natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 7(3) EUTMR constitutes an exception to the rule laid down in Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR whereby registration must be refused for trade marks that are per se devoid of any distinctive character, for descriptive marks, and for marks that consist exclusively of indications that have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade.
Člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je izjema od pravila iz člena 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, pri čemer je treba zavrniti registracijo blagovnih znamk, ki so brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka, opisnih znamk in znamk, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali označbe, ki so postali običajni v jezikovni rabi ali v dobroverni ustaljeni praksi trgovanja.
Distinctive character acquired through use means that, although the sign lacks inherent distinctiveness ab initio with regard to the goods and services claimed, at least a significant proportion of the relevant public has, owing to the use made of it on the market, come to see it as identifying the goods and services claimed in the EUTM application as originating from a particular undertaking.
Razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, pomeni, da čeprav znak od začetka nima svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka v zvezi z blagom in storitvami, za katere se zahteva varstvo, ga precejšnji delež upoštevne javnosti zaradi uporabe na trgu zazna kot znak, ki označuje blago in storitve, za katere se v prijavi blagovne znamke EU zahteva varstvo, in izvira iz zadevnega podjetja.
Thus, the sign has become capable of distinguishing those goods and services from those of other undertakings because they are perceived as originating from a particular undertaking.
Znak tako omogoča razlikovanje tega blaga in storitev od blaga in storitev drugih podjetij, ker se zaznajo kot blago in storitve, ki izvirajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
In this way, a sign originally unable to be registered under Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR can acquire new significance, and its connotation, no longer purely descriptive or non-distinctive, allows it to overcome those absolute grounds for refusal of registration as a trade mark.
Tako lahko znak, ki ga sprva ni bilo mogoče registrirati na podlagi člena 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, pridobi nov pomen, njegova konotacija, ki ni več izključno opisna ali nerazlikovalna, pa omogoča odpravo teh absolutnih razlogov za zavrnitev registracije kot blagovna znamka.
2 Requests
Zahteve
The Office will only examine acquired distinctive character following a request from the EUTM applicant.
Urad preizkusi pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek samo na zahtevo prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU.
The Office is not bound to examine facts showing that the mark claimed has become distinctive through use within the meaning of Article 7(3) EUTMR unless the applicant has pleaded them (12/12/2002, T247/01, Ecopy, EU:T:2002:319, § 47).
Urad ni dolžan preizkusiti dejstev, ki kažejo, da je znamka, ki se zahteva, pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo v smislu člena 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razen če prijavitelj zahteva njihov preizkus (12/12/2002, T247/01, Ecopy, EU:T:2002:319, § 47).
According to Article 2(2) EUTMIR, the application may include a claim that the sign has acquired distinctive character through use within the meaning of Article 7(3) EUTMR, as well as an indication of whether this claim is meant as a principal or subsidiary one.
V skladu s členom 2(2) Izvedbene uredbe lahko prijava vsebuje zahtevo, da je znak z uporabo pridobil razlikovalni učinek v smislu člena 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ter navedbo, ali je ta zahteva mišljena kot glavna ali pomožna.
Such claim may also be made within the period referred to in Article 42(2), second sentence, EUTMR.
To se lahko zahteva tudi v roku iz drugega stavka člena 42(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, as from 01/10/2017 and in accordance with Article 2(2) EUTMIR, the applicant can make the claim as a principal one (i.e. irrespective of the outcome on inherent distinctiveness), in which case the Office will take a single decision both on the mark's inherent distinctiveness and, where there is none, on the claim of acquired distinctiveness through use.
Prijavitelj lahko od 1. oktobra 2017 in v skladu s členom 2(2) Izvedbene uredbe vloži glavno zahtevo (tj. ne glede na ugotovitev glede svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka), v tem primeru Urad sprejme eno odločbo o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku znamke in, če ga znamka nima, o zahtevi za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo.
The second (new) option is to make the claim as a subsidiary one subject to a decision on inherent distinctiveness.
Druga (nova) možnost je vložitev pomožne zahteve, ki je odvisna od odločbe o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku.
In this case the Office will take two separate decisions at different points in time: first, one on the mark's inherent distinctiveness and then, once that decision (finding lack of inherent distinctiveness) has become final, another on the claim of acquired distinctiveness through use.
Urad v tem primeru sprejme dve ločeni odločbi ob različnem času: najprej odločbo o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku in zatem, ko ta odločba (s katero se ugotovi, da znamka nima svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka) postane dokončna, drugo odločbo o zahtevi za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo.
The claim must clearly and precisely identify what type it is.
Zahteva mora jasno in natančno opredeliti, za katero vrsto zahteve gre.
As regards the timing of the request, both types of claim may be made:
Glede časovnega okvira zahteve se lahko obe vrsti zahteve vloži:
together with the application; or
skupaj s prijavo ali
at the latest, in reply to the examiner's first objection.
najpozneje v odgovoru na prvi ugovor preizkuševalca.
Therefore, it will not be possible to raise the claim of acquired distinctiveness through use for the first time in appeal proceedings.
Zato zahteve za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, ne bo mogoče prvič vložiti v postopku ugovora.
Where the applicant has validly made a subsidiary claim, the examiner will only decide on the inherent distinctiveness of the mark applied for and allow (in application of Article 66(2) EUTMR) this partial decision to be appealed in a separate appeal.
Če je prijavitelj vložil veljavno pomožno zahtevo, preizkuševalec odloči samo o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, in omogoči (na podlagi uporabe člena 66(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) ugovor zoper to delno odločbo v ločenem ugovoru.
Once that partial decision has become final, the examiner will resume the examination proceedings regarding the claim for acquired distinctiveness through use, specifying - with reference to the final findings on lack of inherent distinctiveness (public, territory, goods and services) - the time limit for submitting the corresponding evidence to substantiate that claim.
Ko ta delna odločba postane dokončna, preizkuševalec nadaljuje postopek preizkušanja v zvezi z zahtevo za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, in določi - glede na končne ugotovitve glede neobstoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka (javnost, ozemlje, blago in storitve) - rok za predložitev ustreznih dokazov v podporo zahtevi.
3 The Point in Time for which Acquired Distinctiveness has to be Established
Trenutek, za katerega je treba ugotoviti razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo
The evidence must prove that distinctiveness through use was acquired prior to the EUTM application's filing date.
Dokazi morajo podpreti, da je bil razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, pridobljen pred datumom vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
In the case of an IR, the relevant date is the date of registration by the International Bureau or, if the designation takes place at a later stage, the designation date.
V primeru mednarodne registracije je upoštevni datum datum registracije pri Mednarodnem uradu ali datum imenovanja, če imenovanje poteka pozneje.
Where priority is claimed, the relevant date is the priority date.
Če se zahteva priznanje prednostne pravice, je upoštevni datum datum priznanja prednostne pravice.
Hereafter, all these dates are referred to as the ‘filing date'.
V nadaljevanju so vsi ti datumi imenovani „datum vložitve“.
3.1 Examination proceedings
Postopek preizkušanja
Since a trade mark enjoys protection as of its filing date, and since the filing date of the application for registration determines the priority of one mark over another, a trade mark must be registrable on that date.
Ker je blagovna znamka zaščitena od datuma vložitve in ker datum vložitve prijave za registracijo določa prednostno pravico ene znamke pred drugo, mora biti možno, da se blagovna znamka registrira na ta datum.
Consequently, the applicant must prove that distinctive character was acquired through use of the trade mark prior to the date of application for registration (11/06/2009, C542/07 P, Pure Digital, EU:C:2009:362, § 49, 51; 07/09/2006, C108/05, Europolis, EU:C:2006:530, § 22).
Prijavitelj mora zato dokazati, da je bil razlikovalni učinek pridobljen z uporabo blagovne znamke pred datumom vložitve zahteve za registracijo (11/06/2009, C542/07 P, Pure Digital, EU:C:2009:362, § 49, 51; 07/09/2006, C108/05, Europolis, EU:C:2006:530, § 22).
Evidence of use made of the trade mark after this date should not be automatically disregarded, insofar as it may provide indicative information regarding the situation prior to the date of application (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 49).
Dokazi o uporabi blagovne znamke po tem datumu se ne smejo samodejno prezreti, saj lahko zagotovijo okvirne informacije o razmerah pred datumom prijave (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 49).
3.2 Cancellation proceedings
Postopek izbrisa
In cancellation proceedings, a trade mark that was registered in breach of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR may nevertheless no longer be declared invalid if, in consequence of the use that has been made of it, it has, after registration, acquired distinctive character for the goods or services for which it is registered (Article 59(2) EUTMR).
V postopku izbrisa se blagovna znamka, ki je bila registrirana ob kršitvi določb člena 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kljub temu ne more razglasiti za nično, če je zaradi uporabe po registraciji pridobila razlikovalen značaj za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana (člen 59(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The precise purpose of this norm is to maintain the registration of those marks that, due to the use that has been made of them, have in the meantime - that is to say, after their registration and in any event before the application for an invalidity request - acquired distinctive character for the goods or services for which they were registered, in spite of the fact that, when registration took place, they were contrary to Article 7 EUTMR (14/12/2011, T237/10, Clasp lock, EU:T:2011:741, § 52-53, 86; 15/10/2008, T405/05, Manpower, EU:T:2008:442, § 127, 146; 10/12/2008 T365/06, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2008:559, § 37-38).
Natančen namen te določbe je ohranitev registracije tistih znamk, ki so zaradi vmesne uporabe, torej uporabe po registraciji in v vsakem primeru pred zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti, pridobile razlikovalen učinek za proizvode ali storitve, za katere so bile registrirane, čeprav je bila ta registracija takrat v nasprotju s členom 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (14/12/2011, T237/10, Clasp lock, EU:T:2011:741, § 52-53, 86; 15/10/2008, T405/05, Manpower, EU:T:2008:442, § 127, 146; 10/12/2008 T365/06, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2008:559, § 37-38).
4 Consumers
Potrošniki
Distinctive character of a sign, including that acquired through use, must be assessed in relation to the perception of the average consumer for the category of goods or services in question.
Razlikovalni učinek znaka, vključno s tistim, ki je pridobljen z uporabo, je treba presoditi ob upoštevanju tega, kako kategorijo zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev zaznava povprečen potrošnik.
These consumers are deemed to be reasonably well informed, and reasonably observant and circumspect.
Domneva se, da so ti potrošniki običajno obveščeni ter razumno pozorni in preudarni.
The definition of the relevant public is linked to an examination of the intended purchasers of the goods or services concerned, since it is in relation to those purchasers that the mark must perform its essential function.
Opredelitev upoštevne javnosti je povezana s presojo tega, komu so namenjeni zadevni proizvodi ali storitve, saj mora prav v razmerju do njih znamka razviti svojo bistveno funkcijo.
Consequently, such a definition must be arrived at by reference to the essential function of a trade mark, namely to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services covered by the mark to consumers or end users by enabling them, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others of another origin (29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 33, 38).
Tako je treba takšno opredelitev sprejeti ob upoštevanju bistvene funkcije blagovne znamke, ki potrošniku ali končnemu uporabniku zagotovlja istovetnost izvora z znamko označenega proizvoda ali storitve s tem, da se mu brez verjetne zmede omogoči razlikovanje tega proizvoda ali storitve od tistih, ki imajo drugi izvor (29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 33, 38).
The relevant consumer includes, therefore, not only persons who have actually purchased the goods and services but also any potentially interested person in the strict sense of prospective purchasers (29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 41 et seq.).
Zadevni potrošnik tako ne vključuje samo oseb, ki so dejansko kupile proizvode in storitve, ampak tudi vse potencialno zainteresirane osebe v strogem smislu bodočih kupcev (29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 41 et seq.).
Who prospective purchasers are is defined depending on the precise product or service for which registration is sought.
Kdo so bodoči kupci, se opredeli glede na zadevni proizvod ali storitev, za katerega se zahteva registracija.
If the claimed goods or services represent a broad category (for example, bags or watches), it is irrelevant that the actual products offered under the sign are extremely expensive luxury items - the public will include all the prospective purchasers for the goods claimed in the EUTM application, including non-luxury and cheaper items if the claim is for a broad category.
Če blago ali storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo, predstavljajo obsežno kategorijo (na primer, torbe ali ure), ni pomembno, da so dejanski proizvodi, ki se ponujajo pod znakom, izredno dragi luksuzni artikli - javnost vključuje vse bodoče kupce proizvodov, za katere se v prijavi blagovne znamke EU zahteva varstvo, vključno z neluksuznimi in cenejšimi artikli, če je vložena zahteva za obsežno kategorijo.
Since the main function of a trade mark is to guarantee the origin of goods and services, acquired distinctiveness must be assessed in respect of the goods and services at issue.
Ker je glavna funkcija blagovne znamke zagotoviti poreklo blaga in storitev, je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek presoditi glede na zadevno blago in storitve.
Consequently, the applicant's evidence must prove a link between the sign and the goods and services for which the sign is applied for, establishing that the relevant class of persons, or at least a significant proportion thereof, identify the goods and services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 19/05/2009, T211/06, Cybercrédit et al., EU:T:2009:160, § 51).
Dokazi prijavitelja morajo zato dokazati povezavo med znakom ter blagom in storitvami, za katerega je vložena prijava, ter opredeliti, da zadevni razred oseb ali vsaj njegov znatni delež blago in storitve zaradi blagovne znamke zazna kot blago in storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 19/05/2009, T211/06, Cybercrédit et al., EU:T:2009:160, § 51).
6 Territorial Aspects
Ozemeljski vidiki
Pursuant to Article 1 EUTMR, a European Union trade mark has a unitary character and has equal effect throughout the European Union.
Blagovna znamka Evropske unije ima v skladu s členom 1 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU enotni značaj in ima enak učinek na celotnem območju Evropske unije.
Accordingly, a mark must be refused registration even if it is devoid of distinctive character only in part of the European Union.
Glede na to je treba zavrniti registracijo znamke tudi, če je brez razlikovalnega učinka samo v delu Evropske unije.
That part of the European Union may be comprised of a single Member State (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 81-83; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413 § 45 and the case-law cited).
Ta del Evropske unije je lahko samo ena država članica (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 81-83; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413 § 45 in navedena sodna praksa).
As a logical consequence, acquired distinctiveness must be established throughout the territory in which the trade mark did not ab initio have distinctive character (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 83, 86; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 30).
Zato mora biti razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, dokazan na vsem ozemlju, kjer naj ga znamka ne bi imela že od začetka (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 83, 86; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 30).
This may prove difficult and burdensome for the applicant, particularly with regard to three-dimensional or colour marks, where consumer perception of a potential lack of inherent distinctiveness will most likely be the same in each and every Member State of the European Union.
To se lahko izkaže za zahtevno in obremenjujoče za prijavitelja, zlasti v zvezi s tridimenzionalnimi ali barvnimi znamkami, pri katerih bo potrošnikovo zaznavanje morebitnega neobstoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka najverjetneje enako v vsaki posamezni državi članici Evropske unije.
In this respect, the Court has held that, despite the fact that acquired distinctiveness must be shown throughout the European Union, it would be unreasonable to require proof of acquired distinctiveness for each individual Member State (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče menilo, da bi bilo kljub dejstvu, da je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek dokazati v vsej Evropski uniji, pretirano zahtevati, da se taka pridobitev dokaže za vsako posamično državo članico (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
In this context the question arises whether the Office can extrapolate from selective evidence to draw broader conclusions.
V zvezi s tem se zastavlja vprašanje, ali lahko Urad na podlagi selektivnih dokazov sklepa širše.
This concerns the extent to which evidence showing distinctiveness acquired through use in certain Member States can be used to make inferences with regard to the market situation in other Member States not covered by the evidence (see paragraph 6.3 below).
To zadeva obseg, v katerem se lahko dokazi, ki kažejo razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo v določenih državah članicah, uporabijo za sklepanje o tržnih razmerah v drugih državah članicah, ki jih dokazi ne zajemajo (glej odstavek 6.3 v nadaljevanju).
Evidence of acquired distinctiveness must be examined as a whole, taking into account, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, and the intensity, frequency and duration of use of the mark (see paragraph 8 below).
Dokaze o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku je treba preizkusiti kot celoto, pri tem pa je treba upoštevati predvsem tržni delež, ki ga ima blagovna znamka, ter intenzivnost, pogostost in trajanje uporabe znamke (glej odstavek 8 v nadaljevanju).
The evidence must establish that a significant proportion of the relevant public is able, by virtue of that mark, to identify the goods or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking.
Dokazi morajo dokazati, da lahko precejšen delež upoštevne javnosti na podlagi te znamke prepozna zadevno blago ali storitve kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
Evidence from non-EU states is irrelevant, except insofar as it might enable conclusions to be drawn about use within the EU (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 45).
Dokazi iz tretjih držav niso pomembni, razen če bi lahko omogočili sklepanje o uporabi v EU (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 45).
6.1 Special provisions with respect to the accession of new Member States
Posebne določbe v zvezi s pristopom novih držav članic
In accordance with the provisions of the EU accession treaties, an EUTM applied for before the date of accession of a given Member State may only be rejected for reasons that already existed before the date of accession.
Blagovna znamka EU, prijavljena pred datumom pristopa zadevne države članice, se lahko v skladu z določbami pristopnih pogodb EU zavrne samo zaradi razlogov, ki so že obstajali pred datumom pristopa.
Hence, in the Office's examination proceedings, acquired distinctiveness must be demonstrated only with respect to Member States of the EU at the time of the EUTM application, and not those that have joined the EU subsequently.
Zato je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek v postopku preizkušanja, ki ga opravi Urad, dokazati samo za države članice EU v trenutku prijave blagovne znamke EU, in ne tiste, ki so k EU pristopile zatem.
6.2 Language area
Jezikovno območje
Without prejudice to the possibility of extrapolating the evidence (see paragraph 6.3 below), acquired distinctiveness through use must be shown, in principle, with respect to all those Member States/territories in which the EUTM applied for is objected to because:
Brez poseganja v možnost izpeljave na podlagi dokazov (glej odstavek 6.3 v nadaljevanju) je treba razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, načeloma dokazati za vse tiste države članice/ozemlja, v katerih se vloži ugovor zoper prijavljeno blagovno znamko EU zaradi:
it is in a Member State language understood by the relevant public of another Member State(s) in which that language is not an official one (e.g. basic English words); and/or
ker je v jeziku države članice, ki ga razume upoštevna javnost druge(-ih) države (držav) članice (članic), v katerih ta jezik ni uradni jezik (npr. osnovne angleške besede), in/ali
it is in a language understood by a significant section of the relevant public in at least part of the European Union, for example the Turkish word ‘hellim' in Cyprus (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292).
ker je v jeziku, ki ga razume precejšnji del upoštevne javnosti vsaj v delu Evropske unije, na primer turško besedo hellim na Cipru (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292).
For further explanations about the different scenarios listed above, please see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 4, Descriptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR), paragraph 1.1.2.
Nadaljnje razlage različnih scenarijev, naštetih zgoraj, so na voljo v Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 4: Opisne blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 1.1.2.
Particular care should be taken when a language is an official language in more than one EU Member State.
Posebna previdnost je potrebna, če je jezik uradni jezik v več kot eni državi članici EU.