natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The number and duration of registrations and applications for the mark around Europe or the world is also relevant, but is in itself a weak indication of the degree of recognition of the sign by the relevant public.
Število in trajanje registracij in prijav za znamko v Evropi ali po svetu sta prav tako pomembna, vendar sta sama po sebi šibek znak stopnje prepoznavnosti znamke pri upoštevni javnosti.
The fact that the opponent has many trade mark registrations and in many classes may indirectly attest to the international circulation of the brand, but cannot decisively prove a reputation in itself.
Dejstvo, da ima vložnik ugovora veliko registracij znamke v številnih razredih, lahko posredno potrdi mednarodno razširjenost znamke, vendar samo po sebi ni odločilni dokaz za ugled.
This factor is mentioned in Article 2(1)(b)(4) of the WIPO Joint Recommendation, where the need for actual use is made clear: the duration and geographical area of any registrations, and/or any applications for registration, of the mark are relevant ‘to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the mark'.
Ta dejavnik je naveden v členu 2(1)(b)(4) skupnega priporočila organizacije WIPO, v katerem je jasno poudarjena potreba po dejanski uporabi: trajanje in geografsko območje vseh registracij in/ali prijav za registracijo znamke sta pomembna glede na to, v kolikšnem obsegu izražata uporabo ali prepoznavnost znamke.
Certification and awards
Certifikati in nagrade
Certification, awards, and similar public recognition instruments usually provide information about the history of the mark, or reveal certain quality aspects of the opponent's products, but as a rule they will not be sufficient in themselves to establish reputation and will be more useful as indirect indications.
Certifikati, nagrade in podobni instrumenti javne prepoznavnosti navadno zagotavljajo informacije o preteklosti znamke ali razkrivajo nekatere vidike glede kakovosti izdelkov vložnika ugovora, vendar praviloma sami po sebi ne zadostujejo za opredelitev ugleda in so uporabnejši kot posredni znaki.
For example, the fact that the opponent has been a holder of a royal warrant for many years may perhaps show that the mark invoked is a traditional brand, but cannot give first-hand information about trade mark awareness.
Na primer dejstvo, da je vložnik ugovora že več let imetnik kraljevega priznanja, lahko pokaže, da je znamka, za katero se uveljavljajo pravice, tradicionalna znamka, vendar ne more zagotoviti informacij o poznanosti znamke iz prve roke.
However, if the certification concerns facts that are related to the performance of the mark, its relevance will be much higher.
Če pa se certifikat nanaša na dejstva, ki so povezana z uspešnostjo znamke, je njegov pomen veliko večji.
This factor is mentioned by the Court in Lloyd Schuhfabrik (Lloyd Schufabrik Meyer) and Chiemsee (Windsurfing Chiemsee) in relation to the assessment of enhanced distinctiveness through use.
Ta dejavnik je Sodišče navedlo v sodbah v zadevah Lloyd Schuhfabrik (Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer) in Chiemsee (Windsurfing Chiemsee) v zvezi s presojo povečanega razlikovalnega učinka na podlagi uporabe.
The value associated with the mark
Vrednost, povezana z znamko
The fact that a mark is solicited by third companies for reproduction on their products, either as a trade mark, or as mere decoration, is a strong indication that the mark possesses a high degree of attractiveness and an important economic value.
Dejstvo, da tretje družbe zaprosijo za reprodukcijo znamke v zvezi s svojimi izdelki, ne glede na to, ali se to nanaša na znamko ali samo na dekoracijo, je pomemben znak, da je znamka zelo privlačna in ima pomembno tržno vrednost.
Therefore, the extent to which the mark is exploited through licensing, merchandising and sponsoring, as well as the scale of the respective schemes, are useful indications in assessing reputation.
Zato sta obseg izkoriščanja znamke preko licenciranja, trženja in sponzoriranja ter obseg zadevnih programov koristna podatka pri presoji ugleda.
This factor is mentioned in Article 2(1)(b)(6) of the WIPO Joint Recommendation.
Ta dejavnik je naveden v členu 2(1)(b)(6) skupnega priporočila organizacije WIPO.
3.1.4 Proof of reputation
Dokaz o ugledu
3.1.4.1 Standard of proof
Dokazni standard
The opponent must submit evidence enabling the Office to reach the positive conclusion that the earlier mark has acquired a reputation in the relevant territory.
Vložnik ugovora mora predložiti dokaze, na podlagi katerih lahko Urad ugotovi, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila ugled na upoštevnem ozemlju.
The wording used in Article 8(5) EUTMR and Article 7(2)(f) EUTMDR is quite clear in this respect: the earlier mark deserves enlarged protection only if it ‘has a reputation'.
Ubeseditev člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člena 7(2)(f) Delegirane uredbe je v zvezi s tem precej jasna: prejšnja znamka si zasluži razširjeno varstvo, samo če „uživa ugled“.
It follows that the evidence must be clear and convincing, in the sense that the opponent must clearly establish all the facts necessary to safely conclude that the mark is known by a significant part of the public.
Iz tega sledi, da morajo biti dokazi jasni in prepričljivi, kar pomeni, da mora vložnik ugovora jasno zagotoviti vsa dejstva, ki so potrebna za zanesljivo ugotovitev, da je znamka znana znatnemu delu javnosti.
The reputation of the earlier mark must be established to the satisfaction of the Office and not merely assumed.
Urad mora biti prepričan o ugledu prejšnje znamke in ne samo domnevati, da obstaja.
3.1.4.2 Burden of proof
Dokazno breme
According to the second sentence of Article 95(1) EUTMR, in inter partes proceedings the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties.
Urad je v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku inter partes pri svojem preizkusu omejen na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih zagotovile stranke.
It follows that, when assessing whether the earlier mark enjoys reputation, the Office may neither take into account facts known to it as a result of its own private knowledge of the market nor conduct an ex officio investigation, but should exclusively base its findings on the information and evidence submitted by the opponent.
Iz tega sledi, da Urad pri presoji, ali ima prejšnja znamka ugled, ne sme upoštevati dejstev, ki so mu znana na podlagi lastnih podatkov o trgu, niti opraviti preiskave po uradni dolžnosti, ampak mora svoje ugotovitve utemeljiti izključno z informacijami in dokazi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora.
Exceptions to this rule apply where particular facts are so well established that they can be considered as universally known and, thus, are also presumed to be known to the Office (e.g. the fact that a particular country has a certain number of consumers, or the fact that food products target the general public).
Izjeme od tega pravila se uporabljajo, kadar so posamezna dejstva tako dobro znana, da se lahko štejejo za splošno znana, in se zato tudi domneva, da jih Urad pozna (npr. dejstvo, da ima neka država določeno število potrošnikov, ali dejstvo, da so živila namenjena splošni javnosti).
However, whether or not a mark has passed the threshold of reputation established by the Court in Chevy (General Motors) is not in itself a pure question of fact, since it requires the legal evaluation of several factual indications, and the reputation of the earlier mark may therefore not be simply assumed to be a universally known fact.
Ali je znamka presegla prag ugleda, ki ga je Sodišče določilo v sodbi Chevy (General Motors), samo po sebi ni povsem dejansko vprašanje, saj zahteva pravno presojo več konkretnih podatkov, zaradi česar ni mogoče domnevati, da je ugled prejšnje znamke splošno znano dejstvo.
Article 7(2)(f) EUTMDR provides that the burden of putting forward and proving the relevant facts lies with the opponent, by expressly requiring it to provide evidence attesting that the earlier mark has a reputation for the goods and services claimed.
Člen 7(2)(f) Delegirane uredbe določa, da mora vložnik ugovora predložiti in dokazati upoštevna dejstva, saj se izrecno zahteva, da mora zagotoviti dokaze o tem, da prejšnja znamka uživa ugled.
According to Article 7(1) and Article 7(2)(f) EUTMDR and Office practice, such evidence may be submitted either together with the notice of opposition, or subsequently within 4 months of the date of notification of the opposition to the applicant.
Ti dokazi se lahko v skladu s členom 7(1) in členom 7(2)(f) Delegirane uredbe ter prakso Urada predložijo skupaj z ugovorom zoper registracijo ali naknadno v štirih mesecih od datuma obvestila o ugovoru, ki je poslano prijavitelju.
The opponent may also refer to facts and evidence submitted in the course of another opposition, provided that the relevant materials are indicated in a clear and unambiguous way and that the language of proceedings is the same in both cases.
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje tudi na dejstva in dokaze, predložene v okviru drugega ugovora, če je zadevno gradivo označeno jasno in nedvoumno ter je jezik postopka v obeh primerih enak.
If the evidence of reputation is not in the correct language, the Office may, of its own motion or upon reasoned request by the other party, require the opponent to submit a translation of the evidence in that language, within a period specified by the Office (Article 7(3) EUTMDR and Article 24 EUTMIR).
Če dokazi o ugledu niso v ustreznem jeziku, lahko Urad na lastno pobudo ali na utemeljeno zahtevo druge stranke od vložnika ugovora zahteva prevod dokaza v roku, ki ga določi Urad, v tem jeziku (člen 7(3) Delegirane uredbe in člen 24 Izvedbene uredbe).
It is left to the discretion of the Office whether the opponent has to submit a translation of the evidence of reputation into the language of the proceedings.
Uradu je prepuščena presoja, ali mora vložnik ugovora predložiti prevod dokazov o ugledu v jezik postopka.
If the applicant explicitly requests a translation of the evidence in the language of the proceedings, the Office, in principle, will require a translation from the opponent.
Če prijavitelj izrecno zahteva prevod dokazov v jezik postopka, bo Urad načeloma vložnika ugovora pozval k predložitvi prevoda.
However, a rejection of such a request is feasible where it appears that the applicant's request, in view of the self-explanatory character of the submitted evidence, is exaggerated or even abusive.
Vendar je mogoče takšno zahtevo zavrniti, če se zdi, da je prijaviteljeva zahteva glede na zadostno jasnost predloženih dokazov pretirana ali da bi lahko celo pomenila zlorabo.
Where the Office requires a translation of the evidence, it will give 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.
In view of the volume of documents often needed for proving reputation, it may be sufficient to translate only the material parts of long documents or publications.
Zaradi obsega dokumentov, ki so pogosto potrebni za dokazovanje ugleda, lahko zadostuje, če se prevedejo samo pomembni deli dolgih dokumentov ali publikacij.
As regards the structure and format in which written evidence of reputation must be filed, Article 55 EUTMDR applies, which provides that the documents or other items of evidence must be contained in annexes to a submission, which must be numbered consecutively.
V zvezi s strukturo in formatom, v katerem je treba predložiti dokaze o ugledu, se uporablja člen 55 Delegirane uredbe, ki določa, da so dokumentacija ali drugi dokazi predloženi v prilogah k vlogam, ki so zaporedno oštevilčene.
Submissions must include an index indicating, for each document or item annexed thereto the following:
Vloge morajo vsebovati kazalo, ki za vsak dokument ali priložen dokaz navaja:
1. the number of the annex;
številko priloge;
2. a short description of the document or item, and if applicable, the number of pages;
kratek opis dokumenta ali dokaza in, kjer je to potrebno, število strani;
3. the page number of the submission where the document or item is mentioned.
številko strani vloge, kjer se na zadevni dokument ali dokaz sklicuje.
The opponent may also indicate, in the index of annexes, which specific parts of a document it relies upon in support of its arguments.
Stranka, ki vlogo vloži, lahko v kazalu prilog navede tudi, na katere dele dokumenta opira svoje navedbe.
Pursuant to Article 55(3) EUTMDR, where the submissions or annexes do not comply with the requirements, the Office may invite the opponent to remedy any deficiency within a set time limit.
Če vloga ali priloge ne izpolnjujejo pogojev, lahko Urad v skladu s členom 55(3) Delegirane uredbe stranko, ki vlogo vloži, pozove, naj pomanjkljivosti odpravi v roku, ki ji ga določi.
If the deficiencies are not remedied and if it is still not possible for the Office to clearly establish to which ground or argument a document or item refers, that evidence will not be taken into account (Article 55(4) EUTMDR).
Če se pomanjkljivosti ne odpravijo in če še vedno ni jasno razvidno, na kateri razlog ali navedbo se dokument ali dokaz nanaša, se ta dokaz ne upošteva (člen 55(4) Delegirane uredbe).
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of the evidence
Ovrednotenje dokazov
The basic rules on the evaluation of evidence are also applicable here: the evidence should be assessed as a whole, that is, each indication should be weighed up against the others, with information confirmed by more than one source generally being considered more reliable than facts derived from isolated references.
Osnovna pravila za ovrednotenje dokazov se uporabljajo tudi v tem primeru: dokaze je treba oceniti kot celoto, kar pomeni, da je treba vsak podatek presojati v primerjavi z drugimi, informacije, ki jih potrjuje več kot en vir, pa so navadno zanesljivejše od dejstev, ki izhajajo iz posameznih virov.
Indeed, the more independent, reliable and well-informed the source of the information is, the higher the probative value of the evidence will be.
Seveda je dokazna vrednost večja, čim bolj neodvisen, zanesljiv in dobro utemeljen je vir informacij.
Therefore, information deriving directly from the opponent is unlikely to be enough on its own, especially if it only consists of opinions and estimates instead of facts, or if it is of an unofficial character and lacks objective confirmation, as for example when the opponent submits internal memoranda or tables with data and figures of unknown origin.
Zato informacije, ki izvirajo neposredno od vložnika ugovora, same najverjetneje ne zadostujejo, zlasti če vsebujejo samo mnenja in ocene, ne pa tudi dejstev, ali če so neuradne in ne vsebujejo objektivne potrditve, kot na primer, kadar vložnik ugovora predloži notranje dopise ali preglednice s podatki in številkami neznanega izvora.
However, if such information is publicly available or has been compiled for official purposes and contains information and data that have been objectively verified, or reproduces statements made in public, its probative value is generally higher.
Če pa je taka dokumentacija javno dostopna ali je bila zbrana za uradne namene ter vsebuje informacije in podatke, ki so bili objektivno potrjeni, ali javno navedene trditve, je njena dokazna vrednost na splošno večja.
As regards its contents, the more indications the evidence gives about the various factors from which reputation may be inferred, the more relevant and conclusive it will be.
Kar zadeva vsebino dokazov, so ta toliko bolj pomembna in odločilna, če vsebujejo več podatkov o različnih dejavnikih, na podlagi katerih je mogoče sklepati o ugledu.
In particular, evidence that, as a whole, gives little or no quantitative data and information will not be appropriate for providing indications about vital factors, such as trade mark awareness, market share and intensity of use and, consequently, will not be sufficient to support a finding of reputation.
Dokazi, ki kot celota vsebujejo malo ali nič kvantitativnih podatkov in informacij, niso primerna za zagotavljanje podatkov o bistvenih dejavnikih, kot so poznanost, tržni delež in intenzivnost uporabe znamke, zaradi česar ne zadostujejo za potrditev ugotovitve o obstoju ugleda.
3.1.4.4 Means of evidence
Dokazi
There is no direct indication in the Regulations as to which kind of evidence is more appropriate for proving reputation.
V uredbah ni neposredne navedbe, katera vrsta dokazov je primernejša za dokazovanje ugleda.
The opponent may avail itself of all the means of evidence of Article 97(1) EUTMR, provided they are capable of showing that the mark does indeed have the required reputation.
Vložnik ugovora lahko uporabi vse dokaze iz člena 97(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če je mogoče z njimi potrditi, da ima znamka resnično zahtevani ugled.
The following means of evidence are the most frequently submitted by opponents in opposition proceedings before the Office (this list does not reflect their relative importance or probative value):
Vložniki ugovora v postopku pred Uradom najpogosteje predložijo naslednji dokazi (seznam ne izraža njihovega relativnega pomena ali dokazne vrednosti):
1. sworn or affirmed statements
zaprisežene ali potrjene izjave;
2. decisions of courts or administrative authorities
odločbe pravosodnih ali upravnih organov;
3. decisions of the Office
odločbe Urada;
4. opinion polls and market surveys
javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave;
5. audits and inspections
revizije in inšpekcijske preglede;
6. certification and awards
certifikate in nagrade;
7. articles in the press or in specialised publications
članke v tisku ali specializiranih publikacijah;
8. annual reports on economic results and company profiles
letna poročila o ekonomskih rezultatih in profile družbe;
9. invoices and other commercial documents
račune in druge poslovne dokumente;
10. advertising and promotional material.
oglaševalsko in promocijsko gradivo.
Evidence of this kind may also be submitted under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR in order to prove that the earlier mark has obtained a higher degree of distinctiveness, or under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in relation to well-known marks.
Takšni dokazi se lahko predložijo tudi v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za potrditev, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila višjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, ali v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zvezi z dobro znanimi znamkami.
Sworn or affirmed statements
Zaprisežene ali potrjene izjave
In particular, both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of such evidence to the particular case must be taken into account.
Upoštevati je treba zlasti položaj osebe, ki zagotovi dokaze, in pomen teh dokazov za posamezni primer.
For further details on the weight and probative value of affidavits, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use.
Za dodatne informacije o teži in dokazni vrednosti zapriseženih izjav glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi.
Decisions of courts or administrative authorities
Odločbe pravosodnih ali upravnih organov
Opponents often invoke decisions of national authorities or courts that have accepted the reputation of the earlier mark.
Vložniki ugovorov se pogosto sklicujejo na odločbe nacionalnih organov ali sodišč, ki so priznali ugled prejšnje znamke.
Even though national decisions are admissible evidence and may have evidentiary value, especially if they originate from a Member State the territory of which is also relevant for the opposition concerned, they are not binding for the Office, in the sense that it is not mandatory for the Office to follow their conclusion.
Čeprav so nacionalne odločbe dopustni dokazi in lahko imajo dokazno vrednost, zlasti če izvirajo iz države članice, katere ozemlje je upoštevno tudi v zadevnem ugovoru, za Urad niso zavezujoče, saj mu ni treba sprejeti enake ugotovitve.
Since such decisions may serve to indicate reputation and to record successful enforcement of the mark, their relevance should be addressed and examined.
Ker se lahko take odločbe uporabljajo kot znak ugleda in za evidentiranje uspešnega uveljavljanja znamk, je treba njihov pomen obravnavati in proučiti.
Consideration should be given to the type of proceedings involved, to whether the issue was in fact reputation within the sense of Article 8(5) EUTMR, to the level of the court, and to the number of such decisions.
Upoštevati je treba zadevno vrsto postopka, dejstvo, ali je pri zadevi dejansko šlo za ugled v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ter stopnjo sodišča in število takih odločb.
There might be differences between the substantive and procedural conditions applicable in national proceedings and those applied in opposition proceedings before the Office.
Vsebinski in postopkovni pogoji, ki se uporabljajo v nacionalnih postopkih, se lahko razlikujejo od tistih, ki se uporabljajo v postopku ugovora pred Uradom.
Firstly, there may be differences as to how the requirement of reputation is defined or interpreted.
Prvič, lahko se razlikujejo glede na način opredelitve in razlage zahteve glede ugleda.
Secondly, the weight the Office gives to the evidence is not necessarily the same as the weight given to it in national proceedings.
Drugič, ni nujno, da Urad dokazom pripiše enako težo, kot jim je pripisana v nacionalnih postopkih.
Furthermore, national instances may be able to take into account ex officio facts known to them directly, whereas, under Article 95 EUTMR, the Office may not.
Poleg tega lahko nacionalni organi morda upoštevajo dejstva, ki so jim znana neposredno po uradni dolžnosti, medtem ko jih Urad v skladu s členom 95 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme.
For these reasons, the probative value of national decisions will be considerably enhanced if the conditions of law and facts on the basis of which they were taken are made abundantly clear.
Iz teh razlogov se dokazna vrednost nacionalnih odločb znatno poveča, če so pogoji prava in dejstva, na podlagi katerih so bile sprejete, povsem jasni.
This is because, in the absence of these elements, it will be more difficult both for the applicant to exercise its right of defence and for the Office to assess the decision's relevance with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Brez teh elementov namreč prijavitelj težje uveljavlja svojo pravico do obrambe, Urad pa težje presodi pomen odločbe z ustrezno stopnjo gotovosti.
Similarly, if the decision is not yet final, or if it is outdated due to the time that has elapsed between the two cases, its probative value will be diminished accordingly.
Podobno se dokazna vrednost odločbe zmanjša tudi, kadar odločba še ni pravnomočna ali je zastarela, ker je med zadevama preteklo preveč časa.
Consequently, the probative value of national decisions should be assessed on the basis of their contents and may vary depending on the case.
Posledično je treba dokazno vrednost nacionalnih odločb presojati glede na njihovo vsebino, pri čemer se lahko ta dokazna vrednost razlikuje glede na primer.
Office Decisions
Odločbe Urada
The opponent may also refer to earlier Office decisions, on condition that such a reference is clear and unambiguous, and that the language of the proceedings is the same.
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje tudi na predhodne odločbe Urada, če je tako sklicevanje jasno in nedvoumno ter je jezik postopka enak.
Otherwise, the opponent must also file a translation of the decision within the 4month period for filing further facts, evidence and arguments, in order to allow the applicant to exercise its right of defence.
V nasprotnem primeru mora vložnik ugovora predložiti prevod odločbe v štirih mesecih, ki so na voljo za predložitev dodatnih dejstev, dokazov in trditev, da lahko prijavitelj uveljavlja svojo pravico do zagovora.
As regards the relevance and probative value of previous Office decisions, the same rules as for national decisions apply.
V zvezi s pomenom in dokazno vrednostjo predhodnih odločb Urada se uporabljajo enaka pravila kot za nacionalne odločbe.
Even where the reference is admissible and the decision is relevant, the Office is not bound to come to the same conclusion and must examine each case on its own merits.
Tudi če je sklicevanje dopustno in odločba pomembna, Uradu ni treba sprejeti enake ugotovitve, saj mora proučiti vsak primer posebej.