natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Deficiencies in relation to absolute admissibility requirements are not covered by Article 15(4) EUTMDR and cannot be remedied (i.e. they lead to the rejection of the application in question as inadmissible).
Pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z absolutnimi zahtevami glede dopustnosti niso zajete s členom 15(4) Delegirane uredbe in jih ni mogoče odpraviti (torej bo zadevna zahteva zavržena kot nedopustna).
2.5.3 Optional indications
Neobvezne navedbe
2.5.3.1 Extent of the application for cancellation
Obseg zahteve za izbris
Article 12(1)(d) EUTMDR
Člen 12(1)(d) Delegirane uredbe
The application may contain an indication of the goods and services against which the application is directed; in the absence of such an indication, the application will be considered to be directed against all of the goods and services of the contested registration.
Zahteva lahko vsebuje navedbo blaga in storitev, zoper katere je usmerjena, če take navedbe ne vsebuje, se šteje, da je usmerjena zoper vse blago in storitve izpodbijane registracije.
If the applicant indicates that the application is only directed against part of the goods and services of the contested registration, it will have to list these goods/services clearly.
Če vložnik zahteve navede, da je zahteva usmerjena samo zoper del blaga in storitev izpodbijane registracije, bo moral jasno navesti to blago ali storitve.
If it does not do so, the application will be considered to be directed against all of the goods and services of the contested registration.
Če tega ne stori, se bo štelo, se šteje, da je zahteva usmerjena zoper vse blago in storitve izpodbijane registracije.
For more details on this optional requirement, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 2.4.3.1, as the same explanations and reasoning apply to cancellation proceedings.
Za več podrobnosti o tej neobvezni zahtevi glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 2.4.3.1, saj se ista pojasnila in argumenti uporabljajo tudi za postopek izbrisa.
An applicant is entitled to limit the scope of its application by excluding subcategories of the goods and/or services for which the contested mark is registered (see, as regards applications for revocation, judgment of 09/12/2014, T307/13, ORIBAY, EU:T:2014:1038, § 25).
Vložnik lahko omeji obseg svoje zahteve z izključitvijo podkategorij blaga in/ali storitev, za katere je registrirana izpodbijana znamka (v zvezi z zahtevami za razveljavitev glej sodbo z dne 09/12/2014, T307/13, ORIBAY, EU:T:2014:1038, § 25).
2.5.3.2 Reasoned statement and supporting evidence
Utemeljena izjava in dodatni dokazi
Article 12(4) EUTMDR
Člen 12(4) Delegirane uredbe
According to Article 12(4) EUTMDR, an application for cancellation may also contain a reasoned statement on the grounds setting out the facts and arguments on which it is based and supporting evidence.
V skladu s členom 12(4) Delegirane uredbe lahko zahteva za izbris vsebuje utemeljeno izjavo z vzroki, kjer so izpostavljena dejstva in navedbe, na katerih temelji, ter dodatne dokaze.
Both the reasoned statement on the grounds and the supporting evidence are optional at the stage of filing the application for revocation or for a declaration of invalidity.
Utemeljena izjava z vzroki in dodatni dokazi v fazi vložitve zahteve za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti niso obvezni.
When they are necessary to substantiate the application they must be provided before the expiry of the substantiation period, which is the closure of the adversarial part of the revocation or invalidity proceedings (Article 16(1) EUTMDR).
Če so potrebni za utemeljitev zahteve, jih je treba predložiti pred iztekom obdobja za utemeljitev, in sicer do zaključka kontradiktornega dela postopka za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti (člen 16(1) Delegirane uredbe).
They concern the substance, not the admissibility of the application.
Nanašajo se na vsebino, ne pa na dopustnost zahteve.
2.6 Notification of the application
Uradno obvestilo o zahtevi
Article 64(1) EUTMR
Člen 64(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 14 and Article 17(1) EUTMDR
Člen 14 in člen 17(1) Delegirane uredbe
Any application for cancellation and any document submitted by the applicant, as well as any communication addressed to one of the parties by the Office prior to the finding on admissibility, will be sent by the Office to the other party for information purposes.
Urad bo vsako zahtevo za izbris, vsak dokument, ki ga predloži vložnik zahteve, ter vsako sporočilo, ki ga pred sklepom o dopustnosti Urad naslovi na katero izmed strank, poslal v vednost drugi stranki.
Once the application for cancellation has been found admissible, the Office will invite the proprietor to submit its observations within such time limit as it may specify.
Ko je ugotovljeno, da je zahteva za izbris dopustna, bo Urad imetnika blagovne znamke pozval, naj v določenem roku predloži pripombe.
The notification of the application to the EUTM proprietor will contain an invitation to submit observations (and in the case of an application for revocation based on Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, an invitation to submit proof of genuine use - see Article 19(1) EUTMDR).
Obvestilo o zahtevi imetniku blagovne znamke EU bo vsebovalo tudi poziv, naj predloži pripombe (pri zahtevi za razveljavitev na podlagi člena 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU tudi poziv, naj predloži dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi - glej člen 19(1) Delegirane uredbe).
In practice, the Office grants the EUTM proprietor 2 months for its first reply to the application.
Urad v praksi imetniku blagovne znamke EU navadno odobri dva meseca za prvi odgovor na zahtevo.
Revocation does not occur where the cause of inadmissibility arises after the initial admissibility check (e.g. when an applicant outside the EEA ceases to have a representative and does not appoint one, or when res judicata applies because a pertinent decision becomes final during the cancellation proceedings).
Razveljavitev se ne izvede, če vzrok nedopustnosti nastane po prvotnem preverjanju dopustnosti (npr. če vložnik zahteve iz države zunaj EGP nima več zastopnika niti ne imenuje novega ali kadar se uporablja pravnomočnost, ker je ustrezna odločitev med postopkom izbrisa postala dokončna).
In such cases the Office will again check the admissibility and issue the corresponding deficiency letter without revoking the previous admissibility decision (which did not contain any error at the time it was adopted).
Urad bo v takšnih primerih znova preveril dopustnost in izdal ustrezni poziv za dopolnitev zahteve, ne da bi razveljavil prejšnjo odločbo o dopustnosti (ki ob sprejetju ni vsebovala napak).
3 Adversarial Stage
Kontradiktorna faza
3.1 Completion of the application
Dopolnitev zahteve
Article 64 EUTMR
Člen 64 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 17(2) EUTMDR
Člen 17(2) Delegirane uredbe
According to Article 64(1) EUTMR, the Office may invite the parties to submit observations as often as it considers necessary.
Urad lahko v skladu s členom 64(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU stranke pozove, naj pripombe predložijo tolikokrat, kot se mu zdi potrebno.
In practice, and in the interest of avoiding an unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings, the Office will usually grant two rounds of observations, usually ending with those of the EUTM proprietor (i.e. application for cancellation - EUTM proprietor's observations - applicant's observations - EUTM proprietor's observations).
Urad bo v praksi in zato, da bi se izognil nepotrebnemu podaljševanju postopka, navadno zagotovil dva kroga za predložitev pripomb, ki se navadno končata s pripombami imetnika blagovne znamke EU (tj. zahteva za izbris - pripombe imetnika blagovne znamke EU - vložnikove pripombe - pripombe imetnika blagovne znamke EU).
Nevertheless, in cases when one of the parties, within the time limit to submit observations, does not submit any evidence or observations and/or indicates that it has nothing more to comment, the Office may proceed directly to closure of the adversarial part of the proceedings, notifying the parties that a decision will be taken.
Vendar lahko Urad v zadevah, v katerih ena od strank v roku za predložitev pripomb ne predloži nobenih dokazov ali pripomb in/ali navede, da nima več pripomb, preide neposredno na zaključek kontradiktornega dela postopka in stranke obvesti, da bo sprejel odločitev.
However, additional rounds of observations may be granted in exceptional cases, in particular when additional relevant evidence, which could not have been submitted beforehand, is submitted in the last round.
Izjemoma se lahko odobrijo dodatni krogi za predložitev pripomb, zlasti kadar se v zadnjem krogu predložijo dodatni pomembni dokazi, ki jih ni bilo mogoče predložiti prej.
It is the Office's practice to give the parties a time limit of 2 months to submit their observations.
Praksa Urada je, da strankam odobri dvomesečni rok za predložitev pripomb.
As regards applications for invalidity based on relative grounds, the EUTM proprietor may also file a request for proof of use of the earlier trade marks on which the application is based.
Kar zadeva zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti, ki temeljijo na relativnih razlogih, lahko imetnik blagovne znamke EU vloži tudi zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi prejšnjih blagovnih znamk, na katerih temelji zahteva.
If the request is admissible, the Office will invite the applicant to submit the proof (Article 64(2) and (3) EUTMR and Article 19(2) EUTMDR).
Če je zahteva dopustna, bo Urad vložnika zahteve pozval, naj predloži dokaz (člen 64(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ter člen 19(2) Delegirane uredbe).
For more guidance on requests for proof of use, see paragraph 3.4 below.
Več smernic o zahtevah za dokaz o uporabi je na voljo v odstavku 3.4 v nadaljevanju.
Once the parties have submitted their observations and/or proof of use (if applicable) the adversarial part is closed and the file is ready for decision.
Ko stranke predložijo pripombe in/ali dokaz o uporabi (po potrebi), se kontradiktorni del postopka konča, spis pa je pripravljen za odločanje.
If at any stage of the proceedings one of the parties does not submit observations within the specified time limit, the Office will close the adversarial part and take a decision on the basis of the evidence before it (Article 17(2) EUTMDR).
Če ena od strank na kateri koli stopnji postopka ne predloži pripomb v določenem roku, bo Urad kontradiktorni del končal in sprejel odločitev na podlagi razpoložljivih dokazov (člen 17(2) Delegirane uredbe).
As regards the rules on time limits, extensions, notification or change of parties in the course of proceedings, etc., see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, as the rules are applicable mutatis mutandis.
Za pravila glede rokov, podaljšanj, obveščanja ali spremembe strank med postopkom itd. glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, saj se pravila uporabljajo smiselno.
3.2 Substantiation
Utemeljitev
Article 16 and Article 17(2), (3) and (4) EUTMDR
Člen 16 ter člen 17(2), (3) in (4) Delegirane uredbe
The applicant has up to the closure of the adversarial part of the proceedings to present the facts, evidence and arguments in support of the application.
Vložnik zahteve lahko predloži dejstva, dokaze in navedbe za podkrepitev zahteve vse do zaključka kontradiktornega dela postopka.
This means that it may do so with the application for cancellation, once the Office has informed of the admissibility of the application and invited the EUTM proprietor to submit observations (Article 17(1) EUTMDR), or during a time limit set by the Office for the applicant to submit observations in response to the EUTM proprietor (pursuant to Article 17(2) EUTMDR and Article 64(1) EUTMR).
To pomeni, da lahko to stori ob predložitvi zahteve za izbris po tem, ko Urad stranke obvesti o dopustnosti zahteve in pozove imetnika blagovne znamke EU, naj predloži pripombe (člen 17(1) Delegirane uredbe), ali v roku, ki ga Urad določi vložniku zahteve za predložitev pripomb v odziv na navedbe imetnika blagovne znamke EU (v skladu s členom 17(2) Delegirane uredbe in členom 64(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
However, for reasons of procedural economy the Office highly recommends that all facts, evidence and arguments in support of the application (including any necessary translations) are presented together with the initial application for cancellation.
Vendar Urad zaradi gospodarnosti postopka močno priporoča, da se vsa dejstva, dokazi in navedbe v podporo zahtevi (vključno z vsemi potrebnimi prevodi) predložijo skupaj s prvotno zahtevo za izbris.
In the case of an application for revocation pursuant to Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, the onus is on the EUTM proprietor to submit the proof of genuine use or of proper reasons for non-use; therefore, this is the only case where the applicant does not have to substantiate the application (Article 19(1) EUTMDR).
V primeru zahteve za razveljavitev v skladu s členom 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora imetnik blagovne znamke EU predložiti dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi oziroma upravičene razloge za neuporabo; zato je to edini primer, v katerem vložniku ni treba utemeljiti zahteve (člen 19(1) Delegirane uredbe).
In the case of an application for revocation pursuant to Article 58(1)(b) or (c) EUTMR or an application for invalidity based on absolute grounds pursuant to Article 59 EUTMR, the applicant must submit facts, arguments and evidence to support the grounds on which the application is based (Article 16(1)(a) EUTMDR).
V primeru zahteve za razveljavitev v skladu s členom 58(1)(b) ali (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi absolutnih razlogov v skladu s členom 59 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora vložnik zahteve predložiti dejstva, navedbe in dokaze v podporo razlogom, na katerih temelji zahteva (člen 16(1)(a) Delegirane uredbe).
In the case of an application for invalidity based on relative grounds pursuant to Article 60(1) EUTMR, the applicant must prove the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier rights invoked, as well as submit evidence proving its entitlement to file the application for cancellation (Article 16(1)(b) EUTMDR).
V primeru zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi relativnih razlogov v skladu s členom 60(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora vložnik zahteve dokazati obstoj, veljavnost in obseg varstva prejšnjih pravic, ki se uveljavljajo, ter predložiti dokaze o tem, da je upravičen do vložitve zahteve za izbris (člen 16(1)(b) Delegirane uredbe).
As regards substantiation requirements of earlier rights, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2, and the section on invalidity proceedings based on relative grounds in the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 2, Substantive Provisions.
Kar zadeva zahteve glede utemeljitve v zvezi s prejšnjimi pravicami, glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2, in razdelek o postopkih za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi relativnih razlogov v Smernicah, del D: Izbris, razdelek 2: Vsebinske določbe.
In the case of an application for invalidity based on relative grounds pursuant to Article 60(2) EUTMR, the applicant must submit evidence of acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection of the earlier right, as well as evidence proving its entitlement to file the application for cancellation (Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR).
V primeru zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi relativnih razlogov v skladu s členom 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora vložnik zahteve predložiti dokaze o pridobitvi, nadaljnjem obstoju in obsegu varstva prejšnje pravice ter dokaze o tem, da je upravičen do vložitve zahteve za izbris (člen 16(1)(c) Delegirane uredbe).
Furthermore, for grounds invoked pursuant to Article 60(1)(c) and (d) and Article 60(2) EUTMR, where rights are invoked under national law, the applicant must provide the reference to and the wording of the provisions of national law on which it bases its case and make its case under that law.
Poleg tega mora vložnik zahteve v zvezi z razlogi, na katere se sklicuje na podlagi člena 60(1)(c) in (d) ter člena 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v primerih sklicevanja na pravice v skladu z nacionalnim pravom predložiti sklicevanje na določbe nacionalnega prava, na katerih temelji njegova zahteva, in besedilo zadevnih določb ter utemeljiti svoje argumente na navedenem pravu.
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 4, Rights under Article 8(4) and (6) EUTMR (Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR).
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 4: Pravice iz člena 8(4) in (6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (člen 16(1)(c) Delegirane uredbe).
If the applicant does not submit the facts, arguments or evidence required to substantiate the application, the application will be rejected as unfounded (Article 17(3) EUTMDR).
Če vložnik zahteve ne predloži potrebnih dejstev, ali dokazov za utemeljitev zahteve, se zahteva zavrne kot neutemeljena (člen 17(3) Delegirane uredbe).
3.2.1 Online Evidence
Spletni dokazi
3.2.1.1 Earlier trade mark applications and registrations, non-registered trade marks and other signs used in the course of trade, designations of origin and geographical indications (Article 60(1) EUTMR)
Prejšnje prijave in registracije blagovne znamke, neregistrirane blagovne znamke in drugi znaki, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu, označbe porekla in geografske označbe (člen 60(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
According to Article 16(1)(b) EUTMDR, in the case of an application for invalidity based on the relative grounds for invalidity listed in Article 60(1) EUTMR, the evidence required for the substantiation of the claim is the same as that required in opposition proceedings, as Article 7(3) EUTMDR applies mutatis mutandis.
V skladu s členom 16(1)(b) Delegirane uredbe so v primeru zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi relativnih razlogov za ničnost, navedenih v členu 60(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, dokazi, potrebni za utemeljitev zahteve, enaki kot dokazi, ki se zahtevajo v postopku ugovora, saj se smiselno uporablja člen 7(3) Delegirane uredbe.
This also means, that the applicant in invalidity proceedings can rely on online substantiation for evidence of filing or registration of these earlier rights, and, where applicable, the relevant national law.
To tudi pomeni, da se lahko vložnik zahteve v postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti opira na spletno utemeljitev v zvezi s potrdili o vložitvi ali registraciji teh prejšnjih pravic in, če je ustrezno, na zadevno nacionalno pravo.
As the practice of informing the Office of the intention to rely on online evidence, and the identification of the online source is the same as for opposition proceedings, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2, where the process of ‘formal declaration' is explained, and later to each specific paragraph concerning each type of earlier right for the identification of the online sources.
Ker je praksa glede obveščanja Urada o nameri, da se bodo uporabili spletni dokazi, in opredelitve spletnega vira enaka kot pri postopku ugovora, glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2, v katerem je je pojasnjen postopek „formalne izjave“, in pozneje vsak specifični odstavek glede vsake vrste prejšnje pravice za opredelitev spletnih virov.
3.2.1.2 Industrial property rights (Article 60(2)(d) EUTMR)
Pravice industrijske lastnine (člen 60(2)(d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
In addition to the above, according to Article 16(1)(c) EUTMDR, second sentence, where evidence concerning the filing or registration of an earlier industrial property right is to be submitted (under Article 60(2)(d) EUTMR), including where evidence concerning the contents of the relevant national law is required under this ground, and this evidence is accessible online from a source recognised by the Office, the applicant may rely on online substantiation.
Poleg zgoraj navedenega v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 16(1)(c) Delegirane uredbe velja, da če je treba predložiti dokaze o vložitvi ali registraciji prejšnje pravice industrijske lastnine (na podlagi člena 60(2)(d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), med drugim tudi, kadar se na podlagi tega razloga zahtevajo dokazi o vsebini zadevnega nacionalnega prava in so ti dokazi dostopni prek spletnega vira, ki ga priznava Urad, se lahko vložnik zahteve opre na spletno utemeljitev.
Reliance on an industrial property right is specific to invalidity proceedings; however, applying the same reasoning and process set out in opposition proceedings, the applicant must formally declare its reliance on online substantiation before the expiry of the substantiation deadline.
Sklicevanje na pravico industrijske lastnine je specifično za postopke za ugotavljanje ničnosti, vendar mora vložnik zahteve ob upoštevanju istih argumentov in procesa, določenih v postopku ugovora, pred iztekom roka za utemeljitev predložiti formalno izjavo, da se bo opiral na spletno utemeljitev.
In addition, the Office will accept the identification of the official publications and/or national databases to the extent that they originate from the government or official body of the respective Member State, and if they are publically accessible and free of charge.
Poleg tega bo Urad sprejel opredelitev uradnih publikacij in/ali nacionalnih podatkovnih zbirk, če izvirajo od vladnega ali uradnega organa zadevne države članice ter če so javno dostopne in brezplačne.
For the identification of national law, the same requirements apply as in non-registered trade marks or other signs used in the course of trade (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2.4.3).
V zvezi z opredelitvijo nacionalnega prava se uporabljajo iste zahteve kot v zvezi z neregistriranimi blagovnimi znamkami ali drugimi znaki, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2.4.3).
3.3 Translations and changes of language during cancellation proceedings
Prevodi in spremembe jezika med postopkom izbrisa
3.3.1 Change of language
Sprememba jezika
Article 13 EUTMDR
Člen 13 Delegirane uredbe
The language of cancellation proceedings will in general be determined by the applicant in the cancellation application and has to comply with Article 146 EUTMR.
Jezik postopka izbrisa, ki mora biti v skladu s členom 146 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, bo na splošno določil vložnik zahteve v zahtevi za izbris.
See paragraph 2.4.1 above for more details about the choice of language for cancellation proceedings.
Za več podrobnosti o izbiri jezika za postopek izbrisa glej odstavek 2.4.1 zgoraj.
However, the parties to cancellation proceedings may also agree on a different official language of the European Union as the language of the proceedings (Article 146(8) EUTMR).
Stranke v postopku izbrisa se lahko sporazumejo, da je jezik postopka tudi drug uradni jezik Evropske unije (člen 146(8) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
This agreement has to be communicated to the Office within 2 months of the notification of the application for cancellation to the EUTM proprietor.
Urad je treba o tem sporazumu obvestiti v dveh mesecih po tem, ko je bilo imetniku blagovne znamke EU poslano uradno obvestilo glede zahteve za izbris.
Where the application has not been filed in that language, the EUTM proprietor may request that the applicant submit a translation into that language.
Če zahteva ni bila vložena v navedenem jeziku, lahko imetnik blagovne znamke EU zahteva, da vložnik zahteve predloži prevod v navedeni jezik.
The translation request must be received by the Office within the same 2month period.
Urad mora zahtevo za prevod prejeti v zadevnem dvomesečnem obdobju.
In this case, the applicant will be invited by the Office to submit the translation of the application into the language chosen by both parties within a time limit set for this purpose.
V tem primeru bo Urad vložnika zahteve pozval, naj predloži prevod zahteve v jezik, ki ga izbereta obe stranki, in sicer v roku, določenem za ta namen.