natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that context, it must be assessed first, whether the Office may exercise discretion, and, if so, second, how to exercise its discretion, that is, whether to admit or reject such late facts or evidence.
V tem okviru je treba najprej presoditi, ali lahko Urad uveljavlja svojo diskrecijsko pravico, in nato, če je odgovor pritrdilen, kako naj jo uveljavlja, tj. ali naj takšna prepozno predložena dejstva ali dokaze sprejme ali zavrne.
According to Article 10(7) EUTMDR, the Office must exercise its discretion if the late indications or evidence merely supplement, strengthen and clarify the prior relevant evidence submitted within the time limit with the purpose of proving the same legal requirement laid down in Article 10(3) EUTMDR, namely, place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and on which opposition is based.
V skladu s členom 10(7) Delegirane uredbe mora Urad uveljavljati svojo diskrecijsko pravico, če prepozno predloženi podatki ali dokazi le dopolnjujejo, krepijo in pojasnjujejo prejšnje ustrezne dokaze, ki so bili predloženi v roku in se nanašajo na isto pravno zahtevo iz člena 10(3) Delegirane uredbe, in sicer se na njihovi podlagi ugotovijo kraj, čas, obseg in narava uporabe blagovne znamke, na kateri temelji ugovor, za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana.
It follows that the Office may not exercise any discretion if the late evidence intends to prove a legal requirement for which no initial evidence at all had been submitted.
Iz tega sledi, da Urad ne sme uveljavljati diskrecijske pravice, če je namen prepozno predloženih dokazov dokazovanje pravne zahteve, v zvezi s katero sploh niso bili predloženi prvotni dokazi.
For example, if no indications or evidence related to the place of use were submitted at all within the relevant time limit, any evidence submitted in this respect after the time limit must be discarded.
Če na primer v zadevnem roku sploh niso bili predloženi podatki ali dokazi v zvezi s krajem uporabe, je treba zavreči vse dokaze, ki so bili v zvezi s tem predloženi po izteku roka.
When exercising its discretion, the Office must take into account, in particular, the stage of proceedings and whether the facts or evidence are, prima facie, likely to be relevant for the outcome of the case and whether there are valid reasons for the late submission of the facts or evidence.
Urad mora pri uveljavljanju svoje diskrecijske pravice upoštevati zlasti fazo postopka in to, ali so dejstva ali dokazi na prvi pogled verjetno pomembna za izid zadeve in ali obstajajo tehtni razlogi za zapoznelo predložitev dejstev ali dokazov.
Therefore, additional indications or evidence can be accepted if, prima facie, they are likely to be relevant for the outcome of the case and are submitted at an early stage of the proceedings with justification for why they are submitted at this stage of the proceedings.
Zato se dodatni podatki ali dokazi lahko sprejmejo, če so na prvi pogled verjetno pomembna za izid postopka in če so predložena v zgodnji fazi postopka skupaj z utemeljitvijo, zakaj so predložena v tej fazi postopka.
There may be other relevant factors.
Obstajajo lahko tudi drugi upoštevni dejavniki.
The intention to prolong the proceedings by submitting evidence in parts (delaying tactics), if the circumstances of the case allow that conclusion, argues against the admission of late evidence.
Ob nameri, da se postopek podaljša s predložitvijo dokazov v delih (taktika zavlačevanja), če okoliščine zadeve omogočajo to ugotovitev, se prepozno predloženi dokazi ne sprejmejo.
The natural difficulties in obtaining the evidence are not, as such, a valid reason for its belated submission.
Osnovne težave pri pridobivanju dokazov niso tehten razlog za zapoznelo predložitev.
The Office will duly provide reasons for why it rejects or takes into account ‘additional evidence' in the decision.
Urad bo v odločbi ustrezno obrazložil, zakaj zavrača ali upošteva dodatne dokaze.
3.3.2 Means of evidence
Dokazi
The evidence of use must be provided in a structured manner.
Dokazi o uporabi je treba predložiti strukturirano.
Essentially, the Office is prevented from making the case for one or other party and cannot take the place of the opponent, or its counsel, by itself trying to locate and identify among the documents on file the information that it might regard as supporting proof of use.
Urad v bistvu ne more podpreti nobene stranke in prevzeti vloge vložnika ugovora ali njegovega svetovalca tako, da bi v dokumentih iz spisa sam poskušal najti in opredeliti informacije, v zvezi s katerimi bi lahko štel, da podpirajo dokaz o uporabi.
This means that the Office should not seek to improve the presentation of any party's evidence.
To pomeni, da Urad ne sme poskušati izboljšati predstavitve dokazov strank.
Responsibility for putting evidence in order rests with the party.
Odgovornost za ureditev dokazov nosi stranka.
Article 10(4) EUTMDR provides that the evidence of use must be submitted in accordance with Article 55 EUTMDR, which defines the basic structure and format of written evidence.
Člen 10(4) Delegirane uredbe določa, da je treba dokaze o uporabi predložiti v skladu s členom 55 Delegirane uredbe, ki določa osnovno strukturo in obliko pisnih dokazov.
This provision means that the submission must clearly identify the evidence and arguments raised by the parties and thus assure expeditious proceedings.
Ta določba pomeni, da je treba v vlogi jasno opredeliti dokaze in navedbe strank, s čimer se zagotovi hiter postopek.
Pursuant to Article 55(3) EUTMDR, where the submissions or the annexes do not comply with the requirements set, the Office may invite the opponent to remedy any deficiency, within a set time limit.
Če vloga ali priloge ne izpolnjujejo določenih pogojev, lahko Urad v skladu s členom 55(3) Delegirane uredbe vložnika ugovora pozove, naj pomanjkljivosti odpravi v roku, ki ga določi.
If the deficiencies are not remedied and it is still not possible for the Office to clearly establish to which ground or argument a document or item refers, that item of evidence will not be taken into account (Article 55(4) EUTMDR).
Če se pomanjkljivosti ne odpravijo in če Urad še vedno ne more jasno opredeliti, na kateri razlog ali navedbo se dokument ali dokaz nanaša, se ta dokaz ne upošteva (člen 55(4) Delegirane uredbe).
In terms of format and content of evidence submitted, Article 55(2) EUTMDR provides that the documents or other items of evidence must be contained in annexes to a submission, which must be numbered consecutively.
V zvezi z obliko in vsebino predloženih dokazov o ugledu člen 55 Delegirane uredbe določa, da morajo biti dokumentacija ali drugi dokazi predloženi v prilogah k vlogam, ki so zaporedno oštevilčene.
Submissions for documents with evidence of use must include an index indicating, for each document or item annexed the following:
Vloge za dokumente z dokazi morajo vsebovati kazalo, ki za vsak dokument ali priložen dokaz navaja:
1. the number of each annex;
številko vsake priloge;
2. a short description of the document or item, and if applicable, the number of pages;
kratek opis dokumenta ali dokazi in, kjer je to potrebno, število strani;
3. the page number of the submission where the document or item is mentioned.
številko strani vloge, kjer se sklicuje na zadevni dokument ali dokaz.
The opponent may also indicate, in the index of annexes, which specific parts of a document it relies upon in support of its arguments.
Vložnik ugovora lahko v kazalu prilog navede tudi, na katere dele dokumenta opira svoje navedbe.
In addition, the Office recommends that the following be taken into account as key aspects of a structured presentation:
Poleg tega Urad priporoča, naj se kot ključni vidiki strukturirane predložitve upoštevajo naslednje točke:
1. the corresponding file number (EUTM, Opposition, Cancellation and Appeal) should be included at the top of all correspondence;
ustrezno številka spisa (blagovna znamka EU, ugovor, izbris in pritožba) je treba navesti na zgornjem delu celotne korespondence;
2. the Office strongly recommends that the opponent does not exceed a maximum of 110 pages in its correspondence;
Urad vložniku ugovora močno priporoča, naj ne preseže največjega števila korespondence, ki je 110 strani;
3. if the documentation is sent in different packages, an indication of the number of packages is recommended,
če je dokumentacija poslana v različnih paketih, je priporočljivo navesti število paketov;
4. if a large amount of documentation is submitted by fax in different batches, an indication of the total number of pages, number of batches and identification of the pages contained in each batch is recommended;
če so po telefaksu predložene velike količine dokumentov v različnih sklopih, je priporočljivo navesti skupno število strani, število sklopov in število strani, ki jih vsebujejo posamezni sklopi;
5. plain DIN-A4 sheets should be used in preference to other formats or devices for all the documents submitted, including separators between annexes or enclosures, as they can also be scanned;
za vse predložene dokumente, vključno z ločilnimi listi med prilogami, raje uporabite navadne liste DIN-A4 namesto drugih oblik ali sredstev, saj jih je mogoče tudi skenirati;
7. original documents or items sent to the Office should not be stapled, bound or placed in folders;
izvirni dokumenti ali izdelki, poslani Uradu, ne smejo biti speti, vezani ali vloženi v mape;
8. the second copy for forwarding to the other party should be clearly identified;
drugi izvod, ki se pošlje drugi stranki, mora biti jasno opredeljen;
9. if the original is submitted to the Office only by fax, no second fax copy should be sent;
če je izvirni dokument predložen Uradu le po telefaksu, druge kopije po telefaksu ni treba pošiljati;
10. the front page should clearly indicate whether the correspondence submitted contains colour elements of relevance to the file;
na prvi strani je treba jasno navesti, ali predložena korespondenca vsebuje barvne elemente, ki so pomembni za spis;
11. a second set of colour elements should be included for sending to the other party.
priložiti je treba drugi sklop barvnih dokumentov, ki se pošljejo drugi stranki.
These recommendations together with the requirements for written evidence set in Article 55(2) EUTMDR are sent to the opponent together with the Office's communication of the applicant's request for proof of use.
Ta priporočila in zahteve glede pisnih dokazov iz člena 55(2) Delegirane uredbe se skupaj s sporočilom Urada o prijaviteljevi zahtevi za dokaz o uporabi pošljejo vložniku ugovora.
According to Article 10(4) EUTMDR, the evidence is to be submitted in accordance with Article 55(2) and Articles 63 and 64 EUTMDR and, in principle, is confined to the submission of supporting documents and items such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs, newspaper advertisements, and statements in writing as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
V skladu s členom 10(4) Delegirane uredbe je treba dokaze predložiti v skladu s členom 55(2) ter členoma 63 in 64 Delegirane uredbe, pri čemer so načeloma omejena na predložitev dodatne dokumentacije in predmetov, kot so embalaža, nalepke, ceniki, katalogi, računi, fotografije, časopisni oglasi in pisne izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 10(4) EUTMDR also allows market surveys and quotations of the mark in lists and publications of associations of the relevant profession as suitable means of evidence (14/03/2011, B 1 582 579; 18/06/2010, B 1 316 134).
Člen 10(3) Delegirane uredbe kot ustrezne dokaze dopušča tudi tržne raziskave ter navedbe blagovne znamke na seznamih in v publikacijah poklicnih združenj iz zadevnega sektorja (14/03/2011, B 1 582 579; 18/06/2010, B 1 316 134).
Price lists and catalogues are examples of ‘material stemming directly from the party itself'.
Ceniki in katalogi so primeri gradiva, ki izvira neposredno od stranke.
A company's annual report and accounts would also come under that heading.
Pod ta naslov se uvrščajo tudi letno poročilo in računovodski izkazi podjetja.
Article 10(4) EUTMDR is to be read in conjunction with Article 64 EUTMDR.
Člen 10(4) Delegirane uredbe je treba brati v povezavi s členom 64 Delegirane uredbe.
This means that annexes to communications may be submitted on data carriers in accordance with technical specifications determined by the Executive Director.
To pomeni, da se lahko priloge k sporočilom v skladu s tehničnimi zahtevami, ki jih določi izvršni direktor, predložijo na nosilcih podatkov.
Nevertheless, material that cannot be scanned or photocopied (such as CDs, physical items) cannot be taken into account unless submitted in two copies so that one can be forwarded to the other party.
Vendar se ne sme upoštevati gradivo, ki ga ni mogoče skenirati ali fotokopirati (kot so zgoščenke, materialni predmeti), razen če je predloženo v dveh izvodih, da ga je mogoče posredovati še drugi stranki.
The requirement of proof of use always raises the question of the probative value of the submitted material.
Z zahtevo glede dokaza o uporabi se vedno postavlja vprašanje dokazne vrednosti predloženega gradiva.
The evidence must at least have a certain degree of reliability.
Dokazi morajo imeti vsaj neko stopnjo zanesljivosti.
As a general rule, the Office considers material produced by third parties as being of a higher probative value than material produced by the owner itself or by its representative.
Urad načeloma šteje, da ima gradivo, ki ga pripravijo tretje osebe, večjo dokazno vrednost od gradiva, ki ga pripravi sam imetnik ali njegov zastopnik.
Reference by the opponent to internal printouts or hypothetical surveys or orders is particularly problematic.
Zlasti problematično je sklicevanje vložnika ugovora na notranje izpiske ali hipotetične raziskave ali naročila.
However, where material must regularly be produced for use by the public and/or authorities according to statutory rules, for instance, company law and/or stock exchange regulations, and where it may be assumed that such material is subject to certain official verification, its probative value is certainly higher than ordinary ‘personal' material produced by the opponent (see also paragraph 3.3.2.3, ‘Declarations', below).
Če pa je treba gradivo redno pripravljati, da ga lahko javnost in/ali organi uporabljajo v skladu z zakonskimi predpisi, na primer pravom družb in/ali borznimi predpisi, in če je mogoče domnevati, da je takšno gradivo predmet določenega uradnega preverjanja, je njegova dokazna vrednost nedvomno večja od dokazne vrednosti navadnega osebnega gradiva, ki ga pripravi vložnik ugovora (glej tudi odstavek 3.3.2.3 Izjave, kot sledi v nadaljevanju).
3.3.2.2 References
Sklicevanja
The opponent may avail itself of findings of national offices and courts in parallel proceedings.
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje na ugotovitve nacionalnih uradov in sodišč v vzporednih postopkih.
Although the Office is not bound by findings of the national offices and courts, such decisions must be taken into account and may influence the Office's decision.
Čeprav Urada ne zavezujejo ugotovitve nacionalnih uradov in sodišč, jih je treba upoštevati, saj lahko vplivajo na odločbo Urada.
It is important for the Office to have the possibility of considering the kind of evidence that led to the relevant decision at national level.
Za Urad je pomembno, da ima možnost upoštevati tisto vrsto dokazov, ki so privedla do sprejetja ustrezne odločbe na nacionalni ravni.
The Office takes into account the different procedural and substantive requirements that may exist before the respective national body (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23).
Urad upošteva različne postopkovne in vsebinske zahteve, ki se lahko uporabljajo v postopkih pred zadevnim nacionalnim organom (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23).
The opponent may wish to refer to material submitted as proof of use in previous proceedings before the Office (confirmed by the General Court in ‘ELS' quoted above).
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje na gradivo, ki je bilo predloženo kot dokaz o uporabi v prejšnjih postopkih pred Uradom (to je potrdilo Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi „ELS“).
The Office accepts such references on condition that the opponent clearly identifies the material referred to and the proceedings in which it was submitted.
Urad takšna sklicevanja sprejme, če vložnik ugovora jasno opredeli gradivo, na katerega se sklicuje, in postopek, v katerem je bilo predloženo.
If the reference does not sufficiently identify the relevant material, the Office requires the opponent to clearly specify the material referred to or to file it (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300).
Če zadevno gradivo ni dovolj jasno opredeljeno v sklicu, Urad vložnika ugovora pozove, naj jasno navede gradivo, na katero se sklicuje, ali ga predloži (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300).
For further details on the conditions for identifying relevant material, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.
Za več podrobnosti o pogojih za opredelitev ustreznega gradiva glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve.
The onus of providing proof of use is on the opponent and not on the Office or the applicant.
Dokazno breme nosi vložnik ugovora, in ne Urad ali prijavitelj.
Therefore, a mere indication of the website where the Office can find further information is insufficient, as this does not provide the Office with sufficient indications about place, nature, time and extent of use (31/10/2001, B 260 192).
Zato ne zadostuje le navedba spletne strani, na kateri lahko Urad najde dodatne informacije, saj to Uradu ne zagotavlja zadostnih podatkov o kraju, naravi, času in obsegu uporabe (31/10/2001, B 260 192).
Whereas the means of evidence listed, such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs and newspaper advertisements, do not present any particular problems, it is necessary to consider in some detail declarations as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
Ker navedeni dokazi, kot so embalaža, nalepke, ceniki, katalogi, računi, fotografije in časopisni oglasi, niso posebej problematični, je treba podrobneje obravnavati izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The opposing party is not obliged to submit an affidavit concerning the sales made under the earlier trade mark.
Stranki, ki ugovarja, ni treba predložiti zaprisežene izjave o prodaji, opravljeni pod prejšnjo blagovno znamko.
It is up to the opposing party to select the form of evidence that it considers suitable for the purpose of establishing that the earlier trade mark was put to genuine use during the relevant period (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37).
Od nje se pričakuje, da izbere obliko dokazov, ki jo šteje kot primerno za dokazovanje, da se je prejšnja blagovna znamka v upoštevnem obdobju resno in dejansko uporabljala (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37).
The role of the affidavit is to give facts or an explanation of the supporting documents, not to give a legal opinion (06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56).
Namen zaprisežene izjave je navesti dejstva ali pojasniti dokaze, ne pa podati pravno mnenje 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56).
Distinction between admissibility and relevance (probative value)
Razlikovanje med dopustnostjo in pomembnostjo (dokazno vrednostjo)
The importance of declarations has been much debated.
Veliko se je razpravljalo o pomenu izjav.
In this regard, there must be a clear differentiation between the admissibility and the probative value of such evidence.
V zvezi s tem je treba jasno razlikovati med dopustnostjo in dokazno vrednostjo takšnih dokazov.
As far as admissibility is concerned, Article 10(4) EUTMDR expressly mentions written statements referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR as admissible means of proof of use.
V zvezi z dopustnostjo je v členu 10(4) Delegirane uredbe izrecno navedeno, da so pisne izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dopustni dokazi o uporabi.
Only in cases where the statements have not been sworn or affirmed is it necessary to consider the rules of law of the national jurisdiction as to the effects of a written statement (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; confirmed 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49).
Zakonodajo zadevne države članice je treba upoštevati le, če izjave niso bile zaprisežene ali potrjene (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; potrjena 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49).
Where there are doubts as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the opponent to submit evidence in this regard.
Vložnik ugovora mora v primeru dvoma, ali je bila izjava zaprisežena ali potrjena, predložiti zadevne dokaze.
Failing this, the statement will not be considered a statement within the sense of Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR.
Če tega ne stori, se izjava ne bo štela za izjavo v smislu člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR does not specify by whom these statements should be signed, so there is no reason to consider that statements signed by the parties to the proceedings themselves are not covered by this provision (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46).
V členu 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni navedeno, kdo mora podpisati te izjave, zato ni razloga, da se ta določba ne bi uporabljala za izjave, ki jih podpišeta sami stranki v postopku (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46).
The EUTMR, the EUTMDR and the EUTMIR do not support the conclusion that the evidential value of items of evidence of use of the mark, including affirmations, must be assessed in the light of the national law of a Member State (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53).
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU, Delegirana uredba in Izvedbena uredba ne podpirajo sklepanja, da bi bilo treba dokazno moč dokazov o uporabi znamke, vključno s potrjenimi izjavami, presojati ob upoštevanju nacionalne zakonodaje države članice (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53).
The probative value of a statement depends first and foremost on the credibility of the account it contains.
Dokazna vrednost izjave je odvisna predvsem od verodostojnosti navedb, ki jih vsebuje.
It is then necessary to take account, in particular, of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on the face of it, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42).
Upoštevati je torej treba zlasti izvor dokumenta, okoliščine njegove izdelave, njegovega naslovnika in se vprašati, ali se glede na njegovo vsebino zdi razumen in zanesljiv (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42).
As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, the Office, following the established case-law, makes a distinction between statements coming from the sphere of the opponent themselves or their employees and statements drawn up by an independent source (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54).
Kar zadeva dokazno vrednost tovrstnih dokazov, Urad v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso razlikuje med izjavami, ki izvirajo od samih vložnikov ugovora ali njihovih zaposlenih, in izjavami, ki jih pripravi neodvisen vir (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54).
Declarations by the proprietor or its employees
Izjava imetnika ali njegovih zaposlenih
Statements coming from the sphere of the owner of the earlier mark (drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees) are generally given less weight than independent evidence.
Izjavam, ki izvirajo od imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke (ki jih pripravijo same zainteresirane strani ali njihovi zaposleni), se na splošno pripisuje manjši pomen kot neodvisnim dokazom.