natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In such cases, when dealing with an absolute grounds objection based on the meaning of wording in a certain language, acquired distinctiveness through use must be proven for each of the Member States in which that language is official (as well as any other Member States or markets where it will be understood).
V teh primerih je treba razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, kadar gre za ugovor na podlagi absolutnih razlogov zaradi pomena besedila v zadevnem jeziku, dokazati za vsako posamezno državo članico, v kateri je ta jezik uradni jezik (in tudi v kateri koli državi članici ali na trgih, kjer se razume).
Examples of languages that are official languages in more than one EU Member State:
Primeri jezikov, ki so uradni jeziki v več kot eni državi članici EU:
It should also be taken into account that in some regions there are substantial minorities who have as their native language a language (or languages), other than the official language(s) of the Member State concerned, that is/are often also protected as minority language(s).
Upoštevati je treba tudi, da so v nekaterih regijah številne manjšine, katerih materni jezik je (so) jezik(-i), ki ni(-so) uradni jezik(-i) zadevnih držav članic in je (so) pogosto tudi zaščiten(-i) kot manjšinski jezik(-i).
By way of example, German is on a par with Italian in the Italian Autonomous Region Trentino-Alto Adige (10/10/2014, R 574/2013G, SUEDTIROL, § 17) as is French with Italian in the Italian region of Valle d'Aosta, while Denmark has a substantial German-speaking minority (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 44).
V ponazoritev, nemščina je enakovredna italijanščini v italijanski avtonomni regiji Trentino - Zgornje Poadižje (10/10/2014, R 574/2013G, SUEDTIROL, § 17), enako kot francoščina italijanščini v italijanski regiji Dolina Aoste, Danska pa ima precejšnjo nemško govorečo manjšino (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 44).
6.3 Extrapolation
Izpeljava
As indicated above, the acquisition of distinctive character through use must be proven for the part of the European Union in which the trade mark concerned did not initially have such character.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je treba pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka z uporabo dokazati za del Evropske unije, v katerem zadevna blagovna znamka razlikovalnega učinka ni imela že od začetka.
This may prove difficult and burdensome for the applicant, particularly when the objection exists throughout the European Union.
To se lahko izkaže za zahtevno in obremenjujoče za prijavitelja, zlasti če je vložen ugovor za vso Evropsko unijo.
This is normally the case for 3D marks, colours per se and figurative trade marks consisting exclusively of the depiction of the goods in question, as it may be assumed that the assessment of their distinctiveness will be the same throughout the European Union, unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 68).
Tako je običajno v primeru tridimenzionalnih znamk, barv in figurativnih blagovnih znamk, ki jih sestavlja izključno podoba zadevnega blaga, saj se lahko domneva, da je presoja njihovega razlikovalnega učinka enaka v vsej Evropski uniji, razen če obstajajo konkretni indici, ki kažejo nasprotno (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 68).
However, the Court has held that, despite the fact that acquired distinctiveness must be shown throughout the European Union, it would be unreasonable to require proof of acquired distinctiveness for each individual Member State (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
Vendar je Sodišče menilo, da bi bilo kljub dejstvu, da je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek dokazati v vsej Evropski uniji, pretirano zahtevati, da se taka pridobitev dokaže za vsako posamično državo članico (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
This principle implies that, if one considers the European territory as a puzzle, failure to prove acquired distinctiveness for one or more specific national markets may not be decisive, provided that the ‘missing piece' of the puzzle does not affect the general picture that a significant proportion of the relevant European public perceives the sign as a trade mark in the various parts or regions of the European Union.
To načelo pomeni, da če se evropsko ozemlje obravnava kot sestavljanka, neuspešno dokazovanje pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka za enega ali več posebnih nacionalnih trgov morda ni odločilno, če „manjkajoči del“ sestavljanke ne vpliva na splošni vtis, da precejšnji delež upoštevne evropske javnosti v različnih delih ali regijah Evropske unije znak zaznava kot blagovno znamko.
In light of the above, the Office considers that, in certain cases, it is possible to extrapolate from selective evidence to draw broader conclusions.
Urad glede na navedeno meni, da je v nekaterih primerih na podlagi selektivnih dokazov mogoče sklepati širše.
As a result, evidence showing distinctiveness acquired through use in certain Member States can be used to make inferences with regard to the market situation in other Member States not covered by the evidence.
Zato se lahko dokazi, ki kažejo razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo v nekaterih državah članicah, uporabijo za sklepanje o tržnih razmerah v drugih državah članicah, ki jih dokazi ne zajemajo.
Extrapolating in this way to make broader inferences is of particular relevance to an enlarged European Union comprising many Member States, since it is highly likely that a party will not be able to provide comprehensive evidence with respect to the whole European Union, but will rather tend to concentrate on some areas.
Tovrstna razširitev za širše sklepanje je posebno pomembna za razširjeno Evropsko unijo, ki jo sestavljajo številne države članice, saj je zelo verjetno, da oseba ne bo mogla zagotoviti celovitih dokazov za vso Evropsko unijo, ampak se bo raje osredotočila na nekatera območja.
Extrapolation is possible where the following two conditions are met.
Razširitev je mogoča, če sta izpolnjena naslednja pogoja.
The market is homogeneous (i.e. the area where acquired distinctiveness is proven and the area where evidence is extrapolated): market conditions and consumer habits have to be comparable.
Trg je enovit (tj. območje, za katero je dokazan pridobljen razlikovalni učinek, in območje, na katero se razširijo dokazi): tržni pogoji in navade potrošnikov morajo biti primerljivi.
Consequently, it is particularly important that the applicant submits data concerning the size of the market, its own market share and, if possible, that of its main competitors, as well as its marketing expenses.
Zato je pomembno predvsem, da prijavitelj predloži podatke o velikosti trga, svojem tržnem deležu in, če je mogoče, tržnem deležu svoje glavne konkurence ter stroških trženja.
The Office can only extrapolate the results from one territory to another if all the data is comparable.
Urad lahko rezultate enega ozemlja razširi na drugo ozemlje samo, če so podatki primerljivi.
For instance, in the case of surveys covering only some Member States, the applicant will have to demonstrate that the Member States' markets covered by the surveys are comparable to those of the other Member States and that the results of the surveys can be extrapolated (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 80).
V primeru anket, ki so zajemale samo nekatere države članice, bo moral prijavitelj dokazati, da so trgi držav članic, zajetih v anketah, primerljivi s trgi drugih držav članic in se lahko rezultati anket razširijo (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 80).
At least some evidence of use is submitted for the area where the evidence is extrapolated.
Za območje, na katero se razširijo dokazi, se predložijo vsaj nekateri dokazi o uporabi.
Therefore, where the EUTM is used in the entire relevant territory but most of the evidence only refers to part of it, inference is possible if the circumstances are comparable and some evidence of use in another part/other parts of the relevant territory is submitted.
Če se blagovna znamka EU uporablja na celotnem zadevnem ozemlju, večina dokazov pa se nanaša samo na njegov del, je sklepanje mogoče, če so razmere primerljive in se predložijo nekateri dokazi o uporabi v drugem delu/drugih delih zadevnega ozemlja.
Evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the ‘combination of the colours green and yellow' throughout the European Union was accepted despite a lack of evidence with regard to current turnover figures and no official statements on the relevant public's perception for two Member States (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 38 et seq.)
Dokazi o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku „kombinacije zelene in rumene barve“ v vsej Evropski uniji so bili sprejeti kljub pomanjkanju dokazov glede podatkov o prometu in neobstoju uradne izjave o tem, kako to zaznava upoštevna javnost, za dve državi članici (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 38 et seq.).
On the other hand, the Court rejected the claim of acquired distinctiveness for a ‘chequerboard pattern' because the applicant had not provided any relevant evidence in 4 out of the then 15 relevant Member States, without examining the evidence filed for the other 11 Member States (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 101 et seq., under appeal).
Po drugi strani je Sodišče zavrnilo zahtevo za pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek za motiv šahovnice, ker prijavitelj ni predložil ustreznih dokazov za štiri od takratnih 15 držav članic, ne da bi preizkusilo dokaze za preostalih 11 držav članic (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 101 et seq., predmet pritožbe).
7 Standard of Proof
Dokazni standard
The requirements to prove acquired distinctiveness through use pursuant to Article 7(3) EUTMR are not the same as those to prove genuine use pursuant to Article 47(2) EUTMR.
Zahteve za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, v skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso enake kot zahteve za dokazovanje resne in dejanske uporabe v skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Whilst under Article 7(3) EUTMR it is necessary to prove qualified use, such that the relevant public perceives as distinctive a sign that per se is devoid of distinctive character, the reason behind the proof of genuine use is completely different, namely to restrict the number of trade marks registered and protected, and consequently the number of conflicts between them.
V skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba dokazati kvalificirano uporabo, kot je, da upoštevna javnost zaznava kot razlikovalen znak, ki sam po sebi nima razlikovalnega učinka, razlog za dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe pa je povsem drugačen, namreč omejiti število registriranih in zaščitenih blagovnih znamk ter s tem število njihovega sovpadanja.
Furthermore, the Court has held that the case-law relating to Article 7(3) EUTMR must not be confused with the case-law relating to the acquisition of reputation (which must be proven in a substantial part of the European Union but not in every Member State).
Sodišče je menilo še, da se sodna praksa v zvezi s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme zamenjevati s sodno prakso o pridobitvi ugleda (ki jo je treba dokazati v pomembnem delu Evropske unije, vendar ne v vseh državah članicah).
The applicant must prove the acquisition of distinctive character through use in the part of the European Union in which the contested mark was devoid of any distinctive character.
Prijavitelj mora dokazati pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka z uporabo v delu Evropske unije, v katerem izpodbijana znamka ni imela razlikovalnega učinka.
The case-law related to Article 7(3) EUTMR, therefore, must not be confused with the test on acquisition of reputation (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 119-120 and case-law quoted therein).
Zato se sodna praksa v zvezi s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme zamenjevati s preizkusom pridobitve ugleda (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 119-120 ter tam navedena sodna praksa).
Therefore, the EUTM applicant must submit evidence that enables the Office to find that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies the products or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark (15/12/2015, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 61 and the case-law cited therein).
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora tako predložiti dokaze, ki Uradu omogočajo ugotovitev, da vsaj precejšnji delež upoštevnega dela javnosti proizvode ali storitve zaradi blagovne znamke prepozna, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja (15/12/2015, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 61 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
The evidence must be clear and convincing.
Dokazi morajo biti jasni in prepričljivi.
The EUTM applicant must clearly establish all the facts necessary to safely conclude that the mark has been used as a badge of origin, that is to say, that it has created a link in the mind of the relevant public with the goods or services provided by a specific company, despite the fact that, in the absence of such use, the sign at issue would lack the necessary distinctiveness to create such a link.
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora jasno navesti vsa dejstva, ki so potrebna, da se nedvomno ugotovi, da se je znamka uporabljala kot označba porekla, da torej upoštevna javnost pomisli na blago ali storitve zadevnega podjetja, čeprav znak brez te uporabe ne bi imel potrebnega razlikovalnega učinka in ne bi ustvaril take povezave.
For example, the combination of the colours green and yellow was found to have acquired distinctiveness through use because it referred to the machines manufactured by a certain company.
Na primer, za kombinacijo zelene in rumene barve je bilo ugotovljeno, da ima razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, ker se je nanašala na stroje, ki jih proizvaja zadevno podjetje.
The means of evidence were a number of statements from professional associations according to which such combination referred to agricultural machines manufactured by that company and the fact that the company had been using the same combination of colours on its machines consistently in the European Union for a considerable time prior to 1996 (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 36-37).
Dokazi so bile izjave strokovnih združenj, v skladu s katerimi se je ta kombinacija nanašala na kmetijske stroje, ki jih proizvaja navedeno podjetje, in dejstvo, da je podjetje enako kombinacijo barv na svojih strojih dosledno uporabljalo v Evropski uniji dolgo časa pred letom 1996 (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 36-37).
Therefore, acquired distinctiveness must be the result of the use of the mark as a trade mark, not as purely functional packaging (25/09/2014, T474/12, Shape of goblets (3D), EU:T:2014:813, § 56-58 and the case-law cited therein) or as a descriptive indication on packaging.
Zato mora biti pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek rezultat uporabe znamke kot blagovne znamke, in ne le kot funkcionalne embalaže (25/09/2014, T474/12, Shape of goblets (3D), EU:T:2014:813, § 56-58 in tam navedena sodna praksa) ali opisne označbe na embalaži.
For example, use of the sign ‘Gifflar' (which indicates a kind of bread in Swedish) on the packaging of pastries, together with descriptive indications of flavours, is made in a descriptive context, not as a badge of origin (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45).
Na primer, uporaba znaka Gifflar (ki v švedščini označuje vrsto kruha) na embalaži peciva skupaj z opisnimi navedbami okusov je opisna in ni označba porekla (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45).
For a finding of acquired distinctiveness through use, the case-law does not prescribe fixed percentages of market penetration or of recognition by the relevant public (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
Za ugotovitev obstoja razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, sodna praksa ne določa fiksnih odstotkov uveljavitve na trgu ali prepoznavnosti v upoštevni javnosti (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
Rather than using a fixed percentage of the relevant public in a given market, the evidence should show that a significant proportion of the public perceives the mark as identifying specific goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking.
Namesto fiksnega odstotka upoštevne javnosti na zadevnem trgu bi morali dokazi pokazati, da precejšnji delež javnosti znamko zaznava tako, da ustrezno blago ali storitve označuje, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
The evidence must relate to each of the goods and services claimed in the EUTM application.
Dokazi se morajo nanašati na posamezno blago in storitve, za katere je vložena prijava blagovne znamke EU.
After an initial absolute grounds objection under Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR, only the goods and services claimed for which acquired distinctiveness through use has been proven may proceed to registration.
Po prvotnem ugovoru na podlagi absolutnih razlogov v skladu s členom 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se postopek registracije nadaljuje samo za blago in storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo in je bil zanje dokazan razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo.
8 Assessment of the Evidence
Presoja dokazov
In establishing acquired distinctiveness, account may be taken of, inter alia, the following factors:
Pri ugotavljanju pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka se lahko med drugim upoštevajo naslednji dejavniki:
the market share held by the mark with regard to the relevant goods or services;
tržni delež znamke v zvezi z upoštevnim blagom ali storitvami,
how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been;
kako intenzivna, geografsko razširjena in dolgotrajna je bila uporaba znamke,
the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark for the relevant goods or services;
znesek, ki ga je podjetje vložilo v oglaševanje znamke za upoštevno blago ali storitve,
the proportion of the relevant public who, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking.
delež upoštevne javnosti, ki na podlagi te znamke prepozna blago ali storitve kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
See judgments of 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32.
Glej sodbi z dne 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31 in z dne 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32.
Article 97 EUTMR contains a non-exhaustive list of means of giving or obtaining evidence in proceedings before the Office, which may serve as guidance to applicants.
Člen 97 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vsebuje neizčrpen seznam dajanja ali pridobivanja dokazov v postopkih Urada, ki je lahko v pomoč prijaviteljem.
Examples of evidence that may help to show acquired distinctiveness include, inter alia:
Primeri dokazov, ki bi lahko pomagali dokazati pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek, med drugim vključujejo:
sales brochures
prodajne brošure,
catalogues
kataloge,
price lists
cenike,
invoices
račune,
annual reports
letna poročila,
turnover figures
podatke o prometu,
advertising investment figures and reports
podatke in poročila o naložbah v oglaševanje,
advertisements (press cuttings, billboard posters, TV adverts), together with evidence of their intensity and reach
oglase (izrezki iz tiska, plakati, televizijski oglasi), skupaj z dokazom o njihovi intenzivnosti in dosegu,
customer and/or market surveys
ankete uporabnikov in/ali tržne raziskave,
affidavits.
zaprisežene pisne izjave.
For further details on means of evidence, see by analogy the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4.
Za dodatne podrobnosti o dokazih po analogiji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
The basic rules on the evaluation of evidence are also applicable here.
Uporabljajo se tudi osnovna pravila o presoji dokazov.
The Office must make an overall assessment of all the evidence submitted (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49), weighing up each indication against the others.
Urad mora opraviti celovito presojo vseh predloženih dokazov (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49) in vsako navedbo pretehtati glede na druge.
Applicants should take great care to make sure not only that the evidence shows use of the mark applied for but also that it is sufficient to identify the dates of such use and the specific geographical territory of use within the EU.
Prijavitelji morajo poskrbeti, da dokazi izkazujejo uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, in tudi, da zadostujejo za opredelitev datumov te uporabe ter posebnega geografskega ozemlja uporabe v EU.
Evidence that cannot be related to a certain point in time will normally be insufficient to show that distinctiveness had been acquired before the filing date, and evidence of use outside the EU cannot show the required market recognition of the relevant public within the EU.
Dokazi, ki jih ni mogoče povezati z nekim trenutkom, običajno ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje, da je bil razlikovalni učinek pridobljen pred datumom vložitve, dokazi o uporabi zunaj EU pa ne morejo dokazati potrebne tržne prepoznavnosti v upoštevni javnosti v EU.
Furthermore, evidence that mixes material relating to the EU with that relating to non-EU territories, and does not permit the Office to identify the specific extent of EU-only use, will be similarly devoid of probative value for the relevant EU public.
Tudi dokazi, ki združujejo gradivo, ki se nanaša na EU, z gradivom, ki se nanaša na tretja ozemlja, in Uradu ne omogočajo ugotovitve glede ustreznega obsega uporabe samo v EU, so podobno brez dokazne vrednosti za upoštevno javnost v EU.
The Court has declared that direct evidence such as declarations by professional associations and market studies are usually the most relevant means for proving acquired distinctiveness through use.
Sodišče je odločilo, da so neposredni dokazi, kot so izjave strokovnih združenj in tržne raziskave, najustreznejši dokazi za izkaz razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo.
Invoices, advertising expenditure, magazines and catalogues may help to corroborate such direct evidence (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74).
Računi, izdatki za oglaševanje, revije in katalogi lahko pomagajo podpreti te neposredne dokaze (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74).
In order to assess the evidential value of a document, regard should be had to its credibility.
Pri presoji dokazne vrednosti dokumenta je treba upoštevati njegovo verjetnost.
It is also necessary to take into account the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, superficially, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.).
Upoštevati je treba tudi izvor dokumenta, okoliščine njegove izdelave, njegovega naslovnika in ali se glede na njegovo vsebino zdi razumen in zanesljiv (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.).
8.1 Opinion polls and surveys
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave
Opinion polls concerning the level of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public on the market in question can, if conducted properly, constitute one of the most direct kinds of evidence, since they can show the actual perception of the relevant public.
Javnomnenjske raziskave v zvezi s stopnjo prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke v upoštevni javnosti na zadevnem trgu so lahko najneposrednejši dokazi, če so ustrezno izvedene, saj lahko pokažejo dejansko zaznavanje upoštevne javnosti.