natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3. under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as an earlier non-registered well-known mark (which will only be useful if registration is not proven, as otherwise the outcome is the same as in bullet point 1. above).
v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot prejšnjo neregistrirano dobro znano znamko (kar je koristno samo, če registracija ni dokazana, saj je izid v nasprotnem primeru enak tistemu iz alineje 1 zgoraj).
Even if the opponent has not expressly based its opposition on Article 8(5) EUTMR, the contents of the notice and the wording of the explanation of grounds must be carefully analysed with a view to objectively establishing whether the opponent also wants to rely on Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Tudi če vložnik ugovora tega ne utemelji izrecno s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba vsebino ugovora in ubeseditev pojasnila razlogov previdno analizirati, da se objektivno ugotovi, ali želi vložnik ugovora uveljavljati tudi člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.2 Applicability to similar and identical goods and services
Uporaba za podobno in enako blago in storitve
According to the clear wording of the current version of Article 8(5) EUTMR, the protection provided by this provision is ‘irrespective of whether the goods or services for which [the later mark] is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered'.
V skladu z jasno ubeseditvijo sedanje različice člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ta določba zagotavlja zaščito „ne glede na to, ali so blago ali storitve, za katere je vložena prijava [poznejše znamke], enake, podobne ali niso podobne tistim, za katere je registrirana prejšnja blagovna znamka“.
This is a codification of the case-law of the Court of Justice, interpreting the previous version of the provision.
To je kodifikacija sodne prakse Sodišča, ki razlaga predhodno različico določbe.
[3: Judgment of 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.]
[3: Sodba z dne 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.]
3 Conditions of Application
Pogoji uporabe
The following conditions need be met for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply (16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:C:2012:285):
Za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji (16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, potrjena 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:C:2012:285):
1. earlier registered mark with reputation in the relevant territory;
prejšnja registrirana znamka z ugledom na upoštevnem ozemlju;
2. identity or similarity between the contested EUTM application and the earlier mark;
enakost ali podobnost izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU;
3. use of the sign applied for must be capable of taking an unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier mark;
uporaba znaka, za katerega je bila vložena prijava, mora biti takšna, da bi lahko izkoristila ali oškodovala razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje znamke;
4. such use must be without due cause.
takšna uporaba mora biti brez upravičenega razloga.
These conditions are cumulative and failure to satisfy any one of them is sufficient to render that provision inapplicable (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41).
Ti pogoji so kumulativni, neizpolnjevanje katerega koli od njih pa zadostuje, da se ta določba ne uporablja (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41).
The order in which these requirements are examined may vary depending on the circumstances of each case.
Vrstni red preizkušanja teh zahtev se lahko razlikuje glede na okoliščine posameznega primera.
For instance, the examination may start by assessing the similarities between the signs, especially where there is little or nothing to say on the subject, either because the marks are identical or because they are patently similar or dissimilar.
Na primer, preizkušanje se lahko začne s presojo podobnosti znakov, zlasti kadar v zvezi s tem ni dvoma ali skoraj nobenega dvoma, ker sta znamki enaki ali jasno podobni ali različni.
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation
Prejšnja znamka z ugledom
3.1.1 Nature of reputation
Vrsta ugleda
The nature and scope of reputation are not defined by either the EUTMR or the TMD.
Vrsta in obseg ugleda nista opredeljena niti v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU niti v direktivi o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami.
Furthermore, the terms used in the different language versions of these texts are not fully equivalent, which has led to considerable confusion as to the true meaning of the term ‘reputation', as admitted by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion of 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36.
Poleg tega izrazi, uporabljeni v različnih jezikovnih različicah teh besedil, niso popolnoma enakovredni, kar je povzročilo precejšnjo zmedo glede resničnega pomena izraza „ugled“, kot je generalni pravobranilec Jacobs priznal v svojem mnenju z dne 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36.
Given the lack of statutory definition, the Court defined the nature of reputation by reference to the purpose of the relevant provisions.
Ker zakonske opredelitve tega izraza ni, je Sodišče vrsto ugleda opredelilo s sklicevanjem na namen zadevnih določb.
In interpreting Article 5(2) TMD, the Court held that the text of the TMD ‘implies a certain degree of knowledge of the earlier trade mark among the public' and explained that it ‘is only where there is a sufficient degree of knowledge of that mark that the public, when confronted by the later trade mark, may possibly make an association between the two trade marks … and that the earlier mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Sodišče je pri razlagi člena 5(2) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami odločilo, da se besedilo navedene direktive nanaša na določeno stopnjo poznanosti prejšnje blagovne znamke v javnosti, in pojasnilo, da le, če je prejšnja znamka dovolj poznana, lahko javnost ob srečanju s poznejšo znamko poveže znamki [...], kar lahko škoduje prejšnji znamki (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
In view of these considerations, the Court concluded that reputation is a knowledge threshold requirement, implying that it must be principally assessed on the basis of quantitative criteria.
Sodišče je ob upoštevanju teh premislekov ugotovilo, da gre pri ugledu za zahtevo glede praga poznanosti, kar pomeni, da ga je treba načeloma presojati na podlagi kvantitativnih meril.
In order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, the earlier mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34).
Pogoj glede ugleda je izpolnjen, če je prejšnja znamka poznana velikemu delu zadevne javnosti za proizvode in storitve, ki jih zajema (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34).
Moreover, if reputation is to be assessed on the basis of quantitative criteria, arguments or evidence relating to the esteem in which the public might hold the mark, rather than to its recognition, are not directly relevant for establishing that the earlier mark has acquired sufficient reputation for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Poleg tega za presojo ugleda na podlagi kvantitativnih meril, trditev ali dokazov, ki so povezani z morebitnim ugledom znamke v javnosti, in ne z njeno prepoznavnostjo, niso neposredno pomembni za ugotovitev, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila dovolj ugleda za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, as the economic value of reputation is also the protected subject-matter of this provision, any qualitative aspects thereof are relevant when assessing the possibility of detriment or unfair advantage (see also paragraph 3.4 below).
Ker je tržna vrednost ugleda tudi predmet varstva v skladu s to določbo, so njegovi kvalitativni vidiki pomembni za presojo možnosti oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja (glej tudi odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju).
Article 8(5) EUTMR protects ‘famous' marks not as such, but rather for the success and renown (‘goodwill') they have acquired in the market.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne ščiti „slavnih“ znamk kot takih, ampak zaradi uspeha in slovesa (dobrega imena), ki so ga pridobile na trgu.
A sign does not enjoy any reputation inherently, for example, simply because it refers to a renowned person or event, but only for the goods and services it designates and the use that has been made of it.
Znak sam po sebi nima ugleda samo zato, ker se na primer nanaša na slavno osebo ali dogodek, ampak ga ima samo v zvezi z blagom in storitvami, ki jih označuje, ter zaradi svoje uporabe.
3.1.2 Scope of reputation
Obseg ugleda
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition
Stopnja prepoznavnosti
Having defined reputation as a knowledge threshold requirement, the question that necessarily follows is how much awareness the earlier mark must attain among the public in order to pass this threshold.
Po opredelitvi ugleda kot zahteve glede praga poznanosti, neizogibno sledi vprašanje, kolikšno stopnjo poznavanja mora imeti prejšnja znamka v javnosti, da preseže ta prag.
The Court held in this respect that the ‘degree of knowledge required must be considered to be reached when the earlier trade mark is known by a significant part of the public' and added that it ‘cannot be inferred from either the letter or the spirit of Article 5(2) [TMD] that the trade mark must be known by a given percentage of the public' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25-26; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 45).
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem odločilo, da je zahtevana stopnja poznanosti dosežena, če prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, in dodalo, da niti na podlagi besedila niti bistva člena 5(2) [direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami] ni mogoče sklepati, da mora znamko poznati določen odstotek javnosti (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25-26; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 45).
By refraining from defining in more detail the meaning of the term ‘significant' and by stating that the trade mark does not have to be known by a given percentage of the public, the Court in substance advised against the use of fixed criteria of general applicability, since a predetermined degree of recognition may not be appropriate for a realistic assessment of reputation if taken alone.
Ker Sodišče ni podrobneje opredelilo pomena izraza „znaten“ in je navedlo, da se ne zahteva, da znamko pozna določen odstotek javnosti, je vsebinsko odsvetovalo uporabo splošno veljavnih določenih meril, saj predhodno določena stopnja prepoznavnosti, če se uporablja sama, ni nujno primerna za realno presojo ugleda.
Hence, in determining whether the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public, account must be taken not only of the degree of awareness of the mark, but also of any other factor relevant to the specific case.
Zato je treba pri ugotavljanju, ali prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, upoštevati tako stopnjo poznavanja znamke, kot tudi vse druge dejavnike, ki so pomembni za specifičen primer.
For more about the relevant factors and their interplay, see paragraph 3.1.3 below.
Za več informacij o upoštevnih dejavnikih in njihovem medsebojnem učinku glej odstavek 3.1.3 v nadaljevanju.
However, where goods or services concern quite small groups of consumers, the limited overall size of the market means that a significant part thereof is also restricted in absolute numbers.
Vendar kadar so blago ali storitve namenjeni zelo majhni skupini potrošnikov, omejena skupna velikost trga pomeni, da je v smislu absolutnih številk omejen tudi znaten del tega trga.
Hence, the limited size of the relevant market should not be regarded in itself as a factor capable of preventing a mark from acquiring a reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR, as reputation is more a question of proportions and less of absolute numbers.
Zato se omejena velikost upoštevnega trga kot taka ne bi smela šteti za dejavnik, ki lahko prepreči, da bi znamka dobila ugled v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj je ugled bolj odvisen od deležev kot absolutnih številk.
The need for the earlier mark to be known by a significant part of the public also serves to mark the difference between the notions of reputation as a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and enhanced distinctiveness through use as a factor for evaluating likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Na podlagi zahteve, da prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, je mogoče določiti tudi razlike med pojmom ugled kot nujnim pogojem za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pojmom povečani razlikovalni učinek z uporabo kot dejavnikom za presojo verjetnosti zmede za namene člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Even though both terms are concerned with the recognition of the mark among the relevant public, in the case of reputation a threshold exists below which extended protection cannot be granted, whereas in the case of enhanced distinctiveness there is no threshold.
Čeprav se oba izraza nanašata na prepoznavnost znamke pri upoštevni javnosti, se v zvezi z ugledom uporablja prag, pod katerim ni mogoče odobriti razširjenega varstva, medtem ko v zvezi s povečanim razlikovalnim učinkom ni nobenega praga.
It follows that in the latter case any indication of enhanced recognition of the mark should be taken into account and evaluated according to its significance, regardless of whether it reaches the limit required by Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba v zadnje navedenem primeru upoštevati vsak znak povečane prepoznavnosti znamke in ga oceniti glede na njegov pomen ne glede na to, ali dosega zahtevano mejo iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, a finding of ‘enhanced distinctiveness' under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR will not necessarily be conclusive for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Zato ugotovitev „povečanega razlikovalnega učinka“ v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni nujno odločilna za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.2.2 Relevant public
Upoštevna javnost
In defining the kind of public that should be taken into account for assessing reputation, the Court held that the ‘public amongst which the earlier trade mark must have acquired a reputation is that [public] concerned by that trade mark, that is to say, depending on the product or service marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public, for example traders in a specific sector' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 24; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34, 41).
V zvezi z opredelitvijo, katero vrsto javnosti je treba upoštevati pri presoji ugleda, je Sodišče odločilo, da je javnost, v kateri mora prejšnja znamka pridobiti ugled, tista [javnost], ki ji je ta znamka namenjena, kar pomeni, odvisno od izdelka ali storitve na trgu, širšo javnost ali bolj specializirano javnost, na primer gospodarski subjekti v nekem sektorju (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 24; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34, 41).
Hence, if the goods and services covered by the mark are mass consumption products, the relevant public will be the public at large, whereas if the designated goods have a very specific application or exclusively target professional or industrial users, the relevant public will be limited to the specific purchasers of the products in question.
Če so torej blago in storitve, ki jih označuje znamka, izdelki za široko porabo, je upoštevna javnost širša javnost, če pa ima zadevno blago zelo specifično uporabo ali je namenjeno izključno strokovnim ali industrijskim uporabnikom, je upoštevna javnost omejena na posebne kupce zadevnih izdelkov.
In addition to the actual buyers of the relevant goods, the notion of the relevant public extends to the potential purchasers thereof, as well as to those members of the public that only come indirectly into contact with the mark, to the extent that such consumer groups are also targeted by the goods in question, for instance, sports fans in relation to athletic gear, or frequent air-travellers as regards air carriers, etc.
Poleg dejanskih kupcev zadevnega blaga je pojem upoštevne javnosti razširjen na morebitne kupce tega blaga in tiste pripadnike javnosti, ki pridejo v stik z znamko samo posredno, če je zadevno blago namenjeno tudi takim skupinam potrošnikov, na primer športni navdušenci v zvezi s športno opremo ali pogosti uporabniki letalskih storitev v zvezi z letalskimi prevozniki itd.
Quite often, a given product will concern various purchaser groups with different profiles, as in the case of multipurpose goods or goods that are handled by several intermediaries before they reach their final destination (distributors, retailers, end-users).
Določeni izdelki so precej pogosto namenjeni različnim skupinam kupcev z različnimi profili, na primer večnamensko blago ali blago, s katerim ravna več posrednikov, preden doseže končni cilj (distributerji, trgovci na drobno, končni uporabniki).
In such cases the question arises whether reputation has to be assessed within each separate group or if it should cover all the different types of purchaser.
V takšnih primerih se postavlja vprašanje, ali je treba ugled presojati v vsaki skupini posebej ali v zvezi z vsemi različnimi vrstami kupcev.
The example given by the Court in its judgment of 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408 (traders in a specific sector) implies that reputation within one single group may suffice.
Iz primera, ki ga je Sodišče navedlo v sodbi 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408 (gospodarski subjekti v določenem sektorju), je razvidno, da lahko zadostuje ugled v eni skupini.
Likewise, if the earlier trade mark is registered for quite heterogeneous goods/services, different segments of the public may be concerned by each type of good/service, and, therefore, the overall reputation of the mark will have to be assessed separately for each category of goods involved.
Če je prejšnja znamka registrirana za precej raznovrstno blago/storitve, je lahko podobno vsaka vrsta blaga/storitve primerna za različne dele javnosti, zato je treba skupni ugled znamke presoditi ločeno za vsako kategorijo zadevnega blaga.
The foregoing only deals with the kind of public to be taken into account when assessing whether the earlier mark has reached the threshold of reputation laid down by the Court in Chevy (General Motors).
Zgornje navedbe se nanašajo samo na to, katero vrsto javnosti je treba upoštevati pri presoji, ali je prejšnja znamka dosegla prag ugleda, ki ga je Sodišče določilo v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors).
However, a relevant question arises when assessing detriment or unfair advantage, namely whether the earlier mark must also be known to the public concerned by the goods and services of the later mark, since otherwise it is difficult to see how the public will be in a position to associate the two.
Pomembno vprašanje se pojavi pri presoji oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja, in sicer ali mora prejšnjo znamko poznati tudi javnost, ki so ji namenjeni blago in storitve iz poznejše znamke, saj je drugače težko ugotoviti, kako bi lahko javnost povezala obe znamki.
This issue is discussed in paragraph 3.4 below.
To vprašanje se obravnava v odstavku 3.4 v nadaljevanju.
3.1.2.3 Goods and services covered
Vključeno blago in storitve
The goods and services must first of all be those for which the earlier trade mark is registered and for which reputation is claimed.
Blago in storitve morajo biti predvsem tisti, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka in se zanje trdi, da imajo ugled.
The goods and services to which the evidence refers have to be identical (not only similar) to the goods and services for which the earlier trade mark is registered.
Blago in storitve, na katere se nanašajo dokazi, morajo biti enaki (ne samo podobni) blagu in storitvam, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka.
Where the earlier mark is registered for a wide range of goods and services targeting different kinds of public, it will be necessary to assess reputation separately for each category of goods.
Kadar je prejšnja znamka registrirana za raznovrstno blago in storitve, namenjeno različnim vrstam javnosti, je treba ugled presoditi ločeno za vsako kategorijo blaga.
In such cases the earlier mark may not have a reputation for all of them, as it may not have been used at all for some of the goods, whereas for others it may not have reached the degree of knowledge necessary for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR.
V takšnih primerih je mogoče, da prejšnja znamka nima ugleda v zvezi z vsem blagom in storitvami, saj se za nekatero blago sploh ne uporablja, medtem ko v zvezi z drugim mogoče ni dosegla potrebne stopnje poznanosti za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Hence, if the evidence shows that the earlier mark enjoys a partial reputation, that is, the reputation only covers some of the goods or services for which it is registered, it is only to that extent that this mark may be protected under Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Če je iz dokazov torej razvidno, da ima prejšnja znamka delni ugled, kar pomeni, da se ugled nanaša samo na nekatero blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana, se lahko znamka zaščiti v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU samo v tem obsegu.
Consequently, it is only these goods that may be taken into account for the purposes of the examination.
Zato se lahko pri preizkušanju upošteva samo to blago.
3.1.2.4 Relevant territory
Upoštevno ozemlje
According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, the relevant territory for establishing the reputation of the earlier mark is the territory of protection: the earlier mark must have a reputation in the territory where it is registered.
V skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je upoštevno ozemlje za določitev ugleda prejšnje znamke ozemlje varstva: prejšnja znamka mora imeti ugled na ozemlju, kjer je registrirana.
Therefore, for national marks the relevant territory is the Member State concerned, whereas for EUTMs the relevant territory is the European Union.
Zato je upoštevno ozemlje za nacionalne znamke zadevna država članica, zadevno ozemlje za blagovne znamke EU pa je Evropska unija.
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court stated that a national trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation throughout the entire territory of the Member State concerned.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors) navedlo, da za nacionalno znamko ni mogoče zahtevati, da ima ugled na celotnem ozemlju zadevne države članice.
It is sufficient if reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory.
Zadostuje, da ima ugled na znatnem delu tega ozemlja.
For the Benelux territory in particular, the Court held that a substantial part thereof may consist of part of one of the Benelux countries (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 28-29).
Sodišče je v zvezi z ozemljem Beneluksa odločilo, da je lahko znaten del tega ozemlja del ene od držav Beneluksa (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 28-29).
The Court has clarified that, for an earlier European Union trade mark, reputation throughout the territory of a single Member State may suffice.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da lahko za prejšnjo blagovno znamko Evropske unije zadostuje ugled na ozemlju ene države članice.