natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, appellations of origin protected in a Member State by virtue of the Lisbon Agreement cannot be a basis for opposition under Article 8(6) EUTMR.
Zato označbe porekla, ki so v državi članici zaščitene v skladu z Lizbonskim aranžmajem, ne morejo biti podlaga za ugovor na podlagi člena 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The only exceptions in this regard are the following.
Edine izjeme v zvezi s tem so naslednji primeri:
International agreements that cover GIs that do not relate to foodstuffs, wines, spirit drinks or aromatised wine products.
mednarodni sporazumi, ki zajemajo geografske označbe, ki se ne nanašajo na živila, vina, žgane pijače ali aromatizirane vinske proizvode;
International agreements concluded with third countries by a Member State before its accession to the EU.
mednarodni sporazumi, ki jih država članica sklene s tretjimi državami pred datumom svojega pristopa k EU.
However, Member States are required to take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities between an agreement concluded before a Member State's accession and the Treaty (see Article 307, Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 351, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as interpreted by the Court in its judgment of 18/11/2003, C216/01, Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2003:618, § 168-172).
Vendar morajo države članice izvesti vse potrebne ukrepe za odpravo neskladnosti med sporazumom, sklenjenim pred pristopom države članice, in Pogodbo (glej člen 307 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, zdaj člen 351 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU), kot ga Sodišče razlaga v svoji sodbi 18/11/2003, C216/01, Budějovický Budvar, EU:C:2003:618, § 168-172);
International agreements concluded with a third country by a Member State after its accession to the EU, but before the entry into force of the uniform EU system of protection in the given product area.
mednarodni sporazumi, ki jih država članica sklene s tretjo državo po svojem pristopu k EU, vendar pred začetkom veljavnosti enotnega sistema varstva EU za določeno področje proizvoda.
As Member States are under an obligation to eliminate incompatibilities with EU law, the Office will apply the last two exceptions (which exclusively concern third country GIs in the fields of foodstuffs, wines, spirit drinks or aromatised wine products) only when the opponent expressly refers to the exception and supports it by a coherent line of argument and relevant evidence (in particular, concerning the date of entry into force of the cited international agreement in the EU Member State where protection is claimed and its continued validity).
Ker morajo države članice odpraviti neskladnosti z zakonodajo EU, bo Urad zadnji dve izjemi (ki se nanašata izključno na geografske označbe tretjih držav na področju živil, vin, žganih pijač ali aromatiziranih vinskih proizvodov) uporabljal le, kadar se vložnik ugovora izrecno sklicuje na izjemo ter to podpre s povezanimi trditvami in ustreznimi dokazi (zlasti v zvezi z datumom začetka veljavnosti navedenega mednarodnega sporazuma v državi članici EU, kjer se zahteva varstvo, in z njegovo nadaljnjo veljavnostjo).
General allegations by the opponent (such as merely citing the relevant international agreement) will not be sufficient in themselves for the Office to consider that one of the latter two exceptions applies.
Splošne trditve vložnika ugovora (kot je le navedba ustreznega mednarodnega sporazuma) same po sebi ne bodo zadostovale, da bi Urad priznal veljavnost ene od zadnjih dveh izjem.
Although Article 8(6)(i) EUTMR requires registration of the GI, it can be applied by way of analogy to third-country GIs protected under international agreements.
Čeprav se na podlagi člena 8(6)(i) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zahteva registracija geografske označbe, se lahko po analogiji uporablja za geografske označbe tretjih držav, zaščitene na podlagi mednarodnih sporazumov.
In the case of international agreements to which the EU is a party, the date of entry into force of the international agreement is deemed to be the date of priority of such a GI (and in the case of a third-country GI added subsequently to the list, the date of entry into force of the amendment), unless the international agreement stipulates an earlier date of priority.
V primeru mednarodnih sporazumov, katerih pogodbenica je EU, se datum začetka veljavnosti mednarodnega sporazuma šteje za datum prednostne pravice take geografske označbe (in v primeru geografske označbe iz tretje države, ki se pozneje doda na seznam, datum začetka veljavnosti spremembe), če mednarodni sporazum ne določa zgodnejšega datuma prednostne pravice.
5.3 Scope of protection of GIs
Obseg varstva geografskih označb
The scope of protection of GIs protected under EU law is governed by Articles 13(1), 103(2), 16 and 20(2) of the Foodstuffs, Wines, Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Wines Regulations, respectively.
Obseg varstva geografskih označb, zaščitenih na podlagi prava EU, urejajo člen 13(1) Uredbe o živilih, člen 103(2) Uredbe o vinih, člen 16 Uredbe o žganih pijačah in člen 20(2) Uredbe o aromatiziranih vinih.
The provisions preventing registration, Articles 14(1), 102(1), 23(1) and 19(1) of the Foodstuffs, Wines, Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Wines Regulations respectively, are not a basis for opposition under Article 8(6) EUTMR (12/06/2007, T60/04 - T64/04, Bud, EU:T:2007:169, § 78); such an opposition cannot depend on whether the opponent fulfilled the conditions required to prohibit registration under the said provisions (18/09/2015, T387/13, COLOMBIANO HOUSE / CAFE DE COLOMBIA, EU:T:2015:647, § 40 et seq.).
Določbe, ki preprečujejo registracijo, in sicer člen 14(1) Uredbe o živilih, člen 102(1) Uredbe o vinih, člen 23(1) Uredbe o žganih pijačah in člen 19(1) Uredbe o aromatiziranih vinih, niso podlaga za ugovor na podlagi člena 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (12/06/2007, T60/04 - T64/04, Bud, EU:T:2007:169, § 78), tak ugovor ne more biti odvisen od tega, ali je vložnik ugovora izpolnil pogoje, ki so potrebni za preprečitev registracije na podlagi navedenih določb (18/09/2015, T387/13, COLOMBIANO HOUSE / CAFE DE COLOMBIA, EU:T:2015:647, § 40 et seq.).
Therefore, under Article 8(6) EUTMR, a GI can prevail if the conditions set out in the provisions preventing use are met.
Zato lahko geografska označba na podlagi člena 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prevlada, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz določb, ki preprečujejo uporabo.
It must be emphasised that it is the specific conditions of the scope of protection as laid down in the applicable provisions that apply and not, for example, the ‘similarity of signs', ‘similarity of goods and services' or ‘likelihood of confusion'.
Poudariti je treba, da se uporabljajo posebni pogoji obsega uporabe, kot so določeni v določbah, ki se uporabljajo, in ne na primer „podobnost znakov“, „podobnost blaga in storitev“ ali „verjetnost zmede“.
Detailed information on the scope of protection of GIs protected under the relevant EU regulations is included in the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 10, Trade Marks in Conflict with Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications (Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR) (e.g. definitions of direct and indirect use, imitation, evocation, comparable products).
Podrobne informacije o obsegu varstva geografskih označb, zaščitenih na podlagi zadevnih uredb EU, so na voljo v Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 10: Blagovne znamke, ki sovpadajo z označbami porekla in geografskimi označbami (člen 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) (npr. opredelitve neposredne in posredne uporabe, posnemanja, navajanja, primerljivih proizvodov).
The provisions of the EU regulations preventing use contemplate situations where a GI can be invoked against goods or services that do not necessarily fall within the scope of objectionable goods and services under the ex officio examination of absolute grounds, subject to the conditions of the relevant provisions of the corresponding EU regulations.
Določbe iz uredb EU, ki preprečujejo uporabo, obravnavajo okoliščine, v katerih je mogoče geografsko označbo uveljavljati zoper blago ali storitve, ki ne spadajo nujno med sporno blago in storitve v okviru preizkušanja absolutnih razlogov po uradni dolžnosti, pri čemer se upoštevajo pogoji zadevnih določb iz ustreznih uredb EU.
For instance, under Articles 13(1)(a), 103(2)(a)(ii), 16(a) and 20(2)(a)(ii) of the Foodstuffs, Wines, Spirit Drinks and Aromatised Wines Regulations respectively, a GI can be invoked against products and services that would not be objectionable ex officio under absolute grounds, subject to proof of reputation of the GI in the EU and proof that the use of the contested mark in relation to the contested goods and services would exploit the reputation of the GI.
Na podlagi člena 13(1)(a) Uredbe o živilih, člena 103(2)(a)(ii) Uredbe o vinih, člena 16(a) Uredbe o žganih pijačah in člena 20(2)(a)(ii) Uredbe o aromatiziranih vinih se lahko geografska označba uveljavlja zoper proizvode in storitve, ki ne bi bile sporne na podlagi absolutnih razlogov po uradni dolžnosti, pri čemer se upošteva dokaz o ugledu geografske označbe v EU in dokaz, da bi uporaba izpodbijane znamke v povezavi z izpodbijanim blagom in storitvami izkoriščala ugled geografske označbe.
The mere existence of protection as a GI and references to its reputation in the registration documents, even if such a reputation had been a factor in granting GI protection, is not sufficient; independent and conclusive evidence attesting to the reputation of the GI within the European Union is required for the purposes of applying the wider scope of protection.
Le obstoj varstva kot geografske označbe in sklicevanje na njen ugled v dokumentih o registraciji, tudi če je bil ta ugled dejavnik pri podelitvi zaščite geografski označbi, ne zadostuje, za namene uporabe širšega obsega varstva so potrebni neodvisni in prepričljivi dokazi o ugledu geografske označbe v Evropski uniji.
As regards the standard of proof, the territorial and temporal scope of reputation, the standards for assessment of the reputation of an EUTM are applicable by way of analogy (with the obvious difference that any use must be in accordance with the function of a GI and not a trade mark).
V zvezi z dokaznim standardom, ozemeljskim in časovnim obsegom ugleda se standardi za presojo ugleda blagovne znamke EU uporabljajo po analogiji (z očitno razliko, da mora biti kakršna koli uporaba v skladu s funkcijo geografske označbe, in ne blagovne znamke).
As regards the specific condition of ‘exploitation of reputation', the established standards for assessment of the link between the signs and taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark are applicable by way of analogy (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR)).
V zvezi s posebnimi pogoji izkoriščanja ugleda se vzpostavljeni standardi za presojo zveze med znaki in neupravičenega izkoriščanja ugleda blagovne znamke uporabljajo po analogiji (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
Nevertheless, either under EU or national legislation, the scope of protection of GIs cannot exceed what is required in order to safeguard the function of the GI; the function in question is to designate goods as being from a particular geographic origin and the special qualities connected therewith.
Kljub temu obseg varstva geografskih označb na podlagi zakonodaje EU ali nacionalne zakonodaje ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za zagotovitev funkcije geografske označbe, tj. označiti določeno geografsko poreklo blaga in posebne značilnosti, ki so povezane s tem.
Unlike other signs, GIs are not used to indicate the commercial origin of goods and they afford no protection in this regard.
Geografske označbe se v nasprotju z drugimi znaki ne uporabljajo za označevanje trgovskega porekla blaga in v zvezi s tem ne zagotavljajo varstva.
Therefore, where the specification of an EUTM application is limited to goods in conformity with the specification of the relevant protected GI, the function of the GI in question is safeguarded in relation to those products because the EUTM application only covers products from the particular geographic origin and the special qualities connected therewith.
Če je torej specifikacija prijave blagovne znamke EU omejena na blago, ki je v skladu s specifikacijo ustrezne zaščitene geografske označbe, je za navedene proizvode funkcija zadevne geografske označbe zagotovljena, saj prijava blagovne znamke EU obsega le proizvode z določenim geografskim poreklom in posebnimi značilnostmi, ki so povezane s tem.
Consequently, opposition against an EUTM application that has been appropriately limited will not succeed.
Zato ugovor zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU, ki je bila ustrezno omejena, ne bo uspešen.
See in this regard Article 12(1) of the Foodstuffs Regulation or Article 103(1) of the Wines Regulation.
V zvezi s tem glej člen 12(1) Uredbe o živilih in člen 103(1) Uredbe o vinih.
Earlier right Case No
Prejšnja pravica Št. zadeve
Where the national law does not confer on a legal entity (whether public or private) a subjective right allowing it to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark, the ‘proprietary requirement' is not met.
Če nacionalna zakonodaja pravni osebi (javni ali zasebni) ne podeljuje osebne pravice, ki ji omogoča prepoved uporabe poznejše znamke, „zahteva glede imetništva“ ni izpolnjena.
The Board found that the Spanish law giving effect to the bilateral agreement between Spain and Cuba for the protection of the appellation of origin ‘Cuba' was not sufficient to grant such a subjective right (paras 2327).
Odbor je ugotovil, da španska zakonodaja, ki izvaja dvostranski sporazum med Španijo in Kubo za zaščito označbe porekla „Kuba“, ni zadostna za odobritev takšne osebne pravice (točke od 23 do 27).
JOSE PADILLA (copyright) 22/06/2010, T255/08, EU:T:2010:249
JOSE PADILLA (avtorska pravica) 22/06/2010, T255/08, EU:T:2010:249
The Court found that copyright cannot constitute a ‘sign used in the course of trade' within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da avtorska pravica ni „znak, ki se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu“ v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
It follows that copyright is not one of the earlier rights referred to in Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Avtorska pravica torej ni prejšnja pravica iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Dr. No (copyright) T435/05
Dr. No (avtorska pravica) T435/05
[…] the protection provided for by copyright cannot be relied on in opposition proceedings, but only in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the European Union trade mark in question (para. 41).
[…] se na varstvo, ki ga daje avtorsko pravo, ni mogoče sklicevati v okviru postopka z ugovorom, ampak le v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti zadevne blagovne znamke Evropske unije (točka 41).
Earlier rights Case No
Prejšnje pravice Št. zadeve
and (Community designs) B 1 530 875
in (modela Skupnosti) B 1 530 875
Designs are a form of intellectual property dealing with the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of an article's appearance.
Modeli so oblika intelektualne lastnine, ki obravnavajo okrasne ali estetske vidike podobe izdelka.
Designs are deemed to be the result of a creative work that needs to be protected against unauthorised copying or imitation by third parties in order to ensure a fair return on investment.
Modeli naj bi bili rezultat ustvarjalnega dela, ki ga je treba zaščititi pred nepooblaščenim kopiranjem ali posnemanjem tretjih oseb, da se zagotovi pravična donosnost naložbe.
They are protected as intellectual property, but they are not business identifiers or trade signs.
Zaščiteni so kot intelektualna lastnina, vendar niso podjetniški identifikatorji ali trgovski znaki.
Therefore, designs do not qualify as signs used in the course of trade for the purpose of Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Zato se modeli ne štejejo za znake, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu za namene člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Earlier sign Case No
Prejšnji znak Št. zadeve
The Court discussed whether use that takes place exclusively or to a large extent between the filing of an application for registration and its publication was sufficient to meet the use requirement.
Sodišče je razpravljalo, ali je bila uporaba, ki je potekala izključno ali večinoma v obdobju med vložitvijo prijave za registracijo in njeno objavo, dovolj za izpolnitev zahteve glede uporabe.
One of the parties had argued that only the acquisition of the right had to take place before filing of the EUTM application but not its use.
Ena od strank je trdila, da je pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU potrebna le pridobitev pravice, in ne njena uporaba.
The Court applied the same temporal condition as to the acquisition of the right and concluded that use had to take place before the filing of the application.
Sodišče je uporabilo isto časovno merilo kot za pridobitev pravice in sklenilo, da se je morala uporaba izvajati pred vložitvijo prijave.
The Court of Justice considered that in view of the considerable period of time which may elapse between the filing of an application for registration and its publication, the obligation of use in the course of trade of the sign before the filing of the application guarantees that the use claimed for the sign concerned is real and not an exercise whose sole aim has been to prevent registration of a new trade mark (paras 166-168).
Sodišče je menilo, da obveznost uporabe znaka v gospodarskem prometu pred vložitvijo prijave glede na dolgo obdobje, ki lahko preteče med vložitvijo prijave za registracijo in njeno objavo, zagotavlja, da je uporaba zadevnega znaka dejanska uporaba, in ne praksa, namenjena le preprečitvi registracije nove blagovne znamke (točke od 166 do 168).
BAMBOLINA (non-registered mark in a number of MS) 30/07/2010, 3 728 C (confirmed 03/08/2011, R 1822/20102; 23/10/2013, T581/11, EU:T:2013:553)
BAMBOLINA (neregistrirana znamka v številnih državah članicah) 30/07/2010, 3 728 C (potrjeno z dne 03/08/2011, R 1822/20102; 23/10/2013, T581/11, EU:T:2013:553)
The evidence showed use in the course of trade of the non-registered trade mark for 3 years, not covering the last 2 years before the date of filing of the invalidity request.
Iz dokazov je razvidno, da se je neregistrirana blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu uporabljala tri leta, niso pa vključevala zadnjih dveh let pred vložitvijo zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The Cancellation Division held that an earlier non-registered sign relied on in an invalidity action must be in use at the time of filing the request.
Oddelek za izbris je odločil, da mora biti prejšnji neregistrirani znak, na katerega se sklicuje v zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti, v uporabi v času vložitve zahteve.
Since for these signs use constitutes the factual premise justifying the existence of the right, the same factual premise must still exist, and be proven, on the date of filing of the invalidity request (30/07/2010, 3 728 C, paras 25-28).
Ker uporaba za te znake pomeni dejansko predpostavko, ki upravičuje obstoj pravice, mora ista dejanska predpostavka še vedno obstajati in biti dokazana na datum vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (odločba 30/07/2010, 3 728 C, točke od 25 do 28).
Failure to prove the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark or right within that period will lead to the opposition being rejected as unfounded.
Če se obstoj, utemeljenost in obseg varstva prejšnje znamke ali pravice ne dokažejo v navedenem roku, bo ugovor zavrnjen kot neutemeljen.
In the Board's opinion, these provisions applied mutatis mutandis to cancellation proceedings (03/08/2011, R 1822/20102, para. 15).
Po mnenju odbora so se te določbe smiselno uporabljale za postopek izbrisa (03/08/2011, R 1822/20102, točka 15).
NACIONAL (Portuguese name of establishment) 07/02/2010, R 693/20112
NACIONAL (portugalsko ime obrata) 07/02/2010, R 693/20112
Under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the fact that the opponent may, in accordance with the law of Portugal, have acquired exclusive rights plainly enforceable against subsequent trade marks on the basis of the registration of a ‘name of establishment', does not exempt it from the burden of proving that the sign in question has been used in the course of trade of more than local significance.
Na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dejstvo, da je lahko vložnik ugovora v skladu s portugalsko zakonodajo pridobil izključne pravice, ki se lahko očitno uveljavljajo zoper poznejše blagovne znamke na podlagi registracije imena obrata, ne pomeni, da mu ni treba dokazati, da se je zadevni znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu in je več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The mere fact that the sign is registered in accordance with the requirements of the respective Portuguese law is not in itself sufficient for the application of Article 8(4) EUTMR (paras 20-26).
Le dejstvo, da je znak registriran v skladu z zahtevami zadevne portugalske zakonodaje, samo po sebi ni dovolj za uporabo člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točke od 20 do 26).
Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (German company name) T430/08
Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (nemško ime podjetja) T430/08
The opponent invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR the company name ‘Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG' used in the course of trade in Germany for ‘flour, in particular wheat flour and rye flour'.
Vložnik ugovora se je na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU skliceval na ime podjetja „Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG“, ki se je v gospodarskem prometu v Nemčiji uporabljalo za „moko, predvsem pšenično moko in rženo moko“.
Therefore, the opponent claimed the name of a GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, ‘limited liability company' in English).
Vložnik ugovora je torej zahteval ime GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, ki v slovenščini pomeni „družba z omejeno odgovornostjo“).
The applicant argued that, according to Article 11(1) German Limited Companies Act (GmbH Gesetz), a GmbH does not exist before its registration and that the opponent was therefore not entitled, in support of its opposition, to rely on its business name, because the company was registered only after the filing of the contested EUTM application.
Prijavitelj je trdil, da v skladu s členom 11(1) nemškega zakona o gospodarskih družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo (GmbH Gesetz) GmbH pred njeno registracijo ne obstaja in da zato vložnik ugovora v podporo svojemu ugovoru ni upravičen do sklicevanja na svoje poslovno ime, saj je bilo podjetje registrirano šele po vložitvi izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The Court took a different view and held that, according to the case-law of the German courts, the right to a business name exists pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of the Markengesetz from the first use in the course of trade, without the obligation to register (para. 36).
Sodišče je sprejelo drugačno stališče in odločilo, da na podlagi sodne prakse nemških sodišč pravica v zvezi s poslovnim imenom v skladu z odstavkom 5(2) Markengesetz (nemški zakon o znamkah) obstaja od prve uporabe v gospodarskem prometu, brez obveznosti do registracije (točka 36).
Octopussy (film title, claimed to have been used in the course of trade in, inter alia, Germany) 20/04/2010, R 526/20084
Octopussy (naslov filma, za katerega se trdi, da se je uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu, med drugim v Nemčiji) 20/04/2010, R 526/20084
The opponent merely submitted general information explaining the content of the film, its characters, gross figures, video offers on the internet and advertisements without any details as regards the relevant market.
Vložnik ugovora je predložil le splošne informacije glede vsebine filma, njegovih likov, bruto zneskov, video ponudbe na spletu in oglaševanja, brez kakršnih koli podrobnosti v zvezi z upoštevnim trgom.
The information as regards turnover is also insufficient since it is too broad a general reference to the activities carried out by the opponent and does not specify either the type of activity or the territories concerned.
Tudi informacije v zvezi s prihodki ne zadostujejo, saj je splošno sklicevanje na dejavnosti vložnika ugovora preveč široko in ne opredeljuje niti vrste dejavnosti niti zadevnih ozemelj.