natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It only stated 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 trade mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Navedlo je samo, da le, če je prejšnja znamka dovolj poznana, lahko javnost ob stiku s poznejšo blagovno znamko poveže blagovni znamki [...], kar lahko škoduje prejšnji blagovni znamki (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Even though this statement is too limited to serve as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of the existence of a risk of injury, it gives at least a significant indication, namely that detriment or unfair advantage must be the consequence of an association between the conflicting marks in the minds of the public, made possible by the similarities between the marks, their distinctiveness, the reputation and other factors (see paragraph 3.3 above).
Čeprav je ta trditev preveč omejena, da bi lahko na njej temeljila celovita analiza obstoja tveganja kršitve, pa vsaj pomembno nakazuje, da mora biti oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje posledica asociacije med nasprotujočima si znamkama v zavesti javnosti, ki jo omogočajo podobnosti med znamkama, njun razlikovalni učinek, ugled in drugi dejavniki (glej odstavek 3.3 zgoraj).
Thus, if the alleged detriment or unfair advantage is not the result of an association between the marks, but is due to other, extraneous reasons, it is not actionable under Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Če torej domnevno oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje ne izhaja iz asociacije med znamkama, ampak iz drugih razlogov, ga ni mogoče izpodbijati v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Furthermore, as the Court observed, an association between the marks requires that the part of the public that is already familiar with the earlier mark is also exposed to the later mark.
Kot je poleg tega navedlo Sodišče, mora biti za obstoj asociacije med znamkama del javnosti, ki že pozna prejšnjo znamko, izpostavljen tudi poznejši znamki.
This will be easier to establish where the earlier mark is known to the public at large, or where the consumers of the respective goods and services largely overlap.
Ta obstoj je lažje ugotoviti, kadar je prejšnja znamka znana širši javnosti ali kadar se potrošniki zadevnega blaga in storitev precej prekrivajo.
However, in cases where the goods and services are significantly different from each other and such a connection between the respective publics is not obvious, the opponent must justify why the marks will be associated, by reference to some other link between its activities and those of the applicant, for example where the earlier mark is exploited outside its natural market sector, for instance, by licensing or merchandising (see paragraph 3.3 above).
Kadar pa se blago in storitve med seboj bistveno razlikujejo in taka povezava med upoštevnima javnostma ni očitna, mora vložnik ugovora utemeljiti, zakaj bo nastala asociacija med znamkama, tako da se sklicuje na neko drugo povezavo med svojimi dejavnostmi in dejavnostmi prijavitelja, kadar se na primer prejšnja znamka izkorišča zunaj običajnega naravnega tržnega sektorja, na primer z licenciranjem ali trženjem (glej odstavek 3.3 zgoraj).
The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or is, or will be, detrimental to it (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Hitreje in močneje ko se ob poznejšem znaku vzbudi misel na prejšnjo znamko, večje je tveganje, da sedanja ali prihodnja uporaba znaka neupravičeno izkorišča ali oškoduje oziroma bo neupravičeno izkoriščala ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Therefore, the evaluation of detriment or unfair advantage must be based on an overall assessment of all the factors relevant to the case (including in particular the similarity of signs, the reputation of the earlier mark, and the respective consumer groups and market sectors), with a view to determining whether the marks may be associated in a way that may adversely affect the earlier trade mark.
Zato mora ovrednotenje oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja temeljiti na celoviti presoji vseh dejavnikov, pomembnih za obravnavani primer (zlasti vključno s podobnostjo znakov, ugledom prejšnje znamke, zadevnimi skupinami potrošnikov in tržnimi sektorji), da se ugotovi, ali je mogoče znamki povezati tako, da bi to škodovalo prejšnji blagovni znamki.
3.4.3 Types of injury
Vrste kršitev
Article 8(5) EUTMR refers to the following types of injury: ‘take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark'.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glede vrst kršitev določa: „na nepošten način izkoriščal ali oškodoval razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke“.
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR applies if any of the following three alternative requirements is fulfilled, namely if use of the contested mark would:
Zato se člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporablja, če je izpolnjena katera od treh nadomestnih zahtev, in sicer če bi uporaba izpodbijane znamke:
take unfair advantage of the distinctiveness, or the repute of the earlier mark;
neupravičeno izkoriščala razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje znamke,
cause detriment to the distinctiveness;
oškodovala razlikovalni učinek,
cause detriment to the repute.
oškodovala ugled.
As regards the first type of injury, the wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR suggests the existence of two kinds of unfair advantage, but settled case-law treats both as a single injury under Article 8(5) EUTMR (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47).
V zvezi s prvo vrsto kršitve sta iz ubeseditve člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razvidni dve vrsti neupravičenega izkoriščanja, vendar se v uveljavljeni sodni praksi obe vrsti obravnavata kot ena kršitev v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47).
For the sake of completeness, both aspects of the same injury will be dealt with under paragraph 3.4.3.1 below.
Zaradi celovitosti se oba vidika iste kršitve obravnavata v odstavku 3.4.3.1 v nadaljevanju.
As demonstrated in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, likelihood of confusion relates only to confusion about the commercial origin of goods and services.
Kot je navedeno v Smernicah, delu C: Ugovor, razdelku 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, se verjetnost zmede nanaša samo na zmedo glede tržnega izvora blaga in storitev.
Article 8(5) EUTMR, in contrast, protects earlier reputed marks in cases of association or confusion that does not necessarily relate to the commercial origin of goods/services.
Nasprotno pa člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prejšnje znamke z ugledom ščiti v primerih asociacije ali zmede, ki ni nujno povezana s tržnim izvorom blaga ali storitev.
Article 8(5) EUTMR protects the heightened effort and financial investment that is involved in creating and promoting trade marks to the extent that they become reputed by protecting these marks against later similar marks taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ščiti povečana prizadevanja in finančne naložbe, vključene v oblikovanje in promocijo znamk za pridobitev ugleda, tako da te znamke ščiti pred poznejšimi podobnimi znamkami, ki neupravičeno izkoristijo ali oškodujejo razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
There is a rich lexicon of vocabulary that is used in relation to this area of trade mark law.
V zvezi s tem področjem se v pravu blagovnih znamk uporablja bogato besedišče.
The most common terms are set out below.
Najpogostejši izrazi so navedeni v nadaljevanju.
3.4.3.1 Taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda
The nature of the injury
Vrsta kršitve
The notion of taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute covers cases where the applicant benefits from the attractiveness of the earlier right by affixing on its goods/services a sign that is similar (or identical) to one widely known in the market and, thus, misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value or exploiting its reputation, image and prestige.
Pojem neupravičenega izkoriščanja razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda se nanaša na primere, kadar prijavitelj izkoristi privlačnost prejšnje pravice, tako da svoje blago ali storitve označi z znakom, podobnim (ali enakim) znaku, ki je na trgu zelo znan, in si tako neupravičeno prisvoji njegovo privlačnost in oglaševalsko vrednost ali izkoristi njegov ugled, podobo in prestiž.
This may lead to unacceptable situations of commercial parasitism, where the applicant is allowed to take a ‘free ride' on the investment of the opponent in promoting and building up goodwill for its mark, as it may stimulate sales of the applicant's products to an extent that is disproportionately high in comparison with the size of its promotional investment.
To lahko vodi v nesprejemljive razmere tržnega parazitstva, v katerih lahko prijavitelj „parazitsko“ izkorišča naložbe vložnika ugovora v promocijo in ustvarjanje dobrega imena znamke, saj lahko te spodbudijo prodajo prijaviteljevih izdelkov v nesorazmerno velikem obsegu v primerjavi z obsegom njegovih naložb v promocijo.
In its judgment of 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, the Court indicated that unfair advantage exists where there is a transfer of the image of the mark or of the characteristics that it projects to the goods identified by the identical or similar sign.
Sodišče je v sodbi 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, navedlo, da neupravičeno izkoriščanje obstaja, kadar se podoba znamke ali značilnosti, ki jih predstavlja, prenesejo na blago, označeno z enakim ali podobnim znakom.
By riding on the coat-tails of the reputed mark, the applicant benefits from the power of attraction, reputation and prestige of the reputed mark.
Prijavitelj z obešanjem na ugled prejšnje znamke izkorišča njeno privlačnost, ugled in prestiž.
The applicant also exploits, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark (§ 41, 49).
Brezplačno izkorišča tudi trženjska prizadevanja imetnika znamke, namenjena izoblikovanju in ohranjanju podobe te znamke (točki 41 in 49).
Relevant consumer
Upoštevni potrošnik
The concept of ‘unfair advantage' focuses on benefit to the later mark rather than harm to the earlier mark; what is prohibited is the exploitation of the earlier mark by the proprietor of the later mark.
Pojem „neupravičeno izkoriščanje“ je usmerjen v korist poznejše znamke in ne v oškodovanje prejšnje znamke; prepovedano je, da bi imetnik poznejše znamke izkoriščal prejšnjo znamko.
Accordingly, the existence of the injury consisting of unfair advantage obtained from the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is applied for (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
Ustrezno je treba obstoj kršitve, ki obsega neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke, presojati z vidika povprečnega potrošnika blaga ali storitev, za katere je vložena prijava poznejše znamke (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of unfair advantage
Presoja neupravičenega izkoriščanja
In order to determine whether the use of a sign takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment, which takes into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, confirmed 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
Za ugotovitev, ali uporaba znaka neupravičeno izkorišča razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke, je treba opraviti tudi celovito presojo, ki upošteva vse dejavnike, pomembne za okoliščine primera (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, potrjena s sodbo z dne 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
The misappropriation of the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark presupposes an association between the respective marks, which makes possible the transfer of attractiveness and prestige to the sign applied for.
Neupravičena prisvojitev razlikovalnega učinka in ugleda prejšnje znamke je odvisna od asociacije med zadevnima znamkama, ki omogoča prenos privlačnosti in prestiža na znak, za katerega je vložena prijava.
An association of this kind will be more likely in the following circumstances.
Takšna asociacija je verjetnejša v naslednjih okoliščinah.
1. Where the earlier mark possesses a strong reputation or a very strong (inherent) distinctive character, because in such a case it will be both more tempting for the applicant to try to benefit from its value and easier to associate it with the sign applied for.
Kadar ima prejšnja znamka velik ugled ali (sama po sebi) zelo velik razlikovalni značaj, saj je v takem primeru privlačneje za prijavitelja, da poskuša izkoristiti njeno vrednost, lažje pa jo je tudi povezati z znakom, za katerega je vložena prijava.
Such marks will be recognised in almost any context, exactly because of their outstanding distinctiveness or ‘good' or ‘special' reputation, in the sense that it reflects an image of excellence, reliability or quality, or some other positive message, which could positively influence the choice of the consumer as regards goods of other producers (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
Take znamke je mogoče prepoznati skoraj v vseh okoliščinah prav zaradi svojega izjemnega razlikovalnega učinka ali „dobrega“ ali „posebnega“ ugleda, saj izražajo podobo odličnosti, zanesljivosti ali kakovosti ali kakšno drugo pozitivno sporočilo, ki bi lahko pozitivno vplivalo na potrošnikovo izbiro v zvezi z blagom drugih proizvajalcev (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
The stronger the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the more likely it is that, when encountering a later identical or similar mark, the relevant public will associate it with that earlier mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27).
Večji ko je razlikovalni značaj prejšnje znamke, verjetneje je, da bo upoštevna javnost ob stiku s poznejšo enako ali podobno znamko to povezala s prejšnjo znamko (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27).
2. Where the degree of similarity between the signs at issue is high.
Kadar je stopnja podobnosti med spornima znakoma visoka.
The more similar the marks are, the more likely it is that the later mark will bring the earlier mark with a reputation to the mind of the relevant public (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44).
Bolj ko sta si znamki podobni, verjetneje je, da bo upoštevna javnost ob poznejši znamki pomislila na prejšnjo znamko, ki ima ugled (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44).
3. Where there is a special connection between the goods/services, which allows for some of the qualities of the opponent's goods/services to be attributed to those of the applicant.
Kadar je med blagom/storitvami posebna zveza, na podlagi katere je mogoče nekatere značilnosti blaga/storitev vložnika ugovora pripisati blagu/storitvam prijavitelja.
This will be particularly so in the case of neighbouring markets, where a ‘brand extension' would seem more natural, as in the example of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; the healing properties of the former may be presumed in the latter when it bears the same mark.
Tako je zlasti v primeru sosednjih trgov, na katerih se zdi „razširitev znamke“ bolj primerna, na primer na področjih farmacevtskih proizvodov in kozmetičnih proizvodov; lahko se domneva, da imajo kozmetični proizvodi zdravilne lastnosti farmacevtskih proizvodov, če so označeni z isto znamko.
Similarly, the Court has held that certain drinks (Classes 32 and 33) commercialised as improving sexual performance were linked to the properties of the goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and veterinary products and substances) for which the earlier mark, Viagra, was registered (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Podobno je Sodišče odločilo, da so nekatere pijače (razreda 32 in 33), ki so se tržile za izboljšanje spolne učinkovitosti, povezane z značilnostmi blaga iz razreda 5 (farmacevtski proizvodi in snovi ter proizvodi in snovi za uporabo v veterinarski medicini), za katero je bila registrirana prejšnja znamka Viagra (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Conversely, such a link was not found between credit card services and cosmetics, as it was thought that the image of the former is not transferable to the latter, even though their respective users largely coincide.
Nasprotno pa take zveze ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti med storitvami kreditne kartice in kozmetičnimi proizvodi, ker je bilo ocenjeno, da podobe storitev ni mogoče prenesti na proizvode, čeprav oboje uporablja v glavnem ista skupina uporabnikov.
4. Where, in view of its special attractiveness and prestige, the earlier mark may be exploited even outside its natural market sector, for example, by licensing or merchandising.
Kadar je mogoče prejšnjo znamko zaradi posebne privlačnosti in prestiža izkoristiti tudi zunaj njenega običajnega tržnega sektorja, na primer z licenciranjem ali trženjem.
In this case, if the applicant uses a sign that is identical or similar to the earlier mark for goods for which the latter is already exploited, it will obviously profit from its de facto value in that sector (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
Če prijavitelj v tem primeru znak, ki je enak ali podoben prejšnji znamki, uporablja za blago, za katerega se ta znamka že izkorišča, bo nedvomno izkoristil njeno dejansko vrednost v tem sektorju (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
The applicant's intention is not a material factor.
Prijaviteljev namen ni pomemben dejavnik.
Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or repute of a trade mark may be a deliberate decision, for example where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark, or an attempt to trade upon the reputation of a famous mark.
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda blagovne znamke je lahko namerno, kadar gre na primer za jasno izkoriščanje in obešanje na ugled slavne znamke ali poskuse izkoriščanja njenega ugleda.
However, taking unfair advantage does not necessarily require a deliberate intention to exploit the goodwill attached to someone else's trade mark.
Vendar za neupravičeno izkoriščanje ni nujno potrebno namerno izkoriščanje dobrega imena, povezanega z blagovno znamko nekoga drugega.
The concept of taking unfair advantage ‘concerns the risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with a reputation' (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
Pri pojmu neupravičenega izkoriščanja „gre za tveganje, da se podoba ugledne znamke ali značilnosti, ki jih slednja prikazuje, prenesejo na proizvode, na katere se nanaša prijavljena znamka, tako da se njihovo trženje olajša z miselnim povezovanjem s prejšnjo ugledno znamko“ (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
Therefore, bad faith is not in itself a condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR, which only requires that the advantage be ‘unfair', in that there is no justification for the applicant's profit.
Slaba vera sama po sebi zato ni pogoj za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim se zahteva le, da gre za izkoriščanje „brez upravičenega razloga“, kar pomeni, da prijaviteljeva korist ni upravičena.
However, where the evidence shows that the applicant is clearly acting in bad faith, there will be a strong indication of unfair advantage.
Kadar pa je iz dokazov razvidno, da prijavitelj očitno ravna v slabi veri, je to pomemben znak neupravičenega izkoriščanja.
The existence of bad faith may be inferred from various factors, such as an obvious attempt by the applicant to imitate an earlier sign of great distinctiveness as closely as possible, or where there is no apparent reason why it chose for its goods a mark that includes such a sign.
Obstoj slabe vere je mogoče povzeti iz različnih dejavnikov, kot na primer kadar prijavitelj očitno poskuša čim natančnejše posnemati prejšnji znak z velikim razlikovalnim učinkom ali kadar nima nobenega očitnega razloga, da je za svoje blago izbral znamko, ki vključuje takšen znak.
Finally, the concept of unfair advantage in Article 8(5) EUTMR does not relate to the detriment caused to the reputed mark.
Nazadnje, pojem neupravičenega izkoriščanja v členu 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne nanaša na oškodovanje ugledne znamke.
Accordingly, advantage taken by a third party of the distinctive character or repute of the mark may be unfair even if the use of the identical or similar sign is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor.
V skladu s tem je lahko korist, ki jo je tretja oseba pridobila zaradi razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda znamke, neupravičena, tudi če uporaba enakega ali podobnega znaka ne oškoduje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda znamke ali, splošneje, njenega imetnika.
It is, therefore, not necessary for the opponent to show that the applicant's benefit is detrimental to its economic interests or to the image of its mark (unlike with tarnishing, see below), as in most cases the ‘borrowed' distinctiveness/prestige of the sign will principally affect the applicant's competitors, that is, traders dealing in identical/similar/neighbouring markets, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
Zato vložniku ugovora ni treba dokazati, da prijaviteljeva korist škoduje njegovim ekonomskim interesom ali ugledu njegove znamke (za razliko od očrnitve, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju), saj v večini primerov „izposojeni“ razlikovalni učinek/prestiž znaka prizadene načeloma prijaviteljeve tekmece, torej gospodarske subjekte, ki delujejo na enakih/podobnih/sorodnih trgih, ker se znajdejo v podrejenem konkurenčnem položaju.