natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For example, this could be the case if there is a ‘commercial trajectory', such as the registration of an EUTM after registration of the mark in a Member State (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), if there is evidence of the EUTM owner's intention to develop its commercial activities, for example by means of a licensing agreement (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), or if the EUTM owner had a commercial incentive to protect the mark more widely, for example an increase in the number of Member States in which the owner generates turnover from goods marketed under the mark (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23).
To lahko na primer velja, če obstaja „poslovna usmeritev“, kot je registracija blagovne znamke EU po registraciji blagovne znamke v državi članici (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), če obstajajo dokazi o nameri imetnika blagovne znamke EU, da razvije svojo poslovno dejavnost, na primer z licenčno pogodbo (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), ali če je imel imetnik blagovne znamke EU tržno motivacijo za širše varstvo znamke, na primer povečanje števila držav članic, v katerih imetnik ustvarja promet z blagom, ki se trži pod zadevno znamko (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23).
The existence of a direct or indirect relationship between the parties prior to the filing of the EUTM, for example a pre-contractual, contractual or post-contractual (residual) relationship, can also be an indicator of bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32).
Tudi obstoj neposredne ali posredne povezave med strankama pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU, na primer razmerje pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, pogodbeno razmerje ali (preostalo) razmerje po sklenitvi pogodbe, je lahko znak slabe vere imetnika blagovne znamke EU (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32).
The EUTM owner's registration of the sign in its own name in such cases can, depending on the circumstances, be considered a breach of honest commercial and business practices.
Registracija znaka, ki jo imetnik blagovne znamke EU opravi v svojem imenu, se lahko v takšnih primerih, odvisno od okoliščin, šteje za kršitev poštenih poslovnih praks.
(d) Bad faith has been found where an EUTM owner tries to artificially extend the grace period for non-use, for example by filing a repeat application of an earlier EUTM in order to avoid the loss of a right as a result of non-use (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27).
Ravnanje v slabi veri je bilo ugotovljeno, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke EU poskušal umetno podaljšati odložni rok za neuporabo, na primer z vložitvijo ponovne prijave prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, da bi se izognil izgubi pravice zaradi neuporabe (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27).
This case needs to be distinguished from the situation in which the EUTM owner, in accordance with normal business practice, seeks to protect variations of its sign, for example, where a logo has evolved (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.).
Ta primer je treba razlikovati od položaja, v katerem poskuša imetnik blagovne znamke EU v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso zavarovati spremembe svojega znaka, na primer v primeru razvoja logotipa (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.).
(e) Bad faith has also been found where the EUTM owner makes a successive chain of applications for registration of national trade marks, designed to grant him a blocking position for a period exceeding the 6month period of reflection provided for by Article 34(1) EUTMR and even the 5year grace period provided for by Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 51).
Ravnanje v slabi veri je bilo ugotovljeno tudi, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke EU vložil verigo zahtev za registracijo nacionalnih blagovnih znamk, da bi si zagotovil položaj blokiranja v obdobju, ki je daljše od šestmesečnega roka za razmislek iz člena 34(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in celo daljše od petletnega odložnega roka iz člena 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 51).
(f) A request for financial compensation made by the EUTM owner to the invalidity applicant may lead to a finding of bad faith if there is evidence that the EUTM owner knew of the existence of the earlier identical or confusingly similar sign and expected to receive a proposal for financial compensation from the invalidity applicant (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72).
Zahteva za finančno nadomestilo, ki jo vložniku zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti predloži imetnik blagovne znamke EU, lahko privede do ugotovitve o ravnanju v slabi veri, če so na voljo dokaze, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU vedel za obstoj prejšnjega enakega ali tako podobnega znaka, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo, in da je pričakoval, da bo od vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti prejel predlog za finančno nadomestilo (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72).
In addition to the abovementioned factors, other potentially relevant factors identified in case-law and/or Office practice to assess the existence of bad faith include those listed here.
Poleg zgoraj navedenih dejavnikov drugi morebitno upoštevni dejavniki, opredeljeni v sodni praksi in/ali praksi Urada za presojo obstoja slabe vere, vključujejo tiste, ki so našteti tukaj:
(i) The circumstances under which the contested sign was created, the use made of it since its creation, the commercial logic underlying the filing of the application for registration of that sign as an EUTM and the chronology of events leading up to that filing (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 21 et seq.; 08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, § 39; 26/02/2015, T257/11, COLOURBLIND, EU:T:2015:115, § 68).
okoliščine, v katerih je bil oblikovan izpodbijani znak, njegovo uporabo od nastanka, poslovno logiko, ki je podlaga za vložitev prijave za registracijo navedenega znaka kot blagovne znamke EU, in časovno zaporedje dogodkov, ki so privedli do navedene vložitve (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 21 et seq.; 08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, § 39; 26/02/2015, T257/11, COLOURBLIND, EU:T:2015:115, § 68);
(ii) The nature of the mark applied for.
naravo blagovne znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava.
Where the sign for which registration is sought consists of the entire shape and presentation of a product, the fact that the EUTM owner was acting in bad faith at the time of filing might more readily be established where the competitor's freedom to choose the shape of a product and its presentation is restricted by technical or commercial factors, with the result that the EUTM owner is able to prevent its competitors not merely from using an identical or similar sign, but also from marketing comparable products (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 50).
Če znak, za katerega se zahteva registracija, ponazarja celostno obliko in podobo proizvoda, bi bilo mogoče lažje dokazati, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave ravnal v slabi veri, če je svobodna izbira konkurenta glede oblike in podobe proizvoda omejena zaradi tehničnih ali trgovinskih dejavnikov, tako da lahko imetnik blagovne znamke EU konkurentom prepreči ne le uporabo enakega ali podobnega znaka, ampak tudi trženje primerljivih proizvodov (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 50);
(iii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness enjoyed by the invalidity applicant's sign and the EUTM owner's sign, as well as its degree of reputation, even if this is only residual (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 40, 46 and 49).
stopnjo svojstvenega ali pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka, ki ga imata znak vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in znak imetnika blagovne znamke EU, ter stopnja ugleda, tudi če je ta z leti zmanjšal (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 40, 46 in 49);
(iv) The fact that the national mark on which the EUTM owner has based a priority claim has been declared invalid due to bad faith (30/07/2009, R 1203/20051, BRUTT).
dejstvo, da je bila nacionalna znamka, na podlagi katere je imetnik blagovne znamke EU utemeljil zahtevo za priznanje prednostne pravice, razglašena za nično zaradi slabe vere (30/07/2009, R 1203/20051, BRUTT).
Finally, the case-law and/or the Office have identified a number of factors that, considered in isolation, are not enough to find bad faith but that, in combination with other relevant factors (to be identified on a case-by-case basis), might indicate the existence of bad faith.
Nazadnje, v sodni praksi in/ali praksi Urada je bilo opredeljenih več dejavnikov, ki, če se obravnavajo ločeno, ne zadostujejo za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere, vendar lahko v kombinaciji z drugimi zadevnimi dejavniki (ki se opredelijo za vsaj primer posebej) kažejo na njen obstoj:
The fact that an earlier, very similar, EUTM was revoked for goods or services in a number of classes is not, in itself, sufficient to allow any conclusions to be drawn as to the EUTM owner's intentions at the time of filing the EUTM application for the same goods or services (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 45).
dejstvo, da je bila prejšnja zelo podobna blagovna znamka EU razveljavljena za blago ali storitve v več razredih, samo po sebi ne zadošča za sprejetje ugotovitev o namenih imetnika blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU za enako blago ali storitve (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 45),
The fact that the application for registration of the contested EUTM is filed 3 months before expiry of the period of grace for the earlier EUTMs is not sufficient to counteract factors that show that the EUTM owner's intention was to file a modernised trade mark covering an updated list of services (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 50 and 51).
dejstvo, da je bila prijava za registracijo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU vložena tri mesece pred iztekom prehodnega obdobja za prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, ne odtehta dejavnikov, ki kažejo, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU nameraval vložiti prijavo za posodobljeno blagovno znamko, ki zajema posodobljen seznam storitev (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 50 in 51),
The filing of applications for declarations that the invalidity applicant's marks are invalid constitutes the legitimate exercise of an EUTM owner's exclusive right and cannot in itself prove any dishonest intent on its part (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 66).
vložitev zahtev za ugotovitev ničnosti znamk za znamke vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti je legitimno uveljavljanje izključne pravice imetnika blagovne znamke EU in sama pa sebi ne dokazuje njegovega nepoštenega namena (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 66),
The fact that, after successfully registering the EUTM at issue, the EUTM owner serves formal notice on other parties to cease using a similar sign in their commercial relations is not in itself an indication of bad faith.
dejstvo, da imetnik sporne blagovne znamke EU po njeni registraciji drugim strankam vroči uradni opomin, naj prenehajo uporabljati podoben znak pri poslovanju, samo po sebi ni znak slabe vere.
Such a request falls within the scope of the rights attaching to the registration of an EUTM; see Article 9 EUTMR (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 33).
Taka zahteva spada med pravice, ki so del registracije blagovne znamke EU, glej člen 9 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 33).
However, in circumstances where this request is connected with other factors (e.g. the mark is not being used), it might be an indication of the intention to prevent another party from entering the market.
Vendar lahko v okoliščinah, v katerih je ta zahteva povezana z drugimi dejavniki (npr. blagovna znamka se ne uporablja), kaže na namero, da se drugi stranki prepreči vstop na trg,
In cases where the EUTM proprietor owns more than one trade mark, the mere fact that the differences between the EUTM at issue and the previous EUTM registered by the same proprietor are so insignificant as not to be noticeable to the average consumer cannot establish by itself that the contested EUTM is a mere repeat application made in bad faith (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 33-34).
če ima imetnik blagovne znamke EU v lasti več blagovnih znamk, se samo na podlagi tega, da so razlike med sporno blagovno znamko EU in prejšnjo blagovno znamko EU, ki jo je registriral isti imetnik, tako nepomembne, da jih povprečni potrošnik ne zazna, ne more ugotoviti, da je izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU le ponovna prijava, vložena v slabi veri (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 33-34).
3.3.2.2 Factors unlikely to indicate the existence of bad faith
Dejavniki, ki verjetno ne kažejo obstoja slabe vere
Case-law has identified several factors that, in general, are unlikely to prove bad faith.
V sodni praksi je bilo opredeljenih več dejavnikov, ki verjetno ne dokazujejo slabe vere.
Extending the protection of a national mark by registering it as an EUTM falls within a company's normal commercial strategy (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 23; 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58).
Razširitev varstva nacionalne znamke z registracijo te znamke kot blagovne znamke EU je del običajne poslovne strategije podjetja (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 23; 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58).
Bad faith cannot be found on the basis of the length of the list of goods and services set out in the application for registration (07/06/2011, T507/08, 16PF, EU:T:2011:253, § 88).
Slabe vere ni mogoče ugotoviti na podlagi dolžine seznama blaga in storitev, navedenih v prijavi za registracijo (07/06/2011, T507/08, 16PF, EU:T:2011:253, § 88).
As a rule, it is legitimate for an undertaking to seek registration of a mark not only for the categories of goods and services that it markets at the time of filing the application but also for other categories of goods and services that it intends to market in the future (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 25; 07/06/2011, T507/08, 16PF, EU:T:2011:253, § 88).
Praviloma je zakonito, da podjetje poskuša registrirati znamko ne le za kategorije blaga in storitev, ki jih trži ob vložitvi prijave, temveč tudi za druge kategorije blaga in storitev, ki jih namerava tržiti v prihodnosti (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 25; 07/06/2011, T507/08, 16PF, EU:T:2011:253, § 88).
The fact that the owner of several national marks decides to apply for an EUTM for only one and not all of them cannot be an indication of bad faith.
Dejstva, da se imetnik več nacionalnih blagovnih znamk odloči za vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU le za eno blagovno znamko, ne pa za vse, ni mogoče šteti za znak slabe vere.
If a sign enjoys a reputation at national level and the owner applies for an EUTM, the extent of the sign's reputation might justify the owner's interest in ensuring broader legal protection (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 51-52).
Če je znak prepoznaven na nacionalni ravni in imetnik vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU, bi lahko obseg prepoznavnosti znaka jasno upravičil interes imetnika za zagotovitev širšega pravnega varstva (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 51-52).
• The act of filing an application for cancellation of the earlier trade mark while opposition proceedings brought on the basis of that earlier trade mark are still pending is not evidence of bad faith (25/11/2014, T556/12, KAISERHOFF (fig.) / KAISERHOFF, EU:T:2014:985, § 12).
Vložitev zahteve za izbris prejšnje blagovne znamke, medtem ko postopek ugovora, sprožen na podlagi navedene prejšnje blagovne znamke, še teče pred Sodiščem, ne kaže slabe vere (25/11/2014, T556/12, KAISERHOFF (fig.) / KAISERHOFF, EU:T:2014:985, § 12).
3.3.3 Proof of bad faith
Dokaz o slabi veri
Good faith is presumed until proof to the contrary is adduced (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 57).
Dokler se ne predloži dokaz o nasprotnem, se domneva dobra vera (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 57).
The invalidity applicant needs to prove that there was bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner at the time of filing the EUTM.
Vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti mora dokazati, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU ravnal v slabi veri.
3.3.4 Relation to other EUTMR provisions
Razmerje z drugimi določbami Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Whilst Article 8(3) EUTMR is a manifestation of the principle that commercial transactions must be conducted in good faith, Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR is the general expression of that principle (see p. 4 et seq. of the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 3, Unauthorised Filing by Agents of the TM proprietor (Article 8(3) EUTMR).
Čeprav člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izraža načelo, da mora trgovanje potekati v dobri veri, je člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU splošen izraz tega načela (glej stran 4 in naslednje Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 3: Nepooblaščena vložitev, ki jo opravijo posredniki imetnika blagovne znamke (člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
3.3.5 Extent of invalidity
Obseg ničnosti
When bad faith of the EUTM owner is established, the whole EUTM is declared invalid, even for goods and services that are unrelated to those protected by the invalidity applicant's mark.
Kadar se dokaže slaba vera imetnika blagovne znamke EU, se celotna blagovna znamka EU razglasi za nično, tudi za blago in storitve, ki niso povezani s tistim blagom in storitvami, zaščitenimi z blagovno znamko vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The only exception is where the applicant has directed its invalidity application against only some of the goods and services covered by the contested EUTM, in which case a finding of bad faith will invalidate the EUTM only for the goods and services that have been contested.
Edina izjema je, kadar je vložnik svojo zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti usmeril le zoper nekatero blago in storitve, zajete z izpodbijano blagovno znamko EU, zato bo v tem primeru zaradi ugotovitve obstoja slabe vere razglašena ničnost blagovne znamke EU le za blago in storitve, ki so se izpodbijale.
For example, in its decision R 219/20091 (GRUPPO SALINI / SALINI), the Board of Appeal concluded that bad faith had been proven and declared the contested EUTM invalid in its entirety, that is, also for services (insurance, financial and monetary services in Class 36 and services related to software and hardware in Class 42) that were dissimilar to the invalidity applicant's building, maintenance and installation services in Class 37.
Odbor za pritožbe je na primer v odločbi R 219/20091 (GRUPPO SALINI / SALINI), potem ko je ugotovil, da je bila slaba vera dokazana, razglasil ničnost izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU v celoti, to je tudi v zvezi s storitvami (npr. zavarovalniškimi, finančnimi in denarnimi storitvami iz razreda 36 ter storitvami v zvezi s programsko in strojno opremo iz razreda 42), ki so se razlikovale od stavbeništva, vzdrževanja in montaže iz razreda 37 vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The General Court confirmed the Board of Appeal's decision and stated that a positive finding of bad faith at the time of filing the contested EUTM could only lead to the invalidity of the EUTM in its entirety (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 48).
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo odločbo odbora in navedlo, da bi lahko dokazana slaba vera ob vložitvi prijave izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU privedla le do razglasitve ničnosti te blagovne znamke v celoti (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 48).
Whereas the Court did not expand on the reasons for this conclusion, it can be safely inferred that it took the view that the protection of the general interest in business and commercial matters being conducted honestly justifies invalidating an EUTM also for goods or services that are dissimilar to the invalidity applicant's ones and do not even belong to an adjacent or neighbouring market.
Čeprav Sodišče ni obrazložilo razlogov za takšno sklepno ugotovitev, je mogoče razumno sklepati, da varstvo splošnega interesa za pošteno poslovanje po njegovem mnenju upravičuje razglasitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU tudi za blago ali storitve, ki se razlikujejo od blaga ali storitev vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in sploh ne spadajo na sosednji trg.
Therefore, it seems only logical that the invalidity, once declared, should extend to all the goods and/or services covered by the contested EUTM, even those that in a pure Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR scenario would be found to be dissimilar.
Zato se zdi edino logično, da mora razglasitev ničnosti zajemati tudi vse blago in/ali storitve, ki jih označuje izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU, tudi tiste, v zvezi s katerimi bi se v skladu s tipičnim scenarijem iz člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ugotovilo, da so različne.
3.4 Absolute grounds for invalidity for EU collective marks
Absolutni razlogi za ničnost kolektivnih znamk EU
Apart from the grounds for invalidity explained above, provided for in Articles 59 and 60 EUTMR, an EU collective mark that has been registered in breach of the provisions of Article 76 EUTMR will be declared invalid on application to the Office in the following cases:
Poleg zgoraj pojasnjenih razlogov za ničnost iz členov 59 in 60 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se kolektivna znamka EU, ki je bila registrirana v nasprotju z določbami člena 76 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razglašena za nično na podlagi zahteve, predložene Uradu, v naslednjih primerih:
where Articles 74 and 75 EUTMR are not satisfied, or where the regulations governing use are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;
če ne ustreza določbam členov 74 in 75 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali če pravilnik o uporabi nasprotuje javnemu redu ali sprejetim moralnim načelom,
where the public is liable to be misled regarding the character of the significance of the mark, in particular if it is likely to be taken to be something other than a collective mark.
če obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti glede značaja ali pomena znamke, še zlasti, če je verjetno, da jo bodo razumeli kot nekaj drugega kot kolektivno znamko.
Article 76(3) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 82 EUTMR in fine clarify that where the proprietor amends the regulations of use then meets the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 above, such EU collective mark will not be refused.
V členu 76(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 82 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je na koncu pojasnjeno, da se prijava kolektivne znamke EU ne zavrne, če imetnik s spremembo pravilnika o uporabi zadosti zahtevam iz odstavkov 1 in 2 zgoraj.
3.5 Absolute grounds for invalidity for EU certification marks
Absolutni razlogi za ničnost certifikacijskih znamk EU
Article 92 EUTMR states that when an EU certification mark has been registered in breach of Article 85 EUTMR (e.g. the conditions in Articles 83 and 84 EUTMR are not satisfied), it will be declared invalid unless the proprietor amends the regulations governing use, and consequently, these meet the requirements of Article 85 EUTMR.
V členu 92 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je navedeno, da kadar je bila certifikacijska znamka EU registrirana v nasprotju s členom 85 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (npr. pogoji iz členov 83 in 84 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso izpolnjeni), bo razglašena za nično, razen če imetnik spremeni pravilnik o uporabi in posledično izpolni zahteve člena 85 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4 Relative Grounds for Invalidity
Relativni razlogi za ničnost