natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even if Section 43 AGBG may also apply to a trader's name, the scope of protection does not go beyond the field of activity of the sign used.
Čeprav se lahko člen 43 AGBG uporablja tudi za ime trgovca, obseg varstva ne presega področja dejavnosti uporabljenega znaka.
The remaining contested services are dissimilar to the services of the earlier right as … they concern different branches of activity (paras 61-63)'.
Preostale izpodbijane storitve se razlikujejo od storitev prejšnjih pravic, ker […] se nanašajo na različne panoge dejavnosti (točke od 61 do 63).
‘MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR' Nobility title (título nobiliario) 03/12/2009, R 1288/20081
„MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR“, plemiški naslov (título nobiliario) 03/12/2009, R 1288/20081
Right to a name under Spanish law In Spain, noble titles are protected under Law 1/1982 as if they were persons' names.
Pravica do imena po španskem pravu V Španiji so plemiški naslovi zaščiteni, kot da bi bili osebna imena, in sicer z zakonom št.
The European Union trade mark comprises a small coat of arms and the words MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR in large letters.
Blagovna znamka Evropske unije zajema majhen grb in besede MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR z velikimi črkami.
The wine could not be correctly identified in any business transaction without mentioning the words MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR.
V poslovnih transakcijah vina ni mogoče ustrezno opredeliti brez omembe besed MARQUÉS DE BALLESTAR.
The right conferred by the EUTM consists of using this in the following ways: placing it on the product container, putting the product bearing the trade mark onto the market, and using it in publicity (Article 9 EUTMR).
Pravica iz blagovne znamke EU zajema naslednje uporabe blagovne znamke: opremljanje embalaže z blagovno znamko, dajanje izdelka, opremljenega z blagovno znamko, na trg in uporabo blagovne znamke v oglaševanju (člen 9 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Since these uses are considered by this Law as ‘unlawful intromissions', the protection provided by Article 9(2) of that same Law would be admissible.
Ker zadevni zakon te vrste uporabe šteje za „nezakonito posredovanje“, bi bilo mogoče uporabljati varstvo, ki ga zagotavlja člen 9(2) navedenega zakona.
This Article allows the adoption of measures to ‘put an end to the unlawful intromission'.
Ta člen omogoča sprejetje ukrepov „za odpravo nezakonitega posredovanja“.
The EUTM must be declared invalid because its use can be prohibited as a result of a right to a name in accordance with the Spanish legislation on protection of the right to honour, personal and family privacy and own image (para. 14 et seq.).
Blagovno znamko EU je treba razglasiti za nično, saj se lahko njena uporaba prepove zaradi pravice do imena v skladu s španskim pravom o varstvu pravice do dostojanstva, osebne in družinske zasebnosti in lastne podobe (točka 14 in naslednje).
Personality rights of Michael Jackson 17/07/2013, R 944/20122
Osebnostne pravice Michaela Jacksona 17/07/2013, R 944/20122
Personality rights of Michael Jackson 17/07/2013, R 878/20122
Osebnostne pravice Michaela Jacksona 17/07/2013, R 878/20122
Right to a personal portrayal under German law The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on a right to personal portrayal in Germany according to German national law, namely Sections 823 and 1004 German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Articles 1, 2 of the German Constitution.
Pravica do osebne podobe po nemškem pravu Zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti je temeljila na pravici do osebne podobe v Nemčiji v skladu z nemškim nacionalnim pravom, in sicer členoma 823 in 1004 nemškega civilnega zakonika (BGB) v povezavi s členoma 1 in 2 nemške ustave.
The Board finds that the famous person (Michael Jackson) is recognisable in the contested EUTM due to the characteristics resulting from the image that are specific to him and the text that accompanies it.
Odbor meni, da je znano osebo (Michaela Jacksona) v izpodbijani blagovni znamki EU mogoče prepoznati zaradi značilnosti, ki izhajajo iz podobe in so tipične zanjo, ter spremnega besedila.
This is considered to be use of an image right according to German case-law, which is a special form of general personality rights protected by German law.
Šteje se, da je to uporaba pravice do podobe v skladu z nemško sodno prakso, ki je posebna oblika splošnih osebnostnih pravic, zaščitenih z nemškim pravom.
The Board finds that the cancellation applicants have sufficiently proved that the right to one's own image is a special form of personality rights protected under German Law, that use of the contested EUTM by the EUTM proprietor infringes Michael Jackson's image and that the cancellation applicants are entitled to prohibit this use according to German law as developed by established German jurisprudence.
Odbor meni, da so vložniki zahteve za izbris zadostno dokazali, da je pravica do lastne podobe posebna oblika osebnostnih pravic, zaščitenih z nemškim pravom, da imetnik blagovne znamke EU z uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU posega v podobo Michaela Jacksona in da vložniki zahteve za izbris lahko prepovejo to uporabo v skladu z nemškim pravom, kot je bilo razvito z ustaljeno nemško sodno prakso.
As a result, the request for a declaration of invalidity of the contested EUTM must be upheld in its entirety …
Zato je treba zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU ugoditi v celoti […].
The invalidity applicant acknowledges that ownership of the copyright in the design ‘belongs to third parties' (in fact to one third party: Corel Corporation, the graphic design company).
Vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti priznava, da lastništvo avtorske pravice za risbo „pripada tretjim osebam“ (dejansko eni tretji osebi: družbi za grafično oblikovanje Corel Corporation).
The ground was rejected (para. 32 et seq.).
Zahteva je bila zavrnjena (točka 32 in naslednje).
Copyright under French law ‘… the mere fact that the stylisation of the letter ‘G' is ‘simple', does not exclude its protection under French copyright law ...
Avtorske pravice po francoskem pravu […] dejstvo, da je stilizacija črke „G“ preprosta, ne izključuje njenega varstva po francoskem avtorskem pravu […].
The Board considers this to be the case here.
Odbor meni, da to velja v tem primeru.
The contested EUTM has taken all the essential characteristic features of the prior work: a stand-alone capital ‘G' in straight, thick, black lines, in a perfectly square flattened shape ... the ‘G' of the contested EUTM is drawn in a thick, black line of equal width and its inner part reaches further inside, than is the case in the prior work.
Izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU je prevzela vse bistvene značilnosti prejšnjega dela: samostoječo veliko črko „G“, narisano v ravnih in krepkih črnih črtah ter v popolnoma kvadratni sploščeni obliki […], črka „G“ izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU je narisana v enako širokih debelih črnih črtah, njen notranji del pa v primerjavi s prejšnjim delom sega dlje v notranjost.
However, the difference in these minor details constitute minimal modifications which do not affect the overlap in the essential characteristic features of the earlier work, namely, a stand-alone capital ‘G' with a perfectly rectangular form, a flattened shape and thick, black lines ...
Vendar razlika v teh majhnih podrobnostih pomeni minimalne spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na prekrivanje bistvenih značilnosti prejšnjega dela, in sicer samostoječe velike črke „G“, ki ima popolno štirikotno in sploščeno obliko ter debele črne črte […].
As the partial reproduction or adaptation of the prior work has been done without the owner's consent, it is unlawful.
Ker je bila delna reprodukcija ali priredba prejšnjega dela narejena brez soglasja imetnika, je nezakonita.
Therefore, the contested decision must be annulled and the request for a declaration of invalidity … must be upheld' (para. 33 et seq.).
Zato je treba izpodbijano odločbo razveljaviti in ugoditi […] zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti (točka 33 in naslednje).
Copyright under German law ‘Pursuant to § 1 of the German Copyright Act, copyright protection is granted to the “authors” of “works of literature, science, or art”.
Avtorske pravice po nemškem pravu V skladu s členom 1 nemškega zakona o avtorskih pravicah se varstvo avtorskih pravic dodeli „avtorjem literarnih, znanstvenih ali umetniških del“.
§ 2 of the Act lists various types of work considered works of art. Pursuant to § 16 et seq., the copyright law protects the author.
V členu 2 zakona so navedene različne vrste del, ki se štejejo za umetniška dela.
The cancellation applicant had mixed up both concepts (paras 22-24).
Vložnik zahteve za izbris je pomešal oba pojma (točke od 22 do 24).
Copyright protected in the United Kingdom Section 1(1)(a) of UK Copyright Designs Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) provides that a copyright subsists in original artistic works; Section 4(1) CDPA defines an ‘artistic work' as ‘a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage irrespective of artistic quality'.
Avtorska pravica, zaščitena v Združenem kraljestvu Člen 1(1)(a) zakona Združenega kraljestva o avtorski pravici, modelih in patentih iz leta 1988 (UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: CDPA) določa, da avtorska pravica obstaja na izvirnih „umetniških delih“; v členu 4(1) CDPA je umetniško delo opredeljeno kot „grafično delo“, fotografija, kip ali kolaž, ne glede na umetniško kakovost.
Section 4(2) CDPA defines a ‘graphic work' as including any ‘painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart … plan … engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work'.
V členu 4(2) CDPA je opredeljeno, da grafično delo vključuje katero koli sliko, risbo, diagram, zemljevid, preglednico, […], načrt, […], gravuro, jedkanico, litografijo, lesorez ali podobno delo.
The Cancellation Division held, at the outset, that the applicants have established that both logos were created by their authors at a time prior to the filing of the EUTM.
Oddelek za izbris je na začetku menil, da sta vložnika zahteve dokazala, da sta oba logotipa ustvarila njuna avtorja pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The designs at issue can be considered to meet also the substantive standards of the protection in the UK.
V zvezi s spornima modeloma je mogoče šteti, da izpolnjujeta tudi vsebinske standarde varstva v Združenem kraljestvu.
The similarities are ‘original and so marked as to warrant a finding that the one has been copied from the other', or expressed in other words, similarities are ‘sufficiently numerous or extensive to justify an inference of copying'.
Podobnosti so prvotne in tako izrazite, da upravičujejo ugotovitev, da je bil eden kopiran od drugega ali, z drugimi besedami, dovolj številčne ali obsežne, da utemeljujejo sklep o kopiranju.
Accordingly, the similarities between the copyrights and the contested EUTM are such that they are sufficiently close, numerous and extensive to be rather the result of copying than of coincidence.
V skladu s tem so podobnosti med avtorskima pravicama in izpodbijano blagovno znamko EU dovolj nadrobne, številne in obsežne, da so posledica kopiranja, ne pa naključja.
(earlier RCD) (shape of a teabag) 14/02/2012, R 2492/20102
(prejšnji registrirani model Skupnosti) (oblika čajne vrečke) 14/02/2012, R 2492/20102
‘Article 19(1) Council Regulation CDR states that a registered Community design confers on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any third party not having his consent from using it.
Člen 19(1) Uredbe Sveta o modelih Skupnosti določa, da registrirani model Skupnosti imetniku podeljuje izključno pravico do njegove uporabe in do tega, da prepreči njegovo uporabo vsaki tretji osebi, ki nima njegovega soglasja.
The aforementioned use covers, in particular, the making, offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or using of a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product for those purposes.
Navedena uporaba zajema zlasti izdelovanje, ponujanje, dajanje na trg, uvažanje, izvažanje ali uporabljanje izdelka, v katerega je videz izdelka vgrajen ali na katerega je pritrjen, ali skladiščenje takšnega izdelka v te namene.
According to Article 10(1) CDR the scope of the protection conferred by a Community design includes any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.
V skladu s členom 10(1) Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti obseg varstva iz modela Skupnosti zajema vsak videz izdelka, ki na seznanjenega uporabnika ne naredi drugačnega celotnega vtisa.
The earlier RCD and the contested EUTM provoke a different overall impression.
Prejšnji model Skupnosti in izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU dajeta drugačen celoten vtis.
… Furthermore, it is observed that the earlier RCD introduces additional differences, such as the presence of a remarked base that does not form part of the contested EUTM.
[…] Poleg tega se ugotavlja, da ima prejšnji model Skupnosti dodatne razlike, kot je dobro vidna osnovna ploskev, ki je izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU nima.
In the letters sent to the Office and to the applicant, the interveners expressly stated that the withdrawal of the oppositions would be followed up with applications for a declaration of invalidity once those marks were registered.
Intervenienta sta v dopisih, poslanih Uradu in prijavitelju, izrecno navedla, da bosta po umiku ugovorov vložila zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti, ko bosta zadevni znamki registrirani.
That withdrawal does not, in law, have any effect on the lawfulness of the filing of a future application for a declaration of invalidity.
Umik pravno ne učinkuje na zakonitost vložitve prihodnje zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
There is no provision in the EUTMR that provides, at least expressly, that the withdrawal of an opposition entails the renunciation of the right to file an application for a declaration of invalidity (paras 43-45).
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU ne vsebuje določbe, ki bi, vsaj izrecno, določala, da umik ugovora pomeni odpoved pravici do vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (točke od 43 do 45).
The Court also stated that there is no consent to the extension of the coexistence agreement to the contested mark and goods (para. 51).
Sodišče je navedlo še, da ni soglasja k razširitvi sporazuma o soobstoju na izpodbijano znamko in blago (točka 51).
The mark to which the coexistence agreement relates and the contested figurative mark are different, with the result that coexistence agreement cannot apply to the latter mark, to which it does not relate, and which is not, in any event, identical to the mark covered by the agreement (para. 53).
Znamka, na katero se nanaša sporazum o soglasju, in izpodbijana figurativna znamka sta različni, zato se sporazum o soglasju ne more uporabljati za zadnjenavedeno znamko, na katero se ne nanaša in ki ni nikakor enaka znamki, zajeti s sporazumom (točka 53).
The cancellation applicant made the express offer ‘to withdraw the opposition' in exchange for the limitation of the list of goods applied for on the part of the proprietor.
Vložnik zahteve za izbris je predložil izrecno ponudbo, da bo „umaknil ugovo“r, če bo imetnik omejil seznam blaga, za katero je vložil prijavo.
The Board of Appeal noted that the unequivocal offer, corresponding to the subsequent limitation of the list of goods, became legally binding as soon as it was accepted by the proprietor.
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da je nedvoumna ponudba, ki je ustrezala poznejši omejitvi seznama blaga, postala pravno zavezujoča takoj, ko jo je imetnik sprejel.
It was conclusively executed by the express, unconditional (once the condition of the limitation had been fulfilled) and unequivocal withdrawal of the opposition filed by the cancellation applicant.
Dokončno je bila izvršena z izrecnim, brezpogojnim (ko je bil izpolnjen pogoj glede omejitve) in nedvoumnim umikom ugovora, ki ga je vložil vložnik zahteve za izbris.
Taking into account the foregoing, the Board concluded that the cancellation applicant consented expressly and unequivocally to the registration of the contested EUTM, which therefore should not have been declared invalid by the contested decision … (paras 27, 30 and 31).
Odbor je ob upoštevanju navedenega ugotovil, da je vložnik zahteve za izbris izrecno in nedvoumno privolil v registracijo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, ki zato z izpodbijano odločbo ne bi smela biti razglašena za nično […] (točke 27, 30 in 31).
The Board of Appeal examined the coexistence agreement and the interpretation thereof by the French courts.
Odbor za pritožbe je proučil sporazum o soobstoju in njegovo razlago, kot so jo navedla francoska sodišča.
It concluded that the French courts construed the coexistence agreement as conferring a right on the part of the EUTM proprietor to register marks, other than ‘SKYROCK' and ‘SKYZIN', that contain the prefix ‘SKY'.
Sklenil je, da so francoska sodišča sporazum o soobstoju razlagala tako, da imetniku blagovne znamke EU podeljuje pravico do registracije blagovnih znamk, razen blagovnih znamk „SKYROCK“ in „SKYZIN“, ki vsebujeta predpono „SKY“.
‘That agreement has a worldwide scope of application and therefore applies to European Union trade mark applications or registrations, such as the one in dispute in the present case' (para. 32).
„Ta sporazum se uporablja po vsem svetu in zato velja tudi za prijavo ali registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije, kot je ta, ki je predmet spora v zadevnem primeru“ (točka 32).
BASILE T133/09 (C381/12 P appeal dismissed)
BASILE T133/09 (C381/12 P, pritožba zavrnjena)
The appeal applicant did not adduce ‘any evidence capable of establishing when the intervener became aware of the use of the contested trade mark after its registration.
Pritožnik ni predložil nobenih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče opredeliti, kdaj se je začel intervenient zavedati uporabe izpodbijane blagovne znamke po njeni registraciji.
It merely stated that the contested trade mark had been used for more than five years in Italy and that the intervener must have been aware of that use.
Navedel je le, da se je izpodbijana blagovna znamka v Italiji uporabljala več kot pet let in da se je intervenient gotovo zavedal te uporabe.
Nevertheless, … less than five years had elapsed between the date of registration of the contested trade mark and the date when the application for a declaration of invalidity was filed, as use of that mark prior to its registration is not relevant since it had not yet been registered' (para. 34).
Vendar je od datuma registracije izpodbijane blagovne znamke do datuma vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti minilo manj kot pet let, saj uporaba navedene znamke pred njeno registracijo ni upoštevna, ker takrat še ni bila registrirana (točka 34).
20/07/2012, R 2230/20104 (confirmed by T417/12)
20/07/2012, R 2230/20104 (potrjena s sodbo z dne T417/12)
‘The late evidence [submitted] by the EUTM proprietor shows that in 2005 “AQUA FLOW” branded products were being distributed by various companies in Spain including Hydro Sud.
Dokazi, ki jih je imetnik blagovne znamke EU predložil prepozno, kažejo, da so izdelke blagovne znamke „AQUA FLOW“ leta 2005 distribuirale različne španske družbe, vključno s Hydro Sud.
It is claimed that the cancellation applicant was aware of that use.
Glede na trditve je vložnik zahteve za izbris vedel za to uporabo.
The EUTM proprietor furnished three invoices to third companies located in Spain: “Hydro Sud”, “Tonocolor SL Hydro Sud” and “H2O Problematica del Agua”.
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU je predložil tri fakture, izdane tretjim podjetjem s sedežem v Španiji: „Hydro Sud“, „Tonocolor SL Hydro Sud“ in „H2O Problematica del Agua“.
These invoices are dated 18 June 2004, 31 May 2005 and 31 July 2006 and contain headings with a representation of the mark “AQUA FLOW”.
Računi so z dne 18. junija 2004, 31. maja 2005 in 31. julija 2006 ter vsebujejo glave s prikazom znamke „AQUA FLOW“.
However, all these invoices postdate May 2004 (five years before the date of the cancellation request (May 2009).
Vendar je na vseh teh računih naveden datum po maju 2004 (pet let pred datumom zahteve za izbris (maj 2009)).
Under the assumption that the cancellation applicant had knowledge of them, or of the underlying commercial transactions, this would not be enough for the finding that there was an uninterrupted period of five years preceding the cancellation request …' (paras 21-22).
Če se domneva, da je vložnik zahteve za izbris vedel zanje ali za osnovne trgovinske posle, to ne zadošča za ugotovitev, da je privolitev trajala neprekinjeno pet let pred zahtevo za izbris […] (točki 21 in 22).
Therefore, the EUTM proprietor's claim of acquiescence was dismissed.
Zato je bila zahteva imetnika blagovne znamke EU za omejitev zaradi privolitve zavrnjena.
In the present case, the arguments and materials submitted by the parties do not allow for the conclusion that the contested mark was used in Germany and that the cancellation applicants could reasonably be presumed to be aware of that use and to have acquiesced, for five successive years, in that use ... the sole elements that would suggest some connection with Germany and on which the EUTM proprietor relies primarily on appeal (i.e. the figures related to the unique local distributor and the internet excerpts examined in light of the correspondence of 2001 between the parties) are insufficient to hold that the cancellation applicants have acquiesced in the long and well-established honest use of the contested mark in Germany' (para. 47).
V obravnavanem primeru trditve in gradivo, ki so jih predložile stranke, ne omogočajo sprejetja sklepne ugotovitve, da se je izpodbijana znamka uporabljala v Nemčiji in da je mogoče razumno domnevati, da so bili vložniki zahteve za izbris seznanjeni z navedeno uporabo in so vanjo privolili pet let zapored […], edini elementi, ki kažejo na nekakšno povezavo z Nemčijo in na katere se imetnik blagovne znamke EU v glavnem sklicuje v pritožbi (npr. podatki v zvezi z edinim lokalnim distributerjem in izvlečki s spleta, proučeni glede na korespondenco med strankami iz leta 2001), pa ne zadoščajo za ugotovitev, da so vložniki zahteve za izbris privolili v dolgotrajno in uveljavljeno pošteno uporabo izpodbijane znamke v Nemčiji (točka 47).
The request for invalidity is based on the earlier UK trade mark registration.
Zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti temelji na prejšnji registraciji blagovne znamke v Združenem kraljestvu.
There was no dispute as to the fact that there was a verbal coexistence agreement in force concerning the United Kingdom from 2004 onwards (although there was no agreement as to its exact content).
Dejstvo, da je od leta 2004 v zvezi z Združenim kraljestvom veljal ustni sporazum o soglasju, ni bilo sporno (čeprav njegova natančna vsebina ni bila dogovorjena).
The Board indicates that as long as there existed coexistence agreement between the parties, the cancellation applicant had no reason to prohibit this use of the latter EUTM.
Odbor je navedel, da vložnik zahteve za izbris ni imel razloga za prepoved te uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke EU, če je med strankama obstajal sporazum o soglasju.
In the present case the moment in time when the proprietor of the earlier trade had the option of not acquiescing in the use of the contested EUTM could be 16/02/2010, when, according to the cancellation applicant, the verbal agreement between the parties was breached and ceased.
V obravnavani zadevi bi lahko bil trenutek, ko je imel imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke možnost, da ne privoli v uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, 16. februar 2010, ko je bil po navedbah vložnika zahteve za izbris kršen ustni sporazum, ki se je prenehal uporabljati.
There is no evidence that the cancellation applicant had this option earlier.
Ni dokazov, da je imel vložnik zahteve za izbris to možnost na voljo pred tem.