natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Recognition of the reputation of an earlier mark cannot depend on prior recognition in the context of separate proceedings concerning the parties and different legal and factual elements.
Priznanje ugleda prejšnje znamke ne more biti odvisno od predhodnega priznanja v okviru ločenih postopkov, ki zadevajo stranke in različne pravne ter stvarne elemente.
It is therefore for any party relying on the reputation of its earlier mark to establish, in the circumscribed context of each set of proceedings to which it is a party and on the basis of the facts that it considers most appropriate, that that mark has acquired a reputation; it cannot merely claim to adduce that evidence by virtue of its having been recognised, even for the same mark, in a separate administrative procedure (23/10/2015, T597/13, dadida / CALIDA, EU:T:2015:804, § 43-45).
Zato mora vsaka stranka, ki se sklicuje na ugled svoje prejšnje znamke, v omejenem okviru vsakega postopka, v katerem je stranka, in na podlagi dejstev, ki so po njenem mnenju najustreznejša, dokazati, da je znamka pridobila ugled; ne more samo trditi, da je bil dokaz priznan v ločenem upravnem postopku, tudi če gre za isto znamko (23/10/2015, T597/13, dadida / CALIDA, EU:T:2015:804, § 43-45).
It follows that previous Office decisions only have a relative probative value and should be evaluated in conjunction with the rest of the evidence, especially where the opponent relies on a previous Office decision without referring to particular materials filed in the corresponding proceedings, that is, where the applicant has not had a chance to comment on such materials, or where the time that has elapsed between the two cases is quite long.
Iz tega sledi, da imajo predhodne odločbe Urada samo relativno dokazno vrednost in jih je treba zato ovrednotiti skupaj s preostalimi dokazi, zlasti kadar se vložnik ugovora opira na predhodno odločbo Urada, ne da bi se skliceval na določeno gradivo, predloženo v ustreznih postopkih, torej kadar prijavitelj ni imel priložnosti, da bi predložil pripombe v zvezi z gradivom, ali kadar je med zadevama preteklo precej časa.
The situation may be different if the evidence to which the opponent refers had been submitted in other proceedings between the same parties and the applicant had been aware of the evidence concerning the reputation of an earlier mark (22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO, EU:T:2015:47, § 18).
Situacija je lahko drugačna, če bi bili dokazi, na katere se sklicuje vložnik ugovora, predloženi v drugih postopkih med istima strankama in bi bil prijavitelj seznanjen z dokazi o ugledu prejšnje znamke (22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO, EU:T:2015:47, § 18).
Opinion polls and market surveys
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave
Opinion polls and market surveys are the most suitable means of evidence for providing information about the degree of knowledge of the mark, the market share it has, or the position it occupies in the market in relation to competitors' goods.
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave so najustreznejše dokazno sredstvo za zagotavljanje informacij o stopnji poznanosti znamke, njenem tržnem deležu ali položaju, ki ga ima na trgu glede na konkurenčno blago.
The probative value of opinion polls and market surveys is determined by the status and degree of independence of the entity conducting it, by the relevance and accuracy of the information it provides, and by the reliability of the method applied.
Dokazna vrednost javnomnenjskih in tržnih raziskav je odvisna od statusa in stopnje neodvisnosti subjekta, ki jih izvaja, pomena in točnosti informacij, ki jih zagotovijo, ter zanesljivosti uporabljene metode.
More particularly, in evaluating the credibility of an opinion poll or market survey, the Office needs to know the following.
Urad mora pri vrednotenju verodostojnosti javnomnenjske ali tržne raziskave vedeti zlasti naslednje:
1. Whether or not it has been conducted by an independent and recognised research institute or company, in order to determine the reliability of the source of the evidence (27/03/2014, R 540/20132, Shape of a bottle (3D), § 49).
ali jo je opravil neodvisni in priznani raziskovalni inštitut ali družba, da se ugotovi zanesljivost vira dokazov (27/03/2014, R 540/20132, Shape of a bottle (3D), § 49);
2. The number and profile (sex, age, occupation and background) of the interviewees, in order to evaluate whether the results of the survey are representative of the different kinds of potential consumers of the goods in question.
število in profil (spol, starost, poklic in izobrazba) anketirancev, da se ovrednoti, ali so rezultati raziskave reprezentativni za različne vrste morebitnih potrošnikov zadevnega blaga.
3. The method and circumstances under which the survey was carried out and the complete list of questions included in the questionnaire.
metodo in okoliščine, v katerih je bila izvedena raziskava, ter popoln seznam vprašanj iz vprašalnika.
It is also important to know how and in what order the questions were formulated, in order to ascertain whether the respondents were confronted with leading questions.
Pomembno je tudi vedeti, kako in v kakšnem vrstnem redu so bila zastavljena vprašanja, da se ugotovi, ali so anketiranci odgovarjali na vprašanja, ki napeljujejo k odgovoru;
4. Whether the percentage reflected in the survey corresponds to the total amount of persons questioned or only to those who actually replied.
ali se odstotek, naveden v raziskavi, nanaša na celotno število anketirancev ali samo na tiste, ki so dejansko odgovarjali.
Unless the above indications are present, the results of a market survey or opinion poll should not be considered of high probative value, and will not in principle be sufficient on their own to support a finding of reputation.
Brez zgoraj navedenih podatkov se rezultati tržne ali javnomnenjske raziskave ne bi smeli obravnavati, kot da imajo veliko dokazno vrednost, in načeloma sami po sebi ne zadostujejo za potrditev ugotovitve o obstoju ugleda.
Likewise, if the above indications are given, but the reliability of source and method are questionable, the statistical sample is too small, or the questions were leading, the credibility of the evidence will be diminished accordingly.
Če so zgoraj navedeni podatki zagotovljeni, vendar sta zanesljivost vira in metoda dvomljiva, statistični vzorec premajhen ali če so vprašanja napeljevala k odgovoru, se tudi verodostojnost dokazov ustrezno zmanjša.
Conversely, opinion polls and market surveys that fulfil the above requirements (independence and trustworthiness of source, reasonably large and widespread sample and reliable method) will be a strong indication of reputation, especially if they show a high degree of trade mark awareness.
Nasprotno so javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave, ki izpolnjujejo zgornje zahteve (neodvisnost in zanesljivost vira, dovolj velik in širok vzorec ter zanesljiva metoda), dober znak ugleda, zlasti če je iz njih razvidna visoka stopnja poznanosti znamke.
Audits and inspections
Revizije in inšpekcijski pregledi
Audits and inspections may be carried out on the initiative of the opponent itself, or may be required by company law and/or financial regulations.
Revizije in inšpekcijski pregledi se lahko opravijo na pobudo vložnika ugovora ali pa v skladu z zahtevami prava družb in/ali finančnimi predpisi.
In the former case, the same rules as for opinion polls and market surveys apply, that is, the status of the entity conducting the audit and the reliability of the applied method will be of essence for determining its credibility, with the probative value of official audits and inspections being as a rule much higher, since they are usually conducted by a state authority or by a recognised body of auditors on the basis of generally accepted standards and rules.
V prvem primeru se uporabljajo enaka pravila kot za javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave, pri čemer sta status subjekta, ki opravi revizijo, in zanesljivost uporabljene metode bistvena za opredelitev verodostojnosti revizije, medtem ko je dokazna vrednost uradnih revizij in inšpekcijskih pregledov praviloma veliko večja, saj jih navadno opravijo državni organi ali priznani revizijski organi na podlagi splošno sprejetih standardov in pravil.
This kind of evidence includes certification and awards by public authorities or official institutions, such as chambers of commerce and industry, professional associations and societies, consumer organisations, etc.
Takšni dokazi vključujejo certifikate in nagrade javnih organov ali uradnih institucij, kot so gospodarske zbornice, strokovna združenja in društva, potrošniške organizacije itd.
The reliability of certification by authorities is generally high, as emanating from independent and specialised sources, which attest facts in the course of their official tasks.
Zanesljivost certifikatov, ki jih podelijo javni organi, je navadno velika, saj jih zagotavljajo neodvisni in specializirani viri, ki preverijo dejstva med opravljanjem uradnih nalog.
For example, the average circulation figures for periodicals issued by the competent press-distribution associations are conclusive evidence about the performance of a mark in the sector.
Na primer, podatki o povprečni nakladi periodičnega tiska, ki jih objavijo pristojna združenja za distribucijo tiska, so trden dokaz o uspešnosti znamke v sektorju.
The same applies to quality certification and awards granted by such authorities, as the opponent usually has to meet objective standards in order to receive the award.
Enako velja tudi za certifikate kakovosti in nagrade, ki jih podelijo taki organi, saj mora vložnik ugovora navadno izpolnjevati objektivne standarde, da prejme nagrado.
Conversely, prizes and awards offered by unknown entities, or on the basis of unspecified or subjective criteria, should be given very little weight.
Nasprotno pa je treba priznanjem in nagradam, ki jih podelijo neznani subjekti ali ki se podelijo na podlagi nedoločenih ali subjektivnih meril, pripisati zelo malo pomena.
The relevance of a certification or award to the specific case largely depends on its contents.
Pomen certifikata ali nagrade za posamezni primer je odvisen predvsem od vsebine.
For example, the fact that the opponent is a holder of an ISO 9001 quality certificate, or of a royal warrant, does not automatically mean that the sign is known to the public.
To, da je vložnik ugovora na primer imetnik certifikata kakovosti ISO 9001 ali kraljevega priznanja, ne pomeni nujno, da javnost pozna znak.
It only means that the opponent's goods meet certain quality or technical standards or that it is a supplier of a royal house.
Pomeni le, da blago vložnika ugovora izpolnjuje določene standarde kakovosti ali tehnične standarde ali pa da je vložnik ugovora dobavitelj kraljevske hiše.
However, if such evidence is coupled with other indications of quality and market success, it may lead to the conclusion that the earlier mark has a reputation.
Če pa so ti dokazi združeni z drugimi znaki kakovosti in uspeha na trgu, je mogoče z njimi utemeljiti ugotovitev, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled.
Articles in the press or in specialised publications
Članki v tisku ali specializiranih publikacijah
The probative value of press articles and other publications concerning the opponent's mark mainly depends on whether such publications are covert promotional matter, or if, on the contrary, they are the result of independent and objective research.
Dokazna vrednost člankov v tisku in drugih publikacijah v zvezi z znamko vložnika ugovora je odvisna predvsem od tega, ali so take objave prikrito oglaševanje ali, nasprotno, rezultat neodvisnega in objektivnega raziskovanja.
Hence, if such articles appear in publications of a high status or are written by independent professionals, they will have quite a high value, as for example when the success of a specific brand becomes the object of a case study in specialised journals or in scientific publications.
Taki članki imajo zato precej veliko vrednost, če so objavljeni v prestižnih publikacijah ali jih napišejo neodvisni strokovnjaki, kot na primer, kadar postane uspeh neke znamke predmet študije primera v specializiranih revijah ali znanstvenih publikacijah.
The presence of a mark in a dictionary (which is not a press article but is still a publication) is a means of evidence with high value.
Če je znamka navedena v slovarju (kar ni članek v tisku, je pa publikacija), ima to veliko dokazno vrednost.
Annual reports on economic results and company profiles
Letna poročila o ekonomskih rezultatih in profili družb
This type of evidence includes all kinds of internal publications giving varied information about the history, activities and perspectives of the opponent's company, or more detailed figures about turnovers, sales, advertising, etc.
Takšni dokazi vključujejo raznovrstne notranje publikacije z informacijami o zgodovini, dejavnostih in perspektivah podjetja vložnika ugovora ali podrobnejše podatke o prometu, prodaji, oglaševanju itd.
To the extent that such evidence derives from the opponent and is mainly intended to promote its image, its probative value will mostly depend on its contents, and the relevant information should be treated with caution, especially if it mainly consists of estimates and subjective evaluations.
Če je vir takih dokazov vložnik ugovora in so namenjeni predvsem promociji njegove podobe, je njihova dokazna vrednost odvisna predvsem od vsebine, zato je treba zadevne informacije obravnavati previdno, zlasti če vsebujejo predvsem približke in subjektivne ocene.
However, where such publications are circulated to clients and other interested circles and contain objectively verifiable information and data, which may have been compiled or revised by independent auditors (as is often the case with annual reports), their probative value will be substantially enhanced.
Če pa so te publikacije namenjene strankam in drugim zainteresiranim krogom ter vsebujejo objektivne preverljive informacije in podatke, ki so jih lahko zbrali ali pregledali neodvisni revizorji (kar je pogosto pri letnih poročilih), je njihova dokazna vrednost bistveno večja.
Invoices and other commercial documents
Računi in drugi poslovni dokumenti
Even though the relevance and credibility of commercial documents is not disputed, it will generally be difficult to prove reputation on the basis of such materials alone, given the variety of factors involved and the volume of documents required.
Čeprav pomen in verodostojnost poslovnih dokumentov nista sporna, je navadno težko dokazati ugled samo na podlagi takega gradiva zaradi različnih vpletenih dejavnikov in količine zahtevanih dokumentov.
Furthermore, evidence relating to distribution or sponsoring contracts and commercial correspondence are more appropriate for giving indications about the geographical extent or promotional side of the opponent's activities, than for measuring the success of the mark in the market, and thus may only serve as indirect indications of reputation.
Poleg tega so dokazi, kot so distribucijske ali sponzorske pogodbe ter poslovni dopisi, ustreznejši za ugotavljanje geografskega obsega ali promocijskih vidikov dejavnosti vložnika ugovora kot za merjenje uspeha znamke na trgu, zato se lahko uporabljajo samo kot posredni znaki ugleda.
Advertising and promotional material
Oglaševalsko in promocijsko gradivo
However, some conclusions about the degree of exposure of the public to advertising messages concerning the mark may be drawn by reference to the kind of medium used (national, regional, local) and the audience rates or circulation figures attained by the relevant spots or publications - if, of course, this kind of information is available.
Vendar je mogoče povzeti nekaj ugotovitev o stopnji izpostavljenosti javnosti oglasnim sporočilom v zvezi z znamko glede na vrsto uporabljenega medija (nacionalni, regionalni, lokalni) in delež občinstva ali velikost naklade zadevnih spotov ali publikacij, če so te informacije seveda na voljo.
In addition, such evidence may give useful indications of the kind of goods covered, the form in which the mark is actually used and the kind of image the opponent is trying to create for its brand.
Taki dokazi so lahko poleg tega koristni pri ugotavljanju označene vrste blaga, dejanske uporabe znamke in vrste podobe, ki bi jo vložnik ugovora rad ustvaril v zvezi s svojo znamko.
For example, if the evidence shows that the earlier registration for which reputation is claimed covers a device, but in fact this device is used in combination with a verbal element, it would not be correct to accept that the device itself has a reputation.
Če je iz dokazov na primer razvidno, da se prejšnja registracija, za katero se trdi, da ima ugled, nanaša na logotip, vendar se ta logotip dejansko uporablja skupaj z besednim elementom, bi bilo nepravilno sprejeti ugotovitev, da ima logotip ugled.
Rather, it should be assessed whether the reputation extends to the device.
Namesto tega bi bilo treba presoditi, ali ugled zajema logotip.
For that purpose, it is important to assess whether the device plays a predominant or even significant role when used in combination with the verbal element, and has acquired a reputation in itself.
Zato je pomembno oceniti, ali ima logotip, kadar se uporablja skupaj z besednim elementom, prevladujočo ali celo pomembno vlogo in je sam pridobil ugled.
This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
To je treba preizkusiti za vsak primer posebej.
See example judgments in paragraph 3.1.2.6 above.
Glej primere sodb v odstavku 3.1.2.6 zgoraj.
3.2 The similarity of the signs
Podobnost znakov
A certain degree of similarity between the signs must be found for an opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR to succeed (24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
Za uspešen ugovor v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba ugotoviti določeno stopnjo podobnosti med znakoma (24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
If the signs are found dissimilar overall, the examination aimed at establishing whether the other requirements under Article 8(5) EUTMR are met should not be carried out, as the opposition cannot succeed.
Če se ugotovi, da sta znaka popolnoma različna, se preizkušanja, ali so izpolnjene druge zahteve v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne sme opraviti, saj ugovor ne more biti uspešen.
A subject that gives rise to some uncertainty is the relationship between the term ‘similar' within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR and the term ‘similarity' used in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Negotovost povzroča razmerje med pojmom podobno v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pojmom „podobnost“, uporabljenim v členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
According to the clear wording of these two provisions, similarity (or identity) between the signs is a precondition for the application of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR.
V skladu z jasno ubeseditvijo teh dveh določb je podobnost (ali enakost) znakov temeljni pogoj za uporabo člena 8(1)(b) in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The use of essentially the same term in both provisions is an argument in favour of the need to interpret this term in the same way, and the case-law has confirmed this.
Uporaba v bistvu istega izraza v obeh določbah je trditev, da je treba ta izraz razlagati enako, kar potrjuje tudi sodna praksa.
Accordingly, similarity should be assessed according to the same criteria that apply in the context of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, thus taking into account elements of visual, aural or conceptual similarity (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28, relating to the interpretation of Article 5(2) TMD; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 52).
Ustrezno bi bilo treba podobnost oceniti v skladu z istimi merili, ki se uporabljajo v okviru člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in upoštevati elemente vizualne, zvočne ali pomenske podobnosti (sodba 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28, ki se nanaša na razlago člena 5(2) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami, in sodba 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 52).
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.
The general rules for assessing signs established for examining this criterion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR apply, such as the rule that consumers perceive the sign as a whole and only rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks, and must place their trust in the imperfect image of them that they have kept in mind (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 33, 34) (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment, paragraph 3, Imperfect Recollection).
Uporabljajo se splošna pravila za presojo znakov, določena za preizkušanje tega merila v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kot je na primer pravilo, da potrošniki zaznavajo znak kot celoto in ga lahko le redko neposredno primerjajo z različnimi znamkami, zato se morajo zanesti na nepopolno podobo znamk, ki jo hranijo v spominu (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 33, 34) (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja, odstavek 3: Nepopoln priklic v spomin).
3.2.1 Notion of ‘similarity' pursuant to Article 8(5) EUTMR compared with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR
Pojem „podobnosti“ v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v primerjavi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Despite application of the same criteria for similarity of the signs in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR, the purposes underlying these Articles are different: in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the aim is to prevent the registration of a later trade mark that, if used, could confuse the relevant public as regards the commercial origin of the goods or services concerned, whereas in Article 8(5) EUTMR, the aim is to prevent the registration of a later trade mark that, if used, could take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the reputation or distinctiveness of the earlier reputed trade mark.
Kljub uporabi istih meril za podobnost znakov v skladu s členoma 8(1)(b) in 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je osnovni namen teh členov različen: cilj člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je preprečiti registracijo poznejše znamke, katere uporaba bi lahko zmedla upoštevno javnost, kar zadeva tržni izvor zadevnega blaga ali storitev, cilj člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa je preprečiti registracijo poznejše znamke, katere uporaba bi lahko na nepošten način izkoriščala ali oškodovala ugled ali razlikovalni učinek prejšnje ugledne znamke.
The relationship between the notion of ‘similarity' under the two provisions was addressed by the Court in TiMiKinderjoghurt: ‘It should be noted at the outset that … the existence of a similarity between the earlier mark and the challenged mark is a precondition for the application both of Article 8(1)(b) [EUTMR] and of Article 8(5) [EUTMR]' (para. 51).
Razmerje med pojmoma „podobnost“ v okviru obeh določb je Sodišče obravnavalo v zadevi TiMiKinderjoghurt: „Najprej je treba spomniti [...][,] da je obstoj podobnosti med prejšnjo in izpodbijano znamko pogoj za uporabo tako odstavka 1(b) kakor odstavka 5 člena 8 [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU]“ (točka 51).
Article 8(5) [EUTMR], like Article 8(1)(b) [EUTMR], is manifestly inapplicable if any similarity between the marks is ruled out (20/11/2014, C581/13 P & C582/13 P, Golden balls, EU:C:2014:2387, § 73).
Člen 8(5) [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU] tako kot člen 8(1)(b) [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU] se očitno ne uporablja, če je izključena podobnost med znamkama (20/11/2014, C581/13 P in C582/13 P, Golden balls, EU:C:2014:2387, § 73).