in the Member States designated by the international registration (para. 45). 
Osim toga, tuženik nije podnio nikakve dokaze o ugledu u državama članicama naznačenima međunarodnom registracijom (t. 45.).
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA The evidence showed that the mark ‘BRAVIA/BRAVIA' was used for LCD televisions in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey. 
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA Dokazi su pokazali da se žig „BRAVIA/BRAVIA” upotrebljavao za televizijske prijemnike sa zaslonom s tekućim kristalima u Austriji, Češkoj, Francuskoj, Njemačkoj, Mađarskoj, Italiji, Nizozemskoj, Poljskoj, Portugalu, Slovačkoj i Turskoj.
However, none of the documents were dated. 
Međutim, nijedan dokument nije bio označen datumom.
The opponent failed to submit any information regarding duration. 
Podnositelj prigovora nije podnio nikakve informacije o trajanju.
Therefore, the evidence, taken as whole, was insufficient to prove reputation in the European Union (paras 27 and 28). 
Stoga dokazi, ukupno gledajući, nisu bili dovoljni za dokazivanje ugleda u Europskoj uniji (t. 27. i 28.).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe In the Board's view, a judgment from 1972 was not able to prove enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing the mark, that is, 20/10/2006. 
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Prema mišljenju Vijeća, presudom iz 1972. nije dokazana naglašena razlikovnost u vrijeme podnošenja žiga, odnosno 20. 10. 2006.
Furthermore, ‘it follows from the decision of the [Court] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] that the reputation of the earlier mark has been assessed as from 13 June 1996, i.e. more than ten years before the reputation date to be taken into consideration' (para. 31). 
Nadalje, „iz odluke [Suda] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] slijedi da je ugled ranijeg žiga procijenjen od 13. lipnja 1996., odnosno više od deset godina prije datuma od kojega se ugled uzima u obzir” (t. 31.).
The appellant failed to prove that its earlier mark was already well known on the application date of the contested mark. 
Podnositelj žalbe nije uspio dokazati da je njegov raniji žig bio već dobro poznat na datum prijave osporavanog žiga EU-a.
The certificates regarding the reputation of the ‘Mustang designation' refer neither to the ‘Calzados Mustang' figurative mark asserted by the applicant nor to the time when reputation must be determined (para. 28). 
Potvrde o ugledu „oznake Mustang” ne odnose se ni na figurativni žig „Calzados Mustang” koji navodi podnositelj žalbe ni na vrijeme za koje bi se ugled morao utvrditi (t. 28.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Although the reputation of an earlier mark must be established at the filing date of the contested mark, documents bearing a later date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date (para. 52). 
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potvrđeno 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Iako se ugled ranijeg žiga mora utvrditi na datum podnošenja prijave osporavanog žiga, dokumentima na kojima je naznačen kasniji datum ne može se odbiti dokazna vrijednost ako se njima omogućuje donošenje zaključaka u odnosu na stanje kakvo je bilo na taj datum (t. 52.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed by 10/05/2012, C100/11 P The press articles submitted proved that there was significant media coverage of the products marketed under the trade mark BOTOX on the filing date of the disputed marks (para. 53). 
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potvrđeno 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Priloženim novinskim člancima dokazalo se da su mediji znatno pratili proizvode stavljene na tržište koji nose žig „BOTOX” na dan podnošenja prijave za osporavani žig (t. 53.).
The word element occupies a central position in the complex sign, and therefore plays a ‘distinct and predominant' role. 
Verbalni element zauzima središnje mjesto u okviru složenog znaka te stoga ima „različitu i prevladavajuću ulogu”.
Without its particular logotype the text ‘Formula 1' and its abbreviation ‘F1' are perceived as descriptive elements for a category of racing cars or races involving those cars. 
Bez svojeg posebnog logotipa, tekst „Formula 1” i njegova kratica „F1” shvaćaju se kao opisni elementi za kategoriju trkaćih automobila ili utrka s tim automobilima.
The reputation was not proven for the word marks (see paras 53, 54 and 67). 
Za verbalne žigove ugled nije dokazan (vidjeti t. 53., 54. i 67.).
In case T55/13, the Court held that the reputation with which the complex sign ‘F1' is associated did not benefit the word element alone, which does not play a ‘predominant or even significant' role in the earlier figurative mark (see para. 47). 
U predmetu T55/13 Sud je utvrdio da ugled s kojim je povezan složeni znak „F1” nije bio od koristi zasebno verbalnom elementu koji nema „prevladavajuću ulogu ili čak znatnu ulogu” u ranijem figurativnom žigu (pogledajte t. 47.).
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 The same conclusion applies to a ‘winged hourglass' figurative element used in a complex mark in association with the word ‘Longines'. 
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 Isti se zaključak primjenjuje na „pješčani sat s krilima”, figurativni element koji se upotrebljava u složenom žigu u kombinaciji s riječju „Longines”.
The figurative element remains clearly ancillary and in the background in the overall impression conveyed by the complex mark (paras 104 to 106). 
U smislu ukupnog dojma koji se stvara na temelju složenog žiga figurativni element ima jasnu pomoćnu ulogu u pozadini (t. 104. - 106.).