natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
There is one exception: where genuine use of the EUTM started or was resumed within the 3 months preceding the date on which the application for revocation was filed, such use will be disregarded where preparations for the commencement or resumption of use only began after the EUTM proprietor became aware that the request for revocation might be filed (Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR).
Obstaja izjema: če se je resna in dejanska uporaba blagovne znamke EU začela ali znova začela v treh mesecih pred datumom vložitve zahteve za razveljavitev, takšna uporaba ne bo upoštevana, če so se priprave na začetek ali ponovni začetek uporabe začele šele po tem, ko je imetnik blagovne znamke EU izvedel, da bi lahko bila vložena zahteva za razveljavitev (člen 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The burden of proof for this exception is on the applicant for revocation, who must submit evidence that it made the EUTM proprietor aware of its intention to file an application for revocation.
Dokazno breme za to izjemo nosi vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev, ki mora predložiti dokaze, da je imetnika blagovne znamke EU seznanil s svojo namero o vložitvi zahteve za razveljavitev.
2.2.4 Proper reasons for non-use
Upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo
The detailed considerations in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 2 and in particular paragraph 2.11 should be followed.
Upoštevati je treba podrobne premisleke iz Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 2, in zlasti odstavek 2.11.
2.3 EUTM becoming a common name (generic term) - Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR
Blagovna znamka EU, ki postane obča oznaka (splošni izraz) - člen 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
An EUTM will be revoked if, as a result of action or inaction on the part of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service for which it was registered.
Blagovna znamka EU se razveljavi, če zaradi dejanj ali opustitev imetnika v gospodarskem prometu postane obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katero je registrirana.
2.3.1 Burden of proof
Dokazno breme
The burden is on the applicant for revocation to prove that the term has become the common name in the trade as a result of either:
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je izraz v gospodarskem prometu postal obča oznaka zaradi:
action, or
dejanj ali
inaction
opustitev
on the part of the proprietor.
imetnika.
The Office will examine the facts in accordance with Article 95(1) EUTMR within the scope of factual submissions made by the revocation applicant (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
Urad bo proučil dejstva v skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v okviru dejstev, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
In doing so, it may take into consideration obvious and well-known facts.
Pri tem lahko upošteva očitna in dobro znana dejstva.
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the revocation applicant.
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev.
If a request for revocation is based only on Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR, the trade mark could not then be revoked due to being, for example, against public order and morality.
Če zahteva za razveljavitev temelji le na členu 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, blagovne znamke ni mogoče razveljaviti, ker je na primer v nasprotju z javnim redom in moralo.
2.3.2 Point in time to be considered
Upoštevni trenutek
The applicant for revocation must prove that the trade mark has become the common name in the trade for the product or service in question after the date of registration of the EUTM, although facts or circumstances that took place between application and registration can be taken into account.
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu postala obča oznaka za zadevni proizvod ali storitev po datumu registracije blagovne znamke EU, čeprav se lahko upoštevajo dejstva ali okoliščine, ki so se zgodile med prijavo in registracijo.
The fact that the sign was, at the date of application, the common name used in the trade for the goods or services in respect of which registration was sought would only be relevant in the context of an invalidity action.
Dejstvo, da je bil znak na datum vložitve zahteve v gospodarskem prometu obča oznaka, ki se uporablja za blago ali storitve, za katere se je zahtevala registracija, bi bilo pomembno le v postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti.
2.3.3 Relevant public
Upoštevna javnost
An EUTM is liable to be revoked in accordance with Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR if it has become the common name for the product or service not just among some but among the vast majority of the relevant public, including those involved in the trade for the product or service in question (29/04/2004, C371/02, Bostongurka, EU:C:2004:275, § 23, 26).
V skladu s členom 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka EU lahko razveljavi, če je postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev ne le za del, temveč za veliko večino upoštevne javnosti, vključno s tisto, ki je vključena v gospodarskem prometu z zadevnim proizvodom ali storitvijo (29/04/2004, C371/02, Bostongurka, EU:C:2004:275, § 23, 26).
Whether a trade mark has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered must be assessed not only in the light of the perception of consumers or end users but also, depending on the features of the market concerned, in the light of the perception of those in the trade, such as sellers (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 28).
Ali je blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katero je registrirana, je treba presojati ne le ob upoštevanju zaznavanja potrošnikov ali končnih uporabnikov, temveč tudi glede na značilnosti zadevnega trga, ob upoštevanju zaznavanja tistih, ki so vključeni v gospodarski promet, kot so prodajalci (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 28).
However, in some specific circumstances, it might be sufficient that the sellers of the finished product do not inform their customers that the sign has been registered as a trade mark and do not offer their customers assistance at the time of sale, which includes an indication of the origin of the goods for sale (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 23-25, 30).
Vendar v nekaterih posebnih okoliščinah lahko zadostuje, da prodajalci končnega proizvoda svojih strank ob prodaji ne obvestijo, da je bil znak registriran kot blagovna znamka, in jim ne ponudijo pomoči, kar vključuje navedbo porekla različnih izdelkov, ki so na prodaj (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 23-25, 30).
2.3.4 Common name
Obča oznaka
A sign is regarded as the ‘common name in the trade' if it is established practice in the trade to use the term in question to designate the goods or services for which it is registered (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 5, Customary Signs or Indications (Article 7(1)(d) EUTMR)).
Znak se šteje za „občo oznako v gospodarskem prometu“, če se zadevni izraz v ustaljeni praksi v gospodarskem prometu uporablja za označevanje blaga ali storitev, za katere je registriran (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 5: Običajni znaki ali označbe (člen 7(1)(d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
It is not necessary to prove that the term directly describes a quality or characteristic of the goods or services, but merely that it is actually used in the trade to refer to those goods or services.
Ni treba dokazati, da izraz neposredno označuje kakovost ali značilnost blaga ali storitev, temveč le, da se v gospodarskem prometu dejansko uporablja za navedeno blago ali storitve.
The distinctive force of a trade mark is always more likely to degenerate when a sign is suggestive or apt in some way, especially if it has positive connotations that lead others to latch on to its suitability for designating not just a particular producer's product or service but a particular type of product or service (30/01/2007, 1 020 C, Stimulation, § 22, 32 et seq.).
Najverjetneje je, da se bo razlikovalni učinek blagovne znamke zmanjšal, kadar je znak nekako sugestiven ali ustrezen, zlasti če ima pozitivne konotacije, zaradi česar so ljudje prepričani, da ni primeren le za označevanje določenega proizvoda ali storitve proizvajalca, temveč tudi posebne vrste proizvoda ali storitve (30/01/2007, 1 020 C, Stimulation, § 22, 32 et seq.).
The fact that a trade mark is being used as the common name to refer to a specific product or service is an indication that it has lost its ability to differentiate the goods or services in question from those of other undertakings.
Dejstvo, da se blagovna znamka uporablja kot obča oznaka za neki proizvod ali storitev, je znak, da je izgubila sposobnost za razlikovanje zadevnega blaga ali storitev od blaga ali storitev drugih podjetij.
One indication that a trade mark has become generic is when it is commonly used verbally to refer to a particular type or characteristic of the goods or services.
Eden od znakov, da je blagovna znamka postala splošna, je, kadar se v besedni komunikaciji pogosto uporablja za posebno vrsto ali značilnost blaga ali storitev.
However, this is not in itself decisive: it must be established whether the trade mark is still capable of differentiating the goods or services in question from those of other undertakings.
Vendar to samo po sebi ni odločilno: ugotoviti je treba, ali je blagovna znamka še vedno sposobna razlikovati zadevno blago ali storitve od blaga ali storitev drugih podjetij.
The absence of any alternative term or the existence of only one long, complicated term may also be an indication that a sign has become the common name in the trade for a specific product or service.
Neobstoj kakršnega koli drugega izraza ali obstoj le enega dolgega in zapletenega izraza lahko kaže tudi na to, da je znak v gospodarskem prometu postal obča oznaka za poseben proizvod ali storitev.
2.3.5 Defence for the proprietor
Obramba imetnika
Where the proprietor of the EUTM has done what could reasonably have been expected in the particular case (e.g. organised a TV campaign or placed advertisements in newspapers and relevant magazines), the EUTM cannot be revoked.
Če je imetnik blagovne znamke EU storil to, kar bi se lahko v posameznem primeru utemeljeno pričakovalo (npr. organiziral televizijsko kampanjo ali oglaševal v časopisih in ustreznih revijah), blagovne znamke EU ni mogoče razveljaviti.
The proprietor must then check whether its trade mark appears in dictionaries as a generic term; if it does, the proprietor can request from the publisher that in future editions the trade mark will be accompanied by an indication that it is a registered trade mark (Article 12 EUTMR).
Imetnik mora nato preveriti, ali se njegova blagovna znamka v slovarjih pojavlja kot splošni izraz; če se, lahko imetnik od založnika zahteva, da se v naslednjih izdajah blagovni znamki doda navedba, da gre za registrirano blagovno znamko (člen 12 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
2.4 EUTM becoming misleading - Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR
Blagovna znamka EU, ki postane zavajajoča - člen 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
If, as a result of use made of the mark by the proprietor or with its consent, the mark is liable to mislead the public, particularly concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, the EUTM can be revoked.
Če zaradi uporabe znamke s strani imetnika ali z njegovim soglasjem obstaja verjetnost, da bo blagovna znamka zavajala javnost, zlasti glede vrste, kakovosti ali geografskega porekla blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana, je mogoče to blagovno znamko EU razveljaviti.
In this context, quality refers to a characteristic or attribute rather than a degree or standard of excellence.
V tem okviru kakovost pomeni značilnost ali lastnost, in ne stopnje ali standarda odličnosti.
2.4.1 Burden of proof
Dokazno breme
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the applicant for revocation.
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev.
The burden of proof that the mark has become misleading rests on the applicant for revocation, who must further prove that it is the use made by the proprietor that causes the misleading effect.
Dokazno breme, da je blagovna znamka postala zavajajoča, nosi vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev, ki mora prav tako dokazati, da je razlog za zavajajoči učinek imetnikova uporaba.
If the use is made by a third party, the burden is on the applicant for revocation to prove that the proprietor has consented to that use, unless the third party is a licensee of the proprietor.
Če znamko uporablja tretja oseba, mora vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev dokazati, da je imetnik soglašal z navedeno uporabo, razen če je tretja oseba pridobitelj licence za blagovno znamko imetnika.
2.4.2 Point in time to be considered
Upoštevni trenutek
The applicant for revocation must prove that the trade mark has become liable to mislead the public, particularly concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services in question, after the date of registration of the EUTM.
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je blagovna znamka EU po datumu registracije verjetno zavajala javnost, zlasti glede vrste, kakovosti ali geografskega porekla zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
If the sign was already deceptive or liable to deceive the public at the date of application, this would be relevant in the context of an invalidity action.
Če je bil znak na datum prijave že zavajajoč ali pa je zanj obstajala verjetnost zavajanja javnosti, bi bilo to pomembno v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti.
2.4.3 Standards to be applied
Standardi, ki jih je treba uporabljati
The Guidelines contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM application complies with Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 8, Deceptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR).
Smernice vsebujejo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presojanju, ali je prijava blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 8: Zavajajoče blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
The criteria are comparable to those applied in revocation proceedings under Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR.
Merila so primerljiva s tistimi, ki se uporabljajo v postopku za razveljavitev na podlagi člena 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.4.4 Examples
Primeri
A trade mark composed of, or containing, a geographical indication will, as a rule, be perceived by the relevant public as a reference to the place from where the goods originate.
Blagovno znamko, ki je sestavljena iz geografske označbe ali jo vsebuje, bo upoštevna javnost praviloma zaznala kot sklicevanje na kraj, iz katerega blago izvira.
The only exception to this rule is where the relationship between the geographical name and the products is manifestly so fanciful (e.g. because the place is not known, and unlikely to become known, to the public as the place of origin of the goods in question) that consumers will not make such a connection.
Edina izjema od tega pravila je, če je odnos med geografskim imenom in proizvodi očitno tako domišljijski (ker na primer javnosti kraj ni znan in bo verjetno ostal neznan kot kraj porekla zadevnega blaga), da potrošniki te povezave ne bodo zaznali.
In this regard, the trade mark MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND was revoked because the goods in question were produced (according to the facts) solely in Germany, not in Switzerland (12/02/2009, R 697/20081, MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND).
S tega vidika je bila blagovna znamka MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND razveljavljena, ker se je zadevno blago proizvajalo (na podlagi dejstev) le v Nemčiji, ne pa tudi v Švici (12/02/2009, R 697/20081, MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND).
Moreover, where a trade mark containing the word elements ‘goats' and ‘cheese' and a figurative element clearly depicting a goat is registered for ‘goats' cheese', and use is proven for cheese not made from goats' milk, the EUTM will be revoked.
Če se poleg tega blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedna elementa „koze“ in „sir“ ter figurativni element, ki jasno prikazuje kozo, registrira za „kozji sir“ ter se glede na dokaze uporablja za sir, ki ni proizveden iz kozjega mleka, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
Where a trade mark containing the word elements ‘pure new wool' is registered for ‘clothing' and use is proven for clothing manufactured from artificial fibres, the EUTM will be revoked.
Če je blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedne elemente „čista runska volna“, registrirana za „oblačila“ in se glede na dokaze uporablja za oblačila, proizvedena iz umetnih vlaken, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
Where a trade mark containing the words ‘genuine leather' or the corresponding pictogram is registered for ‘shoe wear' and use is proven for shoes not made of leather, the EUTM will be revoked.
Če je blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedi „pravo usnje“ ali ustrezen piktogram, registrirana za obutev in se glede na dokaze uporablja za „obutev“, ki ni proizvedena iz usnja, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
2.5 Additional grounds for revocation of EU collective marks (Article 81 EUTMR)
Dodatni razlogi za razveljavitev kolektivnih znamk EU (člen 81 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
According to Article 81 EUTMR, in addition to the grounds for revocation provided for in Article 58 EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of an EU collective mark will be revoked on application to the Office or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings, if:
V skladu s členom 81 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bodo poleg razlogov za razveljavitev iz člena 58 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravice nosilca kolektivne znamke EU razveljavljene ob pritožbi Uradu ali na podlagi nasprotne tožbe v postopku zaradi kršitev pravic, če:
the proprietor does not take reasonable steps to prevent the mark being used in a manner incompatible with the conditions of use, where these exist, laid down in the regulations governing use, amendments to which have, where appropriate, been mentioned in the Register;
imetnik ne izvede razumnih ukrepov, da bi preprečil uporabo blagovne znamke na način, ki ni združljiv s pogoji uporabe, če ti obstajajo, zapisanimi v pravilniku o uporabi ali v spremembah le-tega, ki so bile, če je bilo to primerno, vpisane v registru;
the proprietor of the EU collective mark uses it in such a way that it becomes liable to mislead the public as regards the character or significance of the mark, in particular, if it is likely to be taken to be something other than a collective mark, as stated in Article 76 EUTMR;
bi zaradi načina, kako je nosilec kolektivno znamko EU uporabljal, ta lahko začela povzročati zmedo v javnosti glede svojega značaja ali pomena, zlasti če je verjetno, da bi bila sprejeta kot nekaj drugega kot kolektivna znamka, kot je navedeno v členu 76 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
the amended regulations do not satisfy the requirements of Article 75 EUTMR or involve one of the grounds for refusal referred to in Article 76 EUTMR, but the amendment has been mentioned in the Register in breach of the provisions of Article 79(2) EUTMR, unless the proprietor of the mark, by further amending the regulations governing use in order to comply with the requirements of those provisions.
spremenjeni pravilnik ne izpolnjuje zahtev člena 75 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali vsebuje enega od razlogov za zavrnitev iz člena 76 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar je bila sprememba vpisana v register zaradi kršitve določb iz člena 79(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razen če nosilec blagovne znamke z nadaljnjo spremembo pravilnika o uporabi uspe ugoditi zahtevam teh določb.
2.6 Additional grounds for revocation of EU certification marks (Article 91 EUTMR)
Dodatni razlogi za razveljavitev certifikacijskih znamk EU (člen 91 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
According to Article 91 EUTMR, in addition to the grounds for revocation provided for in Article 58 EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of an EU certification mark will be revoked on application to the Office or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings, where any of the following conditions is fulfilled:
V skladu s členom 91 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bodo poleg razlogov za razveljavitev iz člena 58 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravice imetnik certifikacijske znamke EU razveljavljene ob pritožbi Uradu ali na podlagi nasprotne tožbe v postopku zaradi kršitev pravic, če je izpolnjen kateri koli od naslednjih pogojev:
the proprietor carries on a business involving the supply of goods or services of the kind certified, in breach of Article 83(2) EUTMR;
imetnik opravlja dejavnosti, ki vključujejo dobavo iste vrste blaga ali storitev, kot so certificirane, v nasprotju s členom 83(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
the proprietor does not take reasonable steps to prevent the mark being used in a manner that is incompatible with the conditions of use laid down in the regulations governing use, amendments to which have, where appropriate, been mentioned in the Register;
imetnik ne sprejme razumnih ukrepov, da bi preprečil uporabo znamke na način, ki ni združljiv s pogoji uporabe iz pravilnika o uporabi znamke, v zvezi s katerim so morebitne spremembe vpisane v register;
the manner in which the mark has been used by the proprietor has caused it to become liable to mislead the public in the manner referred to in Article 85(2) EUTMR;
zaradi načina, kako imetnik uporablja blagovno znamko, bi bila javnost lahko zavedena, kot je navedeno v členu 85(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
an amendment to the regulations governing use of the mark has been mentioned in the Register in breach of Article 88(2) EUTMR, unless the proprietor of the mark, by further amending the regulations governing use, complies with the requirements of that Article.
sprememba pravilnika o uporabi blagovne znamke je navedena v registru v nasprotju s členom 88(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razen če imetnik znamke z dodatno spremembo pravilnika o uporabi izpolni zahteve iz navedenega člena.
3 Absolute Grounds for Invalidity
Absolutni razlogi za ničnost
3.1 EUTM registered contrary to Article 7 EUTMR - Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR
Blagovna znamka EU, registrirana v nasprotju s členom 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - člen 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
An EUTM can be declared invalid if, at the time of its application, an objection could have been raised under any of the grounds listed in Article 7 EUTMR.
Blagovno znamko EU je mogoče razglasiti za nično, če bi se ob njeni prijavi lahko vložil ugovor na podlagi katerega koli razloga iz člena 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.1 Burden of proof
Dokazno breme
The purpose of invalidity proceedings is, inter alia, to enable the Office to review the validity of the registration of a trade mark and to adopt, where necessary, a position that it should have adopted of its own motion in the registration process in accordance with Article 42(1) EUTMR (30/05/2013, T396/11, Ultrafilter International, EU:T:2013:284, § 20).
Namen postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti je med drugim Uradu omogočiti, da znova prouči veljavnost registracije blagovne znamke in po potrebi sprejme stališče, ki bi ga moral v okoliščinah primera med postopkom registracije sprejeti po uradni dolžnosti v skladu s členom 42(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (30/05/2013, T396/11, Ultrafilter International, EU:T:2013:284, § 20).
Article 95(1) EUTMR, second sentence, explicitly states that in invalidity proceedings pursuant to Article 59 EUTMR, the Office will limit its examination to the grounds and arguments submitted by the parties.
V drugem stavku člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je izrecno navedeno, da Urad v postopkih za ugotavljanje ničnosti v skladu s členom 59 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU preverjanje omeji na razloge in argumente, ki so jih navedle stranke.