natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, if it is established that none of the three types of injury exists, the registration and use of the mark applied for cannot be prevented, as the existence or absence of due cause for use of the mark applied for is, in those circumstances, irrelevant (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51).
Če se izkaže, da ne obstaja nobena izmed teh treh vrst kršitev, ni mogoče preprečiti registracije in uporabe prijavljene znamke, saj obstoj ali neobstoj upravičenih razlogov za uporabo prijavljene znamke v tem primeru ni upošteven (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51).
The existence of a cause justifying use of the trade mark applied for is a defence that the applicant may raise.
Prijavitelj lahko v zagovor navede razlog, ki upravičuje uporabo blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
Therefore, it is up to the applicant to show that it has due cause to use the mark applied for.
Torej mora dokazati, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
This is an application of the general rule according to which ‘he who asserts must prove', which is the expression of the ancient rule ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23).
Gre za uporabo splošnega pravila, v skladu s katerim mora oseba, ki nekaj trdi, to tudi dokazati in ki izhaja iz starega pravila ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23).
Case-law clearly establishes that when the proprietor of the earlier mark has shown that there is either actual and present injury to its mark or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury will occur in the future, it is for the proprietor of the later mark to establish that there is due cause for the use of that mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39).
Sodna praksa jasno določa, da kadar imetniku prejšnje znamke uspe dokazati obstoj bodisi dejanske in sedanje kršitve njegove znamke bodisi, če te ni, resnega tveganja za nastanek take kršitve v prihodnosti, potem mora imetnik poznejše znamke dokazati, da se ta znamka uporablja z upravičenim razlogom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39).
In the absence of any indications in the evidence providing an apparent justification for the applicant's use of the contested mark, lack of due cause must be generally presumed (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 and case-law cited therein; 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, dismissing the appeal).
Če v dokazih ni navedb, ki bi jasno upravičile uporabo izpodbijane znamke s strani prijavitelja, je treba na splošno domnevati neobstoj upravičenih razlogov (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 in navedena sodna praksa, in 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, o zavrnitvi pritožbe).
However, the applicant may avail itself of the possibility of rebutting such a presumption by showing that it has a legitimate justification that entitles it to use the mark.
Vendar lahko prijavitelj izkoristi možnost izpodbijanja take domneve, tako da dokaže, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke.
For example, such a situation could be envisaged if the applicant had been using the sign for dissimilar goods in the relevant territory before the opponent's mark was applied for, or acquired a reputation, especially where such coexistence has not in any way affected the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark.
To se lahko na primer zgodi, če je prijavitelj uporabljal znak za različno blago na upoštevnem ozemlju, preden je bila vložena prijava za znamko vložnika ugovora ali preden je ta pridobila ugled, zlasti kadar tak soobstoj ni nikakor vplival na razlikovalni učinek in ugled prejšnje znamke.
Interpreting Article 5(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (whose legislative content is essentially identical to that of Article 8(5) EUTMR), the Court ruled that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation might be obliged, pursuant to the concept of ‘due cause' within the meaning of that provision, to tolerate use by a third party of a sign similar to that mark in relation to a product that was identical to that for which that mark had been registered, if it was demonstrated that the sign was being used before the mark had been filed and that use of the sign in relation to the identical product was in good faith (06/02/2014, C65/12, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, § 60).
Sodišče je v razlagi člena 5(2) Direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS (katerega zakonodajna vsebina je v bistvu enaka zakonodajni vsebini člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) odločilo, da ima lahko imetnik ugledne znamke na podlagi upravičenega razloga v smislu te določbe obveznost, da tretji osebi dopusti uporabo znaka, ki je podoben tej znamki, za proizvod, ki je enak proizvodu, za katerega je bila navedena znamka registrirana, če se dokaže, da se je ta znak uporabljal pred prijavo navedene znamke in da je bila njegova uporaba za enak proizvod dobroverna (06/02/2014, C65/12, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, § 60).
The Court gave further detailed factors to be considered when assessing due cause on account of prior use.
Sodišče je podrobno navedlo dejavnike, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji upravičenega razloga za uporabo.
The case-law below shows that due cause may be found where the applicant establishes that it cannot reasonably be required to abstain from use of the mark (for example, because its use of the sign is a generic use to indicate the type of goods and services - whether by generic words or generic figurative devices), or where it has some specific right to use the mark for the goods and services (for example, it shows that a relevant coexistence agreement permits its use of the sign).
Iz v nadaljevanju navedene sodne prakse je razvidno, da je mogoče ugotoviti obstoj upravičenega razloga, kadar prijavitelj dokaže, da od njega ni mogoče razumno zahtevati, naj ne uporablja znamke (ker se na primer znak uporablja na splošno za označevanje vrste blaga in storitev - bodisi z občimi besedami ali občimi figurativnimi elementi), ali kadar ima posebno pravico do uporabe znamke za blago in storitve (če na primer dokaže, da lahko znak uporablja v skladu z ustreznim sporazumom o soobstoju).
The condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that (a) the sign is particularly suitable for identifying the products for which it is used, (b) the applicant has already used this sign for these products or similar products within and/or outside the relevant territory of the European Union, or (c) the applicant invokes a right ensuing from a filing over which the filing of the opponent's trade mark takes precedence (inter alia 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.)
Pogoj upravičenega razloga ni izpolnjen samo zato, ker (a) je znak posebej primeren za označevanje izdelkov, za katere se uporablja, ker (b) prijavitelj že uporablja ta znak za te ali podobne izdelke na upoštevnem ozemlju Evropske unije in/ali zunaj tega ozemlja ali ker (c) prijavitelj uveljavlja pravico, ki izhaja iz vložitve, pred katero ima vložitev znamke vložnika ugovora prednost (med drugim 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.)
Mere use of the sign is not enough - what must be shown is a valid reason justifying that use.
Samo uporaba znaka ne zadostuje - treba je dokazati utemeljen razlog, ki upravičuje to uporabo.
3.5.1 Examples of due cause
Primeri upravičenega razloga
3.5.1.1 Due cause was accepted
Upravičen razlog je bil potrjen
3.5.1.2 Due cause was not accepted
Upravičen razlog ni bil potrjen
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.) / FERNANDO ALONSO All the evidence submitted by the opponent related to the fame of Fernando Alonso as a champion racing driver and to the use of his image by different undertakings to promote their goods and services.
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.)/FERNANDO ALONSO Vsi dokazi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, so se nanašali na slavo Fernanda Alonsa kot dirkaškega prvaka in uporabo njegove podobe, s katero so različna podjetja promovirala svoje blago in storitve.
There was no proof of reputation for use of the earlier mark as registered for the relevant goods and services (paras 44 and 48).
Ni pa bilo dokaza o ugledu za uporabo prejšnje znamke, kot je registrirana za zadevno blago in storitve (točki 44 in 48).
The only items of evidence regarding reputation of the earlier mark submitted within the time limit, namely a page showing websites containing the word ‘BALMAIN', a Wikipedia extract about the French designer Pierre Balmain, and five extracts from the website www.style.com referring to the ‘BALMAIN' wear collection, were clearly not sufficient to establish the reputation of the earlier mark in the EU.
Edini v roku predloženi dokazi o ugledu prejšnje znamke, in sicer stran s spletnimi mesti, ki vsebujejo besedo „BALMAIN“, izvleček iz Wikipedije o francoskem oblikovalcu Pierru Balmainu in pet izvlečkov s spletnega mesta www.style.com, ki se nanašajo na kolekcijo oblačil „BALMAIN“, očitno niso zadostovali za ugotovitev ugleda prejšnje znamke v EU.
Therefore, the opposition was rejected as unsubstantiated (paras 36 and 37).
Zato je bil ugovor zavrnjen kot neutemeljen (točki 36 in 37).
The documents submitted by the opponent showed promotional efforts in such a way that the distinctiveness was increased through use.
Iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, je razvidno, da so prizadevanja za promocijo takšna, da se z uporabo poveča razlikovalni učinek.
However, the use was not enough to reach the threshold of reputation.
Vendar uporaba ni bila dovolj za doseganje praga ugleda.
None of the documents referred to the recognition of the earlier trade mark by the relevant end consumers; nor was any evidence submitted about the market share of the opponent's goods (para. 61).
V nobenem dokumentu ni bilo sklicevanja na prepoznavnost prejšnje znamke med upoštevnimi končnimi potrošniki, prav tako niso bili predloženi dokazi o tržnem deležu blaga vložnika ugovora (točka 61).
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Taking into account the nature of the goods for which the opponent claims reputation, namely mineral water, the relevant public is the public at large (para. 44).
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Glede na vrsto blaga, za katerega vložnik ugovora trdi, da ima ugled, in sicer mineralna voda, je upoštevna javnost širša javnost (točka 44).
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. The goods for which the sign enjoys reputation are medicinal preparations for the treatment of sexual dysfunction.
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. Blago, v zvezi s katerim ima znak ugled, so zdravilni pripravki za zdravljenje spolne disfunkcije.
The relevant public is the general public and professionals with a high level of attention (para. 64).
Upoštevna javnost je splošna javnost in strokovnjaki, ki temu namenjajo posebno pozornost (točka 64).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl The goods for which the earlier mark enjoys reputation are pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles.
16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; Potrjena z dne 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl Blago, v zvezi s katerim ima prejšnja znamka ugled, so farmacevtski pripravki za odpravljanje gub.
The evidence of the promotion of the earlier mark ‘BOTOX' in English in the scientific and general-interest press was sufficient to establish the mark's reputation amongst both the general public and health-care professionals (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67).
Dokazi o promociji prejšnje znamke „BOTOX“ v angleškem jeziku v znanstvenem in splošnem tisku so zadostovali za ugotovitev ugleda znamke pri splošni javnosti in med strokovnimi zdravstvenimi delavci (C100/11 P, točke 65 to 67).
Therefore, both these categories of consumers have to be taken into account.
Zato je treba upoštevati obe navedeni kategoriji potrošnikov.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The relevant services are stock exchange price quotation services in Classes 35 and 36, which normally target professionals.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Zadevne storitve so storitve kotacije cene na borzi v razredih 35 in 36, ki so navadno namenjene strokovnjakom.
The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark ‘NASDAQ' appears almost daily in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe.
Vložnik ugovora je predložil dokaze, iz katerih je razvidno, da se znamka „NASDAQ“ pojavlja skoraj vsak dan v številnih časopisih in na televizijskih programih, ki jih je mogoče brati oziroma gledati po vsej Evropi.
Therefore, the Board was right to hold that the reputation of the trade mark ‘NASDAQ' had to be determined for European consumers not only among the professional public, but also in an important subsection of the general public (paras 47 and 51).
Zato je odbor pravilno odločil, da je treba ugled blagovne znamke „NASDAQ“ pri evropskih potrošnikih ugotoviti ne le pri strokovni javnosti, ampak tudi v pomembnem poddelu splošne javnosti (točki 47 in 51).
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 The evidence submitted in respect of reputation supports and reinforces the fact that the relevant public for theatre productions is the public at large and not a limited and exclusive circle.
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 Dokazi, predloženi v zvezi z ugledom, podpirajo in potrjujejo dejstvo, da je upoštevna javnost za produkcije gledaliških predstav širša javnost in ne omejen in izbran krog ljudi.
The intervener's activities were advertised, presented and commented on in numerous newspapers targeting the public at large.
Intervenientove dejavnosti so se oglaševale, predstavljale in komentirale v številnih časopisih, namenjenih širši javnosti.
The intervener toured different regions throughout the United Kingdom and performed before a wide public in the United Kingdom.
Intervenient je gostoval v različnih regijah po vsem Združenem kraljestvu in imel predstave pred širšim občinstvom v Združenem kraljestvu.
An activity on a large scale and, hence, a service offered to the public at large, is reflected both in the high turnover and the high box-office sales.
Velik obseg dejavnosti in torej tudi storitev, namenjenih širši javnosti, je razviden iz velikih prihodkov od prodaje in velikega števila prodanih vstopnic.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents submitted by the intervener that the intervener received substantial annual sponsorship income from undertakings in diverse sectors that also reach the public at large, such as banks, undertakings in the alcoholic drinks sector and car manufacturers (paras 35 and 36).
Poleg tega je iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil intervenient, razvidno, da je prejel znaten letni prihodek iz pokroviteljstva podjetij v različnih sektorjih, ki dosegajo tudi širšo javnost, kot so banke, podjetja v sektorju alkoholnih pijač in avtomobilski proizvajalci (točki 35 in 36).
28/04/2011, R 1473/20101, SUEDTIROL / SÜDTIROL (fig.) et al. The opposition was dismissed since the earlier marks were not registered for the services that, according to the opponent, enjoy a reputation.
28/04/2011, R 1473/20101, SUEDTIROL / SÜDTIROL (fig.) et al. Ugovor je bil zavrnjen, ker prejšnje znamke niso bile registrirane za storitve, ki imajo po mnenju vložnika ugovora ugled.
Article 8(5) EUTMR can only be invoked if the trade mark affirmed to be well known/renowned is a registered trade mark and if the goods/services for which this reputation/renown is claimed appear on the certificate (para. 49).
Sklicevanje na člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je mogoče samo, če je znamka, ki je potrjeno dobro znana/slavna, registrirana znamka, in če so blago/storitve, v zvezi s katerimi se trdi, da imajo ugled/sloves, navedeni v potrdilu (točka 49).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe The goods that were assessed to be reputed in Germany by the decision and order referred to only concern articles of skin and body care and children's cream.
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Blago, ki je bilo v navedenem sklepu in odločbi ocenjeno kot ugledno v Nemčiji, se nanaša samo na izdelke za nego kože in telesa ter otroške kreme.
These articles are not identical to the earlier mark's goods in Class 3, make-up products; nail treating products; namely nail lacquer and remover.
Ti izdelki niso enaki blagu iz prejšnje znamke iz razreda 3, izdelki za ličenje; izdelki za nego nohtov; in sicer lak za nohte in odstranjevalec laka za nohte.
Therefore, the opponent did not prove reputation for the earlier German mark in the relevant territories (para. 31).
Vložnik ugovora zato ni dokazal ugleda prejšnje nemške znamke na upoštevnih ozemljih (točka 31).
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE The Board concluded that the enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier marks did not concern the opponent's G&S, which were considered to be identical or similar to the contested G&S.
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE Odbor je ugotovil, da se povečani razlikovalni učinek in ugled prejšnjih znamk nista nanašala na blago in storitve vložnika ugovora, ki so se obravnavali kot enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu in storitvam.
For these G&S no enhanced distinctiveness or reputation was proven, with the exception of computer software in Class 9 (para. 43).
Za to blago in storitve ni bil dokazan povečani razlikovalni učinek ali ugled, razen za računalniško programsko opremo iz razreda 9 (točka 43).
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrated that the ‘ARENA' brand was known by a significant part of the relevant public.
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 in R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. Predloženi dokazi so zadovoljivo pokazali, da je znamka „ARENA“ znana znatnemu delu upoštevne javnosti.
However, the evidence did not include any relevant information that could allow the level of brand awareness of the ‘ARENA' brand in sectors other than swimwear and swimming articles to be determined (paras 58 and 60).
Vendar dokazi niso vsebovali pomembnih informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče določiti stopnjo poznavanja znamke „ARENA“ v drugih sektorjih, ki niso sektor kopalke in izdelki za plavanje (točki 58 in 60).
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 The case concerned a European Union trade mark with a reputation throughout Austria.
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 Zadeva se je nanašala na blagovno znamko Evropske unije z ugledom v Avstriji.
The Court indicated that a European Union trade mark must be known in a substantial part of the EU by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark.
Sodišče je navedlo, da mora biti blagovna znamka Evropske unije znana v znatnem delu EU in znatnemu delu javnosti, ki so ji namenjeni blago ali storitve, ki jih ta znamka vključuje.
In view of the facts of the particular case, the territory of the Member State in question (Austria) was considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the EU (paras 29 and 30).
Glede na dejstva v tej zadevi se je ozemlje zadevne države članice (Avstrije) obravnavalo kot znaten del ozemlja EU (točki 29 in 30).
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Although the evidence submitted showed use of the mark in 17 restaurants in France in 2002, this figure was considered rather low for a country of 65 million inhabitants.
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Čeprav je bilo iz predloženih dokazov razvidno, da se je znamka leta 2002 uporabljala v 17 restavracijah v Franciji, se je to število obravnavalo kot nizko za državo s 65 milijoni prebivalcev.
Therefore, the reputation was not proven (para. 22).
Zato ugled ni bil dokazan (točka 22).
22/03/2011, R 1718/20081, LINGLONG / LL (fig.) et al. Most of the documents submitted related to countries outside the European Union, mainly China, the opponent's home country, and other Asian countries.
22/03/2011, R 1718/20081, LINGLONG / LL (fig.) et al. Večina predloženih dokumentov je bila povezana z državami zunaj Evropske unije, predvsem Kitajsko, matično državo vložnika ugovora, in drugimi azijskimi državami.
Consequently, the opponent cannot successfully claim to hold a well-known mark in the EU (para. 53).
Posledično vložnik ugovora ne more uspešno dokazati, da ima znano znamko v EU (točka 53).
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (appeal dismissed in 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent maintained in the notice of cancellation that reputation was claimed for the territory of the UK.
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (pritožba zavrnjena s sodbo z dne 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Pritožnik je v obvestilu o izbrisu trdil, da se je ugled dokazoval za ozemlje Združenega kraljestva.
However, the international registration only designated Spain, France and Portugal and, therefore, did not extend to the territory of the UK.
Vendar so bile v mednarodni registraciji imenovane samo Španija, Francija in Portugalska, zato ni zajemala ozemlja Združenega kraljestva.
In addition, the respondent did not file any evidence of a reputation in the Member States designated by the international registration (para. 45).
Poleg tega pritožnik ni predložil nobenega dokaza o ugledu v državah članicah, imenovanih v mednarodni registraciji (točka 45).
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA The evidence showed that the mark ‘BRAVIA/BRAVIA' was used for LCD televisions in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey.
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA Iz dokazov je bilo razvidno, da se je znamka „BRAVIA/BRAVIA“ uporabljala za LCD televizorje v Avstriji, na Češkem, v Franciji, Nemčiji, na Madžarskem, v Italiji, na Nizozemskem, Poljskem, Portugalskem, Slovaškem in v Turčiji.
However, none of the documents were dated.
Vendar noben dokument ni bil datiran.
The opponent failed to submit any information regarding duration.
Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenih informacij o trajanju.
Therefore, the evidence, taken as whole, was insufficient to prove reputation in the European Union (paras 27 and 28).
Zato dokazi kot celota niso zadostovali za dokazovanje ugleda v Evropski uniji (točki 27 in 28).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe In the Board's view, a judgment from 1972 was not able to prove enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing the mark, that is, 20/10/2006.
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Po mnenju odbora s sodbo iz leta 1972 ni bil dokazan povečan razlikovalni učinek ob vložitvi prijave znamke, to je 20. oktobra 2006.
Furthermore, ‘it follows from the decision of the [Court] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] that the reputation of the earlier mark has been assessed as from 13 June 1996, i.e. more than ten years before the reputation date to be taken into consideration' (para. 31).
Poleg tega iz odločitve Sodišča [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] sledi, da se je ugled prejšnje znamke presojal od 13. junija 1996, tj. več kot deset let pred datumom, ki ga je treba upoštevati za opredelitev ugleda (točka 31).
The appellant failed to prove that its earlier mark was already well known on the application date of the contested mark.
Pritožnik ni dokazal, da je bila prejšnja znamka že znana na datum vložitve prijave za izpodbijano znamko.
The certificates regarding the reputation of the ‘Mustang designation' refer neither to the ‘Calzados Mustang' figurative mark asserted by the applicant nor to the time when reputation must be determined (para. 28).
Potrdila v zvezi z ugledom „oznake Mustang“ se ne nanašajo niti na figurativno znamko „Calzados Mustang“, za katero prijavitelj uveljavlja pravice, niti na obdobje, v zvezi s katerim je treba opredeliti ugled (točka 28).