natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The party seeking continuation of proceedings must make the request, for which a fee is charged as established in Annex I of the EUTMR, within two months of the expiry of the original time limit and complete the omitted act by the time the request for continuation is received.
Stranka, ki zaprosi za nadaljevanje postopka, mora v dveh mesecih po izteku prvotnega roka vložiti zahtevek, za katerega mora plačati pristojbino, ki je določena v Prilogi I k Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU, in do dne prejema zahtevka za nadaljevanje postopka izvesti zamujeno dejanje.
A request for an extension of time does not constitute the completion of the ‘omitted act'.
Zahteva za podaljšanje roka ne pomeni izvedbe zamujenega dejanja.
There can be no extension or continuation of the two-month deadline.
Dvomesečnega roka ni več mogoče podaljšati ali nadaljevati postopka po izteku tega roka.
There is no substantive requirement to be fulfilled such as when requesting restitutio in integrum.
Pri tem ni treba izpolniti nobene vsebinske zahteve, kot je to potrebno pri zahtevi za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje.
If the Office accepts the request for continuation of proceedings, the consequences of having failed to observe the time limit will be deemed not to have occurred.
Če Urad odobri zahtevek za nadaljevanje postopka, se šteje, da neupoštevanje roka ni povzročilo posledic.
If a decision has been taken between the expiry of that time limit and the request for the continuation of proceedings, the department competent to decide on the omitted act will review the decision and, where completion of the omitted act itself is sufficient, take a different decision.
Če je Urad med iztekom tega roka in zahtevkom za nadaljevanje postopka sprejel odločitev, bo oddelek, pristojen za odločanje o zamujenem dejanju, odločitev pregledal in, če zadostuje izvedba zamujenega dejanja, sprejel drugo odločitev.
If, following the review, the Office concludes that the original decision does not need to be altered, it will confirm that decision in writing.
Če bo Urad po pregledu ugotovil, da prvotne odločitve ni treba spremeniti, jo bo pisno potrdil.
4.5 Restitutio in integrum
4.5 Zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje
A party to proceedings before the Office may be reinstated in its rights (restitutio in integrum) if, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, it was unable to meet a time limit vis-à-vis the Office, provided that the failure to meet the time limit had the direct consequence, by virtue of the provisions of the regulations, of causing the loss of any right or means of redress.
Stranka v postopku pred Uradom lahko znova pridobi svoje pravice (vrnitev v prejšnje stanje), če kljub skrbnemu ravnanju, ki so ga zahtevale okoliščine, ni mogla izpolniti roka, ki ga je določil Urad, če je ta neizpolnitev na podlagi določb uredb neposredno vplivala na izgubo katere koli pravice ali pravnega sredstva za povračila.
For further information see the Guidelines, Part A, General Rules, Section 8, Restitutio in Integrum.
Za več informacij glej Smernice, del A: Splošna pravila, razdelek 8: Vrnitev v prejšnje stanje (restitutio in integrum).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part A, General Rules Page 3
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del A, Splošna pravila Stran 1
General Principles to Be Respected in the Proceedings
Splošna načela, ki jih je treba upoštevati v postopku
SECTION 2
RAZDELEK 2
GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO BE RESPECTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
SPLOŠNA NAČELA, KI JIH JE TREBA UPOŠTEVATI V POSTOPKU
1 Adequate Reasoning 3
1 Obveznost ustrezne obrazložitve 3
2 The Right to Be Heard 3
2 Pravica do zaslišanja 3
3 Other General Principles of EU Law 4
3 Druga splošna načela prava EU 4
4 Means of Taking Evidence 5
4 Načini pridobivanja dokazil 5
4.1 Written evidence 6
4.1 Pisna dokazila 5
4.2 Oral evidence and inspections 7
4.2 Zaslišanje in pregledi 6
4.3 Specific means of evidence 7
4.3 Posebni načini pridobivanja dokazil 7
4.3.1 Commissioning of experts by the Office 7
4.3.1 Urad pooblasti izvedence 7
4.3.2 Affidavits 8
4.3.2 Izjave pod prisego 7
4.3.3 Inspections 8
4.3.3 Pregledi 8
5 Oral Proceedings 9
5 Ustni postopek 8
5.1 Summons to oral proceedings 9
5.1 Poziv na ustni postopek 9
5.2 Language of oral proceedings 10
5.2 Jezik ustnega postopka 9
5.3 Course of the oral proceedings 10
5.3 Potek ustnega postopka 9
5.4 Minutes of oral evidence and of oral proceedings 10
5.4 Zapisnik o zaslišanju in ustnem postopku 10
5.5 Costs of taking evidence in oral proceedings 11
5.5 Stroški pridobivanja dokazil z ustnim postopkom 10
6 Decisions 11
6 Odločbe 11
6.1 Contents 11
6.1 Vsebina 11
6.2 Apportionment of costs 12
6.2 Porazdelitev stroškov 11
1 Adequate Reasoning
Obveznost ustrezne obrazložitve
Articles 94 to 97 and 109 EUTMR
Členi 94 do 97 in 109 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Articles 62 to 65 and 70 CDR
Členi 62 do 65 in 70 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
Article 38 CDIR
Člen 38 Izvedbene uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
Office decisions will be in writing and will state the reasons on which they are based.
Odločbe Urada morajo biti pisne in vsebovati razloge, na katerih temeljijo.
The reason for this is twofold: to explain to interested parties why the measure was taken so that they can protect their rights, and to enable the Courts of the European Union to exercise their power to review the legality of the decision (12/07/2012, T389/11, Guddy, EU:T:2012:378, § 16; 22/05/2012, T585/10, Penteo, EU:T:2012:251, § 37, as well as the case-law cited; 27/06/2013, T608/11, Instruments for writing, EU:T:2013:334, § 67).
Tako je iz dveh razlogov: zainteresiranim strankam se s tem pojasni, zakaj je bil ukrep sprejet, da lahko varujejo svoje pravice, sodiščem Evropske unije pa se omogoči, da nadzirajo zakonitost odločbe (12/07/2012, T389/11, Guddy, EU:T:2012:378, § 16; 22/05/2012, T585/10, Penteo, EU:T:2012:251, § 37, in navedena sodna praksa; 27/06/2013, T608/11, Instruments for writing, EU:T:2013:334, § 67).
However, if the Office does not respond to all the arguments raised by the parties, this does not necessarily infringe the duty to state reasons (11/06/2014, T486/12, Metabol, EU:T:2014:508, § 19; 28/01/2014, T600/11, Carrera panamericana, EU:T:2014:33, § 21; 15/07/2014, T576/12, Protekt, EU:T:2014:667, § 78; 18/11/2015, T813/14, Cases for portable computers, EU:T:2015:868, § 15).
Vendar če Urad ne odgovori na vse trditve, ki so jih stranke navedle, ne krši nujno obveznosti navedbe razlogov (11/06/2014, T486/12, Metabol, EU:T:2014:508, § 19; 28/01/2014, T600/11, Carrera panamericana, EU:T:2014:33, § 21; 15/07/2014, T576/12, Protekt, EU:T:2014:667, § 78; 18/11/2015, T813/14, Cases for portable computers, EU:T:2015:868, § 15).
It is sufficient that it sets out the facts and legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision (18/01/2013, T137/12, Vibrator, EU:T:2013:26, § 41-42; 20/02/2013, T378/11, Medinet, EU:T:2013:83, § 17; 03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57-58; 16/05/2012, T580/10, Kindertraum, EU:T:2012:240, § 28; or 10/10/2012, T569/10, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:T:2012:535, § 42-46, 08/05/2014, C591/12 P, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:C:2014:1273).
Zadostuje navedba dejstev in pravnih ugotovitev, ki so bistveni v okviru odločbe (18/01/2013, T137/12, Vibrator, EU:T:2013:26, § 41-42; 20/02/2013, T378/11, Medinet, EU:T:2013:83, § 17; 03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57-58; 16/05/2012, T580/10, Kindertraum, EU:T:2012:240, § 28; ali 10/10/2012, T569/10, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:T:2012:535, § 42-46, 08/05/2014, C591/12 P, Bimbo Doughnuts, EU:C:2014:1273).
The Office can use facts that are a matter of common knowledge as a basis for its reasoning.
Urad lahko kot podlago za obrazložitev uporabi dejstva, ki so splošno znana.
Well-known facts are those that are very likely to be known by anyone or may be learnt from generally accessible sources or those that are very likely to be known by anyone with general practical experience of marketing consumer goods and in particular by the consumers of those goods.
Splošno znana dejstva so tista, ki jih zelo verjetno pozna vsakdo ali jih je mogoče izvedeti iz splošno dostopnih virov ali jih zelo verjetno pozna vsakdo, ki ima splošne praktične izkušnje s trženjem potrošniškega blaga, zlasti pa potrošniki tega blaga.
The Office is not required to prove the accuracy of these well-known facts and, therefore, it is not obliged to give examples of such practical experience; it is up to the party concerned to submit evidence to refute it (20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 46; 11/07/2013, T208/12, Rote Schnürsenkelenden, EU:T:2013:376, § 24; 21/02/2013, T427/11, Bioderma, EU:T:2013:92, § 19-22; 08/02/2013, T33/12, Medigym, EU:T:2013:71, § 20, 25; 07/12/2012, T42/09, Quadratum, EU:T:2012:658, § 73; 19/09/2012, T231/11, Stoffmuster, EU:T:2012:436, § 51).
Uradu ni treba dokazati pravilnosti teh splošno znanih dejstev in zato nima obveznosti, da bi podal primere takih praktičnih izkušenj; če jih zadevna stranka želi izpodbijati, mora predložiti dokazila (20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 46; 11/07/2013, T208/12, Rote Schnürsenkelenden, EU:T:2013:376, § 24; 21/02/2013, T427/11, Bioderma, EU:T:2013:92, § 19-22; 08/02/2013, T33/12, Medigym, EU:T:2013:71, § 20, 25; 07/12/2012, T42/09, Quadratum, EU:T:2012:658, § 73; 19/09/2012, T231/11, Stoffmuster, EU:T:2012:436, § 51).
2 The Right to Be Heard
Pravica do zaslišanja
In accordance with that principle, the Office may base its decision only on matters of fact or of law on which the parties have been able to set out their views.
V skladu z navedenim načelom lahko Urad svoje odločbe sprejme samo na podlagi dejanskih vprašanj oziroma pravnih okoliščin, h katerim so stranke lahko podale pripombe.
Consequently, where the Office gathers facts to serve as a basis for its decision, it is obliged to notify the parties of those facts in order that the parties may submit their views on them (07/11/2014, T567/12, Kaatsu, EU:T:2014:937, § 50-51 and case-law cited therein).
Kadar Urad zbere dejstva, na podlagi katerih bo sprejel odločbo, mora zato o teh dejstvih obvestiti stranke, da lahko predložijo svoje pripombe k njim (07/11/2014, T567/12, Kaatsu, EU:T:2014:937, § 50-51 ter tam navedena sodna praksa).
The right to be heard covers all the matters of fact or law and evidence that form the basis for the decision.
Pravica do zaslišanja zajema vsa dejanska vprašanja oziroma pravne okoliščine in dokazila, na podlagi katerih je odločitev sprejeta.
The Office will take legal issues into account, irrespective of whether or not they have been pleaded by the parties.
Urad upošteva pravna vprašanja, in sicer ne glede na to, ali so se stranke sklicevale nanje ali ne.
For examination, it will examine the facts on its own motion; however, in opposition, cancellation and design invalidity proceedings, it will restrict its examination of facts, evidence and arguments to those provided by the parties.
Pri preizkušanju preizkusi dejstva po uradni dolžnosti, nasprotno pa preizkušanje pri postopkih ugovora, izbrisa in za ugotovitev ničnosti modela omeji na dejstva, dokazila in trditve, ki so jih predložile stranke.
Nevertheless, this restriction does not prevent the Office from taking additional well-known facts into consideration.
Ta omejitev Uradu ne preprečuje, da bi upošteval še druga splošno znana dejstva.
While the Office must rule on each head of claim (10/06/2008, T85/07, Gabel, EU:T:2008:186, § 20), it is not required to give express reasons for its assessment in respect of each and every piece of evidence submitted or arguments put forward, where it considers that evidence or arguments to be unimportant or irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute (15/06/2000, C237/98 P, Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission, EU:C:2000:321, § 51).
Urad mora odločiti glede vsakega tožbenega predloga posebej (10/06/2008, T85/07, Gabel, EU:T:2008:186, § 20), ni pa zavezan svoje presoje izrecno obrazložiti glede vsakega posameznega predloženega dokazila ali trditve, če meni, da katero dokazilo ali trditev ni pomembna ali upoštevna za rešitev spora (15/06/2000, C237/98 P, Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission, EU:C:2000:321, § 51).
The right to be heard does not apply to the final position to be adopted.
Pravica do zaslišanja ne velja za končno stališče, ki ga sprejme Urad.
Therefore, the Office is not bound to inform the parties of its legal opinion before issuing a decision and thus afford them the opportunity to submit their observations on that position or even to submit additional evidence (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 37; 14/06/2012, T293/10, Colour per se, EU:T:2012:302, § 46 in fine; 08/03/2012, T298/10, Biodanza, EU:T:2012:113, § 101; 20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 45-46).
Urad tako ni dolžan stranke obvestiti o svojem pravnem mnenju, preden izda odločbo, in jim tako zagotoviti možnost, da predložijo pripombe k temu stališču ali celo dodatna dokazila (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 37; 14/06/2012, T293/10, Colour per se, EU:T:2012:302, § 46 konec točke; 08/03/2012, T298/10, Biodanza, EU:T:2012:113, § 101; 20/03/2013, T277/12, Caffè Kimbo, EU:T:2013:146, § 45-46).
3 Other General Principles of EU Law
Druga splošna načela prava EU
The Office must respect the general principles of EU law, such as equal treatment and sound administration (24/01/2012, T260/08, Visual Map, EU:T:2012:23; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73).
Urad mora upoštevati splošna načela prava EU, kot sta načeli enakega obravnavanja in dobrega upravljanja (24/01/2012, T260/08, Visual Map, EU:T:2012:23; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73).
For reasons of legal certainty and of sound administration, there must be a stringent and full examination of all applications in order to prevent trade marks and designs from being improperly registered.
Zaradi pravne varnosti in dobrega upravljanja mora Urad dosledno in v celoti preizkusiti vse prijave, da bi preprečil nepravilno registracijo blagovnih znamk in modelov.
That examination must be undertaken in each individual case (23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51).
Navedeno preizkušanje mora opraviti v vsaki posamezni zadevi posebej (23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51).
The lawfulness of the Office's decisions must be assessed solely on the basis of EU regulations, as interpreted by the European Union judicature.
Zakonitost odločb Urada je treba presojati izključno na podlagi uredb EU, kot jih razlagajo sodišča Evropske unije.
Accordingly, the Office is not bound either by its previous decision-making practice or by a decision given in a Member State, or indeed a third country, that the sign/design in question is registrable as a national mark/design (23/01/2014, T513/12, Norwegian getaway, EU:T:2014:24, § 63).
Urada tako ne obvezuje niti njegova predhodna praksa odločanja niti odločbe, izdane v državah članicah ali celo tretjih državah, v skladu s katerimi je zadevni znak ali model mogoče registrirati kot nacionalno znamko ali model (23/01/2014, T513/12, Norwegian getaway, EU:T:2014:24, § 63).
This is true even if the decision was adopted in a country belonging to the linguistic area in which the word sign in question originated (16/05/2013, T356/11, Equipment, EU:T:2013:253, § 7).
To velja tudi, če je bila odločba sprejeta v državi z jezikovnega območja, iz katerega izhaja zadevni besedni znak (16/05/2013, T356/11, Equipment, EU:T:2013:253, § 7).
However, in the light of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, the Office will take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and must carefully consider whether it should decide in the same way or not (10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 74-75; 27/02/2014, T225/12, LIDL express, EU:T:2014:94, § 56; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 12/12/2013, T156/12, Oval, EU:T:2013:642, § 28).
Kljub temu Urad glede na načela enake obravnave in dobrega upravljanja upošteva odločbe, ki so že bile sprejete v zvezi s podobnimi prijavami, in mora posebno pozornost posvetiti vprašanju, ali je treba odločiti v enakem smislu (10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 74-75; 27/02/2014, T225/12, LIDL express, EU:T:2014:94, § 56; 23/01/2014, T68/13, Care to care, EU:T:2014:29, § 51; 12/12/2013, T156/12, Oval, EU:T:2013:642, § 28).
4 Means of Taking Evidence
Člena 96 in 97 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Articles 96 to 97 EUTMR
Členi 49 do 55 Delegirane uredbe
Articles 49 to 55 EUTMDR
Člena 64 in 65 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
Articles 64 to 65 CDR
Členi 42 do 46 Izvedbene uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
Articles 42 to 46 CDIR
Sklep predsednika Urada št.
In any proceedings before the Office, evidence may be taken.
Pri vsakem postopku pred Uradom se lahko pridobivajo dokazila.
The means for taking evidence are listed in Article 97 EUTMR, Article 51 EUTMDR, Article 65 CDR and Article 43 CDIR, although that list is not exhaustive.
Načini pridobivanja dokazil so navedeni v členu 97 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, členu 51 Delegirane uredbe, členu 65 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti in členu 43 Izvedbene uredbe o modelih Skupnosti, navedeni seznam pa ni izčrpen.
The means of evidence are as follows:
Načini so naslednji:
hearing the parties,
zaslišanje strank,
requests for information,
zahteva po informacijah,
the production of documents and items of evidence,
predložitev dokumentov in posameznih dokazil,
hearing witnesses,
zaslišanje prič,
opinions by experts,
izvedenska mnenja,
sworn or affirmed statements in writing or statements having a similar effect under the law of the State in which they are drawn up,
zaprisežene ali potrjene pisne izjave ali izjave, ki imajo podoben učinek po zakonu države, v kateri je izjava sestavljena,
inspection.
pregled.
Some of these means, such as requests for information, statements in writing and, in particular, the submission of documents and items of evidence, will be used more frequently than others.
Nekateri od njih, kot so zahteve po informacijah, pisne izjave ter zlasti predložitev dokumentov in dokazil, se uporabljajo pogosteje kot drugi.
Hearing the parties, witnesses or experts, and inspections are used only exceptionally.
Zaslišanje strank, prič ali izvedencev se uporablja le izjemoma.
The Office will decide which of these means to use but will use them only when necessary for examining the file.
Urad bo odločil, katere od teh načinov bo uporabil, uporabil pa jih bo samo, kadar je to potrebno za preizkušanje spisa.
If the Office refuses a request to take evidence, an appeal can only be made together with the appeal against the final decision.
Če Urad zavrne zahtevo za pridobivanje dokazil, se je zoper to mogoče pritožiti le v pritožbi zoper končno odločbo.
The procedure followed by the Office varies depending on the means of taking evidence proposed.
Postopek, ki ga uporablja Urad, je odvisen od predlaganega načina pridobivanja dokazil.
4.1 Written evidence
Pisna dokazila
When taking evidence, the Office will confine itself to written evidence in most cases.
Pri pridobivanju dokazil se Urad v večini primerov omeji na pisna dokazila.
This is the least costly, simplest and most flexible means of taking evidence.
To je najcenejši, najpreprostejši in najfleksibilnejši način pridobivanja dokazil.
The Office will therefore give preference to the submission of documents and items of evidence.
Urad tako daje prednost predložitvi dokumentov in posameznih dokazil.
However, other possible written means of taking evidence include not only a request for information or statements in writing that have been sworn or affirmed or have a similar effect thereto under the law of the State in which they are drawn up, but also opinions by experts, which may consist solely of a written report.
Vendar drugi morebitni načini pridobivanja pisnih dokazil poleg zahtev po informacijah ali zapriseženih oziroma potrjenih pisnih izjav ali izjav, ki imajo podoben učinek kot take po zakonu države, v kateri je izjava sestavljena, vključujejo tudi mnenja izvedencev, ki lahko zajemajo le pisno mnenje.
The Regulations make no provision for any special procedure or formality.
Uredbe ne določajo nobenega posebnega postopka ali formalnosti.
Therefore, the Office's general rules of procedure apply.
Zato se uporabljajo splošna pravila postopka, ki jih je pripravil Urad.
In EUTM proceedings, any documents or other items of evidence submitted by one party must be contained in an annex to the submission, be numbered, and be accompanied by an index, a short description of each item of evidence together with the number of pages, if applicable, and the page number of the submission where it is mentioned.
V postopkih v zvezi z blagovno znamko EU mora stranka vse dokumente ali druga dokazila predložiti kot prilogo k sporočilu, jih oštevilčiti, dodati kazalo s kratkim opisom vsakega posameznega dokazila in številom strani, če je primerno, in številko strani, na kateri je dokazilo omenjeno v predloženem dokumentu.
In inter partes proceedings, unless submitted by electronic means, any supporting documents, including annexes or other evidence must be submitted in two copies (for further information see the Guidelines, Part A, General Rules, Section 1, Means of Communication, Time Limits).
V postopkih inter partes je treba vse dokumente, vključno z morebitnimi prilogami oziroma drugimi dokazili, predložiti v dveh izvodih, razen če se predložijo elektronsko (za več informacij glej Smernice, del A: Splošna pravila, razdelek 1: Komunikacijska sredstva, roki).
The written evidence will be communicated to the other party as soon as possible, and the Office may set the other party a time limit of, in principle, 2 months to reply.
Pisna dokazila se nemudoma pošljejo drugi stranki, Urad pa lahko tej stranki določi načeloma dvomesečni rok, da odgovori nanje.
A deficiency will be raised during the proceedings stage (i) when the evidence is not structured in numbered annexes; (ii) when no index is sent (that is to say, when the required content of the index is not identifiable in any form); or (iii) when, on its own motion or after being questioned by the other party, the Office finds it justified, in particular when it considers that the failure to comply with the relevant requirements significantly impairs the Office's or the other party's ability to review and assess the documents or items of evidence submitted and to understand the relevance of the same.
Kadar v fazi postopka (i) dokazila niso urejena v oštevilčenih prilogah, (ii) ni bilo predloženo kazalo (kar pomeni, da zahtevane vsebine kazala ni mogoče prepoznati v nobeni obliki) ali (iii) Urad po uradni dolžnosti ali potem, ko druga stranka izrazi pomisleke, presodi, da je to upravičeno, zlasti kadar meni, da je zaradi neizpolnjevanja ustreznih zahtev močno zmanjšana zmožnost Urada ali druge stranke, da pregleda in oceni predložene dokumente ali dokazila ter razume njihov pomen, Urad to šteje kot pomanjkljivost.
Any such deficiency may be overcome by structuring the evidence in numbered annexes, or submitting an index identifying the content of the annexes, as applicable.
Vsaka taka pomanjkljivost se lahko odpravi tako, da stranka uredi dokazila v oštevilčene priloge oziroma predloži kazalo z navedeno vsebino prilog, kot je primerno.
Where the deficiency is not remedied within the period specified by the Office, and where it is still not possible for the Office to clearly establish to which ground or argument a document or item of evidence refers, that document or item will not be taken into account.
Kadar stranka ne odpravi pomanjkljivosti v obdobju, ki ga določi Urad, in kadar Urad še vedno ne more jasno ugotoviti, na kateri razlog ali trditev se dokument ali dokazilo navezuje, tega dokumenta ali dokazila ne bo upošteval.
The Office will base its decision only on reasons on which both sides have had an opportunity to submit observations, and will identify those items of evidence not taken into account due to not fulfilling the requirements of Article 55 EUTMDR.
Urad bo odločbo sprejel samo na podlagi obrazložitev, h katerim sta obe stranki imeli možnost predložiti pripombe, in bo navedel dokazila, ki jih ni upošteval, ker niso izpolnjevala zahtev iz člena 55 Delegirane uredbe.