natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The EUTM enjoys a presumption of validity and it is for the invalidity applicant to invoke before the Office the specific facts that call the validity of a trade mark into question (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 27-29).
Za blagovno znamko EU velja domneva veljavnosti in vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti se mora pred Uradom sklicevati na specifična dejstva, ki vzbujajo dvom glede veljavnosti blagovne znamke (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 2729).
Consequently, the Office will examine the facts in accordance with Article 95(1) EUTMR, second sentence, within the scope of factual submissions made by the applicant for the declaration of invalidity (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
Urad bo zato proučil dejstva v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v okviru dejstev, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the applicant for the declaration of invalidity.
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
One of the arguments that the EUTM proprietor may put forward against the invalidity applicant's claim is evidence that the EUTM has acquired distinctive character following use.
Med argumenti, ki jih lahko zoper zahtevo vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti predloži imetnik blagovne znamke EU, so dokazi, da je blagovna znamka EU z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni značaj.
See paragraph 3.2 below.
Glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju.
3.1.2 Points in time to be considered
Upoštevni trenutki
The General Court has held that whether a trade mark should be registered or should be declared invalid must be assessed on the basis of the situation at the date of its application, not of its registration (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; confirmed by 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225).
Splošno sodišče je razsodilo, da je treba vprašanje, ali je treba blagovno znamko registrirati ali ugotoviti za nično, presoditi na podlagi položaja na datum njene prijave, ne pa na datum njene registracije (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; potrjena 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225).
Generally speaking, any developments or events after the date of application or priority date will not be taken into consideration.
Na splošno se kakršen koli razvoj dogodkov ali dogajanja po datumu vložitve prijave ali datumu prednostne pravice ne bodo upoštevali.
For example, the fact that a sign has, after the date of application, become the common term used in the trade for the goods or services for which registration was sought is in principle irrelevant for the purposes of examining an invalidity action (it would only be relevant in the context of a revocation action).
Na primer, dejstvo, da je znak po datumu vložitve prijave v gospodarskem prometu postal splošen izraz za blago ali storitve, za katere se je zahtevala registracija, je za preizkus zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti načeloma nepomembno (pomembno bi bilo le v okviru zahteve za razveljavitev).
However, such facts subsequent to the date of application can nevertheless be taken into account where and to the extent that they allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the situation at the date of application for the EUTM.
Vendar se lahko takšna dejstva iz obdobja po datumu vložitve vseeno upoštevajo, kadar in če omogočajo ugotavljanje položaja na datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
This might be the case, for example, with dictionary extracts that post-date the application date.
To bi lahko na primer veljalo za izpiske iz slovarjev iz obdobja po datumu vložitve.
Unless rapid development of linguistic usage or living conditions (in the sense of social or technical ‘trends') has taken place after the date of application, words will usually only be listed in dictionaries if their actual use and meaning has been established over a considerable period of time (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39).
Razen če je po datumu prijave prišlo do hitrega razvoja jezikovne uporabe ali življenjskih razmer (v smislu družbenih ali tehničnih „trendov“), so besede običajno v slovarjih navedene le, če sta njihova uporaba in pomen postala uveljavljena prek daljšega obdobja (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39).
3.1.3 Standards to be applied
Standardi, ki jih je treba uporabljati
The Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM application complies with Article 7 EUTMR.
V Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, so na voljo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presoji, ali je prijava blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The criteria are identical to those applied in invalidity proceedings under Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR.
Merila so enaka kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.2 Defence against a claim of lack of distinctiveness
Ugovor zoper trditev o neobstoju razlikovalnega učinka
A trade mark that falls foul of Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR will not be declared invalid where it has acquired distinctiveness through use (Articles 7(3) or 59(2) EUTMR.
Blagovna znamka, ki je v nasprotju s členom 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne bo razglašena za nično, če je z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni učinek (člen 7(3) ali člen 59(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The distinctive character acquired following use is, in the context of invalidity proceedings, an exception to the grounds for invalidity of Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) EUTMR.
Razlikovalni značaj, pridobljen z uporabo, je v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti izjema od razlogov za ničnost iz člena 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 7(1)(b), (c) in (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Since it is an exception, the onus of proof is on the party seeking to rely on it, namely the proprietor of the contested mark.
Ker je izjema, dokazno breme nosi stranka, ki se želi nanj sklicevati, in sicer imetnik izpodbijane znamke.
The proprietor of the contested mark is best placed to adduce evidence in support of the assertion that its mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it (e.g. concerning the intensity, geographical extent, duration of use, promotional investment).
Imetnik izpodbijane znamke je najprimernejši za predložitev dokazov v podporo trditvi, da je njegova znamka z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni značaj (npr. glede intenzivnosti, geografskega obsega, trajanja uporabe, naložb v promocijo).
Consequently, where the proprietor of the contested mark is requested to adduce evidence of distinctive character acquired through use, but fails to do so, the mark must be declared invalid (19/06/2014, joined cases C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.
Zato je treba, kadar mora imetnik izpodbijane znamke predložiti dokaze o razlikovalnem značaju, pridobljenem z uporabo, vendar tega ne stori, znamko razglasiti za nično (19/06/2014, združeni zadevi C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.
The Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 14, Acquired Distinctiveness Through Use (Article 7(3) EUTMR), contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM has acquired distinctiveness through use.
V Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 14: Razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), so na voljo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presoji, ali je blagovna znamka EU z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni učinek.
The proprietor must demonstrate that either:
Imetnik mora dokazati, da:
the trade mark acquired distinctive character on or before the date of application, or the priority date (Article 7(3) EUTMR); or
je blagovna znamka pridobila razlikovalni značaj na datum prijave oziroma prednostne pravice ali pred njim (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) ali
distinctive character was acquired after registration (Article 59(2) EUTMR).
je bil razlikovalni značaj pridobljen po registraciji (člen 59(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Evidence of use during the period between the date of application and the date of registration can serve to support a finding of acquired distinctiveness after registration.
Ugotovitev o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku po registraciji lahko potrdijo dokaze o uporabi v obdobju od datuma prijave do datuma registracije.
3.3 Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR
Slaba vera - člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
The EUTMR considers bad faith only as an absolute ground for the invalidity of an EUTM, to be relied on either before the Office or by means of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings.
Slaba vera je v skladu z Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU le absolutni razlog za ničnost blagovne znamke EU, na katerega se je mogoče sklicevati bodisi pred Uradom bodisi z nasprotno tožbo v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev.
Therefore, bad faith is not relevant in examination or opposition proceedings (for opposition proceedings, 17/12/2010, T192/09, Seve Trophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50).
Zato slaba vera ni pomembna v postopku preizkušanja ali ugovora (v zvezi s postopkom ugovora glej sodbo 17/12/2010, T192/09, Seve Trophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50).
3.3.1 Relevant point in time
Upoštevni trenutek
The relevant point in time for determining whether there was bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner is the time of filing of the application for registration.
Upoštevni trenutek za presojo, ali je imetnik blagovne znamke EU ravnal v slabi veri, je čas vložitve zahteve za registracijo.
However, the following must be noted.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da:
Facts and evidence dated prior to filing can be taken into account for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM.
je mogoče pri razlagi namena imetnika v času vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU upoštevati dejstva in dokaze iz obdobja pred vložitvijo.
Such facts include, in particular, whether there is already a registration of the mark in a Member State, the circumstances under which that mark was created and the use made of it since its creation (see paragraph 3.3.2.1 below, third paragraph).
Takšna dejstva vključujejo zlasti možnost, da je bila znamka že registrirana v neki državi članici, okoliščine, v katerih je bila navedena znamka ustvarjena, in uporabo blagovne znamke od njenega nastanka (glej tretji pododstavek odstavka 3.3.2.1 v nadaljevanju);
Facts and evidence dated subsequent to filing can sometimes be used for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM, in particular whether the owner has used the mark since registration (see paragraph 3.3.2.1 below, third paragraph).
je mogoče dejstva in dokaze iz obdobja po vložitvi včasih uporabiti za razlago namena imetnika v času vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU, zlasti tega, ali je imetnik znamko uporabljal od njene registracije (glej tretji pododstavek odstavka 3.3.2.1 v nadaljevanju).
3.3.2 Concept of bad faith
Pojem slaba vera
As observed by Advocate General Sharpston (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), the concept of bad faith referred to in Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR is not defined, delimited or even described in any way in the legislation.
Kot je ugotovila generalna pravobranilka Eleanor Sharpston (sklepni predlogi v 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), pojem slaba vera iz člena 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zakonodaji ni opredeljen, zamejen ali kakor koli opisan.
However, the Court of Justice provided some guidance on how to interpret this concept in its judgment in the same case, as did the General Court in several cases (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689).
Vendar je Sodišče zagotovilo nekaj smernic o razlagi tega pojma v sodbi v isti zadevi, kot je storilo tudi Splošno sodišče v več zadevah (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689).
In its preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, the Court of Justice declared that the concept of bad faith is an autonomous concept of European Union law, which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union.
Sodišče je v predhodni odločbi 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, navedlo, da je pojem slaba vera samostojen pojem prava Evropske unije, ki ga je treba v Evropski uniji razlagati enotno.
One way to describe bad faith is ‘conduct which departs from accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices' (opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, and similarly, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14).
Eden od načinov za opis slabe vere je, da je „ravnanje, ki odstopa od sprejetih načel etičnega vedenja ali dobrih poslovnih običajev“ (sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke Eleanor Sharpston 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, in podobno, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14).
A non-exhaustive list of such factors is given below.
Dejavniki, ki verjetno kažejo obstoj slabe vere
3.3.2.1 Factors likely to indicate the existence of bad faith
Iz sodne prakse je razvidno, da so zlasti upoštevni trije kumulativni dejavniki:
Although the fact that marks are identical or confusingly similar is not in itself sufficient to show bad faith (regarding identity, 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), a dissimilar or not confusingly similar mark will not support a finding of bad faith.
Ker dejstvo, da sta blagovni znamki enaki ali da sta si tako podobni, da bi lahko povzročili zmedo, samo po sebi ne zadošča za dokaz obstoja slabe vere (v zvezi z enakostjo glej sodbi 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), različna znamka ali znamka, ki ni tako podobna, da bi lahko povzročila zmedo, ne podpira ugotovitve obstoja slabe vere.
2. Knowledge of the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign: the EUTM owner knew or must have known about the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign by a third party for identical or similar products or services.
Seznanjenost z uporabo enakega znaka ali tako podobnega znaka, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo: imetnik blagovne znamke EU je vedel ali je moral vedeti, da tretja oseba za enake ali podobne proizvode ali storitve uporablja enak znak ali tako podoben znak, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo.
There is knowledge, for example, where the parties have been in a business relationship with each other and, as a result thereof, ‘could not ignore, and was probably aware that the invalidity applicant had been using the sign for a long time' (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), when the reputation of the sign, even as a ‘historical' trade mark, is a well-known fact (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50), or when the identity or quasi-identity between the contested mark and the earlier signs ‘manifestly cannot be fortuitous' (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60).
Seznanjenost na primer obstaja, kadar stranki poslovno sodelujeta, zaradi česar tožeča stranka ni mogla prezreti in je verjetno vedela, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti znak uporabljal dolgo časa (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), kadar je ugled znaka, tudi kot „zgodovinske“ blagovne znamke, splošno dobro znan (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50) ali kadar enakost ali skorajšnja enakost med izpodbijano znamko in prejšnjimi znaki „očitno ne more biti naključna“ (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60).
Knowledge may be presumed to exist (‘must have known') on the basis, inter alia, of general knowledge in the economic sector concerned or duration of use.
Domnevati je mogoče, da seznanjenost obstaja (po načelu kar je treba vedeti) med drugim tudi na podlagi splošne vednosti o takšni uporabi v zadevnem gospodarskem sektorju ali trajanja te uporabe.
The longer the use of a sign, the more likely it is that the EUTM owner had knowledge of it (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39).
Čim dolgotrajnejša je uporaba znaka, tem verjetneje je, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU zanjo vedel (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39).
Depending on the circumstances of the case, this presumption may apply even if the sign was registered in a non-EU country (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71).
Odvisno od okoliščin zadeve lahko ta domneva velja, tudi če je bil znak registriran v tretji državi (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71).
However, knowledge of an identical or similar earlier sign for identical or similar goods or services is not sufficient in itself to support a finding of bad faith (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49).
Vendar seznanjenost z enakim oziroma podobnim prejšnjim znakom za enako oziroma podobno blago ali storitve sama po sebi ne zadošča za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49).
It always depends on the circumstances of the case.
Ta je vedno odvisna od okoliščin zadeve.
For example, it cannot be excluded that, where a number of producers use, on the market, for identical or similar goods, identical or similar signs that could give rise to confusion with the sign for which registration is sought, the EUTM owner's registration of the sign may be in pursuit of a legitimate objective.
Tako na primer ni mogoče izključiti, da imetnik blagovne znamke EU z registracijo znaka morda sledi legitimnemu cilju, če več proizvajalcev na trgu za enako ali podobno blago uporablja enake ali podobne znake, ki bi jih potrošnik lahko zamenjal z znakom, za katerega se zahteva registracija.
This could be the case where the EUTM owner knows, at the time of filing the EUTM application, that a third undertaking is making use of the mark covered by that application by giving its clients the impression that it officially distributes the goods sold under that mark, even though it has not received authorisation to do so (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27).
To lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamko EU ve, da tretje podjetje uporablja blagovno znamko, za katero se zahteva registracija, in pri svojih strankah ustvarja vtis, da uradno prodaja proizvode, ki se tržijo pod navedeno znamko, čeprav za to ni dobilo dovoljenja (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27).
Similarly, the fact that the applicant knows or should know that, at the time of filing of its application, a third party is using a mark abroad that is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision (preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37).
Podobno, okoliščina, da je prijavitelj vedel ali bi moral vedeti, da tretja oseba ob vložitvi zahteve za registracijo v tujini uporablja znamko, ki jo je mogoče zamenjati z znamko, katere registracija se zahteva, sama po sebi ne zadošča za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere prijavitelja v smislu navedene določbe (27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37).
Knowledge or presumption of knowledge of an existing sign is not required where the EUTM owner misuses the system with the intention of preventing any similar sign from entering the market (see, for example, the artificial extension of the grace period for non-use in paragraph 3(d) below).
Seznanjenost ali domneva o seznanjenosti z obstoječim znakom ni potrebna, če imetnik blagovne znamke EU zlorabi sistem, da bi preprečil vstop na trg vsem podobnim znakom (glej na primer umetno podaljšanje odložnega roka za neuporabo v odstavku 3(d) v nadaljevanju).
3. Dishonest intention on the part of the EUTM owner: this is a subjective factor that has to be determined by reference to objective circumstances (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).
Nepošten namen imetnika blagovne znamke EU: to je subjektiven dejavnik, ki ga je treba določiti glede na objektivne okoliščine (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).
Again, several factors can be relevant.
Tudi v tem primeru je lahko pomembnih več dejavnikov.
See, for example, the following case scenarios.
Glej na primer naslednje obravnavane primere.
(a) Bad faith exists where applications for trade marks are diverted from their initial purpose and filed speculatively or solely with a view to obtaining financial compensation (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145).
Za slabo vero gre, kadar je prvotni namen prijav blagovnih znamk izkrivljen in se z njimi špekulira oziroma je njihov namen izkrivljen zaradi pridobitve finančnih nadomestil (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145).
(b) Bad faith is found when it can be inferred that the purpose of the EUTM applicant is to ‘free-ride' on the reputation of the invalidity applicant's registered marks and to take advantage of that reputation (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), even if those marks have lapsed (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25).
Slaba vera obstaja, kadar je mogoče sklepati, da je prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU poskušal „parazitsko“ izkoriščati ugled znamk, ki jih je registriral vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti, in od tega imeti koristi (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), tudi če registracija teh blagovnih znamk poteče (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25).
(c) While it is not a requirement of the EUTM system that an EUTM owner must at the time of applying for an EUTM also have the intention of using it, it could be seen as an indication of dishonest intention if it subsequently becomes apparent that the owner's sole objective was to prevent a third party from entering the market (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) and/or to obtain economic advantages (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126).
Čeprav sistem blagovne znamke EU ne zahteva, da mora imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi njene prijave izraziti tudi namero, da jo bo uporabljal, bi se to lahko štelo za nepošten namen, če bi se pozneje izkazalo, da je bil njegov edini cilj preprečiti vstop na trg tretji osebi (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) in/ali pridobiti gospodarsko korist (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126).
However, if there is commercial logic to the filing of the EUTM and it can be assumed that the EUTM owner intended to use the sign as a trade mark, this would tend to indicate that there was no dishonest intention.
Če pa vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU temelji na poslovni logiki in je mogoče domnevati, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU nameraval uporabljati znak kot blagovno znamko, bi to verjetno pomenilo, da ni bilo nepoštenega namena.