natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows from the law and it has been interpreted by the Court that the opponent must provide the content of the relevant national law and show that it would succeed under that national law in preventing the use of a subsequent trade mark.
Iz prava izhaja, enako pa je razlagalo tudi Sodišče, da mora vložnik ugovora predložiti vsebino zadevnega nacionalnega prava in dokazati, da bi bila preprečitev uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke na podlagi nacionalnega prava uspešna.
In that context and in relation to the earlier rights relied on … regard must be had, in particular, to the national rules advanced in support of the opposition and to the judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned and that, on that basis, the opponent must establish that the sign concerned falls within the scope of the law of the Member State relied on and that it allows use of a subsequent mark to be prohibited.
V zvezi s tem je treba v povezavi s prejšnjimi pravicami, za katere je navedeno sklicevanje, […] upoštevati zlasti nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se navaja v utemeljitev ugovora, in sodne odločbe, izdane v zadevni državi članici, poleg tega pa mora vložnik ugovora na podlagi tega dokazati, da zadevni znak spada na področje uporabe prava navedene države članice in da omogoča prepoved uporabe poznejše znamke
(05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452, § 50; 27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 34.)
Čeprav se ti sodbi nanašata na postopek za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 52(2) Uredbe št.
Although these judgments referred to invalidity proceedings under Article 52(2) of Regulation No 40/94 [now Article 60(2) EUTMR], since Article 8(4) EUTMR also concerns the application of earlier rights protected under European Union legislation or under the law of the Member State governing the sign at issue, the cited case-law also applies to oppositions brought under Article 8(4) EUTMR.
40/94 [zdaj člen 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU], ker člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadeva uporabo prejšnjih pravic, zaščitenih na podlagi zakonodaje Evropske unije ali prava držav članic, ki ureja zadevni znak, se navedena sodna praksa uporablja tudi za ugovore na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The information on the applicable law must allow the Office to understand and apply the content of that law, the conditions for obtaining protection and the scope of this protection, and allow the applicant to exercise the right of defence.
Informacije o pravu, ki se uporablja, morajo Uradu omogočati, da razume in uporabi vsebino tega prava, pogoje za pridobitev zaščite in obseg te zaščite, prijavitelju pa morajo omogočiti uveljavljanje pravice do zagovora.
It may also be particularly useful to submit evidence of relevant case-law and/or jurisprudence interpreting the law invoked.
Poleg tega je lahko zelo koristno, da se predložijo dokazi o zadevni sodni praksi in/ali pravu, ki razlagajo pravo, na katero se sklicuje.
The Office must effectively assess the applicability of the ground for refusal invoked.
Urad mora učinkovito presoditi o uporabi razloga za zavrnitev, na katerega se sklicuje.
In order to ensure the correct application of the law invoked, the Office has the power to verify, by whatever means it deems appropriate, the content, the conditions governing the application and the scope of the provisions of the applicable law relied upon by the opponent (27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 44-46), while respecting the parties' right to be heard.
Urad je za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe prava pristojen za preverjanje vsebine, pogojev, ki urejajo uporabo, in obsega določb prava, ki se uporablja in na katerega se sklicuje vložnik ugovora (27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 44-46), na kateri koli ustrezen način, pri tem pa upošteva pravico strank do izjave.
If, after verifying the evidence submitted, the Office is of the opinion that the parties' proposed interpretation or application of the law invoked was inaccurate, it can introduce new and/or additional elements.
Če Urad po preverjanju predloženih dokazov meni, da je bila razlaga ali uporaba prava, ki so ga predložile stranke, nepravilna, lahko uvede nove in/ali dodatne elemente.
In order to respect the parties' rights to be heard, the Office will invite the parties to comment on these elements, where appropriate.
Urad stranke pozove, naj predložijo pripombe o teh elementih, kadar je to ustrezno, da bi upošteval pravico strank do izjave.
This power of verification is limited to ensuring the accurate application of the law relied upon by the opponent.
Ta pristojnost za preverjanje je omejena na zagotavljanje pravilne uporabe prava, na katero se sklicuje vložnik ugovora.
It does not therefore discharge the opponent from the burden of proof and it cannot serve to substitute the opponent in adducing the appropriate law for the purposes of its case (02/06/2014, R 1587/20134, GROUP, § 26; 30/06/2014, R 2256/20132, (+) ENERGY / ENERGETIX, § 26).
Vložnika ugovora torej ne razreši dokaznega bremena in ne more nadomestiti predložitve ustreznega prava za namene primera vložnika ugovora (02/06/2014, R 1587/20134, GROUP, § 26; 30/06/2014, R 2256/20132, (+) ENERGY / ENERGETIX, § 26).
4.2 Means of evidence and standard of proof
Dokazi in dokazni standard
Pursuant to Article 8(4) EUTMR, the applicable law may be the law of a Member State or European Union law.
Pravo, ki se uporablja, je lahko v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravo države članice ali pravo Evropske unije.
As regards national law, the opponent must provide:
Vložnik ugovora mora v zvezi z nacionalnim pravom zagotoviti:
the provisions of the applicable law:
določbe prava, ki se uporablja:
on the conditions governing acquisition of rights (whether there is a requirement of use and, if so, the standard of use required; whether there is a registration requirement, etc.); and
o pogojih, ki urejajo pridobitev pravic (ali obstaja zahteva za uporabo in, če je tako, zahtevani standard uporabe, ali se zahteva registracija itd.), in
on the scope of protection of the right (whether it confers the right of prohibition of use; the injury against which protection is provided, e.g. likelihood of confusion, misrepresentation, unfair advantage, evocation).
o obsegu zaščite pravice (ali podeljuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe; kršitve, v zvezi s katerimi je zagotovljena zaščita, npr. verjetnost zmede, zavajanje, neupravičeno izkoriščanje, navajanje);
particulars proving fulfilment of the conditions:
podatke, ki dokazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev:
of acquisition (entitlement; earlier acquisition; whether it is in force; evidence of use if use-based; evidence of registration if registration-based, etc.); and
za pridobitev pravic (upravičenost, prejšnja pridobitev, ali se uporablja, dokazi o uporabi, če temelji na uporabi, dokaz o registraciji, če temelji na registraciji itd.) in
of the scope of protection (facts, evidence and/or arguments that the requirements laid down by the applicable law for a prohibition of use are met, e.g. the nature of the goods, services or business activity protected by the earlier right and their relation with the contested goods or services; a cogent argument showing that there is a risk of injury).
za obseg zaščite pravice (dejstva, dokazi in/ali trditve, da so izpolnjene zahteve, ki jih glede prepovedi uporabe določa pravo, ki se uporablja, npr. vrsta blaga, storitev ali poslovnih dejavnosti, ki jih ščiti prejšnja pravica, in njihova povezava z izpodbijanim blagom ali storitvami; utemeljena trditev, ki kaže tveganje kršitve).
First, as regards the provisions of the applicable law (see paragraph 4.2.1 a) above), the opponent must provide a clear identification of the contents of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR).
Prvič, v zvezi z določbami prava, ki se uporablja (glej odstavek 4.2.1(a) zgoraj), mora vložnik ugovora predložiti jasno navedbo vsebine nacionalnega prava, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb (člen 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe).
The opponent must provide the reference to the relevant legal provision (article number and the number and title of the law) and the content (text) of the legal provision by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (e.g. excerpts from an official journal, a legal commentary, legal encyclopaedias or court decisions).
Vložnik ugovora mora predložiti sklicevanje na zadevno pravno določbo (številka člena ter številka in naslov zakona) in vsebino (besedilo) pravne določbe, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb (npr. izvlečki iz uradnega lista, pravne razlage, pravne enciklopedije ali sodne odločbe).
If the relevant provision refers to a further provision of law, this must also be provided to enable the applicant and the Office to understand the full meaning of the provision invoked and to determine the possible relevance of this further provision.
Če se zadevna določba nanaša na nadaljnjo določbo zakona, je treba predložiti tudi to, da se prijavitelju in Uradu omogoči polno razumevanje določbe ter ugotovi morebitna pomembnost te nadaljnje določbe.
Where the evidence concerning the content of the relevant national law is accessible online from a source recognised by the Office, the opponent may provide such evidence by making a reference to that source (Article 7(3) EUTMDR) (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2.4.3).
Če so dokazi glede vsebine zadevne nacionalne zakonodaje dostopni prek spletnega vira, ki ga priznava Urad, lahko vložnik ugovora navede take dokaze s sklicevanjem na ta vir (člen 7(3) Delegirane uredbe) (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2.4.3).
As the opponent is required to prove the content of the applicable law, it must provide the applicable law in the original language.
Ker se od vložnika ugovora zahteva, da dokaže vsebino prava, ki se uporablja, ga mora predložiti v jeziku izvirnika.
If that language is not the language of the proceedings, the opponent must also provide a complete translation of the legal provisions invoked in accordance with the standard rules of substantiation (Article 7(4) EUTMDR, first sentence).
Če ta jezik ni jezik postopka, mora vložnik ugovora predložiti tudi popoln prevod pravnih določb v skladu s standardnimi pravili utemeljitve (prvi stavek člena 7(4) Delegirane uredbe).
However, a mere translation of the applicable law does not itself constitute proof and cannot substitute the original; therefore, the translation alone is not considered sufficient to prove the law invoked.
Prevod prava, ki se uporablja, ni dokaz in ne more nadomestiti izvirnika, zato se le prevod ne šteje za zadosten dokaz glede prava, na katero se sklicuje.
Article 7(4) EUTMDR requires any provisions of the applicable national law governing the acquisition of the rights and their scope of protection, including evidence accessible online to be submitted in the language of the proceedings or accompanied by a translation into that language, which must be submitted within the time limit specified for submitting the original document.
Člen 7(4) Delegirane uredbe zahteva, da se vse določbe nacionalnega prava, ki se uporablja in ki ureja pridobitev pravic in obseg njihove zaščite, tudi dokazi, ki so na voljo na spletu, predložijo v jeziku postopka ali jim je priložen prevod v zadevni jezik, ki ga je treba predložiti v roku, določenem za predložitev izvirnika.
The same rules apply where the opponent provides the content of the relevant national law by making reference to a relevant online source recognised by the Office.
Enaka pravila se uporabljajo, če vložnik ugovora predloži vsebino zadevnega nacionalnega prava s sklicevanjem na ustrezni spletni vir, ki ga priznava Urad.
Where the opponent seeks to rely on national case-law or jurisprudence interpreting the law invoked, it must provide the relevant information in sufficient detail (e.g. a copy of the decision invoked or excerpts from the legal literature).
Če se vložnik ugovora opira na nacionalno sodno prakso, ki razlaga pravo, na katero se sklicuje, mora predložiti dovolj podrobne informacije (npr. kopijo odločbe ali izvlečke iz pravne literature).
The translation rules apply equally to that evidence, including cases when the opponent provides such evidence by making reference to a relevant online source recognised by the Office.
Pravila glede prevoda se enako uporabljajo za te dokaze, tudi če vložnik ugovora predloži tak dokaz s sklicevanjem na ustrezni spletni vir, ki ga priznava Urad.
Second, as regards the particulars proving fulfilment of the conditions of the applicable law (see paragraph 4.2.1 b) above), apart from providing appropriate evidence of acquisition of the right invoked, the opponent must submit evidence that the conditions of protection vis-à-vis the contested mark are actually met and, in particular, put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed in preventing the use of the contested mark under the applicable law.
Drugič, v zvezi s podatki, ki dokazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev prava, ki se uporablja (glej odstavek 4.2.1(b) zgoraj), mora vložnik razen ustreznih dokazov o pridobitvi pravice predložiti tudi dokaze, da so pogoji za zaščito v odnosu do izpodbijane znamke dejansko izpolnjeni, in predstaviti utemeljene trditve glede tega, zakaj bi bila preprečitev uporabe izpodbijane znamke na podlagi prava, ki se uporablja, uspešna.
Merely providing the applicable law itself is not considered sufficient, as it is not up to the Office to make the relevant argument on behalf of the opponent.
Le predložitev prava, ki se uporablja, se ne šteje za zadostno, saj ni naloga Urada, da predstavi ustrezne trditve v imenu vložnika ugovora.
Furthermore, in an opposition under Article 8(4) EUTMR, what matters is whether the relevant provisions of the law conferring on the opponent the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark would apply to the contested mark in the abstract, and not whether the use of the contested mark could actually be prevented.
Poleg tega je v ugovoru na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pomembno, ali bi se zadevne določbe prava, ki vložniku ugovora dajejo pravico do preprečitve uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke, uporabljale za izpodbijano znamko v abstraktnem pomenu, in ne, ali bi se uporaba izpodbijane znamke lahko dejansko preprečila.
Therefore, the applicant's argument in defence that the opponent had not hitherto invoked or had not hitherto been able to prevent the actual use of the contested mark in the relevant territory cannot succeed (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 191, 193).
Zato trditev prijavitelja v zagovoru, da se vložnik ugovora še ni skliceval ali še ni mogel preprečiti dejanske uporabe izpodbijane znamke na zadevnem ozemlju, ne more biti uspešna (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 191, 193).
Based on the above, the Office will reject the opposition if:
Urad na podlagi zgornjega zavrne ugovor, če:
the opponent invokes a right but does not include a reference to any specific national law and/or legal provision protecting that right (e.g. the opponent only indicates that the opposition is based on a commercial designation in Germany or that the opposition based on a commercial designation in Germany is protected under DE-TMA); or
če se vložnik ugovora sklicuje na pravico, vendar ne vključi sklicevanja na katero koli nacionalno pravo in/ali pravno določbo, ki ščiti to pravico (npr. vložnik ugovora navede samo, da ugovor temelji na trgovski označbi v Nemčiji ali da je ugovor, ki temelji na trgovski označbi v Nemčiji, zaščiten na podlagi nemškega zakona o blagovnih znamkah), ali
the opponent provides a reference to the applicable national law and legal provision(s) but the reference is not complete: the legal provision only indicates the conditions governing the acquisition of the right but not the scope of protection of the right (or vice versa) (e.g. the opponent indicates that the opposition is based on a commercial designation in Germany protected under Article 5 DE-TMA, which establishes the conditions for acquisition of the right, but the reference to the conditions governing the scope of protection, Article 15 DE-TMA, is missing); or
vložnik ugovora predloži sklicevanje na nacionalno pravo in pravno določbo/pravne določbe, ki se uporabljajo, vendar sklicevanje ni popolno: pravna določba navaja samo pogoje, ki urejajo pridobitev pravice, ne pa tudi obsega varstva pravice (ali obratno) (npr. vložnik ugovora navede, da ugovor temelji na trgovski označbi v Nemčiji, zaščiteni na podlagi člena 5 nemškega zakona o blagovnih znamkah, ki določa pogoje za pridobitev pravice, sklicevanje na pogoje, ki urejajo obseg varstva, člen 15 nemškega zakona o blagovnih znamkah, pa manjka), ali
the opponent provides the reference to the relevant legal provision but does not provide the content (text) of the legal provision (e.g. the opponent's submission refers to the DE-TMA but does not include the content of the law); or
vložnik ugovora predloži sklicevanje na ustrezno pravno določbo, vendar ne predloži vsebine (besedila) pravne določbe (npr. predloženo sklicevanje vložnika ugovora se nanaša na nemški zakon o blagovnih znamkah, vendar ne vključuje vsebine zakona), ali
the opponent provides the content of the legal provision only in the language of the proceedings but not in the original language (e.g. the language of the proceedings is English but the text of the DE-TMA is submitted only in English, not in German); or
vložnik ugovora predloži vsebino pravne določbe samo v jeziku postopka, vendar ne v jeziku izvirnika (npr. jezik postopka je angleščina, besedilo nemškega zakona o blagovnih znamkah pa se predloži samo v angleščini in ne v nemščini), ali
the opponent does not provide any or sufficient evidence of the acquisition of the right invoked or does not provide arguments as to why it fulfils the conditions governing the scope of protection (e.g. the opponent refers to the relevant legal provisions and provides their content both in the original language and translated into the language of the proceedings, but does not provide any or sufficient evidence of the acquisition of protection or does not state whether it fulfils the conditions of the scope of protection).
vložnik ugovora ne predloži dokaze, ali ne predloži zadostnih dokazov o pridobitvi pravice, ali ne predloži utemeljitev, zakaj izpolnjuje pogoje, ki urejajo obseg varstva (npr. vložnik ugovora se sklicuje na ustrezne pravne določbe in predloži njihovo vsebino v jeziku izvirnika in prevod v jezik postopka, vendar ne predloži dokazov, ali ne predloži zadostnih dokazov o pridobitvi varstva, ali ne navede, ali izpolnjuje pogoje obsega varstva).
4.2.2 European Union law
Pravo Evropske unije
The above requirements also apply to European Union law, except that the opponent is not obliged to provide the content (text) of the law invoked.
Zgornje zahteve se uporabljajo tudi za pravo Evropske unije, pri tem pa vložniku ugovora ni treba predložiti vsebine (besedila) prava, na katero se sklicuje.
However, the opponent has to provide particulars proving the fulfilment of the conditions under the relevant provisions of European Union law (paragraph 4.2.1.
Vendar mora vložnik ugovora predložiti podatke, ki dokazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev na podlagi ustreznih določb prava Evropske unije (odstavek 4.2.1(b) zgoraj).
The essential function of the protection of a geographical indication is to guarantee to the consumer the geographical origin of the goods and the special qualities connected therewith (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147).
Bistvena funkcija zaščite geografskih označb je zagotavljanje geografskega porekla proizvodov in njihovih značilnosti potrošnikom (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147).
A geographical indication identifies a product originating in a particular geographical area, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of that product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
Geografska označba označuje proizvod s poreklom z zadevnega geografskega območja, katerega določeno kakovost, sloves ali drugo značilnost je mogoče pripisati predvsem njegovemu geografskemu poreklu.
EU legislation distinguishes between ‘protected designations of origin' (PDOs), where the quality or characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment, and ‘protected geographical indications' (PGIs), where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, without the stages of production, processing or preparation all necessarily taking place in the same area .
Zakonodaja EU razlikuje med zaščitenimi označbami porekla (ZOP), pri katerih je mogoče kakovost ali značilnost proizvoda pripisati predvsem ali izključno določenemu geografskemu okolju, in zaščitenimi geografskimi označbami (ZGO), pri katerih je določeno kakovost, sloves ali drugo značilnost proizvoda mogoče pripisati predvsem njegovemu geografskemu poreklu, ne da bi morale faze proizvodnje, predelave ali priprave nujno potekati na istem območju.
In essence, PDOs have a closer link with the geographical area of production.
Označbe ZOP so v bistvu tesneje povezane z geografskim območjem proizvodnje.
The distinction, however, does not affect their scope of protection, which is the same for PDOs and PGIs.
Vendar to razlikovanje ne vpliva na njihov obseg varstva, ki je enak za označbe ZOP in ZGO.
For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘geographical indication' (GI) is used to refer to both PDOs and PGIs in general.
Za namene tega poglavja se izraz geografska označba uporablja na splošno za označbe ZOP in ZGO.
[3: GIs for spirit drinks and aromatised wine products are protected under EU law as ‘geographical indications', not as PGIs or PDOs.]
[3: Geografske označbe za žgane pijače in aromatizirane vinske proizvode so na podlagi prava EU zaščitene kot geografske označbe, in ne kot označbe ZGO ali ZOP.]
5.1 Relationship between Article 8(4) and 8(6) EUTMR
Uredba (EU) 2015/2424 o spremembi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
Prior to that, GIs could form the basis of an opposition pursuant to Article 8(4) EUTMR as ‘another sign used in the course of trade'.
Pred tem so bile geografske označbe lahko podlaga za ugovor v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot „[drug znak], ki se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu“.
GIs can no longer form the basis of an opposition under Article 8(4) EUTMR, even though the wording of that provision has not changed.
Geografske označbe ne morejo več biti podlaga za ugovor v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, čeprav se besedilo navedene določbe ni spremenilo.
[4: 23 March 2016.]
[4: 23. marec 2016.]
However, if an opponent files an opposition based on a GI after entry into force of the Amending Regulation, in which it indicates incorrectly Article 8(4) EUTMR as a ground for opposition, the Office will examine the opposition, to the extent that it is clearly based on a GI, as if the ground invoked were Article 8(6) EUTMR.
Če pa vložnik ugovora ugovor, ki temelji na geografski označbi, vloži po začetku veljavnosti uredbe o spremembi in je v njem kot razlog za ugovor napačno naveden člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, bo Urad vseeno preizkusil ugovor, če je očitno, da temelji na geografski označbi, kot če bi se kot razlog uveljavljal člen 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In such a case, the notice of opposition leaves no doubt as to the opponent's intention to invoke the ground for opposition protecting earlier GIs.
V takem primeru obvestilo o ugovoru ne dopušča dvoma o namenu vložnika ugovora, da se kot razlog za ugovor sklicuje na zaščito prejšnje geografske označbe.
Article 8(6) EUTMR reads:
Člen 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se glasi: