natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Analogous criteria, mutatis mutandis, apply to shapes related to services, for example the device of a washing machine for laundry services.
Podobna merila se smiselno uporabljajo za oblike, povezane s storitvami, na primer predstavitev pralnega stroja za storitve pranja.
11.4 Shape of the packaging
Oblika embalaže
The same criteria apply for the shape of bottles or containers for the goods.
Enaka merila veljajo za obliko steklenic ali posod za blago.
The shape applied for must be materially different from a combination of basic or common elements and must be striking.
Oblika, za katero je vložena prijava, se mora bistveno razlikovati od kombinacije osnovnih ali običajnih elementov in mora biti nenavadna.
In the area of containers, regard must also be had to any functional character of a given element.
Glede posod je treba upoštevati tudi funkcionalno lastnost danega elementa.
As, in the field of containers and bottles, usage in trade might be different for different types of goods, it is recommended to make a search as to which shapes are on the market by choosing a sufficiently broad category of the goods concerned (i.e. in order to assess the distinctiveness of a milk container, a search must be carried out in relation to containers for beverages in general; see, in that regard, the Opinion of the Advocate General of 14/07/2005, C173/04 P, Standbeutel, EU:C:2005:474).
Ker se lahko uporaba v trgovini na področju posod in steklenic razlikuje za različne vrste blaga, je priporočljivo raziskati, katere oblike so na trgu, tako da se izbere dovolj široka kategorija zadevnega blaga (tj. za oceno razlikovalnega učinka posode za mleko je treba opraviti raziskavo na področju posod za pijače na splošno; v zvezi s tem glej mnenje generalnega pravobranilca z dne 14/07/2005, C173/04 P, Standbeutel, EU:C:2005:474).
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of marks applied for the shape of the packaging.
V nadaljevanju je neizčrpen seznam primerov blagovnih znamk, za katere je bila vložena prijava za obliko embalaže.
Rejected trade marks
Zavrnjene blagovne znamke
Accepted trade marks
Sprejete blagovne znamke
12 Position Marks
Pozicijske znamke
According to Article 3(3)(d) EUTMIR, position marks are trade marks consisting of the specific way in which the mark is placed on or affixed to the product.
Pozicijske znamke so v skladu s členom 3(3)(d) Izvedbene uredbe blagovne znamke, ki so sestavljene iz posebnega načina, na katerega je znamka nameščena ali pritrjena na proizvod.
Applications for position marks effectively seek to extend protection to the specific way in which elements (figurative, colour, etc.) are placed on or affixed to the product.
Prijave za pozicijske znamke si učinkovito prizadevajo razširiti varstvo na poseben način, na katerega so elementi (figurativni, barva itd.) nameščeni ali pritrjeni na proizvod.
The factors to be taken into account when examining shape marks are also relevant for position marks.
Dejavniki, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri preizkušanju oblikovnih znamk, so primerni tudi za pozicijske znamke.
In particular, the examiner must consider whether the relevant consumer will be able to identify a sign that is different from the normal appearance of the products themselves.
Preizkuševalec mora zlasti proučiti, ali bo lahko upoštevni potrošnik prepoznal znak, ki je drugačen od običajnega videza samih proizvodov.
A further relevant consideration in dealing with position marks is whether the positioning of the mark upon the goods is likely to be understood as having a trade mark context.
Pri preizkušanju pozicijskih znamk je treba proučiti tudi verjetnost, da se bo iz položaja znamke na blagu zaznal značaj znamke.
Note that even where it is accepted that the relevant public may be attentive to the different aesthetic details of a product, this does not automatically imply that they will perceive it as a trade mark.
Poudariti je treba, da tudi če se ugotovi, da je lahko upoštevna javnost pozorna na različne estetske podrobnosti proizvoda, to samo po sebi še ne pomeni, da bo proizvod zaznala kot znamko.
In certain contexts, and given the norms and customs of particular trades, a position mark may appeal to the eye as an independent feature being distinguishable from the product itself and thus communicating a trade mark message.
Pozicijska znamka se lahko v nekaterih primerih glede na standarde in navade v določenih sektorjih zazna kot neodvisna lastnost, ki se razlikuje od samega proizvoda, in zato izraža sporočilo znamke.
The following are examples of the assessment of position marks.
Sledita primera presoje pozicijskih znamk:
Rejected position marks
Zavrnjene pozicijske znamke
Accepted position mark
Sprejeta pozicijska znamka
13 Pattern Marks
Znamke z vzorcem
Article 3(3)(e) EUTMIR defines pattern marks as trade marks consisting exclusively of a set of elements that are repeated regularly.
Znamke z vzorcem so v skladu s členom 3(3)(e) Izvedbene uredbe blagovne znamke, ki so sestavljene izključno iz niza elementov, ki se redno ponavljajo.
Pattern marks may cover any kind of goods and services.
Znamke z vzorcem lahko zajemajo katero koli vrsto blaga in storitev.
However, in practice they are more commonly filed in relation to goods such as paper, fabrics, clothing articles, leather goods, jewellery, wallpaper, furniture, tiles, tyres, building products, etc., that is to say, goods that normally feature designs.
Vendar se v praksi zanje običajneje vloži prijava za blago, kot so papir, tkanine, oblačila, usnjeni izdelki, nakit, tapete, pohištvo, ploščice, pnevmatike, gradbeni materiali itd., tj. blago, ki običajno vključuje vzorce.
In these cases, the pattern is nothing else than the outward appearance of the goods.
V teh primerih je vzorec le zunanji videz blaga.
Although patterns may be represented in the form of square/rectangular labels, they should nonetheless be assessed as if they covered the entire surface of the goods for which protection is sought.
Čeprav se lahko vzorci prikažejo v obliki kvadratnih/pravokotnih etiket, jih je treba oceniti, kot če bi pokrivali celotno površino blaga, za katero se zahteva varstvo.
It must also be taken into account that when a pattern mark claims protection for goods such as beverages or fluid substances in general, that is to say, goods that are normally distributed and sold in containers, the assessment of the design should be made as if it covered the outward surface of the container/packaging itself.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati, da kadar znamka z vzorcem, za katero se zahteva varstvo, zajema blago, kot so pijače ali tekoče snovi na splošno, tj. blago, ki se običajno distribuira in prodaja v posodah, je treba vzorec oceniti, kot če bi pokrival zunanjo površino same posode/embalaže.
It follows from the above that, as a rule, in the assessment of the distinctive character of patterns, the examiner should use the same criteria that are applicable to shape marks that consist of the appearance of the product itself (19/09/2012, T329/10, Stoffmuster, EU:T:2012:436).
Iz navedenega sledi, da mora preizkuševalec pri presoji razlikovalnega učinka vzorcev načeloma uporabiti enaka merila, kot veljajo za oblikovne znamke, ki dajejo videz samega proizvoda (19/09/2012, T329/10, Stoffmuster, EU:T:2012:436).
With regard to services, examiners should bear in mind that pattern marks will be used in practice on letterheads and correspondence, invoices, internet websites, advertisements, shop signs, etc.
Preizkuševalec mora v zvezi s storitvami upoštevati, da se bodo znamke z vzorcem v praksi uporabljale v glavi dopisov in korespondenci, na računih, spletnih straneh, v oglasih, na znakih trgovin itd.
In principle, if a pattern is commonplace, traditional and/or typical, it is devoid of distinctive character.
Načeloma je vzorec brez razlikovalnega učinka, če je običajen, tradicionalen in/ali značilen.
In addition, patterns that consist of basic/simple designs usually lack distinctiveness.
Poleg tega vzorci, ki imajo osnovno/enostavno obliko, običajno nimajo razlikovalnega učinka.
The reason for the refusal lies in the fact that such patterns do not convey any ‘message' that could make the sign easily memorable for consumers.
Razlog za zavrnitev izhaja iz dejstva, da takšni vzorci ne izražajo nobenega sporočila, zaradi katerega bi si potrošniki znak lažje zapomnili.
Paradoxically, the same applies to patterns composed of extraordinarily complex designs.
Paradoksalno je, da to velja tudi za vzorce, ki imajo izredno zapleteno obliko.
In these cases the complexity of the overall design will not allow the design's individual details to be committed to memory (09/10/2002, T36/01, Glass Pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 28).
V teh primerih zapletena oblika kot celota potrošnikom ne omogoča, da bi si zapomnili posamezne podrobnosti vzorca (09/10/2002, T36/01, Glass Pattern, EU:T:2002:245, § 28).
Indeed, in many cases the targeted public would perceive patterns as merely decorative elements.
Ciljna javnost bi vzorce v številnih primerih dejansko zaznala le kot okrasne elemente.
In this regard, it must be taken into account that the average consumer tends not to look at things analytically.
V zvezi s tem je treba upoštevati, da povprečen potrošnik stvari ne gleda analitično.
A trade mark must therefore enable average consumers of the goods/services in question, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to distinguish the product concerned from those of other undertakings without conducting an analytical or comparative examination and without paying particular attention (12/02/2004, C218/01, Perwoll, EU:C:2004:88, § 53; 12/01/2006, C173/04 P, Standbeutel, EU:C:2006:20, § 29).
Znamka mora zato dobro obveščenemu ter razumno pozornemu in preudarnemu povprečnemu potrošniku zadevnega blaga/storitev omogočati, da zadevne proizvode razlikuje od proizvodov drugih podjetij, ne da bi jih analiziral ali primerjal in jim posvečal posebno pozornost (12/02/2004, C218/01, Perwoll, EU:C:2004:88, § 53; 12/01/2006, C173/04 P, Standbeutel, EU:C:2006:20, § 29).
The fact that the pattern may also have other functions and/or effects is an additional argument for concluding that it lacks distinctive character.
Dejstvo, da lahko ima vzorec tudi druge funkcije in/ali učinke, je dodatna utemeljitev za ugotovitev, da nima razlikovalnega učinka.
By contrast, if a pattern is fanciful, unusual and/or arbitrary, departs from the norm or customs of the sector or is, more generally, capable of being easily memorised by the targeted consumers, it usually deserves protection as an EUTM.
Nasprotno pa velja, da je treba vzorec, če je domišljijski, neobičajen in/ali kontrasten, če odstopa od standarda ali navad v sektorju ali če si ga lahko ciljni potrošniki na splošno lažje zapomnijo, običajno zaščititi kot blagovno znamko EU.
As seen above, the distinctive character of pattern marks must usually be assessed with regard to goods.
Iz navedenega je razvidno, da je treba razlikovalni učinek znamke z vzorcem običajno oceniti v povezavi z blagom.
Nevertheless, a pattern mark that has been considered devoid of distinctive character for the goods it covers must also be regarded as lacking distinctiveness for services that are closely connected to those goods.
Vendar je treba znamko z vzorcem, za katero se šteje, da je brez razlikovalnega učinka za blago, ki ga zajema, obravnavati tako, kot da nima razlikovalnega učinka niti za storitve, ki so tesno povezane s tem blagom.
For example, a stitching pattern that is devoid of distinctive character for clothing articles and leather goods must be regarded as lacking distinctiveness also for retail services concerning those goods (see, by analogy, decision of 29/07/2010, R 868/20094, DEVICE OF A POCKET (fig.)).
Na primer, vzorec šivanja, ki je brez razlikovalnega učinka za oblačila in usnjene izdelke, je treba obravnavati tako, kot da nima razlikovalnega učinka niti za maloprodajne storitve v zvezi s temi izdelki (glej po analogiji odločbo z dne 29/07/2010, R 868/20094, DEVICE OF A POCKET (fig.)).
The same considerations would apply to a fabric pattern with regard to services such as manufacture of fabrics.
Enake ugotovitve bi veljale za tekstilni vzorec v povezavi s storitvami, kot je proizvodnja tkanin.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of pattern marks.
Sledi neizčrpen seznam primerov znamk z vzorcem:
Rejected pattern marks
Zavrnjene znamke z vzorcem
Accepted pattern marks
Sprejete znamke z vzorcem
14 Colour Marks
Barvne znamke
This paragraph is concerned with single colours or combinations of colours as such (‘colour marks' within the meaning of Article 3(3)(f) EUTMIR).
Ta odstavek obravnava posamezne barve ali kombinacije barv kot take (barvne znamke v smislu člena 3(3)(f) Izvedbene uredbe).
Where colours or colour combinations as such are applied for, the appropriate examination standard is whether they are distinctive either if applied to the goods or their packaging, or if used in the context of delivery of services.
Kadar je vložena prijava za barve ali kombinacije barv, je pri preizkusu primerno proučiti, ali imajo razlikovalni učinek, če se uporabijo za blago ali njihovo embalažo oziroma pri zagotavljanju storitev.
It is a sufficient ground for a mark to be refused if the mark is not distinctive in either of these situations.
Če znamka nima razlikovalnega učinka v katerem koli od teh primerov, je to zadosten razlog za njeno zavrnitev.
For colour combinations, examination of distinctiveness should be based on the assumption that the colour combination appears on the goods or their packaging, in a way that accords with the representation, or in advertisements or promotional material for the services.
Pri kombinacijah barv mora preizkus temeljiti na predpostavki, da se barvna kombinacija pojavi na blagu ali njegovi embalaži na način, ki se ujema s prikazom, oziroma v oglasih ali promocijskem materialu za storitve.
14.1 Single Colours
Posamezne barve
As regards the registration as trade marks of colours per se, the fact that the number of colours actually available is limited means that a small number of trade mark registrations for certain services or goods could exhaust the entire range of colours available.
Glede registracije barv kot znamk, je posledica majhnega števila dejansko razpoložljivih barv to, da lahko majhno število registracij kot znamk za storitve ali proizvode izčrpa vso paleto razpoložljivih barv.
Such an extensive monopoly would be incompatible with a system of undistorted competition, in particular because it could have the effect of creating an unjustified competitive advantage for a single trader.
Tako širok monopol ni združljiv s sistemom neizkrivljene konkurence, zlasti ker bi lahko omogočil nezakonito konkurenčno prednost v korist enega samega gospodarskega subjekta.
Nor would it be conducive to economic development or the fostering of the spirit of enterprise for established traders to be able to register the entire range of colours that is in fact available for their own benefit, to the detriment of new traders (06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244).
To tudi ne bi bilo skladno z gospodarskim razvojem in spodbujanjem podjetniške pobude, če bi že ustanovljeni subjekti lahko v svojo korist in v škodo novih subjektov registrirali vse dejansko razpoložljive barve (06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244).
As has been confirmed by the Court of Justice, consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods based on their colour or the colour of their packaging, in the absence of any graphic or word element, because as a rule a colour per se is not used as a means of identification in current commercial practice (06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244).
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče, potrošniki ob neobstoju kakršnih koli grafičnih ali besednih elementov izvora blaga po navadi ne domnevajo na podlagi njegove barve ali barve embalaže, ker se v skladu s trenutnimi trgovinskimi običaji barva kot taka načeloma ne uporablja kot sredstvo identifikacije (06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244).
A colour is not normally inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of a particular undertaking (para. 65).
Barva po navadi ni lastnost, ki bi omogočala razlikovanje blaga nekega podjetja (točka 65).
Therefore, single colours are not distinctive for any goods and services except under exceptional circumstances.
Posamezne barve zato nimajo razlikovalnega učinka za katero koli blago in storitve, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah.
Such exceptional circumstances require the applicant to demonstrate that the mark is unusual or striking in relation to these specific goods or services.
Da bi se takšne izjemne okoliščine priznale, mora prijavitelj dokazati, da je znamka neobičajna ali presenetljiva v povezavi z določenim blagom ali storitvami.
These cases will be very rare, for example in the case of the colour black for milk.
Takšni primeri so zelo redki, na primer v primeru črne barve za mleko.
It is not necessary for a refusal that one of the factors listed in paragraph 14.2 below is present, but if this is the case, it should be used as a further argument in support of the refusal.
Za zavrnitev ni nujno, da je prisoten eden od dejavnikov iz odstavka 14.2 v nadaljevanju, če pa takšen dejavnik obstaja, ga je treba uporabiti kot dodatno utemeljitev za zavrnitev.
Where the single colour is found to be commonly used in the relevant sector(s) and/or to serve a decorative or functional purpose, the colour must be refused.
Če se ugotovi, da se posamezna barva običajno uporablja v zadevnem sektorju ali zadevnih sektorjih in/ali da je namenjena kot okras ali za funkcionalno uporabo, jo je treba zavrniti.
The public interest is, according to the Court, an obstacle to the monopolisation of a single colour, irrespective of whether the relevant field of interest belongs to a very specific market segment (13/09/2010, T97/08, Colour (shade of orange) II, EU:T:2010:396, § 44-47).
Po mnenju Sodišča je monopolizacija posamezne barve v nasprotju z javnim interesom, ne glede na to, ali zadevno interesno področje pripada zelo ozkemu tržnemu segmentu (13/09/2010, T97/08, Colour (shade of orange) II, EU:T:2010:396, § 44-47).
14.2 Colour combinations
Kombinacije barv
If one of the two colours is either the commonplace colour for the product or the natural colour of the product, that is to say, a colour is added to the usual or natural colour of the product, an objection applies in the same way as if there were only one colour.
Če je ena od dveh barv običajna barva za proizvod ali njegova naravna barva, tj. barva, ki je dodana običajni ali naravni barvi proizvoda, velja enak ugovor, kot če bi se uporabila samo ena barva.
Example: grey is the usual colour for the grip of gardening tools, and white is the natural colour of washing tablets.
Primer: siva je običajna barva držala na vrtnarskem orodju, bela pa je naravna barva tablet za pranje.
Therefore, a washing tablet that is white with another layer in red is in fact to be judged as a case that involves the addition of a colour.
Zato je treba tableto za pranje, ki je bele barve in ima dodatno rdečo plast, dejansko obravnavati kot primer, ki vključuje dodano barvo.
The situations in which a combination of two colours should nevertheless be refused include the following.
Obstajajo tudi primeri, ko je treba zavrniti kombinacijo dveh barv, med drugim:
In many instances, a colour would merely be a decorative element of the goods or comply with the consumer's request (e.g. colours of cars or T-shirts), irrespective of the number of colours concerned.
V številnih primerih bi bila barva samo okrasni element blaga ali izpolnitev želje stranke (npr. barve avtomobilov ali majic s kratkimi rokavi) ne glede na število zadevnih barv.
A colour can be the nature of the goods (e.g. for tints).
Barva je lahko lastnost blaga (npr. za konzerve).
A colour can be technically functional (e.g. colour red for fire extinguishers, various colours used for electric cables).
Barva je lahko tehnično-funkcionalna (npr. rdeča barva za gasilne aparate, različne barve, ki se uporabljajo za električne kable).
A colour may also be usual (e.g. again, red for fire extinguishers, yellow for postal services in many countries).
Barva je lahko tudi običajna (npr. rdeča barva za gasilne aparate, rumena za poštne storitve v številnih državah).
A colour may indicate a particular characteristic of the goods, such as a flavour (yellow for lemon flavour, pink for strawberry flavour).
Barva lahko označuje neko lastnost blaga, kot je okus (rumena za okus limone, rožnata za okus jagode).
See judgment of 03/05/2017, T36/16, GREEN STRIPES ON A PIN (col.), EU:T:2017:295, paras 43 to 47, in which the Court stated that the colour green, perceived as the colour of nature, would lead the relevant public to understand it as referring to the ecological nature of the goods at issue (wind energy converters).
Glej sodbo z dne 03/05/2017, T36/16, GREEN STRIPES ON A PIN (col.), EU:T:2017:295, točke od 43 do 47, v kateri je Sodišče navedlo, da bi zelena barva, ki se zaznava kot barva narave, upoštevno javnost napeljala k temu, da jo razume kot ekološko naravo zadevnega blaga (pretvorniki vetrne energije).
A colour combination should also be refused if the existence of the colour combination can already be found on the market, in particular if used by different competitors (e.g. the Office proved that the colour combination red and yellow is used by various enterprises on beer and soft drink cans).
Kombinacijo barv je treba zavrniti tudi, če je takšno barvno kombinacijo že mogoče najti na trgu, zlasti če jo uporabljajo različni konkurenti (na primer, Urad je dokazal, da različna podjetja kombinacijo rdeče in rumene barve uporabljajo na pločevinkah za pivo in brezalkoholne pijače).
In all these cases the trade mark should be objected to but with careful analysis of the goods and services concerned and the situation on the market.
V vseh teh primerih je treba vložiti ugovor, vendar na podlagi podrobne analize zadevnega blaga in storitev ter razmer na trgu.
The criteria to assess the distinctiveness of colour marks designating services should not be different from those applicable to colour marks designating goods (as reiterated by the General Court in its judgment of 12/11/2010, T404/09, Grau/Rot, EU:T:2010:466).
Merila za ocenjevanje razlikovalnega učinka barvnih znamk, ki označujejo storitve, ne smejo biti drugačna od meril, ki veljajo za barvne znamke, ki označujejo blago (kot je Splošno sodišče izpostavilo v sodbi z dne 12/11/2010, T404/09, Grau/Rot, EU:T:2010:466).
In this case, the colour combination applied for was considered not to differ for the relevant consumer in a perceptible manner from the colours generally used for the services concerned.
V tem primeru se je štelo, da se barvna kombinacija, za katero je bila vložena prijava, z vidika upoštevnega potrošnika ne razlikuje dovolj od barv, ki se splošno uporabljajo za zadevne storitve, da bi bilo to mogoče zaznati.
The General Court concluded that the colour combination applied for was very close to the combination ‘white/red' used on the railway crossing gates and traffic signs associated with train traffic and that the sign, as a whole, would be recognised by the relevant public as a functional or decorative element and not as an indication of the commercial origin of the services.
Splošno sodišče je sklenilo, da je barvna kombinacija, za katero je bila vložena prijava, zelo podobna kombinaciji „bela/rdeča“, ki se uporablja na železniških prehodih in prometnih znakih, povezanih z železniškim prometom, in da bi upoštevna javnost znak na splošno prepoznala kot funkcionalni ali okrasni element, in ne kot označbo trgovskega izvora storitev.
The higher the number of colours is, the less distinctiveness is likely, because of the difficulty of memorising a high number of different colours and their sequence.
Več ko je barv, manj verjetneje je, da ima barvna kombinacija razlikovalni učinek, ker si je težje zapomniti veliko število različnih barv in njihovo zaporedje.