natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the coexistence agreement cannot be interpreted in such a way as to extend beyond its scope without the express consent of the parties (03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA, EU:T:2015:355, § 40, 50).
Poleg tega sporazuma o soobstoju ni mogoče razlagati tako, da se preseže njegovo področje uporabe, brez „izrecnega soglašanja“ strank (03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA, EU:T:2015:355, § 40, 50).
Merely withdrawing an opposition unilaterally does not imply that the opponent consents to the registration of the EUTM application (14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.), § 26).
Le enostranski umik ugovora ne pomeni, da vložnik ugovora soglaša z registracijo prijave blagovne znamke EU (14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.), § 26).
Therefore, the Office will analyse the circumstances under which withdrawal of the opposition has been made (see examples below, namely 03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA; 14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.),).
Urad bo zato analiziral okoliščine, v katerih je bil ugovor umaknjen (glej primera v nadaljevanju, in sicer 03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA; 14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.),).
4.5.1.1 Examples rejecting the claim of consent to registration
Primeri zavrnitve trditve o soglasju k registraciji
4.5.1.2 Examples accepting the claim of consent to registration
Primeri sprejetja trditve o soglasju k registraciji
4.5.2 Earlier applications for declaration of invalidity or counterclaims
Prejšnje zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ali nasprotne tožbe
According to Article 60(4) EUTMR, where the proprietor of an earlier right has previously made an application for a declaration of invalidity of an EUTM or has made a counterclaim for invalidity in infringement proceedings on the basis of rights in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR before an EUTM court, it may not submit a new application for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of other rights referred to in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR that it could have invoked in the original proceedings.
Če je v skladu s členom 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik prejšnje pravice na sodišču za blagovne znamke EU vložil zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU ali vložil nasprotno tožbo v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev na podlagi člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne more vložiti nove zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi drugih pravic iz člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, na katere bi se lahko skliceval v prvotnem postopku.
This means that in practice, the Office will reject as inadmissible, in its entirety, any new application filed by the proprietor of an earlier right referred to in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR or by its successor in title, where such an application is based on other rights provided for in the said Article(s), which could have been claimed in the original proceedings but were not.
To pomeni, da bo Urad v praksi kot nedopustno in v celoti zavrgel vsako novo zahtevo, ki jo vloži imetnik prejšnje pravice iz člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali njegov pravni naslednik, kadar taka zahteva temelji na drugih pravicah, določenih v navedenem(-ih) členu(-ih), ki bi jih bilo mogoče uveljavljati v prvotnem postopku, vendar to ni bilo storjeno.
This applies, irrespective of whether the new application is directed against the same and/or other goods or services than the ones initially contested.
To velja, ne glede na to, ali je nova zahteva usmerjena zoper enako in/ali drugo blago ali storitve, ki niso prvotno izpodbijano blago ali storitve.
Such an approach follows from the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, which require that the application of the law to a specific situation be predictable and the interests of an EUTM proprietor protected against any subsequent ‘attacks' from the same applicant (or its successor in title), which should not be allowed to circumvent the prohibition established by Article 60(4) EUTMR by submitting new application(s) for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of rights that were available to it at the moment of the original proceedings.
Takšen pristop izhaja iz splošnih načel pravne varnosti in legitimnih pričakovanj, v skladu s katerima mora biti uporaba prava za poseben položaj predvidljiva, interesi imetnika blagovne znamke EU pa zaščiteni pred poznejšimi „napadi“ istega vložnika zahteve (ali njegovega pravnega naslednika), kateremu je treba onemogočiti, da se izogne prepovedi, določeni s členom 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, z vložitvijo nove zahteve ali zahtev za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi pravic, ki so mu bile na voljo v času prvotnega postopka.
However, where an applicant requests the assignment of an EUTM pursuant to Article 21(2)(a) EUTMR in a procedure brought under Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR, and, in a later application, requests a declaration that the EUTM is invalid on other relative grounds, Article 60(4) EUTMR cannot be interpreted so as to bar the applicant from pursuing its claims under the other invalidity grounds should its primary request for assignment fail.
Če pa vložnik zahteve zahteva prenos blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 21(2)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku, sproženem na podlagi člena 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in v poznejši zahtevi zahteva ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU na podlagi drugih relativnih razlogov, člena 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče razlagati tako, da vložniku zahteve prepoveduje, da uveljavlja svoje zahteve na podlagi drugih razlogov za ničnost, če njegova prva zahteva za prenos ni bila uspešna.
As regards counterclaims, although Article 128 EUTMR imposes an obligation on EUTM courts or the interested party to notify the Office of the initiation of counterclaims for invalidity and their outcome, where this is not done, an EUTM proprietor wishing to rely on the defence provided for by Article 60(4) EUTMR must submit evidence from the EUTM court to support its claim.
Kar zadeva nasprotne tožbe, čeprav morajo sodišča za blagovne znamke EU ali zainteresirana stranka v skladu s členom 128 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Urad obvestiti o vložitvi nasprotnih tožb za ugotovitev ničnosti in njihovem izidu, mora, če se to ne stori, imetnik blagovne znamke EU, ki se želi opirati na obrambo iz člena 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v podporo svoji zahtevi predložiti dokaze od zadevnega sodišča za blagovne znamke EU.
4.5.3 Acquiescence
Privolitev
According to Article 61 EUTMR, where the proprietor of an earlier EUTM or national trade mark has acquiesced in the use of the contested EUTM for a period of five successive years, while being aware of the use, the contested EUTM is not liable to be declared invalid, unless registration of the later EUTM was applied for in bad faith.
Če je v skladu s členom 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke EU ali nacionalne blagovne znamke pet zaporednih let privolil v uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in se ob tem zavedal takšne uporabe, izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU ni mogoče razglasiti za nično, razen če je bila prijava za registracijo poznejše blagovne znamke EU vložena v slabi veri.
The aim of Article 61 EUTMR is to penalise the proprietors of earlier trade marks that have acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later EUTM while being aware of such use, by excluding them from seeking a declaration of invalidity of that trade mark, which will then therefore be able to coexist with the earlier trade mark (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 32).
Namen člena 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je kaznovati imetnike prejšnjih blagovnih znamk, ki so pet zaporednih let privolili v uporabo poznejše blagovne znamke EU in se ob tem zavedali takšne uporabe, tako da se jim onemogoči vložitev zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti navedene blagovne znamke, ki bo zato lahko soobstajala s prejšnjo blagovno znamko (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 32).
The burden of proof is on the proprietor of the contested EUTM to show that:
Imetnik izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU mora dokazati, da:
the contested EUTM was used in the European Union (or in the Member State where the earlier trade mark is protected) during a period of at least five successive years;
se je izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU v Evropski uniji (ali državi članici, v kateri je zaščitena prejšnja blagovna znamka) uporabljala vsaj pet let zapored,
the invalidity applicant was aware of this or could reasonably be presumed to be aware of it;
se je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti zavedal te uporabe ali da je mogoče razumno domnevati, da se je tega zavedal,
although the invalidity applicant could have stopped the use, it nevertheless remained inactive (22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, § 44).
vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ni ukrepal, čeprav bi lahko ustavil uporabo (22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, § 44).
This is not the case where there was a licence or distribution relationship between the parties, so that the invalidity applicant could not lawfully oppose use of the sign.
To ne velja, kadar je med strankama obstajalo licenčno ali distribucijsko razmerje, kar pomeni, da vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ni mogel zakonito ugovarjati uporabi znaka.
All three conditions must be fulfilled.
Izpolnjeni morajo biti vsi trije pogoji.
If they are, the limitation on acquiescence will apply only to the contested goods or services for which the later EUTM has been used.
Če so izpolnjeni, se bo omejitev zaradi privolitve uporabljala le za izpodbijano blago ali storitve, za katere se je uporabljala poznejša blagovna znamka EU.
The period of limitation as a consequence of acquiescence starts running from the time when the proprietor of the earlier trade mark becomes aware of the use of the later EUTM.
Obdobje omejitve zaradi privolitve začne teči od trenutka, ko se imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke zave uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke EU.
That date must necessarily be later than that of registration of the contested EUTM, that is, when the rights in an EUTM are obtained and it is used as a registered trade mark on the market with third parties therefore being aware of its use.
Navedeni datum mora biti nujno poznejši od datuma registracije izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, to je ko se pridobijo pravice na blagovni znamki EU ter se ta uporablja kot registrirana blagovna znamka na trgu in so tretje osebe zato seznanjene z njeno uporabo.
It is at this point that it has the option of not acquiescing in its use and, therefore, opposing it or seeking a declaration of invalidity of the later trade mark (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 33; 06/06/2013, C381/12 P, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:C:2013:371, § 56).
V tem trenutku ima možnost, da ne privoli v njeno uporabo in ji zato ugovarja ali zahteva ugotovitev ničnosti za poznejšo blagovno znamko (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 33; 06/06/2013, C381/12 P, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:C:2013:371, § 56).
An example of where the proprietor could reasonably be presumed to be aware of the use of the contested EUTM is where both proprietors have exhibited goods or services under the respective marks at the same event.
Primer položaja, v katerem se lahko razumno domneva, da se imetnik zaveda uporabe izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, je, kadar oba imetnika razstavljata blago ali storitve pod zadevnima znamkama na isti prireditvi.
Article 61 EUTMR is not applicable when the contested EUTM was filed in bad faith.
Člen 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne uporablja, kadar je bila prijava izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU vložena v slabi veri.
This exception will only be considered if it is argued and proven by the applicant.
Ta izjema se bo upoštevala le, če jo utemelji in dokaže vložnik zahteve.
Article 61 EUTMR does not refer to the possible consequences of acquiescence by a person authorised to exercise the rights arising from a designation of origin or a geographic indication.
V členu 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso navedene možne posledice privolitve osebe, ki je pooblaščena za uveljavljanje pravic, ki izhajajo iz označbe porekla ali geografske označbe.
Therefore, the proprietor of an EUTM cannot rely on acquiescence where an invalidity application is based on an earlier designation of origin or a geographical indication pursuant to Article 8(6) EUTMR.
Zato se imetnik blagovne znamke EU ne more sklicevati na privolitev, kadar zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti temelji na prejšnji označbi porekla ali geografski označbi v skladu s členom 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4.5.3.1 Examples rejecting the acquiescence claim
Primeri zavrnitve zahteve za omejitev zaradi privolitve
4.5.3.2 Examples (partially) accepting the acquiescence claim
Primeri (delne) odobritve zahteve za omejitev zaradi privolitve
5 Res Judicata
Pravnomočnost
Pursuant to Article 63(3) EUTMR, in addition to any particular defence that an EUTM proprietor may raise against an application for a declaration of invalidity or against a revocation application (see paragraphs above), an invalidity or revocation application is inadmissible where an application relating to the same subject matter and cause of action, and involving the same parties, has been adjudicated on its own merits by an EUTM court or by the Office and a final decision has been taken.
V skladu s členom 63(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU poleg posebne obrambe, na katero se lahko opira imetnik blagovne znamke EU zoper zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti ali zahtevo za razveljavitev (glej zgornje odstavke), zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti ali razveljavitev ni dopustna, če je sodišče za blagovne znamke EU ali Urad že vsebinsko odločil o zahtevi, ki se nanaša na isti predmet in pravno podlago ter vključuje iste stranke, in je bila sprejeta dokončna odločba.
This is what is known as the ‘triple-identity' requirement.
To se imenuje zahteva glede „trojne enakosti“.
The defence of res judicata only applies where there is a previous final decision on the substance in a counterclaim or cancellation application.
Obramba na podlagi pravnomočnosti se uporablja le, če obstaja prejšnja dokončna meritorna odločba v nasprotni tožbi ali zahtevi za izbris.
The bar to admissibility does not apply, for instance, when a cancellation application was withdrawn before the corresponding decision became final (12/05/2014, R 1616/20134, PLAYSEAT, § 13) or when the previous final decision declared the application inadmissible (e.g. because the contested EUTM was not yet registered) and did not adjudicate on the substance.
Ugovor nedopustnosti se na primer ne uporablja, kadar je bila zahteva za izbris umaknjena, preden je ustrezna določba postala dokončna (12/05/2014, R 1616/20134, PLAYSEAT, § 13) ali če je bila zahteva razglašena za nedopustno s prejšnjo dokončno odločbo (npr. ker izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU še ni bila registrirana) in Urad ali sodišče za blagovne znamke EU o njej ni vsebinsko odločilo.
Same subject matter
Isti predmet
Res judicata does not apply to a request for revocation where the previous final decision refers to another request for revocation submitted on a different date.
Pravnomočnost se ne uporablja za zahtevo za razveljavitev, če se prejšnja dokončna odločba nanaša na drugo zahtevo za razveljavitev, vloženo na neki drug datum.
This is because the points in time at which the circumstances leading to the revocation have to be established (lack of use, EUTM becoming generic or subject to misleading use) are different and the subject matter cannot therefore be deemed to be the same (31/01/2014, 7 333 C, 15/07/2015, T398/13, TVR ITALIA (fig.) / TVR et al., EU:T:2015:503, § 39).
To pa zato, ker sta trenutka, v katerih je treba opredeliti okoliščine, ki privedejo do razveljavitve (neuporaba, blagovna znamka EU je postala splošna ali je njena uporaba zavajajoča), različna, zato ni mogoče šteti, da je predmet postopka enak (31/01/2014, 7 333 C, 15/07/2015, T398/13, TVR ITALIA (fig.) / TVR et al., EU:T:2015:503, § 39).
Same cause of action
Ista pravna podlaga
A prior decision by the Office in opposition proceedings between the same parties and relating to the same mark does not preclude a later cancellation request based on the same earlier rights (14/10/2009, T140/08, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:T:2009:400, § 36, appeal to the Court dismissed; 22/11/2011, T275/10, Mpay24, EU:T:2011:683, § 15; 23/09/2014, T11/13, Mego, EU:T:2014:803, § 12), since the cause of action is different.
Predhodna odločba Urada v postopku ugovora med istima strankama in v zvezi z isto znamko ne izključuje poznejše zahteve za izbris na podlagi enakih prejšnjih pravic (14/10/2009, T140/08, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:T:2009:400, § 36, pritožba na Sodišče zavrnjena;22/11/2011, T275/10, Mpay24, EU:T:2011:683, § 15; 23/09/2014, T11/13, Mego, EU:T:2014:803, § 12), saj je pravna podlaga drugačna.
However, a different outcome in invalidity or revocation proceedings is unlikely to arise except where one or more of the following conditions is fulfilled.
Vendar je malo verjetno, da bo v postopku za ugotavljanje ničnosti ali razveljavitev sprejeta drugačna odločitev, razen če je izpolnjen vsaj eden od naslednjih pogojev:
New facts are proven (e.g. proof of use or reputation of the earlier mark, not made available during opposition proceedings).
če so dokazana nova dejstva (npr. dokaz o uporabi ali ugledu prejšnje znamke ni bil dan na voljo v postopku ugovora);
The triple identity required by res judicata also means that the parties to both proceedings (the one in question and the one that led to the previous final decision) have to be the same.
Trojna enakost, ki se zahteva za pravnomočnost, poleg tega pomeni, da morata biti stranki v obeh postopkih (zadevnem postopku in postopku, ki je privedel do prejšnje dokončne odločbe) isti.
The notion of ‘the same parties' also covers successors in title and authorised licensees.
Pojem „isti stranki“ zajema tudi pravne naslednike in pooblaščene pridobitelje licence.
In other words, res judicata applies if the party in the second action is the successor in title or an authorised licensee of the party in the first case.
Povedano drugače, pravnomočnost se uporablja, če je stranka v drugem postopku pravni naslednik ali pooblaščeni pridobitelj licence stranke iz postopka v prvi zadevi.
Annex 1 Grounds for Invalidity: Temporal Scope of Application Following the Entry into Force of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 on 23 March 2016
Priloga 1 Razlogi za ničnost: časovno področje uporabe po začetku veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) 2015/2424 dne 23. marca 2016
1 Absolute Grounds for Invalidity
Absolutni razlogi za ničnost
Therefore, the new grounds for invalidity, that is, those that have been introduced to the EUTMR by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, apply only to a European Union trade mark (application) filed on and after 23 March 2016.
Zato se novi razlogi za ničnost, to je tisti, ki so bili v Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU uvedeni z Uredbo (EU) 2015/2424, uporabljajo le za blagovne znamke Evropske unije (njene prijave), vložene 23. marca 2016 in po tem datumu.
However, some grounds for refusal and invalidity introduced for the first time by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 into the EUTMR are, as a matter of law, not new as they had already been applied before 23 March 2016, by virtue of other binding legislative texts of the EU.
Vendar nekateri razlogi za zavrnitev in ničnost, ki so bili v Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU prvič uvedeni z Uredbo (EU) 2015/2424, z vidika pravne podlage niso novi, saj so se uporabljali že pred 23. marcem 2016 na podlagi drugih zakonodajnih besedil EU.
On this basis, the following distinction applies:
Na tej podlagi se uporablja naslednje razlikovanje.
1.1 Grounds for invalidity that applied before 23 March 2016 by virtue of EU regulations other than the CTMR
Razlogi za ničnost, ki so se uporabljali pred 23. marcem 2016 na podlagi uredb EU, ki niso Uredba o blagovni znamki EU
Article 7(1)(m) EUTMR: conflict with earlier EU plant variety denominations
člen 7(1)(l) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU: sovpadanje s prejšnjimi zajamčenimi tradicionalnimi posebnostmi EU.
The Office applied this Regulation in conjunction with Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR.
člen 7(1)(m) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU: sovpadanje s prejšnjimi poimenovanji EU za rastlinske sorte.
‘Other characteristics' (than the shape), under Article 7(1)(e) EUTMR.
„druge značilnosti“ (razen oblike) v skladu s členom 7(1)(e) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU,
Conflicts with an earlier PGI/PDO protected at national level, under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR.
sovpadanje s prejšnjimi označbami ZGO/ZOP, zaščitenimi na nacionalni ravni, v skladu s členom 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU,
Conflicts with an earlier plant variety denomination protected at national level, under Article 7(1)(m) EUTMR.
sovpadanje s prejšnjim poimenovanjem rastlinske sorte, zaščitenim na nacionalni ravni, v skladu s členom 7(1)(m) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Furthermore, the essential conditions for protection of such earlier GIs as provided for by relevant EU or national legislation (e.g. protection against any direct or indirect commercial use; misuse, imitation or evocation; false or misleading indication or other misleading practice) applied already at the filing or priority date of the contested EUTM, even if filed before the entry into force of the Amending Regulation.
Poleg tega so se bistveni pogoji za varstvo takšnih prejšnjih geografskih označb, kot so določeni v zadevni zakonodaji EU ali nacionalni zakonodaji (npr. varstvo pred neposredno ali posredno komercialno rabo, zlorabo, posnemanjem ali prikazovanjem, napačno ali zavajajočo označbo ali drugo zavajajočo prakso) uporabljali že na datum vložitve ali prednostne pravice izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, tudi če je bila njena prijava vložena pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe o spremembi.
02/10/2012, R 1857/20114 AQUOS The EUTM was registered for angling articles; angling equipment; angling accessories in Class 28.
02/10/2012, AQUOS, R 1857/20114 Blagovna znamka EU je registrirana za izdelke za ribarjenje; opremo za ribarjenje, pripomočke za ribarjenje iz razreda 28.
The Board confirmed the Cancellation Division decision and maintained the EUTM for fishing rods and the unchallenged fishing lines in Class 28.
Odbor je potrdil odločbo oddelka za izbris in ohranil blagovno znamko EU za ribiške palice in neizpodbijane ribiške vrvice iz razreda 28.
The Board concurred with the Cancellation Division that the evidence submitted in order to prove use of the contested EUTM showed genuine use for ‘fishing rods' and that these goods are sufficiently distinct from the broad categories of angling articles and angling equipment to form coherent subcategories.
Soglašal je z oddelkom za izbris, da so dokazi, predloženi kot dokaz o uporabi izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, potrdila resno in dejansko uporabo za „ribiške palice“ ter da se to blago dovolj razlikuje od širših kategorij izdelki za ribarjenje in oprema za ribarjenje, da lahko tvori skladne podkategorije.
This finding was not challenged by the appellant.
Pritožnik te ugotovitve ni izpodbijal.
Earlier right Contested sign Case No
Prejšnja pravica Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
Right to a name under Austrian law Under Austrian law (Section 43 AGBG), ‘the person whose right to use his name has been contested or whose name is used without due [cause] to his detriment, infringing his protectable interests, can request the infringer to cease and desist and to compensate any damages.
Pravica do imena po avstrijskem pravu V skladu z avstrijskim pravom (člen 43 AGBG), kadar se izpodbija pravica osebe do uporabe njenega imena ali kadar je ta oseba oškodovana zaradi nepooblaščene uporabe njenega imena, zaradi česar so kršeni njeni interesi, ki jih je mogoče zaščititi, lahko ta oseba od kršitelja zahteva, naj opusti svoje početje in plača odškodnino za vso škodo.
Such protection extends as well to distinctive designations of traders, even if they deviate from the civil name of that trader ...
Takšno varstvo zajema tudi značilne oznake trgovcev, tudi če odstopajo od matičnega imena navedenega trgovca […].