natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the applicant fails to submit a request for renewal or to pay the renewal fee, the 1-year time limit starts on the day on which the protection ends, and not on the date the further 6-month time limit expires.
Če prijavitelj ne vloži zahteve za podaljšanje ali ne plača pristojbine za podaljšanje, začne enoletni rok teči na dan, ko preneha veljati zaščita, in ne na dan izteka dodatnega šestmesečnega roka.
If the application for restitutio in integrum is filed late, it will be rejected as inadmissible.
Če se zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje vloži prepozno, jo bo Urad zavrnil kot nedopustno.
3.7 Fees
Pristojbine
Article 104(3) and Annex I (22) EUTMR
Člen 67(3) Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
The applicant must also pay the fee for restitutio in integrum within the same time limit (see paragraph 3.6 above).
Prijavitelj mora v istem roku (glej odstavek 3.6 zgoraj) plačati tudi pristojbino za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje.
If the applicant does not pay the fee by expiry of the time limit, the application for restitutio in integrum will be deemed not to have been filed.
Če prijavitelj ne plača pristojbine do izteka roka, se zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje ne šteje za vloženo.
In the event the application is deemed not to have been filed due to late or insufficient payment of the fee or because it was filed in relation to a time limit that is excluded from restitutio in integrum (see paragraph 3.4 above), any fee paid (including late or insufficient fees) will be refunded.
Če se zahteva ne šteje za vloženo, ker je bila pristojbina plačana prepozno ali le delno ali ker je bila vložena v zvezi z rokom, ki je izključen iz vrnitve v prejšnje stanje (glej odstavek 3.4 zgoraj), se vse plačane pristojbine (vključno s prepozno ali le delno plačanimi pristojbinami) povrnejo.
However, once the application for restitutio in integrum has been deemed to have been filed, the fee will not be refunded if the request for restitutio in integrum is later withdrawn, rejected as inadmissible or rejected on the grounds of the substance of the claim (i.e. if the ‘all due care' requirement is not fulfilled, see paragraph 2.1. above).
Ko pa se zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje šteje za vloženo, se pristojbina ne povrne, če se zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje zatem umakne, zavrne kot nedopustna ali zavrne na podlagi njene vsebine (tj. če ni izpolnjen pogoj skrbnega ravnanja, glej odstavek 2.1 zgoraj).
3.8 Languages
Jeziki
Article 80 CDIR
Člen 98 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
For example, in the registration procedure, this is the correspondence language indicated in the application; in the opposition procedure, it is the language of the opposition procedure; and in the renewal procedure, it is any of the Office's five languages.
Pri postopku registracije je to na primer jezik korespondence, naveden v prijavi, pri postopku ugovora je to jezik postopka ugovora, pri postopku podaljšanja pa je to kateri koli od petih uradnih jezikov Urada.
If the wrong language is used, or if a translation into the correct language is not submitted on time, the application for restitutio in integrum will be rejected as inadmissible.
Če se uporabi napačen jezik ali se prevod v pravi jezik ne predloži pravočasno, se zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje zavrne kot nedopustna.
3.9 Particulars and evidence
Podatki in dokazila
Articles 97 and 104 EUTMR
Člena 97 in 104 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Articles 65 and 67 CDR
Člena 65 in 67 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
In its application for restitutio in integrum the applicant must state the grounds on which the application is based and set out the facts on which it relies.
Prijavitelj mora v zahtevi za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje navesti razloge, na katerih zahteva temelji, in dejstva, na katera se opira.
As granting restitutio in integrum is essentially based on facts, it is advisable for the requesting party to submit evidence by means of sworn or affirmed statements.
Ker odobritev vrnitve v prejšnje stanje v bistvu temelji na dejstvih, je priporočljivo, da stranka, ki zahteva vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, predloži dokaze v obliki zapriseženih ali potrjenih izjav.
Statements drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees are generally given less weight than independent evidence (16/06/2015, T586/13, Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW (fig.) / Gauff et al., EU:T:2015:385, § 29).
Izjave, ki jih zainteresirane stranke sestavijo same ali jih sestavijo njihovi zaposleni, imajo običajno manjšo težo kot neodvisni dokazi (16/06/2015, T586/13, Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW (fig.) / Gauff et al., EU:T:2015:385, § 29).
Moreover, the act that was omitted must be completed, together with the application for restitutio in integrum, at the latest by the time limit for submitting that application.
Poleg tega je treba zamujeno dejanje skupaj z zahtevo za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje opraviti najpozneje do izteka roka za oddajo te zahteve.
A request for extension of the time limit will not be accepted as the ‘omitted act'.
Zahteve za podaljšanje roka Urad ne bo sprejel kot zamujenega dejanja.
If the grounds on which the application is based, and the facts on which it relies are not submitted, the application for restitutio in integrum will be rejected as inadmissible.
Če se razlogi, na katerih zadeva temelji, in dejstva, na katera se opira, ne predložijo, bo Urad zahtevo za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje zavrnil kot nedopustno.
The same applies if the omitted act is not completed.
Enako velja, če se ne opravi zamujeno dejanje.
3.10 Competence
Pristojnost
Article 104 EUTMR
Člen 104 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 67 CDR
Člen 67 Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
The division or department competent to decide on the act that was omitted (i.e. responsible for the procedure in which failure to meet the deadline occurred) is responsible for dealing with applications for restitutio in integrum.
Za obravnavo zahtev za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje je odgovoren oddelek, ki je pristojen za odločanje glede zamujenega dejanja (tj. odgovoren za postopek, v katerem rok ni bil izpolnjen).
Articles 53(5), (7) and (8), and 104(7), Articles 111(3)(k) and (l) and 116(1)(a) EUTMR
Člen 53(5), (7) in (8), člen 104(7), člen 111(3)(k) in (l) ter člen 116(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 22(4) and (5), Article 69(3)(m) and (n) and Article 70(2) CDIR
Člen 22(4) in (5), člen 69(3)(m) in (n) ter člen 70(2) Izvedbene uredbe o modelih Skupnosti
The EUTMR and CDR provide for a mention of the re-establishment of rights to be published in the Bulletin.
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU in Uredba o modelih Skupnosti določata, da je treba ponovno vzpostavitev pravic objaviti v Biltenu.
This mention will be published only if the failure to meet the time limit that gave rise to the application for restitutio in integrum has actually led to publication of a change of status of the EUTM or RCD application or registration, because only in such a case would third parties be able to take advantage of the absence of such rights.
Takšna objava je mogoča le, če je bila zaradi neizpolnitve roka, na katerem temelji zahteva za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, dejansko objavljena sprememba stanja prijave ali registracije blagovne znamke EU ali modela Skupnosti, ker bi lahko tretje osebe le v tem primeru izkoristile neobstoj takšnih pravic.
For example, the Office will publish a mention that restitutio in integrum has been granted if it published a mention that registration had expired due to failure to meet the time limit for paying the renewal fee.
Urad bo na primer objavil odobritev vrnitve v prejšnje stanje, če je objavil iztek registracije zaradi neizpolnitve roka za plačilo pristojbine za podaljšanje.
In the event of such a publication, a corresponding entry will also be made in the Register.
V primeru takšne objave se opravi tudi ustrezen vpis v register.
No mention of receipt of an application for restitutio in integrum will be published.
Prejem zahteve za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje se ne objavi.
3.12 Decision, role of other parties in restitutio in integrum proceedings
Odločba, vloga drugih strank v postopku za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje
Articles 66 and 67 EUTMR
Člena 66 in 67 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
The applicant for restitutio in integrum is the sole party to the restitutio in integrum proceedings, even where failure to meet the time limit occurred in inter partes proceedings.
Vložnik zahteve za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje je edina stranka v postopku za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, tudi če rok ni bil izpolnjen v postopku inter partes.
The decision on restitutio in integrum will be taken, if possible, in the decision terminating the proceedings.
Če je mogoče, se sklep o vrnitvi v prejšnje stanje sprejme v okviru odločbe o končanju postopka.
If, for specific reasons, the Office makes an interim decision on the application for restitutio in integrum, it will generally not allow a separate appeal.
Če Urad iz nekih razlogov sprejme vmesno odločbo o zahtevi za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, na splošno ne bo dovolil ločene pritožbe.
The applicant for restitutio in integrum can appeal the refusal of its request for restitutio in integrum together with an appeal against the decision terminating the proceedings.
Vložnik zahteve za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje se lahko pritoži na zavrnitev svoje zahteve za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje skupaj s pritožbo zoper odločbo, s katero je bil postopek končan.
The decision to grant restitutio in integrum cannot be appealed.
Pritožba zoper odločbo o odobritvi vrnitve v prejšnje stanje ni mogoča.
The other party to inter partes proceedings will be informed both that restitutio in integrum has been requested and about the outcome of the proceedings.
Druga stranka v postopku inter partes bo obveščena tako o zahtevi za vrnitev v prejšnje kot o izidu postopka.
If restitutio in integrum is actually granted, the other party's only means of redress is to initiate third-party proceedings (see paragraph 4 below).
Če se vrnitev v prejšnje stanje dejansko odobri, je edino pravno sredstvo druge stranke, da vloži pritožbo (glej odstavek 4 spodaj).
4 Third-Party Proceedings
Pritožba tretjih oseb
Article 104(6) and (7) EUTMR
Člen 104(6) in (7) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
A third party who, in the period between the loss of rights and publication of the mention of the re-establishment of rights,
Tretja oseba, ki je v obdobju med izgubo pravic in objavo ponovne vzpostavitve teh pravic:
has, in good faith, put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign that is identical or similar to the EUTM, or
v dobri veri dala blago na trg ali opravljala storitve pod znakom, ki je enak ali podoben blagovni znamki EU, ali ki je
in the case of a Community design, has, in good faith, put on the market products in which a design included within the scope of protection of the RCD is incorporated or to which it is applied,
v primeru modela Skupnosti v dobri veri na trgu ponudila proizvode, ki vključujejo model, ki je del varstva registriranega modela Skupnosti, ali za katere se model uporablja,
may bring third-party proceedings against the decision re-establishing the rights of the applicant, proprietor or holder of the EUTM or RCD.
se lahko pritoži zoper odločbo o ponovni vzpostavitvi pravic prijavitelja, lastnika ali imetnika blagovne znamke EU ali registriranega modela Skupnosti.
This request is subject to a 2-month time limit, which starts:
Za to zahtevo velja dvomesečni rok, ki začne:
on the date of publication, where publication has taken place;
v primeru objave teči na datum zadevne objave,
on the date on which the decision to grant restitutio in integrum took effect, where publication has not taken place.
kadar ni bilo objave, teči na datum, ko je začela veljati odločba o odobritvi vrnitve v prejšnje stanje.
The Regulations do not contain any provisions governing this procedure.
Uredbe ne vsebujejo nobenih določb, ki bi urejale ta postopek.
The department or unit that took the decision to re-establish the rights is responsible for third-party proceedings.
Za pritožbe tretjih oseb je pristojen oddelek ali enota, ki je sprejela odločbo o ponovni vzpostavitvi pravic.
The Office will conduct adversarial inter partes proceedings, which means that it will hear both parties before taking a decision.
Urad bo izvedel kontradiktorni postopek inter partes, kar pomeni, da bo pred sprejetjem odločbe zaslišal obe stranki.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part A, General Rules Page 11
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del A, Splošna pravila Stran 1
Enlargement
Širitev
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (EUIPO)
ZA INTELEKTUALNO LASTNINO (EUIPO)
SECTION 9
RAZDELEK 9
ENLARGEMENT
ŠIRITEV
2 Rules Concerning Examination 3
2 Pravila glede preizkušanja 3
2.1 Automatic extension of EUTMs to new Member States 3
2.1 Samodejna širitev blagovnih znamk EU v nove države članice 3
2.2 Pending EUTM applications 3
2.2 Nerešene prijave blagovne znamke EU 3
2.3 Distinctiveness acquired through use 4
2.3 Razlikovalni učinek, ki se pridobi z uporabo 4
2.4 Bad faith 4
2.4 Slaba vera 4
2.5 Conversion 5
2.5 Konverzija 5
2.6 Other practical consequences 5
2.6 Druge praktične posledice 5
2.6.1 Professional representation 5
2.6.1 Poklicno zastopanje 5
2.6.2 First and second language 5
2.6.2 Prvi in drugi jezik 5
2.6.3 Translation 5
2.6.3 Prevajanje 5
2.6.4 Seniority 5
2.6.4 Prednost starejše znamke 5
2.6.5 Search 6
2.6.5 Poizvedba 6
3 Rules Concerning Oppositions and Cancellations 6
3 Pravila glede ugovorov in izbrisov 6
Annex 1 10
Priloga 1 10
This section discusses the rules relating to the accession of new Member States to the European Union and the consequences for holders of European Union trade marks.
Ta razdelek obravnava pravila v zvezi s pristopom novih držav članic k Evropski uniji in posledice za imetnike blagovnih znamk Evropske unije.
Both absolute and relative grounds are dealt with in this section.
V tem razdelku so obravnavani absolutni in relativni razlogi.
Article 209 EUTMR contains the relevant provisions relating to enlargement and European Union trade marks.
Člen 209 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vsebuje zadevne določbe v zvezi s širitvijo in blagovnimi znamkami Evropske unije.
These provisions were introduced into the Regulation pursuant to the 2004 enlargement process (at that time Article 147a CTMR) and have remained unchanged during successive enlargement processes.
Te določbe so bile v uredbo uvedene po širitvenem procesu leta 2004 (tedaj člen 147a Uredbe o znamki Skupnosti) in so ostale nespremenjene med naslednjimi širitvenimi procesi.
The only modification in the text of the Regulation is the addition of the names of the new Member States.
Edine spremembe v besedilu uredbe so dodana imena novih držav članic.
A table in Annex 1 lists the new Member States with their accession dates and official languages.
V preglednici v Prilogi 1 so navedene nove države članice, skupaj z datumom pristopa in uradnimi jeziki.
2 Rules Concerning Examination
Pravila glede preizkušanja
2.1 Automatic extension of EUTMs to new Member States
Samodejna širitev blagovnih znamk EU v nove države članice
Article 209(1) EUTMR lays down the basic rule of enlargement, which is that all existing EUTM applications and registered EUTMs are automatically extended to the new Member States without any kind of additional intervention by the European Union Intellectual Property Office, any other body or the holders of the rights concerned.
Člen 209(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa osnovno pravilo širitve, da se vse prijave blagovne znamke EU in registrirane blagovne znamke EU samodejno razširijo v nove države članice brez kakršnega koli dodatnega posredovanja Urada Evropske unije za intelektualno lastnino, katerega koli drugega organa ali imetnika zadevnih pravic.
There is no need to pay any extra fees or complete any other administrative formality.
Za to ni treba plačati dodatnih pristojbin ali izpolnjevati katerih koli drugih upravnih formalnosti.
The extension of existing EUTM applications or EUTMs to the territories of new Member States ensures that these rights have equal effect throughout the EU and complies with the fundamental principle of the unitary character of the EUTM.
Širitev obstoječih prijav blagovne znamke EU ali blagovnih znamk EU na ozemlje novih držav članic zagotavlja enak učinek teh pravic po vsej EU in je skladna s temeljnim načelom enotnosti blagovne znamke EU.
2.2 Pending EUTM applications
Nerešene prijave blagovne znamke EU
Article 209(2) EUTMR enshrines an important transitional provision, according to which EUTM applications pending on the accession date may not be refused on the basis of any absolute ground for refusal if this ground becomes applicable merely because of the accession of a new Member State (‘grandfathering clause').
Člen 209(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vsebuje pomembno prehodno določbo, v skladu s katero prijav blagovne znamke EU, ki so na dan pristopa v postopku prijave, ni mogoče zavrniti na podlagi kakršnega koli absolutnega razloga za zavrnitev, če se je ta podlaga začela uporabljati le zaradi pristopa novih držav članic („predhodna določba“).
In practice, this means that if an EUTM application is non-distinctive, descriptive, generic, deceptive or contrary to public policy or morality in the language or in the territory of a new Member State, it will not be refused if its filing date is before this State's accession date.
V praksi to pomeni, da prijava blagovne znamke EU ne bo zavrnjena, če je brez razlikovalnega učinka, opisna, generična, zavajajoča ali v nasprotju z javnim redom ali moralnimi načeli v jeziku ali na območju nove države članice in če je bila vložena pred datumom pristopa te države.
For applications filed after the accession date the grounds for refusal of Article 7(1) EUTMR apply also for the new Member State.
Za prijave, vložene po datumu pristopa, se razlogi za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabljajo tudi za novo državo članico.
This is the case even when the EUTM application has a priority date that is earlier than the relevant accession date.
Tako je tudi, kadar je datum prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU pred zadevnim datumom pristopa.
The priority right does not protect the EUTM applicant against any change in the law relevant to its application.
Prednostna pravica ne ščiti prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU pred kakršnimi koli spremembami zakonodaje v zvezi z njegovo prijavo.
Therefore, examiners have to apply the same examination criteria as for all the other official languages of the EU.
Zato bodo preizkuševalci uporabljali enaka merila preizkušanja za vse druge uradne jezike EU.
However, this principle should be applied with caution as it merely means that the criteria for applying Article 7(1) EUTMR should not be made stricter as a result of the accession of new Member States.
Vendar je pri uporabi tega načela potrebna previdnost, saj pomeni le to, da meril za uporabo člena 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni treba poostriti zaradi pristopa novih držav članic.
The inverse conclusion that terms that are descriptive in a language or in the territory of a new Member State may, in any event, be registered for EUTM applications filed prior to the accession date will not always be correct.
Nasprotno sklepanje, da se lahko izrazi, ki so opisni v jeziku ali na ozemlju nove države članice, v vsakem primeru registrirajo za prijave blagovne znamke EU, vložene pred datumom pristopa, ni vedno pravilno.
Consideration must also be given to geographical indications already protected in the new Member States and to protection arising from EU legislation or bilateral treaties between the new Member States and the EU or existing Member States.
Upoštevati je treba tudi geografske označbe, ki so že zaščitene v novih državah članicah in varstvo, ki izhaja iz zakonodaje EU in dvostranskih sporazumov med novimi državami članicami in EU ali sedanjimi državami članicami.
More precisely, the grounds for refusal of Article 7(1)(f) and (g) EUTMR, relating to marks contrary to public policy or morality and deceptive marks respectively, are only affected by this provision insofar as the deceptiveness or breach of public morality is due to a meaning that is only understood in a language of a new Member State.
Natančneje, ta določba na razloge za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1)(f) in (g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zvezi z znamkami, ki so v nasprotju z javnim redom ali moralo, in zavajajočimi znamkami vpliva samo, če prihaja do kršenja javne morale zaradi pomena, ki je razumljiv izključno v jeziku nove države članice.
The Office interprets Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR in accordance with EU-wide criteria, irrespective of the relative levels of morality in different countries of the EU.
Urad člen 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlaga v skladu z merili, ki veljajo v vsej EU, ne glede na relativne stopnje morale v različnih državah EU.
Finally, the provision of Article 209(2) EUTMR does not affect the grounds for refusal of Article 7(1)(e) or (i) EUTMR: the former relates to signs consisting exclusively of the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves, the shape, or another characteristic, which is necessary to obtain a technical result or the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods, and the latter relates to badges and emblems not protected by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention but of particular public interest.
Nazadnje, določba iz člena 209(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne vpliva na razloge za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1)(e) ali (i) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU: prvi se nanaša na znake, sestavljene izključno iz oblike ali druge značilnosti, ki izhaja iz narave blaga, oblike ali druge značilnosti blaga, ki je nujna za dosego tehničnega učinka, ali oblike ali druge značilnosti, ki blagu daje bistveno vrednost, medtem ko se drugi nanaša na znamenja in embleme, ki niso zaščiteni na podlagi člena 6ter Pariške konvencije, vendar imajo poseben javni pomen.
2.3 Distinctiveness acquired through use
Razlikovalni učinek, ki se pridobi z uporabo
According to Office practice, distinctiveness acquired through use (Article 7(3) EUTMR) must exist on the EUTM filing date and subsist until its registration date.
V skladu s prakso Urada mora razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), obstajati na dan vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU in obstati do datuma njene registracije.
Where an applicant for an EUTM application filed before the accession date is able to demonstrate that acquired distinctiveness existed at the filing date, Article 209(2) EUTMR precludes an objection based on the ground that it is not distinctive through use in the new Member States.
Kadar lahko prijavitelj, ki je vložil prijavo blagovne znamke EU pred datumom pristopa, dokaže, da je pridobljen razlikovalni učinek obstajal na dan vložitve prijave, člen 209(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izključuje ugovor na podlagi dejstva, da razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, ne obstaja v novih državah članicah.
Therefore, the applicant does not have to prove acquired distinctiveness in the new Member States.
Zato prijavitelju ni treba dokazovati pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka v novih državah članicah.
2.4 Bad faith
Slaba vera
The Office will consider the filing of an EUTM application as having been made in bad faith if it was made prior to the accession date for a term that is descriptive or otherwise not eligible for registration in the language of a new Member State for the sole purpose of obtaining exclusive rights to a non-registrable term or for otherwise objectionable purposes.
Urad šteje, da vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU ni bila opravljena v dobri veri, če je bila opravljena pred datumom pristopa za izraz, ki je opisen ali ki iz kakršnega koli drugega razloga ni upravičen do registracije v jeziku nove države članice, izključno za pridobitev izključnih pravic za izraz, ki ga ni mogoče registrirati, ali za sicer sporne namene.
This has no practical effect during the examination stage, as bad faith does not constitute an absolute ground for refusal and, consequently, the Office has no authority to object ex officio.
To nima nobenega praktičnega učinka v fazi preizkušanja, ker slaba vera ne pomeni absolutnega razloga za zavrnitev in ker Urad posledično ni pooblaščen za ugovor po uradni dolžnosti.