natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH ‘In view of its serious effect in extinguishing the exclusive rights of the proprietors of the trade marks in issue in the main proceedings (rights which enable them to control the initial marketing in the EEA), consent must be so expressed that an intention to renounce those rights is unequivocally demonstrated' (para. 18).
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Zaradi resnega učinka odvzetja spornih izključnih pravic imetnikov znamk v glavnem postopku (pravic, ki jim omogočajo, da nadzorujejo začetno trženje v EGP), mora biti soglasje izraženo tako, da je nedvoumno dokazana namera odpovedi tem pravicam (točka 18).
31/01/2001, B 140 006, GORDON SMITH (fig.); confirmed 07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH The mere fact that the opponents failed to immediately oppose the applicant's action to register the trade mark after they received notice of the fact did not constitute consent.
31/01/2001, B 140 006, GORDON SMITH (fig.); potrjena z dne 07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Dejstvo, da vložniki ugovora niso ugovarjali nemudoma za tem, ko je prijavitelj registriral blagovno znamko in ko so sami prejeli zadevno obvestilo, še ne pomeni soglasja.
T537/10 & T538/10, Fagumit, EU:T:2012:2952, The applicant (the EUTM owner in cancellation proceedings) focused her line of argument on the consent allegedly granted by the proprietor of the mark.
T537/10 in T538/10, Fagumit, EU:T:2012:2952 Vložnik zahteve za izbris (imetnik blagovne znamke EU v postopku izbrisa) se je v svojih trditvah skliceval predvsem na obstoj domnevnega soglasja imetnika znamke.
The Court held (like the Board of Appeal) that the consent for the purposes of the registration of the mark in the name of the representative or agent must be clear, specific and unconditional (paras 20-23).
Sodišče je menilo (kot odbor za pritožbe), da mora biti soglasje za registracijo znamke v imenu zastopnika ali posrednika jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno (točke od 20 do 23).
The document relied upon by the EUTM owner does not show consent within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 28).
Iz dokumenta, na katerega se sklicuje imetnik blagovne znamke EU, ni razvidno soglasje v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 28).
The EUTM owner was not mentioned in the document and it did not refer to the possibility of registration of the sign as a trade mark.
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU ni naveden v dokumentu, poleg tega ta ne vključuje sklicevanja na možnost registracije znaka kot znamke.
The EUTM owner cannot rely on the fact that the cancellation applicant did not object to the use of the sign by companies other than those referred to in the document.
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU se ne more sklicevati na dejstvo, da vložnik zahteve za izbris ni nasprotoval temu, da znak uporabljajo družbe, ki niso navedene v dokumentu.
Use of the marks occurred during the course of marketing the goods produced by the cancellation applicant.
Uporaba znamk je potekala v okviru trženja blaga, ki ga je proizvedel vložnik zahteve za izbris.
However, such use is the logical consequence of the cooperation between the cancellation applicant and the distributors of its goods and does not show any abandonment of the sign, which would enable anyone to make an application for the registration of that sign - or its dominant element - as an EUTM (para. 27)
Vendar je takšna uporaba logična posledica sodelovanja med vložnikom zahteve za izbris in distributerji njegovega blaga ter ne dokazuje opustitve znaka, na podlagi česar bi lahko kdor koli vložil prijavo za registracijo tega znaka ali njegovega prevladujočega elementa kot blagovne znamke EU (točka 27).
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The General Court remitted a case of this nature back to the Boards of Appeal in order to determine whether the consent obtained by the EUTM applicant had survived the purchase of the assets of the former trade mark holder and whether, on the day of the application for registration of the mark, the new holder of the trade mark in the USA (the opponent) was still bound by that consent.
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Splošno sodišče je zadevo vrnilo v presojo odborom za pritožbe, da bi ti ugotovili, ali je soglasje, ki ga je pridobil prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU, veljalo tudi po nakupu premoženja prejšnjega imetnika blagovne znamke in ali je novega imetnika blagovne znamke v ZDA (vložnika ugovora) še vedno zavezovalo na dan vložitve prijave za registracijo znamke.
If the opponent was no longer bound by the consent, the General Court indicated that the Board ought then to determine whether the applicant had a valid justification which could offset the lack of such consent.
Če vložnik ugovora ni bil več zavezan soglasju, je Splošno sodišče navedlo, da bi moral odbor presoditi, ali ima vložnik zahteve veljavno utemeljitev, ki bi lahko nadomestila neobstoj takšnega soglasja.
04/10/2011, 4 443 C, CELLO As to the justificatory argument that the EUTM application was filed in order to protect the goodwill of the mark in the EU, which had been established solely as a result of its trading activities, the Cancellation Division considered that the fact that a distributor, exclusive or otherwise, develops the goodwill of the trade mark of the owner in its allocated territory forms part of the usual duties of a distributor and cannot constitute, in itself and in the absence of other circumstances, a valid justification for the appropriation of the owner's mark by the distributor.
04/10/2011, 4 443 C, CELLO V zvezi z utemeljitvijo, da je bila prijava blagovne znamke EU vložena za zaščito dobrega imena znamke v EU, ki je nastalo le zaradi njegovih trgovinskih dejavnosti, je po mnenju oddelka za izbris dejstvo, da distributer izključno ali kako drugače razvija dobro ime blagovne znamke imetnika na ozemlju, ki mu je bilo dodeljeno, del običajnih obveznosti distributerja ter samo po sebi in v odsotnosti drugih okoliščin ne sme biti veljavna utemeljitev za to, da si je distributer prilastil imetnikovo znamko.
As regards justification concerning economic claims of the party filing the EUTM and its arguments that it is entitled to some financial remuneration for permitting the sign to enjoy protection at EU level, and that it could be transferred to the cancellation applicant, it was held that this could not be valid justification within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR.
V zvezi z utemeljitvijo glede ekonomskih zahtevkov stranke, ki je vložila prijavo blagovne znamke EU, in njenimi trditvami, da je upravičena do finančne nagrade, ker je omogočila, da je znak zaščiten na ravni EU, in da bi ga bilo mogoče prenesti na vložnika zahteve za izbris, se je štelo, da to ni veljavna utemeljitev v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
‘Even if remuneration were well deserved, the EUTM proprietor cannot use the registration of a mark in its own name as a means of receiving payment' (from the cancellation applicant) (para. 47).
Tudi če je bilo plačilo zasluženo, imetnik blagovne znamke EU ne sme uporabiti registracije znamke v lastnem imenu kot sredstva za pridobitev plačila (od vložnika zahteve za izbris) (točka 47).
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH An act which compromises the interests of the trade mark proprietor, such as the filing of a trade mark application in the agent's or a representative's name without the proprietor's consent, and is driven solely by an intention to safeguard the agent's or a representative's own interests, is not considered justifiable for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR.
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH, Dejanje, ki ogrozi interese imetnika znamke, kot je vložitev prijave za znamko v imenu posrednika ali zastopnika brez soglasja imetnika, in je storjeno izključno za zaščito lastnih interesov posrednika ali zastopnika, se za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne šteje za utemeljeno.
The same applies to the applicant's second argument, that is, that it was justified in doing so because it bore the registration costs.
Enako velja za drugo trditev prijavitelja, in sicer da je bilo njegovo ravnanje upravičeno, ker je nosil stroške registracije.
The interests of the trade mark proprietor cannot be subordinate to an agent's or a representative's financial expenses.
Interesi imetnika blagovne znamke ne morejo biti podrejeni finančnim izdatkom posrednika ali zastopnika.
The fact that an opponent might be unwilling to incur any financial expenses to register a trade mark does not automatically grant a right to the agent or representative to proceed with the registration of the trade mark in its own name.
Dejstvo, da vložnik ugovora morda ni pripravljen kriti finančnih stroškov za registracijo blagovne znamke, posredniku ali zastopniku ne podeljuje samodejno pravice, da nadaljuje registracijo znamke v svojem imenu.
This would constitute a violation of the agent's or representative's duty of trust and loyalty towards the trade mark proprietor (para. 24).
To bi bila kršitev posrednikove ali zastopnikove obveznosti zaupanja in lojalnosti do imetnika znamke (točka 24).
Earlier sign EUTM application Case No
Prejšnji znak Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
FIRST DEFENSE (2 US earlier rights) 04/05/2009, R 493/20024, FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR (fig.) 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector
FIRST DEFENSE (dve prejšnji pravici v ZDA) 04/05/2009, R 493/20024, FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR (fig.) 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector
BERIK (word mark) (2 earlier rights) 03/08/2010, R 1367/20092, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al.
BERIK (besedna znamka) (dve prejšnji pravici) 03/08/2010, R 1367/20092, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al.
BERIK (word mark) (2 earlier rights) 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al.
BERIK (besedna znamka) (dve prejšnji pravici) 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al.
APEX 26/09/2001, B 150 955 and B 170 789, APEX
APEX 26/09/2001, B 150 955 in B 170 789, APEX
The Board held that the contested disabling sprays in Class 13 were covered by the proprietor's non-explosive defense weapons in the nature of an organic irritant packaged in an aerosol (or pressurized spray) canister.
Odbor je menil, da so izpodbijani razpršilci za dražljive pline v razredu 13 zajeti v imetnikovem neeksplozivnem obrambnem orožju v obliki organskega dražljivega plina v spreju.
However, it considered that protection did not extend to the contested side arms, ammunition, projectiles.
Vendar je menil, da varstvo ne vključuje izpodbijanega hladnega orožja, streliva in izstrelkov.
These are goods for which commercial activity from the proprietor cannot be reasonably expected.
To je blago, v zvezi s katerim od imetnika ni mogoče razumno pričakovati poslovne dejavnosti.
Side arms and ammunition are far too different from pepper sprays to be covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR given that the opponent markets a very specific product (paras 19-24).
Hladno orožje in strelivo se preveč razlikujeta od poprovih razpršilcev, da bi se zanje uporabljal člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj vložnik ugovora trži zelo specifičen izdelek (točke od 19 do 24).
In its judgment of 13/04/2011, T262/09, the General Court did not examine the arguments of the parties regarding the similarity of the goods.
Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09 ni proučilo utemeljitev strank glede podobnosti blaga.
03/05/2012, R 1642/20112, MARITIME ACOPAFI (fig.) / MARITIME MONTERING AS (fig.) et al. The Board held that the wording suggests only if the mark applied for is essentially identical to the earlier right, in terms of both signs and goods/services, can it be prohibited.
03/05/2012, R 1642/20112, MARITIME ACOPAFI (fig.) / MARITIME MONTERING AS (fig.) et al. Odbor je menil, da bi bilo mogoče na podlagi besedila sklepati, da je mogoče znamko, za katero je bila vložena prijava, prepovedati le, če je v bistvu enaka prejšnji pravici, in sicer v smislu znakov in blaga/storitev.
On the other hand, a too-literal reading of that provision would fatally weaken its utility by allowing fraudulent agents to register their principals' marks by merely making minor modifications or unimportant additions to them.
Po drugi strani bi preveč dobesedno branje navedene določbe usodno oslabilo njegovo uporabnost, saj bi goljufivim posrednikom omogočilo, da registrirajo znamke svojih naročnikov tako, da le nekoliko spremenijo prejšnjo znamko ali ji dodajo nepomembne dodatke.
Despite these considerations, however, the provision must apply only where the signs and the goods/services are essentially the same, or largely equivalent (para. 18).
Kljub tem pomislekom je treba zadevno določbo uporabljati le, če so znaki in blago/storitve v bistvu enaki ali pretežno enakovredni (točka 18).
In view of this, the Board upheld OD's findings that the earlier mark's use for installation of marine accommodation was fundamentally different from the applicant's services in Class 42 (scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software).
Odbor je na podlagi navedenega potrdil ugotovitve oddelka za ugovore, da je bila uporaba prejšnje znamke za montažo pomorskih namestitev bistveno drugačna od prijaviteljevih storitev iz razreda 42 (znanstvene in tehnološke storitve in raziskave ter pripadajoče storitve oblikovanja; industrijske analize in raziskave; oblikovanje in razvoj računalniške strojne in programske opreme).
03/08/2010, R 1367/20092, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al. The Board agreed with the Cancellation Division that the cancellation applicant's goods in Class 25 could not be considered closely related or equivalent in commercial terms to the applicant's goods in Class 18, leather or imitation leather.
03/08/2010, R 1367/2009-2, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al. Odbor je soglašal z oddelkom za izbris, da blaga vložnika zahteve za izbris iz razreda 25 v komercialnem smislu ni mogoče šteti za tesno povezano ali enakovredno blagu prijavitelja v razredu 18, usnje in imitacije usnja.
The latter are raw materials for producers of goods made of leather or imitation of leather and, thus, target a different public and have different distribution channels from the goods covered by the cancellation applicant's marks (paras 30-31).
Zadnje navedeno blago zajema surovine za proizvajalce blaga iz usnja ali imitacij usnja in je zato namenjeno drugačni javnosti in ima drugačne distribucijske poti od blaga, ki ga označujejo znamke vložnika zahteve za izbris (točki 30 in 31).
It further agreed with the Cancellation Division that the cancellation applicant's goods in Class 25 could not be considered closely related or equivalent in commercial terms to the applicant's goods in Class 16 even if, for example, some of the contested goods could be used as merchandising items for a line of clothing (paras 28-30).
Poleg tega je soglašal z oddelkom za izbris, da blaga vložnika zahteve za izbris iz razreda 25 v komercialnem smislu ni mogoče šteti za tesno povezano ali enakovredno prijaviteljevemu blagu v razredu 16, čeprav bi bilo na primer mogoče nekatero izpodbijano blago uporabljati kot trgovske izdelke za linijo oblačil (točke od 28 do 30).
27/02/2012, B 1 302 530, NEOWEB / GEOWEB et al. ‘In view of the necessity to effectively protect the legitimate proprietor against unfair practices by its representatives, a restrictive interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR must be avoided.
27/02/2012, B 1 302 530, NEOWEB / GEOWEB et al. Zaradi potrebe po učinkoviti zaščiti zakonitega imetnika pred nepoštenim ravnanjem njegovih zastopnikov se je treba izogibati ozki razlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, this provision must be applied not only where the respective marks are identical, but also where the mark applied for by the representative or agent essentially reproduces the earlier mark with slight modifications, additions or deletions, which do not substantially affect its distinctiveness.
Zato je treba to odločbo uporabljati ne le, kadar sta zadevni znamki enaki, temveč tudi kadar znamka, za katero je zastopnik ali posrednik vložil prijavo, v bistvu prikazuje prejšnjo znamko z manjšimi spremembami, dodatki ali izbrisi, ki ne vplivajo bistveno na njen razlikovalni učinek.
In line with the aforementioned reasoning, Article 8(3) EUTMR does not only cover cases where the respective lists of goods and services are strictly identical, but it also applies where the goods and services in conflict are closely related or equivalent in commercial terms.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v skladu z zgoraj navedeno obrazložitvijo ne pokriva le primerov, v katerih sta zadevna seznama blaga in storitev strogo enaka, temveč tudi kadar so nasprotujoče si blago in storitve tesno povezani ali enakovredni v komercialnem smislu.
In other words, what finally counts is that the goods or services of the applicant may be perceived by the public as “authorised” products, the quality of which is still somehow “guaranteed” by the opponent (para. 20).'
Povedano drugače, kar na koncu šteje, je, da bi lahko javnost prijaviteljevo blago ali storitve dojemala kot „odobrene“ izdelke, za kakovost katerih še vedno v nekem smislu „jamči“ vložnik ugovora (točka 20).
15/09/2015, R 2406/20145 STUDIOLINE / STUDIOLINE et al. The Board held that the connection between photographer services, including in the sense of ‘organisation of photo-shoot parties', and sporting and cultural activities is too imprecise and vague to be regarded as ‘equivalent in commercial terms'.
15/09/2015, R 2406/20145 STUDIOLINE/STUDIOLINE et al. Odbor je menil, da povezava med storitvami fotografa, tudi v smislu „organizacije zabav s fotografiranjem“, in športnimi in kulturnimi dejavnostmi ni dovolj natančna in je preveč nejasna, da bi se štela za „enakovredno v komercialnem smislu“.
It can be concluded from this that the decision concerned correctly ruled that the opposition was to be refused in relation to sporting and cultural activities (para 18).
Na podlagi tega je mogoče skleniti, da je v zadevni odločbi pravilno odločeno, da je treba ugovor zavrniti v zvezi s športnimi in kulturnimi dejavnostmi (točka 18).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 21
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 21
Rights under Article 8(4) and 8(6) EUTMR
Pravice iz člena 8(4) in (6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 8(4) AND 8(6) EUTMR
PRAVICE IZ ČLENA 8(4) IN (6) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU
2 Structure of Article 8(4) EUTMR 3
2 Struktura člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 3
3 Conditions of Article 8(4) EUTMR 4
3 Pogoji člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 4
3.1 Entitlement: direct right conferred on the opponent 5
3.1 Pooblastilo: neposredna pravica, podeljena vložniku ugovora 5
3.2 Types of rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR 5
3.2 Vrste pravic, zajete v členu 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 5
3.2.1 Introduction 5
3.2.1 Uvod 5
3.2.2 Non-registered trade marks 6
3.2.2 Neregistrirane blagovne znamke 6
3.2.3 Other signs used in the course of trade 7
3.2.3 Drugi znaki, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu 7
3.2.3.1 Trade names 8
3.2.3.1 Trgovska imena 8
3.2.3.2 Corporate names 8
3.2.3.2 Firme 8
3.2.3.3 Domain names 8
3.2.3.3 Domenska imena 9
3.2.3.4 Titles 9
3.2.3.4 Naslovi 9
3.3 Use requirements 10
3.3 Zahteve glede uporabe 10
3.3.1 National standard 10
3.3.1 Nacionalni standard 10
3.3.2 European standard - use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance 10
3.3.2 Evropski standard - uporaba v gospodarskem prometu z več kot le lokalnim pomenom 11
3.3.2.1 Use in the course of trade 11
3.3.2.1 Uporaba v gospodarskem prometu 11
3.3.2.2 Use of more than mere local significance 14
3.3.2.2 Uporaba z več kot le lokalnim pomenom 14
3.3.2.3 Nature of the use 17
3.3.2.3 Narava uporabe 18
3.4 Earlier right 19
3.4 Prejšnja pravica 19
3.5 Right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark under the applicable law 19
3.5 Pravica do prepovedi uporabe poznejše znamke na podlagi veljavnega prava 19
3.5.1 The right of prohibiting use 19
3.5.1 Pravica do prepovedi uporabe 19
3.5.2 Scope of protection 21
3.5.2 Obseg varstva 21
4 Proof of the Applicable Law Governing the Sign 21
4 Dokaz veljavnega prava, ki ureja znak 21
4.1 The burden of proof 21
4.1 Dokazno breme 21
4.2 Means of evidence and standard of proof 23
4.2 Dokazi in dokazni standard 23
4.2.1 National law 23
4.2.1 Nacionalno pravo 23
4.2.2 European Union law 25
4.2.2 Pravo Evropske unije 25
5 Article 8(6) EUTMR - the Protection of Geographical Indications 25
5 Člen 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - zaščita geografskih označb 25
5.1 Relationship between Article 8(4) and 8(6) EUTMR 26
5.1 Razmerje med členoma 8(4) in 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 26
5.2 Types of GIs falling under Article 8(6) EUTMR 27
5.2 Vrste geografskih označb, zajete v členu 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 27
5.2.1 GIs protected under EU law 27
5.2.1 Geografske označbe, zaščitene na podlagi prava EU 27
5.2.1.1 GIs covered by the EU Regulations 27
5.2.1.1 Geografske označbe, zajete v uredbah EU 28
5.2.1.2 Specificities of substantiation 28
5.2.1.2 Posebnosti utemeljitve 28
5.2.1.3 The exhaustive nature of the EU system of protection 29
5.2.1.3 Izčrpnost sistema EU za varstvo 29
5.2.2 GIs protected under the laws of Member States 29
5.2.2 Geografske označbe, zaščitene na podlagi prava držav članic 30
5.2.3 GIs protected under international agreements 30
5.2.3 Geografske označbe, zaščitene na podlagi mednarodnih sporazumov 31
5.3 Scope of protection of GIs 32
5.3 Obseg varstva geografskih označb 33
The relationship between the European Union trade mark system and national law is characterised by the principle of coexistence.
Za odnos med sistemom blagovne znamke Evropske unije in nacionalno zakonodajo je značilno načelo soobstoja.
This means that both the European Union trade mark system and the national laws exist and operate side by side.
To pomeni, da sistem blagovne znamke Evropske unije in nacionalne zakonodaje obstajajo in delujejo vzporedno.
The same sign can be protected by the same proprietor as an EUTM and as a national trade mark in one (or all) of the Member States.
Isti znak lahko isti imetnik zaščiti kot blagovno znamko EU in kot nacionalno blagovno znamko v eni ali vseh državah članicah.
The principle of coexistence further implies that the EUTM system actively acknowledges the relevance of national rights and their scope of protection.
Poleg tega načelo soobstoja pomeni, da sistem blagovne znamke EU dejavno priznava pomembnost nacionalnih pravic in njihovega obsega varstva.
Where conflicts arise between EUTMs and national trade marks or other national rights, there is no hierarchy determining that one system prevails over the other; instead, these conflicts apply the principle of priority.
V primeru nasprotja med blagovnimi znamkami EU in nacionalnimi blagovnimi znamkami ali drugimi nacionalnimi pravicami, ni hierarhije, ki bi določala, da en sistem prevlada nad drugim, namesto tega se za ta nasprotja uporablja načelo prednostne pravice.
If the respective requirements are met, earlier national trade marks or other earlier national rights can prevent registration of, or invalidate a later EUTM.
Če so izpolnjene ustrezne zahteve, lahko prejšnje nacionalne blagovne znamke ali druge prejšnje nacionalne pravice preprečijo registracijo poznejše blagovne znamke EU ali jo izničijo.