natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR:
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU:
In the absence of proof to this effect, the opposition shall be rejected.
To besedilo je rezultat Uredbe (EU) 2015/2424 o spremembi, ki je začela veljati 23. marca 2016.
This wording is the result of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 , which entered into force on 23/03/2016.
[3: Uredba (EU) 2015/2424 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2015 o spremembi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
In accordance with Article 47(3) EUTMR:
Člen 47(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa:
Paragraph 2 shall apply to earlier national trade marks referred to in Article 8(2)(a), by substituting use in the Member State in which the earlier national trade mark is protected for use in the Union.
Odstavek 2 se uporabi za prejšnje nacionalne blagovne znamke iz člena 8(2)(a), pri čemer se uporaba v državi članici, v kateri je prejšnja nacionalna blagovna znamka varovana, zamenja z uporabo v Uniji.
There is no express provision in the EUTMR that such forms of use as mentioned in Article 18(1) and (2) EUTMR may also be regarded as use of earlier national trade marks.
V Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU ni izrecne določbe, da je mogoče za uporabo prejšnjih nacionalnih blagovnih znamk šteti tudi takšne oblike uporabe, ki so navedene v členu 18(1) in (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, the concept of the obligation to use the registered mark is harmonised as a consequence of Article 10(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version).
Vendar je bil pojem obveznost uporabe registrirane znamke usklajen s členom 10(2) in (3) Direktive 2008/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. oktobra 2008 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z znamkami (kodificirana različica).
Hence, it is appropriate to apply the same substantive provision as Article 18(1) and (2) EUTMR to the use of earlier national trade marks, with the only difference being that such use must be made in the Member State in which the national mark is registered.
Zato je ustrezno, da se enaka vsebinska določba uporablja kot člen 18(1) in (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU tudi za uporabo prejšnjih nacionalnih blagovnih znamk z edino razliko, da je morala taka uporaba potekati v državi članici, v kateri je zadevna nacionalna znamka registrirana.
Moreover, it follows from the wording of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR that proof of use can only be requested if the earlier right is an EUTM or other trade mark having effect in the EU or an EU Member State, as defined in Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR.
Poleg tega iz besedila člena 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izhaja, da je mogoče dokaz o uporabi zahtevati le, če je prejšnja pravica blagovna znamka EU ali druga blagovna znamka z učinkom v EU ali državi članici EU, kot je določeno v členu 8(2)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Since oppositions brought under Article 8(4) EUTMR cannot be based on either EUTMs or other trade marks referred to in Article 8(2)(a) EUTMR, the EUTM applicant is not entitled to request proof of use for earlier rights relied upon in oppositions brought under this provision.
Ker ugovori na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne morejo temeljiti na blagovnih znamkah EU ali drugih blagovnih znamkah iz člena 8(2)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU ne more zahtevati dokaza o uporabi za prejšnje pravice, ki se uveljavljajo v ugovorih, vloženih na podlagi te določbe.
Nevertheless, Article 8(4) EUTMR requires the opponent to prove use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance for the earlier rights in question.
Vendar mora vložnik ugovora v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dokazati uporabo zadevnih prejšnjih pravic v gospodarskem prometu, ki nima le lokalnega pomena.
As for Article 8(3) EUTMR, the Office's practice is that requests for proof of use of the earlier right cannot be made.
Praksa Urada v zvezi s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je, da ni mogoče predložiti zahtev za dokaz o uporabi prejšnje pravice.
The reason is that such earlier rights include both trade marks having effect in the EU/EU Member States (EUTMs, national trade marks, IRs) and national non-EUTMs, requests for proof of use of the latter not being possible under the EUTMR.
Takšne prejšnje pravice namreč vključujejo blagovne znamke z učinkom v EU/državah članicah EU (blagovne znamke EU, nacionalne blagovne znamke, mednarodne registracije) in nacionalne blagovne znamke, registrirane v tretjih državah, pri čemer v skladu z Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče predložiti zahtev za dokaz o uporabi zadnjenavedenih.
It would be discriminatory to request proof of use for some countries' trade marks but not for others.
Zahtevati dokaz o uporabi za blagovne znamke nekaterih držav, in ne za blagovne znamke drugih bi bilo diskriminacijsko.
Accordingly, and in view of the specific subject matter for protection under Article 8(3) EUTMR, while the use or lack of use made of the earlier rights may have a bearing on arguments regarding the justification for applying for the EUTM, the opponent cannot be obliged to provide proof of use under Article 47(3) EUTMR for any earlier rights thereby relied upon.
V skladu s tem in zaradi posebnega predmeta varstva na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU od vložnika ugovora ni mogoče zahtevati, naj predloži dokaz o uporabi na podlagi člena 47(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za vse tako uveljavljane prejšnje pravice, čeprav lahko uporaba oziroma neuporaba prejšnjih pravic vpliva na trditve glede utemeljenosti prijave blagovne znamke EU.
1.2.1.3 Article 10 EUTMDR - procedural rules, evidence and language
Člen 10 Delegirane uredbe - postopkovna pravila, dokazi in jezik
In accordance with Article 10(2) EUTMDR, where, pursuant to Article 47(2) or (3) EUTMR, the opponent has to submit proof of use or show that there are proper reasons for non-use, the Office will invite the opponent to provide the proof required within a period specified by the Office.
V skladu s členom 10(2) Delegirane uredbe velja, da če mora vložnik ugovora v skladu s členom 47(2) ali (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU predložiti dokaz o uporabi ali dokazati, da obstajajo upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo, ga bo Urad pozval, naj zahtevani dokaz predloži v določenem roku.
If the opponent does not provide such proof before the time limit expires, the Office will reject the opposition.
Če vložnik ugovora takšnega dokaza ne predloži pred iztekom roka, bo Urad zavrnil ugovor.
In accordance with Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the indications and evidence required to prove use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods and services in respect of which it is registered and on which the opposition is based, and evidence in support of these indications in accordance with paragraph 4.
V skladu s členom 10(3) Delegirane uredbe morajo podatki in dokazila za dokaz o uporabi zajemati podatke o kraju, času, obsegu in naravi uporabe blagovne znamke v koliziji za blago in storitve, za katere je registrirana in na kateri temelji ugovor, in dokazi, ki podpirajo te podatke v skladu z odstavkom 4.
In accordance with Article 10(4) EUTMDR, the evidence must consist of written documents and in principle be confined to supporting documents and items such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs, newspaper advertisements, and statements in writing as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
V skladu s členom 10(4) Delegirane uredbe morajo dokazi zajemati pisne dokumente in biti načeloma omejena na dodatno dokumentacijo in predmete, kot so embalaže, nalepke, ceniki, katalogi, računi, fotografije, časopisni oglasi in pisne izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In accordance with Article 10(5) EUTMDR, a request for proof of use may be submitted at the same time as observations on the grounds on which the opposition is based.
V skladu s členom 10(5) Delegirane uredbe se lahko zahteva za dokaz o uporabi predloži skupaj s pripombami o razlogih, na katerih temelji ugovor.
Such observations may also be filed together with the observations in reply to the proof of use.
Te pripombe se lahko vložijo tudi skupaj s pripombami v odgovor na dokaz o uporabi.
In accordance with Article 10(6) EUTMDR, where the evidence submitted pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 is not in the language of the opposition proceedings, the Office may require the opponent to submit a translation of the evidence in that language, within a period specified by the Office.
Če v skladu s členom 10(6) Delegirane uredbe dokazi, predloženi na podlagi odstavkov 1, 2 in 3, niso v jeziku postopka ugovora, lahko Urad od vložnika ugovora zahteva, naj predloži prevod teh dokazov v navedenem jeziku v roku, ki ga določi Urad.
1.2.2 The Directive and national law implementing it
Direktiva in nacionalno pravo, s katerim se izvaja
Article 16 of the Directive contains provisions identical to Article 18 EUTMR, except with ‘use in the Union' being replaced by ‘use in the Member State'.
Člen 16 Direktive vsebuje določbe, ki so enake tistim iz člena 18 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, le izraz uporaba v Evropski uniji je bil nadomeščen z izrazom uporaba v državi članici.
2 Substantive Law
Materialno pravo
2.1 Genuine use: the principles of the Court of Justice
Resna in dejanska uporaba: načela Sodišča
The EUTMR, the EUTMDR and the EUTMIR do not define what is to be regarded as ‘genuine use'.
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU, Delegirana uredba in Izvedbena uredba ne vključujejo opredelitve pojma resna in dejanska uporaba.
However, the Court of Justice (the ‘Court') has laid down several important principles as regards the interpretation of this term.
Vendar je Sodišče določilo več pomembnih načel v zvezi z razlago tega izraza.
In Minimax (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145), the Court established the following principles:
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Minimax (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145) opredelilo naslednja načela:
genuine use means actual use of the mark (paragraph 35);
resna in dejanska uporaba pomeni dejansko uporabo znamke (točka 35),
genuine use must, therefore, be understood to denote use that is not merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the mark (paragraph 36);
resno in dejansko uporabo je treba zato razumeti kot uporabo, ki ni zgolj simbolična in katere edini cilj ni ohranjanje varstva pravic znamke (točka 36),
genuine use must be consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling the latter, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others that have another origin (paragraph 36);
resna in dejanska uporaba blagovne znamke mora biti skladna z bistveno funkcijo blagovne znamke, kar pomeni, da mora potrošniku ali končnemu uporabniku zagotavljati istovetnost izvora proizvoda ali storitve in mu brez verjetnosti zmede omogočiti razlikovanje tega proizvoda ali storitve od tistih, ki izvirajo od drugod (točka 36),
genuine use entails use of the mark on the market for the goods or services protected by that mark and not just internal use by the undertaking concerned (paragraph 37);
resna in dejanska uporaba znamke pomeni uporabo znamke na trgu za blago ali storitve, ki so varovani s to znamko, in ne samo za notranjo uporabo zadevnega podjetja (točka 37),
genuine use must relate to goods or services already marketed or about to be marketed and for which preparations by the undertaking to secure customers are under way, particularly in the form of advertising campaigns (paragraph 37);
resna in dejanska uporaba se mora nanašati na blago ali storitve, ki se že tržijo ali se bodo kmalu začeli tržiti in v zvezi s katerimi podjetje že izvaja dejavnosti za pritegnitev strank, zlasti z oglaševalskimi kampanjami (točka 37),
when assessing whether there has been genuine use, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, in particular whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark (paragraph 38);
presoja resne in dejanske uporabe mora temeljiti na vseh dejstvih in okoliščinah, ki so pomembni za ugotovitev resnične uporabe znamke na trgu, zlasti tega, ali se v zadevnem gospodarskem sektorju taka uporaba upošteva kot upravičena za ohranjanje ali ustvarjanje deleža na trgu za blago ali storitve, ki jih varuje znamka (točka 38),
the circumstances of the case may, therefore, include giving consideration, inter alia, to the nature of the goods or services at issue, the characteristics of the market concerned and the scale and frequency of use of the mark (paragraph 39);
okoliščine zadeve lahko zato vključujejo obravnavo med drugim narave zadevnega blaga ali storitev, značilnosti zadevnega trga ter obsega in pogostosti uporabe znamke (točka 39),
use need not, therefore, always be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine, as that depends on the characteristics of the goods or services concerned on the corresponding market (paragraph 39).
zato ni nujno, da je obseg uporabe prejšnje blagovne znamke vedno zelo velik, da bi jo bilo mogoče šteti za resno in dejansko, saj je ta odvisen od značilnosti zadevnega blaga ali storitev na ustreznem trgu (točka 39).
In its order of 27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, the Court further elaborated the Minimax criteria as follows:
Sodišče je v sklepu 27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, dodatno opredelilo merila iz zadeve Minimax, kot sledi:
the question whether use is sufficient to preserve or create market share for the goods or services concerned depends on several factors and on a case-by-case assessment.
vprašanje, ali uporaba zadostuje za ohranjanje in ustvarjanje deleža na trgu za zadevno blago ali storitve, je odvisno od številnih dejavnikov in presoje vsakega primera posebej.
The characteristics of the goods and services, the frequency or regularity of the use of the mark, whether the mark is used for the purpose of marketing all the identical goods or services of the proprietor or merely some of them, or evidence that the proprietor is able to provide, are among the factors that may be taken into account (paragraph 22);
Značilnosti blaga in storitev, pogostost ali rednost uporabe znamke, dejstvo, ali se znamka uporablja za trženje vsega enakega blaga ali storitev imetnika ali le za njihov del, ali dokazi o uporabi blagovne znamke, ki jih lahko priskrbi imetnik, so nekateri od dejavnikov, ki jih je mogoče upoštevati (točka 22),
use of the mark by a single client that imports the goods for which the mark is registered can be sufficient to demonstrate that such use is genuine, if it appears that the import operation has a genuine commercial justification for the proprietor of the mark (paragraph 24);
uporaba blagovne znamke s strani ene stranke, ki uvaža blago, za katero je blagovna znamka registrirana, lahko zadostuje za dokaz, da je takšna uporaba resna in dejanska, če se zdi, da je dejavnost uvoza pristen poslovni razlog za imetnika znamke (točka 24),
a de minimis rule cannot be laid down (paragraph 25).
pravila de minimis ni mogoče določiti (točka 25).
2.2 Genuine use: standard of proof applied by the Office
Resna in dejanska uporaba: dokazni standard, ki ga uporablja Urad
Article 47 EUTMR requires proof of genuine use of the earlier mark.
V skladu s členom 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba predložiti dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi prejšnje znamke.
Genuine use of a trade mark cannot be proved by means of probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence of effective and sufficient use of the trade mark on the market concerned (18/01/2011, T382/08, Vogue, EU:T:2011:9, § 22).
Resna in dejanska uporaba blagovne znamke ne more biti izkazana z verjetnimi elementi ali domnevami, ampak mora temeljiti na konkretnih in objektivnih elementih, ki dokazujejo resnično in zadostno uporabo blagovne znamke na zadevnem trgu (18/01/2011, T382/08, Vogue, EU:T:2011:9, § 22).
Moreover, the Office cannot determine ex officio the genuine use of earlier marks.
Poleg tega Urad po uradni dolžnosti ne more opredeliti resne in dejanske uporabe prejšnjih znamk.
Even proprietors of purportedly well-known marks must submit evidence to prove genuine use of the earlier mark(s).
Tudi imetniki domnevno dobro znanih znamk morajo predložiti dokaze o resni in dejanski uporabi prejšnje(-ih) znamke (znamk).
The Office does not necessarily require a high threshold of proof of genuine use.
Urad ne zahteva nujno visokega dokaznega praga za resno in dejansko uporabo.
The Court has indicated that it is not possible to prescribe, in the abstract, what quantitative threshold should be chosen in order to determine whether use was genuine or not, and accordingly there can be no objective de minimis rule to establish a priori the level of use needed in order for it to be ‘genuine'.
Sodišče je navedlo, da ni mogoče vnaprej abstraktno določiti količinskega praga, ki ga je treba doseči, da bi se lahko uporaba štela za resno in dejansko, zato objektivnega pravila de minimis ni mogoče določiti za vnaprejšnjo opredelitev stopnje uporabe, ki je potrebna za to, da je uporaba resna in dejanska.
So, whilst a minimum extent of use must be shown, what exactly constitutes this minimum extent depends on the circumstances of each case.
Čeprav je treba dokazati minimalen obseg uporabe, je natančna opredelitev tega minimuma odvisna od okoliščin posameznega primera.
The general rule is that, when it serves a real commercial purpose, even minimal use of the trade mark could be sufficient to establish genuine use, depending on the goods and services, and the relevant market (23/09/2009, T409/07, acopat, EU:T:2009:354, § 35 and case-law cited therein; 02/02/2012, T387/10, Arantax, EU:T:2012:51, § 42).
Splošno pravilo je, da če se blagovna znamka uporablja za dejanski komercialni namen, tudi minimalna uporaba blagovne znamke zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja resne in dejanske uporabe, odvisno od blaga in storitev ter upoštevnega trga (23/09/2009, T409/07, acopat, EU:T:2009:354, § 35 in citirana soda praksa; 02/02/2012, T387/10, Arantax, EU:T:2012:51, § 42).
In other words, it is sufficient if the evidence of use proves that the trade mark owner has seriously tried to acquire or maintain a commercial position in the relevant market as opposed to having solely used the mark with the intention of preserving the rights conferred by the mark (token use).
Z drugimi besedami, zadostovalo bo, če je iz dokazov o uporabi razvidno, da je imetnik blagovne znamke resno poskušal pridobiti ali ohraniti tržni položaj na upoštevnem trgu, ne pa da je blagovno znamko uporabljal le, da bi ohranil pravice, ki iz nje izhajajo (simbolična uporaba).
For instance, in some cases, relatively few sales might be sufficient to conclude that the use is not merely token, in particular with regard to expensive goods (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22).
V nekaterih primerih lahko na primer že razmeroma majhen obseg prodaje zadostuje za ugotovitev, da uporaba ni le simbolična, zlasti v zvezi z dragim blagom (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22).
Nonetheless, even if inter alia a very modest amount of use can suffice in certain circumstances, proprietors should adduce comprehensive evidence of use.
Kljub temu morajo imetniki predložiti izčrpne dokaze o uporabi, čeprav lahko v nekaterih okoliščinah med drugim zadostuje že zelo majhen obseg uporabe.
According to Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the indications and evidence required in order to provide proof of use must concern the place, time, extent and nature of use of the opponent's trade mark for the relevant goods and services.
V skladu s členom 10(3) Delegirane uredbe se morajo podatki in dokazi o uporabi nanašati na kraj, čas, obseg in naravo uporabe blagovne znamke vložnika ugovora za zadevno blago in storitve.
These requirements for proof of use are cumulative (05/10/2010, T92/09, STRATEGI / Stratégies, EU:T:2010:424, § 43).
Te zahteve za dokaz o uporabi so kumulativne (05/10/2010, T92/09, STRATEGI / Stratégies, EU:T:2010:424, § 43).
This means that the opponent is obliged not only to indicate but also to prove each of these requirements.
To pomeni, da mora vložnik ugovora navesti in dokazati vsako od teh zahtev.
However, the sufficiency of the indication and proof as to the place, time, extent and nature of use has to be considered in view of the entirety of the evidence submitted.
Vendar je treba zadostnost navedb in dokazov glede kraja, časa, obsega in narave uporabe presojati na podlagi vseh predloženih dokazov.
A separate assessment of the various relevant factors, each considered in isolation, is not suitable (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 31).
Ločena presoja različnih upoštevnih dejavnikov, pri čemer se vsak od njih obravnava posebej, ni primerna (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 31).
Thus, the Office evaluates the evidence submitted in an overall assessment.
Urad zato predložene dokaze presoja v okviru celovite presoje.
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account and all the materials submitted must be assessed in conjunction with each other.
Upoštevati je treba vse okoliščine nekega primera in, vse predloženo gradivo je treba presojati skupaj.
Therefore, although pieces of evidence may be insufficient by themselves to prove the use of an earlier trade mark, they may contribute to proving use in combination with other documentation and information.
Zato lahko dokazi, čeprav posamično morda ne zadostujejo za dokaz o uporabi prejšnje blagovne znamke, skupaj z drugimi dokumenti in informacijami prispevajo k dokazovanju uporabe.
Evidence of use may be of an indirect/circumstantial nature, such as evidence about the share in the relevant market, the importing of the relevant goods, the supply of the necessary raw materials or packaging to the owner of the mark, or the expiry date of the relevant goods.
Dokazi o uporabi so lahko posredni, na primer dokazi o deležu na upoštevnem trgu, uvozu upoštevnega blaga, dobavi potrebnih surovin ali embalaže imetniku blagovne znamke ali roku uporabe upoštevnega blaga.
For instance, the judgment of 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq. found that catalogues in themselves could - under certain circumstances - be conclusive evidence of sufficient extent of use.
Tako je bilo na primer v sodbi 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq., ugotovljeno, da so lahko katalogi kot taki v nekaterih okoliščinah prepričljiv dokaz o zadostnem obsegu uporabe.
It is necessary to take into account the specific kind of the goods and services involved when assessing the probative value of the evidence submitted.
Pri presoji dokazne vrednosti predloženih dokazov je treba upoštevati posebno vrsto zadevnega blaga in storitev.
For example, it may be common in a particular market sector for the samples of the goods and services themselves not to bear indications of the place, time, extent and nature of use.
V nekem tržnem sektorju je morda na primer običajno, da vzorci blaga in storitev niso opremljeni s podatki o kraju, času, obsegu in naravi uporabe.
In these cases it is obviously inappropriate to disregard such evidence of use if indications in this respect can be found in the other evidence submitted.
V teh primerih seveda ni ustrezno, da se takšni dokazi o uporabi ne upoštevajo, če so podatki v zvezi s tem morda na voljo v drugih predloženih dokazih.