natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 6septies PC is an exception to this principle and only to the extent that the contractual or de facto obligations of the parties involved justify this.
Člen 6septies Pariške konvencije je izjema od tega načela, in to samo, če to utemeljujejo pogodbene ali dejanske obveznosti zadevnih strank.
Only to that extent is it justified that the ensuing EUTM would ‘belong' to the principal under Article 21 EUTMR (19/11/2007, R 73/20064, PORTER (fig.) / PORTER (fig.) et al., § 26).
Samo v tem okviru je utemeljeno, da bo prihodnja blagovna znamka EU v skladu s členom 21 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pripadala naročniku (19/11/2007, R 73/20064, PORTER (fig.) / PORTER (fig.) et al., § 26).
This should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the decisive factor should be whether it is still possible for the applicant to take commercial advantage of its expired relationship with the trade mark proprietor by exploiting the know-how and contacts it acquired because of its position.
To je treba presoditi za vsak primer posebej, odločilni dejavnik pa mora biti to, ali lahko prijavitelj še vedno poslovno izkorišča svoje minulo razmerje z imetnikom znamke z izkoriščanjem strokovnega znanja in izkušenj ter stikov, ki jih je pridobil zaradi svojega položaja.
4.2 Application in the agent's name
Prijava v imenu posrednika
According to Article 8(3) EUTMR, the trade mark applied for will not be registered where the agent or representative applies for registration thereof in its own name.
V skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, ne registrira, če posrednik ali zastopnik vloži zahtevo za registracijo blagovne znamke v lastnem imenu.
It will usually be easy to assess whether this requirement has been fulfilled, by comparing the name of the applicant with that of the person appearing in the evidence as the agent or representative of the proprietor.
Običajno se brez težav presodi, ali je ta zahteva izpolnjena, in sicer s primerjavo imena prijavitelja z imenom osebe, ki je v predloženih dokazov navedena kot imetnikov posrednik ali zastopnik.
However, there may be cases where the agent or representative will try to circumvent this provision by arranging for the application to be filed by a third person, whom it either controls, or with whom it has entered into some form of understanding to that effect.
Vendar lahko obstajajo primeri, v katerih se posrednik ali zastopnik poskuša izogniti tej določbi in poskrbi, da prijavo vloži tretja oseba, ki jo nadzira ali s katero je v ta namen sklenil nekakšen dogovor.
In such cases adopting a more flexible approach is justified.
V takšnih primerih je utemeljeno sprejeti prožnejši pristop.
Therefore, if it is clear that because of the nature of the relationship between the person filing the application and the agent, the situation is effectively the same as if the application had been filed by the agent personally, it is still possible to apply Article 8(3) EUTMR, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name of the proprietor's agent.
Če je očitno, da je stanje zaradi vrste razmerja med osebo, ki vloži prijavo, in posrednikom v bistvu enako, kot če bi prijavo vložil sam posrednik, je zato še vedno mogoče uporabiti člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne glede na očitno neskladnost med imenom prijavitelja in imenom imetnikovega posrednika.
Such a case could arise if the application is filed not in the name of the agent's company, but in the name of a natural person that shares the same economic interests as the agent, as for example its president, vice-president or legal representative.
Takšen primer lahko nastane, če prijava ni vložena v imenu posrednikove družbe, temveč v imenu fizične osebe, ki ima enake gospodarske interese kot posrednik, na primer njegov predsednik, podpredsednik ali pravni zastopnik.
Given that in this case the agent or representative could still benefit from such a filing, it should be considered that the natural person is bound by the same limitations as the company.
Ker bi lahko v tem primeru posrednik ali zastopnik še vedno imel koristi od takšne vložitve, je treba šteti, da se za fizično osebo uporabljajo enake omejitve kot za družbo.
Moreover, if the person filing the contested application had also signed the agency agreement on behalf of the company, this would have to be considered a strong argument in favour of the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR, since in such a case the applicant cannot possibly deny direct knowledge of the relevant prohibitions.
Če je poleg tega oseba, ki je vložila sporno prijavo, v imenu družbe podpisala tudi sporazum o zastopstvu, je treba to šteti za močan argument v prid uporabi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj v takšnem primeru prijavitelj nikakor ne more zanikati neposredne seznanjenosti z ustreznimi prepovedmi.
Similarly, if an agency agreement contained a clause holding the management of the company personally responsible for the observance of the contractual obligations undertaken by the agent, this would also have to be considered a further indication that the filing of the application is covered by the prohibition of Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Podobno velja, če je sporazum o zastopstvu vključeval klavzulo, v skladu s katero je za spoštovanje pogodbenih obveznosti, ki jih izvaja posrednik, osebno odgovorna uprava družbe, je treba tudi to šteti za nadaljnji znak, da se za vložitev prijave uporablja prepoved iz člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
A similar case arises where the agent or the representative and the applicant are distinct legal entities, but the evidence shows that they are controlled, managed or run by the same natural person.
Podoben primer nastane, kadar sta posrednik ali zastopnik in prijavitelj različni pravni osebi, vendar je iz dokazov razvidno, da ju nadzira, upravlja ali vodi ista fizična oseba.
For the reasons given above it is appropriate to ‘lift the corporate veil' and apply Article 8(3) EUTMR also to these cases.
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov je ustrezno razkriti korporativno pretvezo in člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabljati tudi v takšnih primerih.
4.3 Application without the proprietor's consent
Prijava brez soglasja imetnika
Even though the absence of the proprietor's consent is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR, the opponent does not have to submit evidence that shows that the agent was not permitted to file the EUTM application.
Čeprav je odsotnost soglasja imetnika nujen pogoj za uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vložniku ugovora ni treba predložiti dokazov o tem, da posrednik ni imel dovoljenja za vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU.
A mere statement that the filing was made without its consent is generally sufficient.
Na splošno zadostuje navadna izjava, da je bila vložitev opravljena brez njegovega soglasja.
This is because the opponent cannot be expected to prove a ‘negative' fact, such as the absence of consent.
Razlog je, da od vložnika ugovora ni mogoče pričakovati, da dokaže negativno dejstvo, kot je odsotnost soglasja.
In these cases the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the applicant to prove that the filing was authorised, or to give some other justification for its acts.
V teh primerih je dokazno breme na drugi strani in je prijavitelj tisti, ki mora dokazati, da je bila vložitev dovoljena, ali kako drugače utemeljiti svoja dejanja.
In view of the need to provide effective protection to the legitimate proprietor from unauthorised acts of its agents, the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR should be denied only where the proprietor's consent is sufficiently clear, specific and unconditional (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 40).
Zaradi potrebe po zagotavljanju učinkovite zaščite zakonitemu imetniku pred nepooblaščenimi dejanji njegovih posrednikov je treba uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavrniti le, če je soglasje imetnika dovolj jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 40).
Therefore, even if the proprietor has expressly authorised the filing of the EUTM application, its consent cannot be considered sufficiently clear if it has not also explicitly specified that the application may be in the name of the agent.
Tudi če je imetnik izrecno odobril vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU, njegovega soglasja ni mogoče šteti za dovolj jasnega, če ni tudi izrecno navedel, da je lahko prijava vložena v imenu posrednika.
Likewise, even if the proprietor has expressly authorised the filing of an EUTM application, its consent cannot be considered sufficiently specific for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR if there is no indication of the specific signs for which the applicant has permission to file as an EUTM.
Podobno, tudi če je imetnik izrecno odobril vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU, njegovega soglasja ni mogoče šteti za dovolj jasnega za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če niso navedeni posebni znaki, za katere lahko prijavitelj vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
It will be generally easier to assess whether the filing was authorised by the proprietor where the conditions under which an agent or representative may apply for an EUTM application are adequately regulated by contract, or are given by other kinds of direct evidence (letters, written representations, etc.).
Na splošno je lažje presoditi, ali je imetnik odobril vložitev, če so pogoji, na podlagi katerih lahko posrednik ali zastopnik vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU, ustrezno urejeni s pogodbo ali so razvidni iz drugih vrst neposrednih dokazov (dopisov, pisnih izjav itd.).
In most cases, such evidence will be sufficient to demonstrate whether the proprietor has given its express consent, or if the applicant has exceeded the limits of its authorisation.
V večini primerov je iz takšnih dokazov dovolj jasno razvidno, ali je imetnik dal izrecno soglasje ali pa je prijavitelj presegel omejitve svojega pooblastila.
In other cases, a contract will either not exist or it will be inadequate on the subject.
V drugih primerih pogodba ne obstaja ali je zadevna tema v njej obravnavana neustrezno.
Although the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR is in principle broad enough to include cases of tacit or implied consent, such consent should only be inferred if the evidence is sufficiently clear as to the intentions of the proprietor.
Čeprav je besedilo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU načeloma dovolj široko, da vključuje primere tihega ali implicitnega soglasja, je treba o takšnem soglasju sklepati le, če so dokaz o namerah imetnika dovolj jasna.
If the evidence is completely silent as to the existence of an express or implied authorisation, lack of consent should be generally presumed.
Če iz dokazov sploh ni razviden obstoj izrecnega ali implicitnega pooblastila, je treba na splošno sklepati o neobstoju soglasja.
Notwithstanding indirect indications and evidence pointing to implied consent, any ambiguity or doubt should be interpreted in favour of the opponent, as it will usually be quite difficult to assess whether such consent is sufficiently clear and unequivocal.
Vsakršno dvoumnost ali dvom je treba ne glede na posredne navedbe in dokazi, ki kažejo na implicitno soglasje, razlagati v prid vložniku ugovora, saj je običajno zelo težko presoditi, ali je takšno soglasje dovolj jasno in nedvoumno.
For example, the mere fact that the proprietor tolerated unauthorised applications in the name of the agent in third jurisdictions cannot alone create legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that the proprietor will not object to the filing of an EUTM application either.
Tako na primer prijavitelj le na podlagi dejstva, da je imetnik dopuščal nepooblaščene prijave v imenu posrednika v tretjih jurisdikcijah, ne more legitimno pričakovati, da imetnik ne bo nasprotoval tudi vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The fact that the proprietor tolerates conduct outside the boundaries of a contract (such as use of the sign) cannot lead to the conclusion that filing the EUTM did not breach the established fiduciary duty if consent is not clear, specific and unconditional.
Na podlagi dejstva, da imetnik dopušča ravnanje zunaj omejitev pogodbe (kot je uporaba znaka), se ne sme šteti, da vložitev blagovne znamke EU ne krši vzpostavljene zaupniške obveznosti, če soglasje ni jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno.
Even where consent of the proprietor has been deemed to be clear, specific and unconditional, it will be a question of fact to determine if such consent survives a change of proprietor by way of an asset sale.
Tudi če se šteje, da je soglasje imetnika jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno, je treba dejansko opredeliti, ali je takšno soglasje veljavno tudi po spremembi imetnika zaradi prodaje premoženja.
4.4 Absence of justification on the part of the applicant
Neobstoj utemeljitve prijavitelja
As mentioned above, since it is not possible for the opponent to prove the absence of consent, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the applicant to show that the filing of the application was authorised by the proprietor.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je dokazno breme zato, ker vložnik ugovora ne more dokazati neobstoja soglasja, na drugi strani in je prijavitelj tisti, ki mora dokazati, da je imetnik odobril vložitev prijave.
Although Article 8(3) EUTMR treats the lack of the proprietor's consent and the absence of a valid justification on the part of the applicant as two separate conditions, these requirements largely overlap to the extent that if the applicant establishes that the filing of the application was based on some agreement or understanding to this effect, then it will also have provided a valid justification for its acts.
Čeprav sta v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU neobstoj soglasja imetnika in neobstoj veljavne utemeljitve prijavitelja obravnavana kot ločena pogoja, se ti zahtevi pretežno prekrivata, saj če prijavitelj dokaže, da je vložitev prijave temeljila na nekem sporazumu ali dogovoru v tem smislu, s tem tudi predloži veljavno utemeljitev za svoje ravnanje.
In addition, the applicant may invoke any other kind of circumstance showing that it had a justification for filing the EUTM application in its own name.
Poleg tega se lahko prijavitelj sklicuje na katere koli druge vrste okoliščin, ki kažejo, da je bila vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU v lastnem imenu utemeljena.
However, in the absence of evidence of direct consent, only exceptional reasons are accepted as valid justifications, in view of the need to avoid a violation of the proprietor's legitimate interests without sufficient indications that its intention was to allow the agent to file the application in its own name.
Ker ni dokazov o neposrednem soglasju, se kot veljavne utemeljitve sprejmejo le izjemni razlogi, in sicer za preprečitev kršitve legitimnih interesov imetnika, kadar ni zadostnih znakov, da je bil njegov namen pooblastiti posrednika za vložitev prijave v lastnem imenu.
For example, it could be possible to infer that the proprietor has tacitly consented to the filing of the application if it does not react within a reasonable period of time after having been informed by the applicant that it intends to apply for an EUTM in its own name.
Tako bi bilo na primer mogoče sklepati, da je imetnik tiho soglašal z vložitvijo prijave, če se po tem, ko ga prijavitelj seznani s svojo namero, da bo vložil prijavo blagovne znamke EU v svojem imenu, ne odzove v razumnem času.
However, even in such a case it will not be possible to assume that the application has been authorised by the proprietor if the agent had not made it sufficiently clear to the proprietor in advance in whose name it would file the application.
Vendar tudi v takšnem primeru ni mogoče sklepati, da je imetnik odobril prijavo, če posrednik imetnika vnaprej ne obvesti dovolj jasno, v katerem imenu bo vložil prijavo.
Another case of valid justification could be if the proprietor causes its agent to believe that it has abandoned the mark, or that it is not interested in obtaining or maintaining any rights in the territory concerned, for example, by suspending the use of the mark over a relatively long period of time.
Še en primer veljavne utemeljitve je, če imetnikov posrednik zaradi imetnikovih dejanj verjame, da je ta opustil znamko oziroma da ni zainteresiran za pridobitev ali ohranitev nobenih pravic na zadevnem ozemlju, če na primer preneha uporabljati znamke za razmeroma dolgo obdobje.
The fact that the proprietor does not want to spend money on registering its trade mark does not give the agent a right to act on its own initiative, as the proprietor might still have an interest in using its trade mark in the territory although it is not registered.
Dejstvo, da imetnik ne želi porabiti denarja za registracijo svoje blagovne znamke, posredniku ne daje pravice, da ravna na svojo pobudo, saj je imetnik morda še vedno zainteresiran za uporabo svoje blagovne znamke na zadevnem ozemlju, čeprav ni registrirana.
Such a business decision cannot be taken in itself as a sign that the proprietor has given up the rights in its mark.
Takšne poslovne odločitve same po sebi ni mogoče šteti za znak, da se je imetnik odpovedal pravicam iz svoje znamke.
Justifications exclusively linked to an applicant's economic interests, such as the need to protect its investment in setting up a local distribution network and promoting the mark in the relevant territory, cannot be considered valid for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Utemeljitev, ki so izključno povezane z ekonomskimi interesi prijavitelja, kot je potreba po zaščiti naložbe pri vzpostavljanju lokalne distribucijske mreže in promociji znamke na zadevnem ozemlju, ni mogoče šteti za veljavne za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Nor can the applicant successfully argue in its defence that it is entitled to some financial remuneration for its efforts and expenditure in building up goodwill for the mark.
Prijavitelj ne more v svojo obrambo utemeljeno trditi niti, da je upravičen do finančne nagrade za svoja prizadevanja in izdatke pri vzpostavljanju dobrega imena znamke.
Even if such remuneration were well deserved or is expressly stipulated in the agency agreement, the applicant cannot use the registration of the mark in its own name as a means of extracting money from the opponent or in lieu of financial compensation, but should try to settle its dispute with the proprietor either by way of agreement or by suing for damages.
Tudi če bi bilo takšno plačilo zasluženo ali če je izrecno določeno v sporazumu o zastopstvu, prijavitelj registracije znamke v lastnem imenu ne sme uporabiti kot sredstva za pridobitev denarja od vložnika ugovora ali namesto finančnega nadomestila, temveč mora poskusiti spor z imetnikom rešiti sporazumno ali z vložitvijo odškodninske tožbe.
Finally, if the applicant does not provide any justification for its actions, it is not for the Office to make any speculations in that regard (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 73-74).
Nazadnje, če prijavitelj ne predloži utemeljitve za svoja ravnanja, ni naloga Urada, da ugiba glede tega (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 73-74).
4.5 Applicability beyond identical signs - goods and services
Uporaba, ki ni omejena na enake znake - blago in storitve
Article 8(3) EUTMR provides that an EUTM application will not be registered where ‘an agent or representative of the proprietor of the mark applies for registration thereof in his own name'.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se prijava blagovne znamke EU ne registrira, če „posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika blagovne znamke zahteva njeno registracijo v lastnem imenu“.
Such an explicit reference to the principal's trade mark gives the prima facie impression that the EUTM applied for must be the same as the earlier mark.
Takšno izrecno sklicevanje na imetnikovo blagovno znamko daje na prvi pogled vtis, da mora biti blagovna znamka EU, za katero je vložena prijava, enaka prejšnji znamki.
Hence, a literal interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR would lead to the conclusion that its application is only possible where the agent or representative intends to register a mark identical to that of the proprietor.
Zato bi dobesedna razlaga člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU privedla do sklepne ugotovitve, da je prijava mogoča le, če posrednik ali zastopnik namerava registrirati znamko, ki je enaka imetnikovi znamki.
Moreover, the text of Article 8(3) EUTMR does not refer to the goods and services for which the application has been filed and for which the earlier mark is protected and, thus, gives no guidance as to what the exact relationship between the respective goods and services should be for the Article to apply.
Poleg tega se besedilo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sklicuje na blago in storitve, za katere je bila vložena prijava in za katere je zaščitena prejšnja znamka, in zato ne zagotavlja nobenih smernic v zvezi s tem, kakšno naj bo torej razmerje med zadevnim blagom in storitvami, da se lahko uporablja zadevni člen.
However, applying Article 8(3) EUTMR exclusively to identical signs for identical goods or services would render this provision largely ineffective, as it would allow the applicant to escape its consequences by merely making slight modifications either to the earlier mark or to the specification of goods and services.
Vendar bi izključna uporaba člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za enake znake za enako blago ali storitve povzročila, da bi ta določba postala pretežno neučinkovita, saj bi prijavitelju omogočila, da se izogne posledicam, tako da le nekoliko spremeni prejšnjo znamko ali specifikacijo blaga in storitev.
In such a case, the proprietor's interests would be seriously prejudiced, especially if the earlier mark were already in use and the variations made by the applicant were not significant enough to rule out confusion.
V takšnem primeru bi to pomenilo resen poseg v imetnikove interese, zlasti če bi se prejšnja znamka že uporabljala, spremembe, ki jih je sprejel prijavitelj, pa ne bi bile dovolj izrazite, da bi bilo mogoče izključiti zmedo.
What is more, if the application were allowed to proceed to registration despite its similarity to the earlier mark, the applicant would be in a position to prevent any subsequent registration and/or use of the earlier mark by the original proprietor within the EU, by relying on Article 8(1) or 9(2) EUTMR, or the equivalent provisions of national law.
Še več, če bi se prijava kljub podobnosti prejšnji znamki nadaljevala s fazo registracije, bi lahko prijavitelj prvotnemu imetniku preprečil vse naknadne registracije in/ali uporabo prejšnje znamke v EU s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) ali 9(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali enakovredne določbe nacionalne zakonodaje.
To sum up, in view of the need to effectively protect the legitimate proprietor against unfair practices by its representatives, a restrictive interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR must be avoided.
Na kratko, zaradi potrebe po učinkoviti zaščiti zakonitega imetnika se je treba pred nepoštenim ravnanjem njegovih zastopnikov izogibati ozki razlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, Article 8(3) EUTMR must be applied where the respective marks are identical or where there is a relation between them comparable to the examples in the below table; and
Zato je treba člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabiti, če sta zadevni znamki enaki ali če med njima obstaja razmerje, primerljivo s primeri v preglednici v nadaljevanju, in
when the goods and services in conflict are closely related or equivalent in commercial terms.
kadar so nasprotujoče si blago in storitve tesno povezani ali enakovredni v komercialnem smislu.
The requirement ‘equivalent in commercial terms' must be interpreted in a narrow sense and does not have the same meaning as ‘similar' pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (15/09/2015, R 2406/20145, STUDIOLINE / STUDIOLINE et al., § 17).
Zahtevo enakovredni v komercialnem smislu je treba razlagati v ožjem smislu in nima enakega pomena kot podobni v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (15/09/2015, R 2406/20145, STUDIOLINE / STUDIOLINE et al., § 17).