natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by personal interests in the matter (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 and 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610).
Razlog je morda to, da na dojemanje stranke, udeležene v sporu, bolj ali manj vplivajo osebni interesi v zvezi z zadevo (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 in 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610).
Generalisation should be avoided, since the exact value of such statements always depends on their concrete form and content.
Izogibati se je treba posploševanju, saj je natančna vrednost takšnih izjav vedno odvisna od njihove konkretne oblike in vsebine.
Statements including detailed and concrete information have a higher probative value than very general and abstractly drafted statements.
Izjave, ki vključujejo podrobne in konkretne informacije, imajo večjo dokazno vrednost od zelo splošnih in abstraktno oblikovanih izjav.
The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in each individual case.
Končni izid je odvisen od celovite presoje dokazov v posameznem primeru.
In general, further material is necessary for establishing evidence of use, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources.
Na splošno je za dokazovanje uporabe potrebno dodatno gradivo, saj je treba v zvezi s takšnimi izjavami šteti, da imajo manjšo dokazno vrednost od materialnih dokazov (etiket, embalaže itd.) ali dokazov, ki izvirajo iz neodvisnih virov.
Therefore, the probative strength of the further material submitted is very important.
Zato je dokazna moč predloženega dodatnega gradiva zelo pomembna.
An assessment should be made of whether the content of the affidavit is sufficiently supported by the further material (or vice versa).
Izvesti je treba presojo, ali je vsebina zaprisežene izjave zadostno podprta z dodatnim gradivom (in obratno).
The fact that the national office concerned may adopt a certain practice in assessing such kind of evidence of use does not mean that it is applicable in proceedings concerning European Union trade marks (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.).
Dejstvo, da lahko zadevni nacionalni Urad pri presoji tovrstnih dokazov sprejme določeno prakso, še ne pomeni, da jo je mogoče uporabljati v postopku v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami EU (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.).
A change of ownership after the filing or priority date of the EUTM application may render declarations made by the new owners void as the latter generally do not have any direct knowledge to form a basis for making declarations concerning use of the mark by the previous owner (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER).
Zaradi spremembe lastništva, izvedene po datumu vložitve ali datumu prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU, so lahko izjave novih imetnikov nične, saj ti na splošno nimajo neposrednega znanja za pripravo izjav o uporabi blagovne znamke s strani prejšnjega imetnika (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER).
Nevertheless, in the case of a transfer or other succession in title, any new owner may rely on use by their predecessor(s) within the grace period concerned.
Kljub temu se lahko novi imetnik v primeru prenosa ali drugega dedovanja pravice sklicuje na uporabo v odložnem roku s strani svojega(-ih) predhodnika(-ov).
Use made by the predecessor may be evidenced by the predecessor and by all other reliable means, for instance, information from business records if the predecessor is not available.
Predhodnikovo uporabo lahko dokaže predhodnik ali pa se lahko dokaže z drugimi zanesljivimi sredstvi, na primer z informacijami iz poslovnih evidenc, če predhodnik ni na voljo.
Declarations by third parties
Izjave tretjih oseb
Statements (such as e.g. surveys) drawn up by an independent source, for example by experts, professional organisations, Chambers of Commerce, suppliers, customers or business partners of the opponent, are given more probative weight (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615).
Izjavam (kot so na primer raziskave), ki jih oblikuje neodvisni vir, na primer strokovnjaki, poklicne organizacije, gospodarske zbornice, dobavitelji, stranke ali poslovni partnerji vložnika ugovora, se pripisuje večja dokazna vrednost (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615).
This practice is in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice in the Chiemsee judgment (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), where the Court gave some indications of appropriate evidence for proving the acquired distinctiveness of a mark in the market place.
Ta praksa je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča v sodbi v zadevi Chiemsee (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), v kateri je Sodišče predložilo nekaj primerov ustreznih dokazov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče opredeliti pridobljen razlikovalni učinek znamke na trgu.
Although acquisition of distinctiveness is not per se the same as genuine use, the former does comprise elements of evidence of use of a sign on the market.
Čeprav pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka sama po sebi ni enakovredna resni in dejanski uporabi, zajema dokazne elemente o uporabi znaka na trgu.
Consequently, case-law relating to these can be used by analogy.
Zato je mogoče po analogiji uporabljati sodno prakso v zvezi s takšnimi dokaznimi elementi.
Statements drawn up by the parties themselves are not ‘third-party evidence' whereas all other evidence, such as opinion polls, statements from Chambers of Commerce, or from professional organisations or from experts, does originate from third parties.
Izjave, ki jih pripravijo same stranke, niso dokazi tretjih oseb, vsi drugi dokazi, kot so javnomnenjske raziskave, izjave gospodarskih zbornic ali poklicnih organizacij ali strokovnjakov, pa izvirajo od tretjih oseb.
3.4 Reaction from the applicant
Odziv prijavitelja
3.4.1 Forwarding of evidence
Posredovanje dokazov
After having received the evidence of use submitted by the opponent, the Office forwards the complete evidence to the applicant.
Potem ko Urad prejme dokaze o uporabi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, popolne dokaze posreduje prijavitelju.
The Office, in general, allows the applicant 2 months to file its observations in reply to the evidence of use (and to the opposition).
Urad na splošno prijavitelju da na voljo dva meseca za predložitev pripomb kot odgovor na dokaze o uporabi (in kot odgovor na ugovor).
3.4.2 No evidence or no relevant evidence submitted
Dokazi niso predloženi oziroma predloženi dokazi niso ustrezni
However, the Office may close the proceedings immediately if, within the time limit given, the opponent has submitted no evidence, or the evidence is manifestly of no relevance, and all the earlier rights of the opposition are affected.
Vendar lahko Urad nemudoma konča postopek, če vložnik ugovora v določenem roku ni predložil dokazov oziroma so dokazi očitno neustrezni in če to vpliva na vse prejšnje pravice, na katerih temelji ugovor.
The rationale behind this practice is to avoid the continuation of proceedings when their outcome is already known, that is, the opposition is to be rejected for lack of proof of use (principle of economy and good administration of proceedings).
Razlog za to prakso je preprečiti nadaljevanje postopka, kadar je izid že znan, tj. ugovor bo zavrnjen zaradi pomanjkanja dokaza o uporabi (načelo gospodarnosti in dobrega upravljanja postopka).
In all other cases the evidence is forwarded to the applicant, which is given 2 months to file its observations.
V vseh drugih primerih se dokazi posredujejo prijavitelju, ki ima na voljo dva meseca za vložitev pripomb.
The Office must not indicate to the opponent that the sufficiency of the evidence is doubtful, or even invite the opponent to file further evidence in such cases.
Urad vložnika ugovora ne sme opozoriti, da obstajajo dvomi o zadostnosti dokazov, ali ga v takšnih primerih pozvati, naj predloži dodatne dokaze.
Such acts would be against the impartial position of the Office in adversarial proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
Takšna dejanja bi bila v nasprotju z nepristranskostjo Urada v kontradiktornem postopku (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
3.4.3 No reaction from applicant
Nobenega odziva od prijavitelja
If the applicant does not react within the time limit, the Office will give a decision on the basis of the evidence before it.
Če se prijavitelj v tem roku ne odzove, bo Urad sprejel odločbo na podlagi dokazov, ki jih ima na voljo.
The fact that the applicant does not reply does not mean that it accepts the submitted evidence as sufficient proof of use (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
Dejstvo, da prijavitelj ne odgovori, ne pomeni, da predložene dokaze sprejema kot zadosten dokaz o uporabi (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
3.4.4 Formal withdrawal of the request
Formalni umik zahteve
Where the applicant reacts to the proof of use by formally withdrawing its request for proof of use, the issue will no longer be relevant.
Če se prijavitelj na dokaz o uporabe odzove tako, da formalno umakne svojo zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi, vprašanje uporabe blagovne znamke ne bo več sporno.
As it is the applicant who sets in motion the respective procedure, the applicant logically is in a position to bring an end to this part of the proceedings by formally withdrawing its request (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
Ker je prijavitelj tisti, ki sproži zadevni postopek, lahko ta del postopka vsekakor konča s formalnim umikom svoje zahteve (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
3.5 Further reaction from the opponent
Nadaljnji odziv vložnika ugovora
The opponent is entitled to file observations in reply to the applicant's observations.
Vložnik ugovora lahko predloži pripombe kot odgovor na pripombe prijavitelja.
This is of particular importance in cases where the decision to be taken might be based in part on the arguments put forward by the applicant to the effect that the evidence does not prove the use of the mark.
To je zlasti pomembno, kadar bi lahko odločba, ki bo sprejeta, deloma temeljila na navedbah prijavitelja, da iz dokazov ni razvidna uporaba znamke.
The Board of Appeal has regarded failure to allow the opponent to comment in such a case as a substantial procedural violation (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
Odbor za pritožbe šteje, da gre za bistveno kršitev postopka, če se vložniku ugovora v takšnem primeru ne omogoči predložitev pripomb (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
For further details on the submission of additional evidence, see paragraph 3.3.1 above.
Za več podrobnosti o predložitvi dodatnih dokazov glej odstavek 3.3.1 zgoraj.
3.6 Languages in proof of use proceedings
Jeziki v postopkih v zvezi z dokazom o uporabi
According to Article 10(6) EUTMDR, where the evidence submitted pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 is not in the language of the opposition proceedings, the Office may require the opponent to submit a translation of that evidence in that language, within a period specified by the Office.
Če v skladu s členom 10(6) Delegirane uredbe dokazi, predloženi na podlagi odstavkov 1, 2 in 3, niso v jeziku postopka ugovora, lahko Urad od vložnika ugovora zahteva, naj predloži prevod teh dokazov v navedeni jezik v roku, ki mu ga določi Urad.
It is left to the discretion of the Office whether the opponent has to submit a translation of the evidence of use into the language of the proceedings.
Uradu je prepuščena presoja, ali mora vložnik ugovora predložiti prevod dokazov o uporabi v jezik postopka.
In exercising its discretion, the Office balances the interests of both parties.
Urad pri uresničevanju svoje diskrecijske pravice upošteva interese obeh strank.
It has to be borne in mind that it might be extremely costly and burdensome for the opponent to translate the evidence of use submitted into the language of the proceedings.
Upoštevati je treba, da bi lahko bilo za vložnika ugovora izjemno drago in obremenjujoče, če bi moral zagotoviti prevod predloženih dokazov o uporabi v jezik postopka.
On the other hand, the applicant has the right to be informed about the content of the evidence submitted in order to be capable of defending its interests.
Po drugi strani ima prijavitelj pravico seznaniti se z vsebino predloženih dokazov, da lahko brani svoje interese.
It is absolutely necessary that the applicant is able to assess the content of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.
Zato je nujno, da lahko prijavitelj oceni vsebino dokazov o uporabi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora.
In this regard, the nature of the documents submitted has to be taken into account.
V zvezi s tem je treba upoštevati naravo predloženih dokumentov.
For example, it might be considered that ‘standard' invoices and samples of packaging do not require a translation in order to be understood by the applicant (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (appealed 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
Tako bi se lahko na primer štelo, da standardnih računov in vzorcev embalaže ni treba prevajati, zato da bi jih prijavitelj razumel (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (pritožba na odločbo, vložena dne 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
Where the Office requires translation of the evidence, it gives the opponent a period of 2 months to submit it.
Če Urad zahteva prevod dokazov, da vložniku ugovora na voljo dva meseca za predložitev prevoda.
Where the evidence of use submitted by the opponent is voluminous, the Office may explicitly invite the opponent to translate only the parts of the submitted material that the opponent regards as sufficient for establishing genuine use of the mark within the relevant period.
Če so dokazi o uporabi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, obsežni, ga lahko Urad izrecno pozove, naj prevede le dele predloženega gradiva, v zvezi s katerimi sam šteje, da zadostujejo za dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe blagovne znamke v upoštevnem obdobju.
It is in general up to the opponent to evaluate whether a complete translation of all the evidence submitted is necessary.
Vložnik ugovora na splošno presodi, ali je potreben prevod vseh predloženih dokazov.
The means of evidence will only be taken into account insofar as a translation has been produced or insofar as the means of evidence are self-explanatory regardless of their textual components.
Dokazi se bodo upoštevali le, če je bil zagotovljen prevod ali če ne potrebujejo nobene dodatne pojasnitve, ne glede na njihove besedne elemente.
3.7 Decision
Odločba
3.7.1 Competence of the Office
Pristojnost Urada
The Office makes its own evaluation of the evidence of use submitted.
Urad opravi lastno presojo predloženih dokazov o uporabi.
This means that the probative value of the evidence submitted is evaluated independently of the observations submitted by the applicant in this respect.
To pomeni, da se dokazna vrednost predloženih dokazov presoja neodvisno od pripomb, ki jih v zvezi s tem predloži prijavitelj.
Assessment of the relevance, pertinence, conclusiveness and efficacy of evidence lies within the discretion and power of judgment of the Office, not the parties, and falls outside the adversarial principle that governs inter partes proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
Presoja pomembnosti, ustreznosti, prepričljivosti in učinkovitosti dokazov je prepuščena diskreciji in pristojnosti za presojanje Urada, ne strank, in ne spada na področje uporabe načela kontradiktornosti, ki ureja postopke inter partes (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
A declaration by the applicant concluding that use has been proved does not, therefore, have any effect on the Office's findings.
Izjava prijavitelja, v kateri je ugotovljeno, da je bila uporaba dokazana, zato nima nikakršnega vpliva na ugotovitve Urada.
The request for proof of use is a defence plea by the applicant.
Zahteva za dokaz o uporabi je sredstvo obrambe prijavitelja.
However, once the defence plea has been raised by the applicant, it is solely up to the Office to carry out the subsequent procedure and evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the opponent is to be regarded as of sufficient probative value.
Vendar kadar prijavitelj izkoristi zadevno sredstvo obrambe, je za izvajanje naknadnega postopa in presojo, ali je treba šteti, da imajo dokazi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, zadostno dokazno vrednost, pristojen izključno Urad.
However, the applicant does have the possibility of formally withdrawing the request for proof of use (see paragraph 3.4.4 above).
Prijavitelj ima kljub temu možnost, da formalno umakne zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi (glej odstavek 3.4.4 zgoraj).
This is not contrary to Article 95(1) EUTMR, which stipulates that in inter partes proceedings the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.
To ni v nasprotju s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da je Urad v postopku inter partes pri preizkusu omejen na zahtevani ukrep ter na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih podale stranke.
However, although the Office is bound by the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties, it is not bound by the legal value that the parties may give thereto.
Čeprav je Urad zavezan dejstvom, dokazom in navedbam, ki jih podajo stranke, pa ni zavezan pravni veljavnosti, ki jo stranke morda pripišejo zadevnim dejstvom, dokazom in navedbam.
Hence, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proved or not, but may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish genuine use (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
Zato se lahko stranke sporazumejo, katera dejstva so bila dokazana in katera ne, ne morejo pa opredeliti, ali ta dejstva zadostujejo za ugotovitev resne in dejanske uporabe (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
3.7.2 Need for assessing proof of use
Potreba po presoji dokaza o uporabi
A decision on whether the obligation of having genuinely used the registered mark has been fulfilled is not always necessary.
Odločba, ali so izpolnjene obveznosti glede resne in dejanske uporabe registrirane znamke, ni vedno nujna.
When proof of use of the earlier rights has been requested by the applicant, the Office will also examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision in question.
Kadar prijavitelj zahteva dokaz o uporabi prejšnjih pravic, bo Urad proučil tudi, ali je bila dokazana uporaba za prejšnje znamke in v kakšnem obsegu, če to vpliva na izid zadevne odločbe.
The examination of proof of use is always necessary and obligatory in cases where the opposition is fully or partially successful on the basis of the earlier mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation.
Proučitev dokaza o uporabi je vedno nujna in obvezna v primerih, v katerih je ugovor v celoti ali delno uspešen na podlagi prejšnje znamke, za katero je veljala obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi.
The Office may decide not to assess the submitted proof of use where the question whether the earlier mark concerned was genuinely used for the relevant registered goods and/or services is irrelevant for the outcome of the opposition, for example:
Urad se lahko odloči, da predloženega dokaza o uporabi ne bo presojal, če vprašanje, ali se je zadevna prejšnja znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala za zadevno registrirano blago in/ali storitve, ni pomembno za izid ugovora, na primer:
under the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, if there is no likelihood of confusion between the contested mark and the earlier mark that is subject to the proof of use obligation (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43);
na podlagi razloga iz člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer če ne obstaja verjetnost zmede med izpodbijano znamko in prejšnjo znamko, za katero velja obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43),
if the opposition is fully successful on the basis of another earlier mark, which is not subject to the proof of use obligation;
če je ugovor v celoti uspešen na podlagi druge prejšnje znamke, za katero ne velja obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi,
if the opposition is fully successful on the grounds of Article 8(3) and/or Article 8(4) EUTMR;
če je ugovor v celoti uspešen na podlagi razlogov iz člena 8(3) in/ali člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU,
under the ground of Article 8(5) EUTMR, if one of the necessary conditions for application of this ground is not fulfilled.
na podlagi razloga iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer če ni izpolnjen eden od nujnih pogojev za uporabo tega razloga.
However, in the event that the earlier trade mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation was examined in the decision but the assessment of the proof of use has been omitted, this will be expressly stated in the decision with a brief justification.
Če pa je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka, za katero je veljala obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi, preizkušena v odločbi, vendar je bila presoja dokaza o uporabi opuščena, bo to v odločbi izrecno navedeno skupaj s kratko utemeljitvijo.
3.7.3 Overall assessment of the evidence presented
Celovita presoja predloženih dokazov
As stated in more detail above (see paragraph 2.2 above), the Office has to evaluate the evidence submitted with regard to place, time, extent and nature of use in an overall assessment.
Kot je bilo podrobneje navedeno zgoraj (glej odstavek 2.2 zgoraj), mora Urad predložene dokaze v zvezi s krajem, časom, obsegom in naravo uporabe presojati v okviru celovite presoje.
The principle of interdependence applies, meaning that weak evidence with regard to one relevant factor (e.g. low sales volume) might be compensated by solid evidence with regard to another factor (e.g. continuous use over a long period of time).
Uporablja se načelo soodvisnosti, kar pomeni, da se lahko šibki dokazi v zvezi z enim upoštevnim dejavnikom (npr. majhen obseg prodaje) izravnajo s trdimi dokazi v zvezi z drugim dejavnikom (npr. stalna uporaba v daljšem obdobju).
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account in conjunction with each other in order to determine whether the mark in question has been genuinely used.
Vse okoliščine nekega primera je treba upoštevati v medsebojni povezavi z drugimi, da se lahko opredeli, ali se je zadevna znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala.
The particular circumstances can include, for example, the specific features of the goods/services in question (e.g. low- or high-priced; mass products versus special products) or the particular market or business area.
Posamezne okoliščine lahko na primer vključujejo specifične značilnosti zadevnega blaga/storitev (npr. nizka ali visoka cena, množični proizvodi v primerjavi s posebnimi proizvodi) ali zadevnega tržnega ali poslovnega področja.
Indirect/circumstantial evidence, under certain conditions even on its own, can also be suitable for proving genuine use.
Za dokazovanje resne in dejanske uporabe so lahko primerna tudi posredni dokazi, pod nekaterimi pogoji celo samo ti dokazi.