natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, under certain national laws, rights in a company name may be invoked, as long as the company name has been used, prior to the registration of the entity in the companies register.
Vendar se je mogoče na podlagi nekaterih nacionalnih zakonodaj sklicevati na pravice v zvezi z imenom podjetja, če se je ime podjetja uporabljalo pred vpisom subjekta v register podjetij.
The following is an example where the opponent invoked prior rights in a company name used in the course of trade in Germany that was not registered at the time of filing the contested EUTM application.
Naveden je primer, ko se je vložnik ugovora skliceval na prejšnje pravice v zvezi z imenom podjetja, ki se je uporabljalo v gospodarskem prometu v Nemčiji in ki v času vložitve izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU ni bilo registrirano.
A sign is used in the course of trade where that use occurs in the context of commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter.
Znak se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu, če se navedena uporaba izvaja v okviru poslovne dejavnosti zaradi pridobivanja gospodarske koristi, in ne na zasebnem področju.
Therefore, the Office will reject an opposition in the absence of actual use of the invoked sign.
Zato bo Urad v odsotnosti dejanske uporabe znaka, na katerega se vložnik ugovora sklicuje, ugovor zavrnil.
The following are examples where the opponent failed to meet this basic requirement.
Navedena sta primera, ko vložnik ugovora ni izpolnjeval te osnovne zahteve.
3.3.2.2 Use of more than mere local significance
Uporaba z več kot le lokalnim pomenom
Rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR may only be invoked if their use is of more than mere local significance.
Na pravice, ki spadajo v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, se je mogoče sklicevati samo, če je njihova uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
This requirement applies for all the rights within the scope of Article 8(4) EUTMR, that is, both to unregistered trade marks and to other trade signs identifying commercial origin.
Ta zahteva se uporablja za vse pravice na področju uporabe člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, tj. za neregistrirane blagovne znamke in druge trgovske znake, ki označujejo tržni izvor.
The proprietors of rights the use of which is of mere local significance retain their exclusive rights under the applicable national law pursuant to Article 138 EUTMR.
Imetniki pravic, katerih uporaba je več kot le lokalnega pomena, ohranijo svoje izključne pravice v okviru veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje v skladu s členom 138 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The question whether the use of a non-registered sign is of more than mere local significance will be answered by applying a uniform European standard (18/04/2013, T506/11 & T507/11, Peek & Cloppenburg, EU:T:2013:197, § 19, 47-48).
Na vprašanje, ali je uporaba neregistriranega znaka več kot le lokalnega pomena, se odgovori z uporabo enotnega evropskega standarda (18/04/2013, T506/11 in T507/11, Peek & Cloppenburg, EU:T:2013:197, § 19, 47-48).
The General Court held that the significance of a sign used to identify specific business activities must be established in relation to the identifying function of that sign.
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je treba pomen znaka, ki se uporablja za označevanje specifičnih poslovnih dejavnosti, opredeliti glede na njegovo vlogo označevanja.
That consideration means that account must be taken, firstly, of the geographical dimension of the sign's significance, that is to say, of the territory in which it is used to identify its proprietor's economic activity, as is apparent from a textual interpretation of Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Ta ugotovitev pomeni, da je treba upoštevati, prvič, ozemeljsko razsežnost pomena znaka, torej ozemlje, na katerem se uporablja za označevanje gospodarske dejavnosti njegovega imetnika, kot je razvidno iz besedne razlage člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Account must be taken, secondly, of the economic dimension of the sign's significance, which is assessed in view of the length of time for which it has fulfilled its function in the course of trade and the degree to which it has been used, of the group of addressees among which the sign in question has become known as a distinctive element, namely consumers, competitors or even suppliers, or even of the exposure given to the sign, for example, through advertising or on the internet (24/03/2009, T318/06 - T321/06, General Optica, EU:T:2009:77, § 36-37; 30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 19).
Upoštevati je treba, drugič, gospodarsko razsežnost pomena znaka, ki se presoja ob upoštevanju časa, v katerem je imetnik opravljal svojo vlogo v gospodarskem prometu, in intenzivnosti njegove uporabe glede na krog naslovnikov, ki jim je zadevni znak postal znan kot razlikovalni element, torej potrošnikom, konkurentom ali celo dobaviteljem, in glede na širjenje prepoznavnosti znaka na primer z oglaševanjem ali po spletu (24/03/2009, T318/06 - T321/06, General Optica, EU:T:2009:77, § 36-37; 30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 19).
The Court of Justice clarified that the significance of a sign cannot be a function of the mere geographical extent of its protection, since, if that were the case, a sign whose protection is not merely local could, by virtue of that fact alone, prevent registration of a European Union trade mark, even though the sign might be used only to a very limited extent in the course of trade.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da pomen znaka ne more biti odvisen le od geografskega obsega njegovega varstva, saj če bi bilo tako, bi lahko znak, ki ni zaščiten le v lokalnem obsegu, že le zato oviral registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije, in to tudi če bi se v gospodarskem prometu uporabljal le v zelo omejenem obsegu.
The sign must be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 158-159).
Znak se mora uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu v dovolj velikem obsegu in imeti geografski obseg, ki je več kot le lokalen, kar pomeni, da se ta znak, kadar je mogoče šteti, da ozemlje, na katerem je zaščiten, ni le lokalno, uporablja na velikem delu tega ozemlja (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 158-159).
However, it is not possible to establish a priori, in an abstract manner, which part of a territory must be used to prove that the use of a sign is of more than mere local significance.
Vendar ni mogoče vnaprej teoretično določiti, kateri del ozemlja je treba uporabiti kot dokaz, da je uporaba znaka več kot le lokalnega pomena.
Therefore, the assessment of the sign's significance must be made in concreto, according to the circumstances of each case.
Zato je treba izvesti konkretno oceno pomena znaka v skladu z okoliščinami posameznega primera.
Therefore, the criterion of ‘more than mere local significance' is more than just a geographical examination.
Iz tega sledi, da merilo „več kot le lokalni pomen“ vključuje več kot le proučitev ozemeljske razsežnosti.
The economic impact of the use of the sign must also be evaluated.
Proučiti je treba tudi gospodarski učinek uporabe znaka.
Consideration must be given, and the evidence must relate, to these elements:
Upoštevati je treba naslednje elemente, na katere se morajo nanašati tudi dokaze:
a) the intensity of use (sales made under the sign)
intenzivnost uporabe (prodaje na podlagi znaka);
b) the length of use
trajanje uporabe;
c) the spread of the goods (location of the customers)
razširjenost blaga (lokacija strank);
d) the advertising under the sign and the media used for that advertising, including the distribution of the advertising.
oglaševanje na podlagi znaka in sredstva, ki se uporabljajo za navedeno oglaševanje, vključno z razširjanjem oglasov.
In the following examples, both the geographic and the economic dimension of use of the sign were found to meet the standards.
V naslednjih primerih sta ozemeljska in gospodarska razsežnost znaka v skladu s standardi.
As far as the use of the sign is concerned, in general, neither the territory of a city alone, even a large one, nor a regional district or province, is of more than mere local significance.
V zvezi z uporabo znaka na splošno ni več kot le lokalnega pomena niti samo ozemlje mesta, tudi velikega, niti okrožje ali pokrajina.
It will depend on the circumstances of the case (see examples below).
Pomen bo odvisen od okoliščin primera (glej primere v nadaljevanju).
The leading judgment in this respect is the one rendered by the General Court in the General Óptica case, where use of the sign was confined to a specific locality and was, therefore, insufficient to meet the prescribed requirements.
V zvezi s tem je najpomembnejša sodba tista, ki jo je Splošno sodišče sprejelo v zadevi General Optica, v kateri je bila uporaba znaka omejena na določen kraj in zato ni bila zadostna za izpolnitev predpisanih zahtev:
The notion that the use in trade of the sign relied on must be proven in the territory of the Member State/s where protection is sought is not incompatible with use of the sign in connection with cross-border commercial transactions.
Zamisel, da je treba uporabo uveljavljanega znaka v gospodarskem prometu dokazati na ozemlju države članice ali več držav članic, na katerem se zahteva varstvo, je v skladu z uporabo znaka v povezavi s čezmejnim trgovinskim poslovanjem.
The following are examples where the opponent failed to prove that the economic dimension of the use of the signs concerned was sufficient to meet the prescribed legal requirements.
V naslednjih primerih vložniku ugovora ni uspelo dokazati, da gospodarska razsežnost uporabe zadevnih znakov zadostuje za izpolnitev predpisanih pravnih zahtev.
3.3.2.3 Nature of the use
Narava uporabe
Use of a sign relied on under Article 8(4) EUTMR must be made in accordance with the essential function of such a sign.
Uporaba znaka, ki se uveljavlja na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora biti v skladu z bistveno funkcijo takšnega znaka.
This means that if an opponent relies on a non-registered trade mark, proof of use of the sign as a company name would not be sufficient to substantiate the earlier right.
Če vložnik ugovora torej uveljavlja neregistrirano znamko, dokaz o uporabi znaka kot imena podjetja ne bi zadostoval za utemeljitev prejšnje pravice.
The following is an example where the evidence shows use of a sign whose function does not correspond to that of the sign relied on.
V naslednjem primeru dokazi kažejo na uporabo znaka, katerega funkcija ni v skladu s funkcijo znaka, ki se uveljavlja.
The requirement that the sign must be used in trade for its own particular economic function does not exclude that the same sign might be used for several purposes.
Zahteva, da je treba znak uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu zaradi njegove posebne gospodarske funkcije, ne izključuje možnosti, da se isti znak uporablja tudi za druge namene.
It is common market practice to also use company or trade names as trade marks, either alone, or together with other product identifiers.
Običajna tržna praksa je, da se tudi imena podjetij ali trgovska imena uporabljajo kot blagovne znamke, bodisi samostojno bodisi skupaj z drugimi identifikatorji proizvodov.
This is the case when use of a ‘house mark' is concerned, that is, an indication which usually coincides with the manufacturer's company or trade name and which not only identifies the product or service as such, but also provides a direct link between one or more product/service lines and a specific undertaking.
To velja v primeru, ki se nanaša na uporabo „krovne znamke“, tj. označbe, ki običajno sovpada s proizvajalčevim imenom podjetja ali trgovskim imenom ter označuje proizvod ali storitev kot tako in zagotavlja neposredno povezavo med eno ali več proizvodnimi/storitvenimi linijami ter posameznim podjetjem.
Therefore, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, in a case where an opponent relies on a non-registered trade mark, the use of the same sign as a company name or trade name may well also accomplish the function of indicating the origin of the goods/services concerned (thus, a trade mark function), as long as the sign is used in such a way that a link is established between the sign that constitutes the company or trade name and the goods marketed or the services provided (11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 22-23).
Glede na posamezne okoliščine primera lahko torej uporaba istega znaka kot imena podjetja ali trgovskega imena, kadar vložnik ugovora uveljavlja neregistrirano blagovno znamko, izpolnjuje tudi funkcijo označbe porekla zadevnega blaga/storitev (zato funkcija blagovne znamke), če se znak uporablja tako, da se vzpostavi povezava med znakom, ki pomeni ime podjetja ali trgovsko ime, in blagom, ki se trži, ali storitvami, ki se ponujajo (11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 22-23).
Use must be made in accordance with the essential function of such a sign, namely to guarantee to consumers in the course of trade the geographical origin of the goods and the special qualities inherent in them (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147, 149,).
Znak se mora uporabljati v skladu z bistveno funkcijo takega znaka, in sicer mora potrošnikom zagotavljati geografsko poreklo proizvodov in njihove svojstvene značilnosti (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147, 149).
Therefore, documents mentioning a geographical indication exclusively in a non-trade context are not sufficient for the purposes of Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Zato dokumenti, ki navajajo geografsko označbo izključno v okviru, ki ni povezan z uporabo v gospodarskem prometu, ne zadostujejo za namene člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.4 Earlier right
Prejšnja pravica
The right invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR must be earlier than the EUTM application.
Pravica, ki je predmet sklicevanja na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora obstajati pred prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
In order to determine which of the conflicting rights is earlier, the relevant dates on which the rights were obtained must be compared.
Za določitev, katera od spornih pravic je starejša, je treba primerjati ustrezne datume, ko so bile pravice pridobljene.
For the EUTM application, this is the filing date or any priority date validly claimed (EUTM date).
V zvezi s prijavo blagovne znamke EU je to datum vložitve ali kateri koli datum prednostne pravice, ki se upravičeno zahteva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: datum blagovne znamke EU).
Seniority claims, even if they relate to the Member State where the other earlier right is claimed to exist, are not relevant.
Zahteve za prednost starejše znamke, tudi če se nanašajo na državo članico, v kateri naj bi obstajala druga prejšnja pravica, niso pomembne.
As regards the right falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the relevant date of acquisition of exclusive rights under the national law is decisive (07/05/2013, T579/10, makro, EU:T:2013:232, where the Court confirmed the Board's rejection of evidence submitted by the invalidity applicant, which related to periods subsequent to the owner's application for the EUTM (§ 70).
Glede pravice, ki spada v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je odločilen upoštevni datum pridobitve izključnih pravic v okviru nacionalne zakonodaje (07/05/2013, T579/10, makro, EU:T:2013:232, v kateri je Sodišče potrdilo zavrnitev dokazov, ki jih je odboru predložil vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in ki so se nanašala na obdobje po lastnikovi prijavi blagovne znamke EU (točka 70)).
Where mere use is sufficient under the national law, this must have begun before the EUTM date.
Kadar v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo zadostuje le uporaba, se je ta morala začeti pred datumom blagovne znamke EU.
Where recognition in the trade or reputation is required, this must have been acquired before the EUTM date.
Če se zahteva prepoznavnost blagovne znamke v gospodarskem prometu ali ugled, je pomembno, da sta se obe lastnosti pridobili pred datumom blagovne znamke EU.
Where these conditions are fulfilled only after the EUTM date, the opposition will have to be rejected.
Če so ti pogoji izpolnjeni šele po datumu blagovne znamke EU, je treba ugovor zavrniti.
3.5 Right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark under the applicable law
Pravica do prepovedi uporabe poznejše znamke na podlagi veljavnega prava
Earlier rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR are protected if they confer on their proprietors under the applicable law the right to prohibit use of a later trade mark.
Prejšnje pravice, ki spadajo v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, so zaščitene, če njihovim imetnikom v okviru veljavne zakonodaje podeljujejo pravico, da prepovejo uporabo poznejše blagovne znamke.
This requires, firstly, a finding that under the applicable law, rights of the type involved, in the abstract, are exclusive rights enforceable by means of an injunction vis-à-vis later marks and, secondly, a finding that in the actual case under consideration the conditions for obtaining such injunctive relief, if the mark that is the subject of the opposed EUTM application were used in the territory in question, are present (scope of protection) (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 190).
Na podlagi tega je treba najprej dokazati, da so v okviru veljavne zakonodaje zadevne pravice v abstraktnem pomenu izključne pravice, ki se lahko uveljavljajo na podlagi sodne odredbe, usmerjene zoper poznejše znamke, ter nato, da so v obravnavanem primeru prisotni pogoji za pridobitev takšne sodne prepovedi (obsega varstva), če se je znamka, ki je predmet prijave blagovne znamke EU, zoper katero je vložen ugovor, uporabljala na zadevnem ozemlju (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 190).
Both questions have to be answered in accordance with the applicable law.
Na obe vprašanji je treba odgovoriti v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo.
3.5.1 The right of prohibiting use
Pravica do prepovedi uporabe
Article 8(4) EUTMR explicitly requires a right that confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark.
V členu 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se izrecno zahteva pravica, ki imetniku podeljuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke.
The Office, however, applies the provision broadly, based on an interpretation oriented by its purpose, meaning that an opposition based on provisions of national law on the prohibition of a later registration would not be rejected automatically.
Urad pa določbo uporablja široko na podlagi razlage njenega namena, kar pomeni, da ugovor na podlagi določb nacionalnega prava o prepovedi poznejše registracije ne bi bil samodejno zavrnjen.
In several cases the General Court and the Boards of Appeal accepted that a provision prohibiting registration of a subsequent trade mark can be validly invoked within the opposition pursuant to Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Splošno sodišče in odbor za pritožbe sta v več primerih potrdila, da se lahko določba o prepovedi registracije poznejše blagovne znamke veljavno uporabi za ugovor na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Several considerations support this approach: it can be argued that the right to prohibit registration of a later sign implies a fortiori the prohibition to use of that sign in the market.
Tak pristop podpira več ugotovitev: trdi se lahko, da pravica do prepovedi registracije poznejšega znaka a fortiori pomeni prepoved uporabe tega znaka na trgu.
Registration may be seen as the first form or at least an indication of will to use a mark (the purpose of a distinctive sign is to identify goods or services and not to remain in the Register).
Registracija se lahko šteje za prvo obliko ali vsaj pokazatelj želje po uporabi znamke (namen znaka z razlikovalnim učinkom je označevanje blaga ali storitev, in ne samo vpis v register).
The right to prohibit registration encompasses, therefore, the right to prohibit use.
Pravica do prepovedi registracije tako vključuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe.
What is important is the fact that national law contains provisions that protect unregistered marks.
Pomembno je dejstvo, da nacionalno pravo zajema določbe, ki ščitijo neregistrirane znamke.
3.5.2 Scope of protection
Obseg varstva
For many, if not most of the rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the prerequisites of national regulations are quite similar to those applied in conflicts between trade marks that Office examiners are familiar with, namely, likelihood of confusion, or damage to reputation or distinctiveness.
Za številne ali celo za večino pravic iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so pogoji iz nacionalnih predpisov zelo podobni tistim, ki se uporabljajo v sporih med blagovnimi znamkami, s katerimi so seznanjeni preizkuševalci v Uradu, in sicer verjetnost zmede ali oškodovanje ugleda ali razlikovalnega učinka.
Where the applicable national law provides protection for unregistered trade marks that is different from that found in Article 8(1) EUTMR, the scope of protection of the earlier right invoked follows from national law.
Če veljavna nacionalna zakonodaja zagotavlja varstvo neregistriranih blagovnih znamk, ki je drugačno od varstva iz člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, obseg varstva prejšnje pravice, ki je predmet sklicevanja, temelji na nacionalni zakonodaji.
If, for example, the applicable national law also grants protection to unregistered marks for dissimilar goods and services under certain conditions, the same protection will be granted under Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Če na primer veljavna nacionalna zakonodaja pod določenimi pogoji zagotavlja tudi varstvo neregistriranih znamk tudi za različno blago in storitve, bo enako varstvo podeljeno tudi na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4 Proof of the Applicable Law Governing the Sign
Dokaz veljavnega prava, ki ureja znak
4.1 The burden of proof
Dokazno breme
According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in all inter partes cases, the burden is on the party making a particular claim or allegation to provide the Office with the necessary facts and arguments in order to substantiate the claim.
V skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora stranka, ki je vložila zadevno zahtevo ali obtožbo, v vseh zadevah inter partes Uradu predložiti potrebna dejstva in trditve za utemeljitev zahteve.
Unlike other grounds in Article 8 EUTMR, Article 8(4) EUTMR does not specify the conditions governing the acquisition and scope of protection of the earlier right invoked.
V nasprotju z drugimi razlogi iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne določa pogojev, ki urejajo pridobitev in obseg zaščite prejšnje pravice, ki je predmet sklicevanja.
It is a framework provision where the particulars of the applicable law must be provided by the opponent.
Gre za okvirno določbo, v skladu s katero mora podatke o veljavnem pravu zagotoviti vložnik ugovora.
Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR provides that if an opposition is based on an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opponent must provide, inter alia, evidence of its acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection, including where the earlier right is invoked pursuant to the law of a Member State, a clear identification of the contents of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence.
Člen 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe določa, da če ugovor temelji na prejšnji pravici v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora vložnik ugovora med drugim predložiti dokazilo o njeni pridobitvi, nadaljnjem obstoju in obsegu zaščite, v primerih sklicevanja na prejšnjo pravico v skladu s pravom države članice pa tudi jasno navedbo vsebine zadevnega nacionalnega prava, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb.