natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For any PGIs for spirit drinks added subsequently, the corresponding amendment of the regulation contains the relevant information.
Za vse pozneje dodane ZGO za žgane pijače so upoštevne informacije vključene v ustrezno uredbo o spremembi.
For any PGIs for aromatised wines added subsequently, the corresponding amendment of the regulation contains the relevant information.
Za vse pozneje dodane ZGO za aromatizirana vina so upoštevne informacije vključene v ustrezno uredbo o spremembi.
Details of the date of application and registration for PDOs/PGIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs are available in the DOOR database.
Podatki o datumu prijave in registraciji ZOP/ZGO za kmetijske proizvode in živila so na voljo v podatkovni zbirki DOOR.
3 Situations Covered by the EU Regulations
Situacije, ki jih zajemajo uredbe EU
Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR applies (provided that the other conditions also apply) in all of the following situations:
Člen 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja (če se uporabljajo tudi drugi pogoji) v vseh naslednjih primerih:
the EUTM application consists solely of a whole PDO/PGI (direct use);
prijava blagovne znamke EU je sestavljena samo iz celotne ZOP/ZGO (neposredna uporaba);
the EUTM application contains a whole PDO/PGI in addition to other word or figurative elements (direct or indirect use);
prijava blagovne znamke EU poleg celotne ZOP/ZGO vsebuje druge besedne ali figurativne elemente (neposredna ali posredna uporaba);
the EUTM application contains or consists of a misuse, an imitation or an evocation of a PDO/PGI;
prijava blagovne znamke EU je sestavljena iz zlorabe, posnemanja ali prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO oziroma vsebuje zlorabo, posnemanje ali prikazovanje;
other misleading indications and practices;
druge zavajajoče navedbe in prakse;
the use of the EUTM application would exploit the reputation of PDOs/PGIs.
raba prijave blagovne znamke EU bi izkoriščala sloves ZOP/ZGO.
However, a number of limits to the scope of protection are possible (see paragraph 3.6 below), and special rules apply to trade marks in conflict with more than one PGI/PDO (see paragraph 3.7 below).
Mogoče so številne omejitve obsega varstva (glej odstavek 3.6 v nadaljevanju), za blagovne znamke, ki sovpadajo z več kot eno ZOP/ZGO, pa veljajo posebna pravila (glej odstavek 3.7 v nadaljevanju).
3.1 EUTM consists solely of a whole PDO/PGI (direct use)
Blagovna znamka EU je sestavljena samo iz celotne ZOP/ZGO (neposredna uporaba)
This situation covers the ‘direct use' of a PDO/PGI as an EUTM, that is, the trade mark consists solely of the name of the PDO/PGI.
Ta primer zajema neposredno uporabo ZOP/ZGO kot blagovne znamke EU, kar pomeni, da je znamka sestavljena samo iz imena ZOP/ZGO.
If the mark consists solely of the PDO/PGI, the EUTM also falls under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, since it is considered descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods in question.
Če je blagovna znamka EU sestavljena samo iz ZOP/ZGO, spada tudi na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj se šteje, da opisuje geografsko poreklo zadevnega blaga.
This means that the examiner's objection will simultaneously raise absolute grounds for refusal under both Article 7(1)(c) and (j) EUTMR.
To pomeni, da bo ugovor preizkuševalca hkrati temeljil na absolutnih razlogih za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1)(c) in (j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
There is an exception to the application of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, pursuant to Article 74(2) EUTMR, when the EUTM is a collective trade mark and the regulations governing use thereof include the particulars envisaged in Article 75(2) EUTMR (for the contrary situation, where the mark had been applied for as an individual mark, see decision of 07/03/2006, R 1073/20051, TEQUILA, § 15).
Omejitev zadevnega blaga (za skladnost s specifikacijami ZOP/ZGO) je običajno sredstvo za razveljavitev ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (glej odstavek 4.3 v nadaljevanju), za člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa ta omejitev ni pomembna.
While restricting the relevant goods (to comply with the specifications of the PDO/PGI) is usually a means of waiving the objection under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR (see paragraph 4.3 below), this restriction is irrelevant for Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.
Na primer, za prijavo besedne znamke „Bergerac“ za vina bo hkrati vložen ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(c) in (j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU: sestavlja jo samo ZOP „Bergerac“ in je zato opisna.
3.2 EUTM contains a whole PDO/PGI in addition to other word or figurative elements (direct or indirect use)
Blagovna znamka EU poleg celotne ZOP/ZGO vsebuje druge besedne ali figurativne elemente (neposredna ali posredna uporaba)
This situation also covers ‘direct use' of a PDO/PGI in an EUTM through the reproduction of the name of the PDO/PGI together with other elements.
Ta primer zajema tudi neposredno uporabo ZOP/ZGO v blagovni znamki EU na podlagi reprodukcije imena ZOP/ZGO skupaj z drugimi elementi.
The following EUTMs are considered to fall under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR since they contain the whole denomination of a PDO/PGI.
Šteje se, da naslednje blagovne znamke EU spadajo na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ker vsebujejo celotno poimenovanje ZOP/ZGO.
Under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, it is irrelevant whether or not the other word or figurative elements may give the trade mark distinctive character.
V skladu s členom 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, ali drugi besedni oziroma figurativni elementi znamki dajejo razlikovalni učinek ali ne.
The sign can be acceptable as a whole under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR and can still be objected to (as in the cases above) under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR.
Znak kot celota je lahko sprejemljiv v skladu s členom 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in je zoper njega še vedno mogoče vložiti ugovor (kot v zgornjih primerih) na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
There is ‘indirect use' of a PDO/PGI, for example, when the PDO/PGI appears in a complex trade mark (such as the representation of a label) in smaller characters as information about the origin or type of the product or as part of the producer's address.
Primer „posredne uporabe“ ZOP/ZGO je, kadar se ZOP/ZGO v sestavljeni znamki (kot je prikaz etikete) pojavi v manjših črkah kot informacije o poreklu ali vrsti izdelka ali kot del naslova pridelovalca.
In such cases the trade mark will be objected to irrespective of the position or size of the PDO/PGI within the trade mark as a whole, provided that it is visible.
V takšnih primerih bo mogoče zoper znamko vložiti ugovor ne glede na položaj ali velikost ZOP/ZGO v znamki kot celoti, če je vidna.
There must be a logical separation of the PDO/PGI from the rest of the term for it to be identifiable and liable to objection.
ZOP/ZGO mora biti logično ločena od preostalega izraza, da bi bila prepoznavna in sporna.
A trade mark will not be liable to objection when it contains the PDO/PGI as part of a word element that does not bring to the consumer's mind the product whose designation is protected.
Blagovna znamka ni sporna, če vsebuje ZOP/ZGO kot del besednega elementa, ob katerem potrošnik ne pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je zaščitena.
This is normally the case when the term has its own meaning.
Običajno je tako, kadar ima izraz lasten pomen.
Examples where an objection should not be raised: TORONTO (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Toro'), EXCAVADORA (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Cava'), IMPORT (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Port').
Primeri, v katerih ni treba vložiti ugovora: TORONTO (ne navaja ZOP „Toro“), EXCAVADORA (ne navaja ZOP „Cava“), IMPORT (ne navaja ZOP „Port“).
Examples where an objection was raised: 18/11/2014, R 2462/20132, TOROLOCO (fig.) and 20/01/2014, R 1900/20135, PARMATUTTO.
Primeri, v katerih je bil vložen ugovor: 18/11/2014, R 2462/20132, TOROLOCO (fig.) and 20/01/2014, R 1900/20135, PARMATUTTO.
3.3 EUTM consists of a misuse, an imitation or evocation of a PDO/PGI
Blagovna znamka EU je sestavljena iz zlorabe, posnemanja ali prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO
Neither the EUTMR nor the EU regulations define the meaning of ‘misuse', ‘imitation' or ‘evocation'.
Pomen izrazov „zloraba“, „posnemanje“ in „prikazovanje“ ni opredeljen niti v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU niti v predpisih EU.
The term ‘evocation' requires less than ‘imitation' or ‘misuse' (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33).
Za izraz „prikazovanje“ je potrebno manj kot za „posnemanje“ ali „zlorabo“ (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33).
Nevertheless, the Office considers the terms ‘imitation' and ‘evocation' as two corollaries of essentially the same concept.
Urad pa izraza „posnemanje“ in „prikazovanje“ šteje za posledici v bistvu istega pojma.
The mark ‘imitates' (mimics, reproduces elements of, etc.), with the result that the product designated by the PDO/PGI is ‘evoked' (called to mind).
Znamka „posnema“ (imitira, reproducira elemente itd.), kar povzroči „prikazovanje“ (priklic v spomin) proizvoda, ki ga označuje ZOP/ZGO.
To a large extent, therefore, they are closely related concepts.
Zato sta ta pojma večinoma tesno povezana.
Evocation/imitation
Prikazovanje (navajanje)/posnemanje
According to the Court, ‘evocation' covers ‘a situation where the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected' (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 25; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 44; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21).
Sodišče je odločilo, da „navajanje“ zajema primer, v katerem izraz, uporabljen za opis proizvoda, vključuje del zaščitenega imena, tako da potrošnik, ko se sreča z imenom proizvoda, pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je zaščitena (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 25; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 44; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21).
Consumers must establish a link between the term used to designate the product (i.e. the trade mark) and the product whose designation is protected (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 22), whilst it is necessary to take account of the presumed expectation of the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.
Potrošniki morajo ustvariti povezavo med izrazom, ki je uporabljen za opis proizvoda (tj. blagovno znamko), in proizvodom, katerega označba je zaščitena (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 22), pri tem pa je treba upoštevati domnevno pričakovanje povprečnega potrošnika, ki je normalno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in preudaren.
According to the Advocate General (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33), ‘the term “evocation” is objective, so that it is not necessary to show that the owner of the mark intended to evoke the protected name'.
Po mnenju generalnega pravobranilca (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33) je izraz „navajanje“ objektiven, zato ni treba dokazati, da je imetnik znamke nameraval navesti zaščiteno ime.
Importantly, the EU regulations protect geographical indications and denominations of origin throughout the territory of the European Union.
Pomembno je, da predpisi EU ščitijo geografske označbe in označbe porekla na celotnem ozemlju Evropske unije.
As a result, the Court has ruled that in order to guarantee effective and uniform protection of those PGI/PDOs in that territory, it must be considered that the concept of the consumer covers European consumers and not merely consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the PGI/PDO is manufactured (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 27).
Zato je Sodišče odločilo, da je treba za zagotavljanje učinkovitega in enotnega varstva teh ZOP/ZGO na zadevnem ozemlju šteti, da se pojem potrošnik nanaša na evropskega potrošnika, in ne le na potrošnika države članice, v kateri je proizveden proizvod, pri katerem gre za navajanje ZOP/ZGO (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 27).
Taking the Viiniverla case as an example, the possible evocation of the PGI ‘Calvados' by a Finnish manufacturer of cider spirit named Verlados has to be assessed, based on a number of criteria (see further down), with respect to European consumers, not only Finnish consumers.
Na primeru zadeve Viiniverla je treba na podlagi številnih meril (glej v nadaljevanju) presoditi o morebitnem prikazovanju ZGO „Calvados“ finskega proizvajalca žganja iz jabolčnika z imenom Verlados ob upoštevanju evropskih potrošnikov, in ne samo finskih potrošnikov.
In the light of the above, the Office finds that there may be evocation or imitation of a PDO/PGI where:
Urad glede na zgoraj navedeno ugotovi morebitni obstoj prikazovanja ali posnemanja ZOP/ZGO, če:
(a) the EUTM incorporates the significant part of the PDO/PGI (the part of the PDO/PGI from which the consumer identifies the PDO/PGI and which is not the generic element);
blagovna znamka EU zajema velik del ZOP/ZGO (del ZOP/ZGO, po katerem potrošnik prepozna ZOP/ZGO in ki ni splošni element);
(b) the EUTM contains an equivalent adjective/noun that indicates the same geographical origin;
blagovna znamka EU vsebuje enakovreden pridevnik/samostalnik, ki označuje enako geografsko poreklo;
(c) the PDO/PGI is translated;
je ZOP/ZGO prevedena;
(d) the EUTM includes a ‘de-localiser' expression in addition to the PDO/PGI or its evocation.
blagovna znamka EU poleg ZOP/ZGO ali njenega prikazovanja vključuje „delokalizacijski“ izraz.
The EUTM incorporates the significant part of the PDO/PGI
Blagovna znamka EU vključuje velik del označbe ZOP/ZGO
There may be evocation when the EUTM incorporates the significant part of a PDO/PGI (i.e. not the generic element of the PDO/PGI) with the result that the EUTM triggers in the consumer's mind a link with the product whose designation is protected.
Prikazovanje morda obstaja, če blagovna znamka EU zajema velik del ZOP/ZGO (tj. ne splošnega elementa ZOP/ZGO), kar povzroči, da blagovna znamka EU pri potrošniku sproži povezavo s proizvodom, katerega ime je zaščiteno.
A significant part is usually but not necessarily the geographical element contained in a PDO/PGI.
Velik del je običajno, vendar ne nujno, geografski element, ki ga vsebuje ZOP/ZGO.
As indicated above, according to the Court (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21, cited above), the EUTM must trigger in the consumer's mind the image of the product whose designation is protected, in the sense that a link is established.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Sodišče odločilo (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21, navedene zgoraj), da mora blagovna znamka EU pri potrošniku vzbuditi misel na proizvod, katerega ime je zaščiteno, in sicer v smislu, da ustvari povezavo.
Importantly, evocation is not assessed in the same way as likelihood of confusion.
Pomembno je, da se prikazovanje ne presoja enako kot verjetnost zmede.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether a likelihood of confusion can be established or not in order to find that there is evocation of the PDO/PGI.
Zato za ugotavljanje obstoja prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO ni pomembno, ali je mogoče ugotoviti verjetnost zmede ali ne.
As the Court has held, there can be ‘evocation' even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion.
Sodišče je odločilo, da gre lahko za navajanje tudi, če ni nikakršne verjetnosti zmede.
What matters is, in particular, that an association of ideas regarding the origin of the products is not created in the mind of the public, and that a trader does not take undue advantage of the reputation of the protected geographical indication (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 45).
Pomembno je zlasti, da se v javnosti ne povzroči asociacija na poreklo proizvoda in da se gospodarski subjekt neupravičeno ne okoristi z ugledom zaščitene geografske označbe (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 45).
For evocation, a link must be made with the product whose designation is protected.
Za prikazovanje je treba opredeliti povezavo s proizvodom, katerega označba je zaščitena.
Therefore, whether or not there is evocation will not be analysed according to the principles laid down by the Court in its judgment of 11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528.
Zato se obstoj ali neobstoj navajanja ne bo analiziral v skladu z načeli, ki jih je Sodišče določilo v sodbi z dne 11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528.
In assessing whether such a link is established, the Court has considered:
Pri presoji obstoja te povezave je Sodišče upoštevalo:
whether there is a visual, phonetic or conceptual relationship between the terms:
ali obstaja vidna, fonetična ali konceptualna podobnost med izrazi:
e.g. if the terms share a characteristic beginning, such as Parmesan/Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117);
npr. ali je izrazom skupen značilen začetek, kot je parmezan/Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117),
e.g. if the terms share characteristic roots or endings that have no particular meaning, such as in Gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115) and Verlados/Calvados (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35);
npr. ali so izrazom skupni značilni koreni ali končnice, ki nimajo posebnega pomena, kot je gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115) in Verlados/Calvados (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35,
e.g. if the terms share the same number of letters or syllables, such as Gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115);
npr. ali je izrazom skupno enako število črk ali zlogov, kot je gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115),
e.g. where there is conceptual proximity, such as between Parmesan and Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 47).
npr. ali obstaja konceptualna bližina, kot med izrazi parmezan in Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 47);
the degree of proximity of the goods concerned, including the actual physical appearance or the ingredients and taste of the products covered by the EUTM and the PDO/PGI (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 27).
stopnjo bližine zadevnega blaga, vključno z dejanskim fizičnim videzom ali sestavinami in okusom proizvodov, ki jih zajema blagovna znamka EU in ZOP/ZGO (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 27).
The fact that the goods are comparable does not, as such, lead automatically to the evocation of the PDO/PGI.
Primerljivost blaga ne pomeni nujno prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO.
However, if the goods concerned are identical, this is an element in support of evocation (see paragraph 4.2 below).
Če pa je zadevno blago enako, je to element, ki podpira prikazovanje (glej odstavek 4.2 v nadaljevanju);
whether the part of the PDO/PGI that is included in the trade mark forms a logical and conceptual unit within the mark or not.
ali del ZOP/ZGO, ki je vključen v blagovno znamko, oblikuje logično in konceptualno enoto znotraj znamke ali ne.
Examples of where evocation was found
Primeri, v katerih je bilo ugotovljeno navajanje
Examples of where evocation was not found
Primeri, v katerih navajanje ni bilo ugotovljeno
Equivalent adjectives/nouns
Enakovredni pridevniki/samostalniki
The use of an equivalent adjective/noun to indicate the same origin constitutes an evocation of a PDO/PGI.
Uporaba enakovrednega pridevnika/samostalnika za označevanje enakega porekla pomeni prikazovanje označbe ZOP/ZGO.
Translated PDOs/PGIs
Prevedene označbe ZOP/ZGO
Likewise, there is evocation or imitation of the PDO/PGI when the EUTM contains or consists of a translation of the whole or part of a PDO/PGI in any of the EU languages.
Podobno, navajanje ali posnemanje ZOP/ZGO obstaja, če je blagovna znamka EU sestavljena iz prevoda celotne ZOP/ZGO ali prevoda njenega dela v katerem koli jeziku EU oziroma ga vsebuje.
Trade marks consisting of these terms must be refused under both Article 7(1)(c) and (j) EUTMR rather than solely under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.
Urad pa bo vložil ugovor na prevode ZOP/ZGO samo, če prevod povzroči povezavo s proizvodom, katerega ime je zaščiteno.
However, the Office will object to translations of PDO/PGIs only to the extent that the translation triggers a link with a product whose designation is protected.
Urad na primer ne bo vložil ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za izraz BIK samo zato, ker je, strogo gledano, enakovreden španski besedi TORO - „TORO“ je španska ZOP za vina.
Expressions used as ‘de-localisers'
251/2014, členom 16(b) Uredbe (ES) št.
Therefore, the fact that the PDO/PGI reproduced or evoked in the EUTM is accompanied by these expressions does not cancel out application of Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR.
Zato dejstvo, da ZOP/ZGO, ki je reproducirana ali prikazana v blagovni znamki EU, spremljajo ti izrazi, ne izključuje uporabe člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In other words, even if the public is thereby informed about the actual origin of the product, an objection will still be raised under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR.
Z drugimi besedami, tudi če je javnost v zvezi s tem obveščena o dejanskem poreklu proizvoda, bo še vedno vložen ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Notwithstanding this, the trade mark will be misleading under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR since there is a contradiction between the goods (restricted to the specific PDO/PGI) and the message conveyed by the mark (that the goods are not ‘genuine' PDO/PGI products), which will thus necessarily lead to a further objection under that article.
Ne glede na navedeno bo znamka zavajajoča v smislu člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj obstaja protislovje med blagom (omejenim na posebno ZOP/ZGO) in sporočilom znamke (da blago ni pristno blago, zaščiteno z ZOP/ZGO), kar bo zato nujno privedlo do novega ugovora na podlagi navedenega člena.
Hence, provided that the goods comply with the specification of the PDO/PGI in question (which is guaranteed by restricting the goods appropriately), the location of the applicant's legal seat as indicated in the EUTM application is irrelevant.
Zato kraj prijaviteljevega pravnega sedeža, kot je naveden v prijavi za blagovno znamko EU, ni pomemben, če je blago v skladu s specifikacijo zadevne ZOP/ZGO (ki je zagotovljena z ustrezno omejitvijo blaga).
For example, a company with legal domicile in Poland can own a vineyard located in Spain that produces wine complying with the product specification of the PDO ‘Ribera del Duero'.
Tako je lahko na primer družba s pravno pripadnostjo Poljski lastnica vinograda v Španiji, ki prideluje vino, skladno s specifikacijo proizvoda, zaščitenega z označbo ZOP „Ribera del Duero“.
Similarly, a company with its legal domicile in Lithuania can own a factory located in Spain that elaborates products complying with the PGI ‘Chorizo de Cantimpalos'.
Podobno je lahko družba s pravno pripadnostjo Litvi lastnica tovarne v Španiji, ki izdeluje proizvode, skladne s specifikacijo ZGO „Chorizo de Cantimpalos“.
Misuse
Zloraba
In the absence of any guidance from the Court, the Office considers that an EUTM ‘misuses' a PDO/PGI when it provides false indications as to the geographical source of the goods with the result that it benefits from the perceived quality of the PDO/PGI.
Urad glede na neobstoj kakšnih koli smernic Sodišča meni, da blagovna znamka EU zlorablja ZOP/ZGO, če uporablja lažne navedbe geografskega izvora blaga, zaradi česar ima koristi od zaznane kakovosti ZOP/ZGO.
The Office understands the concept of ‘misuse' as covering both misuse by the mere fact that an application is being filed and misuse due to use of the trade mark in trade.
Urad pojem zloraba razume tako, da zajema „zlorabo“ zaradi dejstva, da se vloži prijava, in zlorabo zaradi uporabe blagovne znamke v trgovini.