natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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, and which it would have been reasonable for the opponent to market in view of the goods and services protected under the earlier mark.
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 in v zvezi s katerimi bi bilo razumno, da bi jih tržil vložnik ugovora glede na blago in storitve, zaščitene s prejšnjo znamko.
If the goods or services, however, are not identical or similar or equivalent, Article 8(3) EUTMR does not apply (17/02/2014, R 407/20134, WOUXUN / WOUXUN).
Če pa blago ali storitve niso enaki ali podobni ali enaki, se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja (17/02/2014, R 407/20134, WOUXUN / WOUXUN).
The following are examples of conflicting signs where the Office considered that Article 8(3) EUTMR is applicable.
V nadaljevanju so ponazorjeni primeri spornih znakov, v zvezi s katerimi je Urad menil, da se lahko uporablja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The following are examples of goods and services in conflict where the Office considered that Article 8(3) EUTMR is applicable.
V nadaljevanju so ponazorjeni primeri spornega blaga in storitev, v zvezi s katerimi je Urad menil, da se lahko uporablja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In the following example, the goods and services in conflict were not considered equivalent in commercial terms.
V naslednjem primeru se nasprotujoče si blago in storitve ne štejejo za enakovredne v komercialnem smislu.
30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL (confirmed 16/11/2011, T484/09, Powerball) The Board confirmed the OD decision rejecting the opposition based on Article 8(3) EUTMR to the extent that the opponent was not the proprietor of the earlier right but merely claimed to be the licensee of the company Nanosecond Technology Co. Ltd.
30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL (potrjena 16/11/2011, T484/09, Powerball) Odbor je potrdil odločbo oddelka za ugovor, s katero je bil zavrnjen ugovor na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj vložnik ugovora ni bil imetnik prejšnje pravice, temveč je trdil le, da je pridobitelj licence družbe Nanosecond Technology Co. Ltd.
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK (on appeal, 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent failed to meet the requirement regarding ownership of the trade mark, namely of the ownership of the registered mark ZAPPER-CLICK.
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK (tožba zavržena v pritožbenem postopku z dne 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Tožena stranka ni izpolnjevala zahteve glede lastništva blagovne znamke, in sicer lastništva registrirane znamke ZAPPER-CLICK.
On appeal, the Court did not address this point.
Sodišče v pritožbenem postopku te točke ni obravnavalo.
As Article 8(3) EUTMR refers only to earlier trade marks, the evidence filed by the opponent with regard to rights in respect of copyright law in the territory of China was not relevant.
Ker se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU sklicuje le na prejšnje blagovne znamke, dokazi, ki jih je vložnik ugovora predložil glede pravic v zvezi z avtorskim pravom na ozemlju Kitajske, niso bila upoštevna.
This is another kind of intellectual property right that is excluded as a result of the express reference in the article to ‘trade marks'.
To je druga vrsta pravice intelektualne lastnine, ki je izključena, saj se člen izrecno sklicuje na „blagovne znamke“.
21/12/2009, R 1621/20064, DRaintank The Board noted that the trade mark applications filed by the cancellation applicant in 2003 were all later than the filing date of the contested EUTM and even later than its date of registration, and could not serve to establish that the cancellation applicant owned a ‘mark' in the sense of a registered mark, be it anywhere in the world, for the sign at issue when the EUTM was filed.
21/12/2009, R 1621/20064, DRaintank Odbor je ugotovil, da so bile vse prijave blagovne znamke, ki jih je vložnik zahteve za izbris vložil leta 2003, poznejše od datuma vložitve izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in celo poznejše od datuma njene registracije, zato jih ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za ugotovitev, da je bil vložnik zahteve za izbris ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU kjer koli na svetu imetnik znamke v smislu registrirane znamke za zadevni znak.
It went on to affirm that, ‘Obviously, nobody can base a claim on relative grounds for refusal or declaration of invalidity on rights which are younger than the contested EUTM' (para. 53).
Nato je potrdil, da seveda nihče ne more utemeljiti zahteve na relativnih razlogih za zavrnitev ali zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti glede pravic, ki so poznejše od izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU (točka 53).
This was the priority date in Germany, claimed by the applicant, granted by the Office and subsequently published, and not the filing date of the EUTM application at the Office.
To je bil datum prednostne pravice v Nemčiji, na katerega se je skliceval vložnik zahteve, ki ga je dodelil Urad in ki je bil nato objavljen, in ne datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU pri Uradu.
19/12/2006, B 715 146, Squirt ‘For the purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR, it is immaterial where in the world the rights of proprietorship reside.
19/12/2006, B 715 146, Squirt Za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, kje na svetu imajo učinek pravice iz lastništva.
Indeed, if in the Paris Convention the proprietorship in a Paris Union member country is required, in the absence of any reference in the EUTMR to any territory in which such proprietorship shall exist, one must conclude that it is sufficient that the opponent complies with the requirements of Article 5 EUTMR concerning “Persons who can be proprietors of European Union trade marks”.
Dejansko velja, če se v Pariški konvenciji zahteva lastništvo v državi članici Pariške unije, je treba - ker v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanj na katero koli ozemlje, na katerem takšno lastništvo obstaja - sklepati, da je dovolj, če vložnik ugovora izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 5 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glede „[oseb], ki so lahko imetniki blagovnih znamk EU“.
In the present case, the opponent complied with such a requirement, as it was a company based in the United States of America.'
V tem primeru je vložnik ugovora izpolnjeval takšno zahtevo, saj je bil družba s sedežem v Združenih državah Amerike.
The fact that the earlier registrations were from non-EU countries has no bearing on the invalidity ground at issue, since Article 8(2) EUTMR, imposing this territorial condition, does not apply to proceedings based on Article 8(3) EUTMR and cannot serve to define the territorial extent of protection granted by that article.
Dejstvo, da so bile prejšnje registracije iz držav, ki niso članice EU, ne vpliva na sporni razlog za ničnost, saj se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki nalaga to ozemeljsko zahtevo, ne uporablja za postopek na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ga ni mogoče uporabiti za opredelitev ozemeljskega obsega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja navedeni člen.
‘In the absence of any reference to a “relevant territory” in Article 8(3) EUTMR, the Cancellation Division must presume that earlier trade marks registered in countries outside the EU may constitute the basis for an invalidity request based on Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 33).'
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanja na upoštevno ozemlje, mora oddelek za izbris domnevati, da so lahko prejšnje blagovne znamke, registrirane v tretjih državah, podlaga za zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 33).
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (confirmed 09/07/2014, T184/12) The opposition was based on an unregistered mark protected, inter alia, in Australia.
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (potrjena z dne 09/07/2014, T184/12) Ugovor je temeljil na neregistrirani znamki, ki je med drugim zaščitena v Avstraliji.
The Board considered that the evidence submitted by the opponent supports that it has been using the mark in Australia to a substantial extent (paras 3 and 34 respectively).
Odbor je menil, da je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, razvidno, da znamko v precejšnjem obsegu uporablja v Avstraliji (točki 3 in 34).
The opposition was based on a registered mark protected in Malaysia.
Ugovor je temeljil na registrirani znamki, ki je zaščitena v Maleziji.
By filing the Malaysian registration certificate, it was proven that the opponent is the owner of the Malaysian trade mark.
S predložitvijo malezijskega potrdila o registraciji je bilo dokazano, da je vložnik ugovora imetnik malezijske blagovne znamke.
09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip The Court concluded that, although there was no written cooperation agreement between the parties, their relationship on the date of the application for the EUTM was, in view of the business correspondence between them, more than that of merely buyer and seller.
09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bilo razmerje med strankama na datum prijave blagovne znamke EU glede na poslovne dopise med njima več kot samo razmerje med kupcem in prodajalcem, čeprav nista imeli pisnega dogovora o sodelovanju.
There was, rather, a tacit cooperation agreement that led to a fiduciary obligation on the part of the EUTM applicant (para. 67).
Namesto njega je obstajal tihi dogovor o sodelovanju, ki je ustvaril zaupniško razmerje pri prijavitelju blagovne znamke EU (točka 67).
The Board found that the contents of the exchanged information lead to the conclusion that ‘the CTM proprietor was, in effect, acting as an agent or distributor of the invalidity applicant.
Odbor je ugotovil, da je vsebina izmenjanih informacij privedla do sklepne ugotovitve, da je imetnik znamke Skupnosti dejansko deloval kot zastopnik ali distributer vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
Even if the relationship was not explicitly defined as such, the parties appeared to be business partners, which would require a certain level of trust.
Čeprav razmerje ni bilo izrecno opredeljeno kot tako, se zdi, da sta bili stranki poslovna partnerja, za kar bi bila potrebna določena stopnja zaupanja.
The CTM proprietor was regularly reporting and consulting the marketing strategy with the invalidity applicant, which on its part, allowed a certain level of control, to the CTM proprietor (para. 46).'
Imetnik znamke Skupnosti je redno poročal vložniku zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in se z njim posvetoval o strategiji trženja, s tem pa je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti imetniku znamke Skupnosti dovoljeval določeno raven nadzora (točka 46).
The Opposition Division found that the evidence submitted by the opponent showed that the relationship and its ultimate purpose constituted an example of commercial cooperation, through which a general duty of trust and loyalty was imposed on the applicant and was the type of relationship envisioned under Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 5).
Oddelek za ugovore je ugotovil, da je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, razvidno, da razmerje in njegov končni cilj pomenita primer poslovnega sodelovanja, v okviru katerega je bila prijavitelju naložena splošna obveznost zaupanja in lojalnosti, in da je bila to vrsta razmerja, predvidena v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 5).
17/03/2000, B 26 759, EAST SIDE MARIO'S A mere desire to establish a commercial relationship with the opponent cannot be considered as a concluded agreement between the parties regarding the use of the contested trade mark.
17/03/2000, B 26 759, EAST SIDE MARIO'S Navadne želje po vzpostavitvi poslovnega razmerja z vložnikom ugovora ni mogoče šteti za sklenjen sporazum med strankama o uporabi izpodbijane blagovne znamke.
13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The opponent did not submit any evidence showing the existence of an agent-principal relationship with the applicant.
13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenega dokaza, ki bi dokazovalo obstoj zastopniškega razmerja s prijaviteljem.
The opponent provided invoices and order forms addressed to itself, on the basis of which the existence of a business agreement between the parties could, in other circumstances, be assumed.
Vložnik ugovora je predložil račune in naročilnice, ki so bili naslovljeni nanj, na podlagi katerih bi se lahko v drugačnih okoliščinah sklepalo o obstoju poslovnega dogovora med strankama.
However, in the present case, the General Court concluded that the evidence does not show that the applicant acted on behalf of the opponent, but merely that there was a seller-customer relationship that could have been established without a prior agreement between them.
Vendar je Splošno sodišče v tem primeru sklenilo, da iz teh dokazov ni razvidno, da je prijavitelj ravnal v imenu vložnika ugovora, temveč potrjujejo le obstoj razmerja prodajalca in stranke, ki je lahko nastalo brez predhodnega dogovora med njima.
Such a relationship is not sufficient for Article 8(3) EUTMR to be applicable (para. 67).
Takšno razmerje ne zadošča za uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 67).
The Office considered that the evidence on the kind of commercial link between the opponent and the applicant was inconclusive, that is, it could not be established whether the applicant was really an agent or representative or a mere purchaser of the opponent's goods.
Urad je menil, da so bili dokazi o vrsti poslovnega razmerja med vložnikom ugovora in prijaviteljem nezadostni in ni bilo mogoče opredeliti, ali je bil prijavitelj dejansko posrednik ali zastopnik ali navaden kupec blaga vložnika pritožbe.
Accordingly, the Office was unable to hold that Article 8(3) EUTMR applied.
Zato Urad ni mogel biti prepričan o uporabi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In this case, the applicant was a legal representative of the opponent's company.
V tem primeru je bil prijavitelj pravni zastopnik družbe vložnika ugovora.
The opposition was rejected.
Ugovor je bil zavrnjen.
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH The Opposition Division was correct to conclude that there was an agency relationship between the applicant and the opponents, on the basis of correspondence indicating that the two parties had a long and close commercial relationship.
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Oddelek za ugovore je na podlagi korespondence, iz katere je bilo razvidno, da sta imeli stranki dolgo in tesno poslovno razmerje, pravilno ugotovil, da je med prijaviteljem in vložniki ugovora obstajalo zastopniško razmerje.
The applicant company acted as a distributor of the opponents' goods (para. 18).
Družba prijavitelja je delovala kot distributer blaga vložnikov ugovora (točka 18).
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (confirmed 09/07/2014, T184/12) The Court confirmed the findings of the Board, who considered that a binding contractual relationship could be established by means of business letters exchanged by the parties, including by email.
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (potrjena z dne 09/07/2014, T184/12) Sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitve Odbora, da je mogoče zavezujoče pogodbeno razmerje opredeliti na podlagi izmenjave poslovnih dopisov med strankama, med drugim po elektronski pošti.
The Board examined the email correspondence between the parties to determine what each party asked from the other (para. 50).
Odbor je proučil korespondenco med strankama, ki je potekala po elektronski pošti, da bi ugotovil, kaj sta stranki zahtevali druga od druge (točka 50).
The Board concluded that the emails showed that both parties were actively cooperating in the promotion of the product, by advertising it in brochures and exhibiting it at a fair, in order to create the best conditions for its successful marketing: the opponent supplied the material for these purposes and the applicant adapted it to the German market (para. 54).
Odbor je sklenil, da je iz elektronske pošte razvidno, da sta obe stranki dejavno sodelovali pri promociji izdelka, saj sta ga oglaševali v brošurah in razstavili na sejmu, da bi ustvarili najboljše pogoje za njegovo uspešno trženje: vložnik ugovora je predložil gradivo v te namene, prijavitelj pa ga je prilagodil nemškemu trgu (točka 54).
The Board thus concluded that the email correspondence denoted an agreement of commercial cooperation between the parties of a kind that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship (para. 56).
Odbor je zato sklenil, da korespondenca po elektronski pošti pomeni vrsto sporazuma o poslovnem sodelovanju med strankama, ki ustvarja zaupniško razmerje (točka 56).
The Court dismissed the applicant's arguments that there was no cooperation between the parties (because the applicant was not integrated in the opponent's sales structure, was not subject to a no-competition clause and had to bear the costs of sale and promotion) and confirmed the Board's decision (para. 67 et seq.).
Sodišče je zavrnilo argumente prijavitelja, da stranki nista sodelovali (ker prijavitelj ni bil vključen v prodajno strukturo vložnika ugovora, zanj ni veljala protikonkurenčna klavzula in je moral nositi stroške prodaje in oglaševanja), in potrdilo odločitev odbora (točka 67 in naslednje).
The opponent granted the applicant a special power of attorney (PoA), consenting to the applicant's filing of trade mark applications.
Vložnik ugovora je prijavitelju izdal posebno pooblastilo, s katerim je soglašal, da prijavitelj vloži prijave blagovnih znamk.
Subsequent to this PoA, the applicant filed an EUTM.
Prijavitelj je po pridobitvi pooblastila vložil prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
After the filing, the opponent revoked the PoA and filed the opposition.
Vložnik ugovora je po vložitvi preklical pooblastilo in vložil ugovor.
The Board considered that the relevant point in time is the filing date.
Odbor je menil, da je upoštevni datum datum vložitve.
At that moment, the owner's consent was present.
V zadevnem datumu je obstajalo soglasje imetnika.
The revocation had effects ex nunc (and does not affect the validity of actions performed under the PoA) and not ex tunc (as if the PoA had never existed) (para. 24).
Preklic je imel učinke ex nunc (in ne vpliva na veljavnost dejanj, opravljenih na podlagi pooblastila), in ne ex tunc (kot da pooblastilo ni nikoli obstajalo) (točka 24).
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The Board of Appeal ought to have examined whether, on the day of the application for registration of the mark, the intervener was still bound by the consent (para. 50).
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Odbor za pritožbe bi moral proučiti, ali je bil na dan zahteve za registracijo zadevne znamke intervenient še zavezan s tem soglasjem (točka 50).
19/11/2007, R 73/20064 The contested application was not filed during the validity of the agreements between Gallant (owner of shares in Porter, the applicant) and Yoshida (opponent) which allowed Gallant to file an EUTM, but nearly 1 year after the termination of the last agreement (para. 25).
19/11/2007, R 73/20064 Izpodbijana prijava ni bila vložena v času trajanja veljavnosti sporazumov med družbo Gallant (lastnikom delnic v družbi Porter, ki je prijavitelj) in družbo Yoshida (vložnik ugovora), kar je družbi Gallant omogočilo, da vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU, vendar skoraj eno leto po prenehanju zadnjega sporazuma (točka 25).
The Board noted that post-termination fiduciary obligations are not meant to last forever but for a certain transitional period after the termination of the agreement in which the parties may redefine their commercial strategies and concluded, inter alia, that any post-contractual relationship between Yoshida and Gallant was phased out at the time of the filing of the EUTM (para. 27).
Odbor je navedel, da veljavnost zaupniških obveznosti po prenehanju ni mišljena za vedno, ampak za določeno prehodno obdobje po prenehanju sporazuma, v katerem lahko stranki znova opredelita svoji tržni strategiji, in med drugim ugotovil, da kakršno koli popogodbeno razmerje med družbama Yoshida in Gallant v času vložitve blagovne znamke EU ni več obstajalo (točka 27).
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC In this case, it was considered that less than 3 months after the expiry of a contract relationship such as a licence agreement, the fiduciary relationship between the parties still exists imposing on the applicant a duty of loyalty and confidence.
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC V tem primeru so se manj kot trije meseci po preteku pogodbenega razmerja, kot je licenčna pogodba, šteli za obdobje, v katerem je še vedno veljalo, da med strankama obstaja zaupniško razmerje, ki prijavitelju nalaga obveznost lojalnosti in zaupanja.
28/05/2003, B 413 890, CELLFOOD If it is clear that because of the nature of the relationship between the person filing the application and the agent, the situation is effectively the same as if the application had been filed by the agent personally, it is still possible to apply Article 8(3) EUTMR, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name of the owner's agent.
28/05/2003, B 413 890, CELLFOOD Če je očitno, da je stanje zaradi vrste razmerja med osebo, ki vloži prijavo, in posrednikom v bistvu enako, kot če bi prijavo vložil sam posrednik, je še vedno mogoče uporabiti člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne glede na očitno neskladnost med imenom prijavitelja in imenom imetnikovega posrednika.
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC Bearing in mind the position of the authorised representative of the licensee company, the Office considered that despite the fact that the EUTM application was made in the name of this natural person, the situation was effectively the same as if it had been filed by the legal person, that is, the licensee company.
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC Urad je ob upoštevanju stališča pooblaščenega zastopnika družbe pridobitelja licence menil, da je bilo stanje kljub dejstvu, da je bila prijava blagovne znamke EU vložena v imenu te fizične osebe, v bistvu enako, kot če bi jo vložila pravna oseba, to je družba pridobitelja licence.
The EUTM application in the name of the former could have a direct effect on the latter due to their professional relationship, and, furthermore, the president or vice-president of a company should be considered obliged by the same limitations as their company, or at least temporarily obliged in the case of the expiry of their professional relationship.
Prijava blagovne znamke EU v imenu fizične osebe bi lahko neposredno vplivala na pravno osebo zaradi njunega poslovnega razmerja, poleg tega pa je treba predsednika ali podpredsednika družbe šteti za zavezanega enakim omejitvam, kot jim je zavezana njegova družba, ali vsaj začasno zavezanega v primeru izteka njunega poslovnega razmerja.
This position is strengthened by the fact that in the present case there is a clause in the renewed agreement that establishes the licensor's immediate termination right in the case that ‘… control of STYLE'N (the licensee) is transferred and the management thereby changed', which shows that the management of the licensee company was also bound by the terms of the agreement.
To stališče je podkrepljeno z dejstvom, da je v tem primeru v podaljšanem sporazumu klavzula, ki določa pravico pridobitelja licence do takojšnje odpovedi, če […] se nadzor nad družbo STYLE'N (pridobiteljem licence) prenese in se s tem spremeni uprava, kar kaže, da je bila tudi uprava družbe pridobitelja licence zavezana spoštovanju pogojev sporazuma.