natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the event of the death of the applicant or of the person authorised by national law to act on their behalf because of the legal incapacity of the applicant, the proceedings are only interrupted when this is requested by the representative of the applicant/authorised person or when the representative resigns.
V primeru smrti prijavitelja ali osebe, ki je zaradi pravne in poslovne nesposobnosti prijavitelja na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje pooblaščena za delovanje v njegovem imenu, se postopek prekine samo, kadar to zahteva prijaviteljev zastopnik/pooblaščena oseba ali kadar zastopnik odstopi.
6.5.5.2 Applicant prevented from continuing the proceedings before the Office owing to legal reasons (e.g. bankruptcy)
Prijavitelj iz pravnih razlogov (npr. stečaj) ne more nadaljevati postopka pred Uradom
Article 106(1)(b) EUTMR
Člen 106(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 72(3) EUTMDR
Člen 72(3) Delegirane uredbe
Article 106(1)(b) EUTMR applies from the point in time from which the party to the proceedings is no longer entitled to dispose of the procedure, i.e. to dispose of its assets, until the point in time a liquidator or trustee is appointed who will then continue to represent the party under the law.
Člen 106(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja od trenutka, ko stranka v postopku nima več pravice nadaljevati postopka, tj. razpolagati s svojim premoženjem, do trenutka, ko je imenovan likvidator ali upravitelj, ki bo nato po pravu zastopal stranko.
When the applicant is represented by a professional representative who has not resigned, there is no need to interrupt the proceedings.
Če prijavitelja zastopa poklicni zastopnik, ki ni odstopil, postopka ni treba prekiniti.
The Office considers the applicant's representative to be entitled to represent the applicant until the Office is informed otherwise by the representative itself, by the designated trustee or the court dealing with the legal action in question.
Urad šteje, da ima prijaviteljev zastopnik pravico zastopati prijavitelja, dokler ga zastopnik sam, imenovani upravitelj ali sodišče, pristojno za zadevni sodni postopek, ne obvesti drugače.
If the representative informs the Office that it is resigning, how the Office proceeds will depend on whether the representative also indicates who will act as trustee or liquidator in the bankruptcy.
Če zastopnik Urad obvesti, da odstopa, je nadaljnje ravnanje Urada odvisno od tega, ali zastopnik tudi navede, kdo je imenovan za stečajnega upravitelja ali likvidatorja.
If the representative does indicate a trustee or liquidator, the Office will continue to correspond with that trustee or liquidator.
Če zastopnik to navede, bo Urad odslej komuniciral z navedenim upraviteljem ali likvidatorjem.
If there were time limits affecting the applicant that had not yet expired when it went bankrupt, the Office will re-start these time limits.
Če so za prijavitelja veljali roki, ki se ob njegovem stečaju še niso iztekli, bo Urad določil vnovični začetek teh rokov.
Therefore, in this case, the proceedings are interrupted and immediately resumed.
V takšnem primeru se zato postopek prekine in takoj začne znova.
For example, if the applicant still had ten days to file observations when it went bankrupt, the new letter of the Office to the trustee will give a fresh time limit of 2 months to file those observations.
Na primer, če je imel prijavitelj ob stečaju na voljo še deset dni za predložitev pripomb, bo v novem dopisu Urada za upravitelja določen nov dvomesečni rok za njihovo predložitev.
If the representative does not give any information regarding a liquidator or trustee, the Office has no choice but to declare an interruption of the proceedings.
Če zastopnik ne predloži informacij o likvidatorju ali upravitelju, Urad nima druge možnosti, kot da postopek prekine.
A communication to that effect will be sent to the bankrupt applicant directly and to the opponent.
Obvestilo v zvezi s tem bo poslano neposredno prijavitelju v stečaju in vložniku ugovora.
Although it is not up to the Office to investigate who the liquidator is, the Office will keep on trying to communicate with the bankrupt applicant with the aim of resuming the proceedings.
Čeprav ni dolžnost Urada, da razišče, kdo je likvidator, si bo še naprej prizadeval komunicirati s prijaviteljem v stečaju, da bi se postopek lahko nadaljeval.
This is because, although the bankrupt applicant is not allowed to undertake binding legal acts, generally it still receives correspondence, or, if not, the correspondence is delivered automatically to the trustee as long as there is one.
To pa zato, ker prijavitelj v stečaju, čeprav ne sme izvajati pravno zavezujočih dejanj, na splošno še vedno prejema korespondenco ali pa je ta, če je ne prejema, samodejno dostavljena upravitelju, če ta obstaja.
The Office might also consider information on the identity of the trustee provided by the opponent.
Urad lahko upošteva tudi informacije o identiteti upravitelja, ki jih zagotovi vložnik ugovora.
When the notification is returned to the Office as undeliverable, the normal rules for public notification apply.
Če je uradno obvestilo Uradu vrnjeno kot nevročljivo, se uporabljajo običajna pravila za javno obveščanje.
Evidence submitted about the appointment of the liquidator or trustee need not be translated into the language of the proceedings.
Predloženih dokazov o imenovanju likvidatorja ali upravitelja ni treba prevesti v jezik postopka.
Once the Office has been informed of who the liquidator or trustee is, the proceedings are resumed from a date to be fixed by the Office.
Ko je Urad obveščen o tem, kdo je likvidator ali upravitelj, se postopek nadaljuje od datuma, ki ga določi Urad.
The other party must be informed.
Druga stranka mora biti o tem obveščena.
Time limits that had not yet expired when the proceedings were interrupted start running again when the proceedings are resumed.
Rok, ki se še ni iztekel, ko je bil postopek prekinjen, začne znova teči, ko se postopek nadaljuje.
For example, if the proceedings were interrupted ten days before the applicant had to submit observations, a new time limit will start - of 2 months rather than the ten days left at the time of the interruption.
Na primer, če je bil postopek prekinjen deset dni pred iztekom roka, ki ga je imel prijavitelj na voljo za predložitev pripomb, bo začel veljati nov rok, in sicer je ta dolg dva meseca, ne pa deset dni, ki so ostali ob prekinitvi postopka.
For clarification, the letter sent by the Office informing the parties about the resumption will fix a new time limit.
Urad zaradi jasnosti v dopisu, s katerim stranki obvesti o nadaljevanju postopka, določi nov rok.
6.5.5.3 Death or legal incapacity of the applicant's representative
Smrt ali pravna in poslovna nesposobnost zastopnika prijavitelja
Article 106(1)(c) and Article 119(2) EUTMR
Člen 106(1)(c) in člen 119(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
In the case referred to in Article 106(1)(c) EUTMR, the proceedings must be interrupted and will be resumed when the Office is informed of the appointment of a new representative of the EUTM applicant.
V primeru iz člena 106(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba postopek prekiniti, nadaljuje pa se, ko je Urad obveščen o imenovanju novega zastopnika prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU.
When resuming the proceedings, the Office will proceed as follows.
Pri nadaljevanju postopka Urad ravna, kakor sledi:
1. If the appointment of a representative is compulsory under Article 119(2) EUTMR because the applicant has neither its domicile nor its seat in the EEA, the Office will contact the applicant and inform it that the EUTM application will be refused if it does not appoint a representative within a specified time limit.
če je imenovanje zastopnika obvezno na podlagi člena 119(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ker prijavitelj nima stalnega prebivališča ali sedeža v EGP, bo Urad stopil v stik s prijaviteljem in ga obvestil, da bo prijava blagovne znamke EU zavrnjena, če v dveh mesecih ne imenuje zastopnika;
2. If appointment of a representative is not compulsory under Article 119(2) EUTMR, the Office will resume the proceedings and will send all the communications to the applicant directly.
če imenovanje zastopnika ni obvezno na podlagi člena 119(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, bo Urad postopek nadaljeval in vso korespondenco poslal neposredno prijavitelju.
In both cases, resuming the proceedings will mean that any time limits pending for the applicant when the proceedings were interrupted start running again once the proceedings are resumed.
V obeh primerih nadaljevanje postopka pomeni, da vsi roki, ki jih je prijavitelj še imel na voljo, ko je bil postopek prekinjen, začnejo znova teči, ko se postopek nadaljuje.
Earlier trade marks 1 2 3 4 5
Prejšnje blagovne znamke 1 2 3 4 5
Owner A/B A A A A
Imetnik A/B A A A A
Owners A/B A/C A A A
Imetniki A/B A/C A A A
Owners A A B B B
Imetniki A A B B B
Owners A/B A A B B
Imetniki A/B A A B B
Owners A/B/C B/C A A A
Imetniki A/B/C B/C A A A
Earlier trade marks 1 2 3
Prejšnje blagovne znamke 1 2 3
Owner A A A
Imetnik A A A
Licensees B C None
Pridobitelji licence B C Ga ni
Owner A A B
Imetnik A A B
Licensees B C A
Pridobitelji licence B C A
Countries Term of protection Starting point
Države Veljavnost varstva Začetek
Benelux (Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) 10 years Filing date
Beneluks (Belgija, Luksemburg, Nizozemska) 10 let Datum vložitve
Bulgaria 10 years Filing date
Bolgarija 10 let Datum vložitve
Czech Republic 10 years Filing date
Češka 10 let Datum vložitve
Denmark 10 years Registration date
Danska 10 let Datum registracije
Germany 10 years Filing date
Nemčija 10 let Datum vložitve
Estonia 10 years Registration date
Estonija 10 let Datum registracije
Ireland 10 years for TM registered since 01/07/1996 (7/14 years renewal before that) Registration date = filing date
Irska 10 let za blagovne znamke, registrirane od 1. julija 1996 (pred tem 7 let in podaljšanje za 14 let) Datum registracije = datum vložitve
Greece 10 years Filing date
Grčija 10 let Datum vložitve
Spain 10 years for trade marks applied for since 12/05/89 (20 years for trade marks applied for before that, counting from the date of registration, and with a renewal from the filing date) Filing date
Španija 10 let za blagovne znamke, prijavljene po 12. maju 1989 (20 let za blagovne znamke, prijavljene pred tem, pri čemer se šteje datum registracije, in s podaljšanjem od datuma vložitve) Datum vložitve
France 10 years Filing date
Francija 10 let Datum vložitve
Croatia 10 years Filing date
Hrvaška 10 let Datum vložitve
Italy 10 years Filing date
Italija 10 let Datum vložitve
Cyprus 7 years first term/14 years renewal Filing date = registration date
Ciper 7 let za prvo obdobje varstva/podaljšanje za 14 let Datum vložitve = datum registracije
Latvia 10 years Filing date
Latvija 10 let Datum vložitve
Lithuania 10 years Filing date
Litva 10 let Datum vložitve
Hungary 10 years Filing date
Madžarska 10 let Datum vložitve
Malta 10 years Registration date = filing date
Malta 10 let Datum registracije = datum vložitve
Austria 10 years Registration date
Avstrija 10 let Datum registracije
Poland 10 years Filing date
Poljska 10 let Datum vložitve
Portugal 10 years Registration date
Portugalska 10 let Datum registracije
Romania 10 years Filing date
Romunija 10 let Datum vložitve
Slovenia 10 years Filing date
Slovenija 10 let Datum vložitve
Slovakia 10 years Filing date
Slovaška 10 let Datum vložitve
Finland 10 years Registration date
Finska 10 let Datum registracije
Sweden 10 years Registration date
Švedska 10 let Datum registracije
International registration 10 years (even if 20 years for Madrid Agreement registrations, fees must be paid in two instalments of 10 years, equivalent to a renewal fee) International registration date
Mednarodna registracija 10 let (čeprav za registracije po Madridskem sporazumu velja 20 let, je treba pristojbine plačati v dveh obrokih za 10 let, enakovrednih pristojbini za podaljšanje) Datum mednarodne registracije
Opposition Extent
Ugovor Obseg
No 1 Class 3
Št. 1 Razred 3
No 2 Class 25
Št. 2 Razred 25
No 3 Classes 18 and 25
Št. 3 Razreda 18 in 25
No 4 Classes 14 and 25
Št. 4 Razreda 14 in 25
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 74
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 88
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - General Principles
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Splošna načela
DOUBLE IDENTITY AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
DVOJNA ENAKOST IN VERJETNOST ZMEDE
2 Article 8(1) EUTMR 4
2 Člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 4
2.1 Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR - double identity 4
2.1 Člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - dvojna enakost 4
2.2 Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR - likelihood of confusion 4
2.2 Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - verjetnost zmede 4
2.3 Interrelation of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR 5
2.3 Medsebojna povezanost člena 8(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 5
3 The Notion of Likelihood of Confusion 5
3 Pojem verjetnost zmede 5
3.2 Likelihood of confusion and likelihood of association 6
3.2 Verjetnost zmede in verjetnost povezovanja 6
3.3 Likelihood of confusion and distinctiveness of the earlier mark 7
3.3 Verjetnost zmede in razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke 7
3.4 Likelihood of confusion: questions of fact and questions of law 8
3.4 Verjetnost zmede: vprašanja dejstev in vprašanja prava 8
3.4.1 Fact and law - similarity of goods/services and of signs 8
3.4.1 Dejstva in pravo - podobnost blaga ali storitev in znakov 8
3.4.2 Fact and law - evidence 9
3.4.2 Dejstva in pravo - dokazi 9
4 Evaluation of the Relevant Factors for Establishing a Likelihood of Confusion 10
4 Presoja zadevnih dejavnikov za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede 9
4.1 The relevant point in time 10
4.1 Zadevni trenutek 9
4.2 List of factors for assessing the likelihood of confusion 10
4.2 Seznam dejavnikov za presojo verjetnosti zmede 10
Annex 11
Priloga 11
This chapter provides an introduction to and overview of the concepts of (i) double identity and (ii) likelihood of confusion that are applied in situations of conflict between trade marks in opposition proceedings under Article 8(1) EUTMR.
To poglavje je uvod in pregled v pojma (i) dvojna enakost in (ii) verjetnost zmede ter pregled teh pojmov, ki se uporabljata v primeru nasprotujočih si blagovnih znamk v postopku ugovora na podlagi člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The paragraphs below set out the nature of these concepts and their legal underpinning as determined by the relevant laws and as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court') .
V nadaljevanju sta opredeljena narava teh pojmov in njuna pravna podlaga, kot je opredeljena z ustreznimi zakoni in kot jo razlaga Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče EU).
[2: The Court was, in fact, often interpreting Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (the ‘Directive'), which for the purposes of interpretation are broadly comparable to Articles 8 and 9 EUTMR.]
[2: Sodišče EU je dejansko pogosto razlagalo člena 4 in 5 Direktive 2008/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. oktobra 2008 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (v nadaljnjem besedilu: direktiva), ki sta za namene razlage na splošno primerljiva s členoma 8 oziroma 9 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.]
The legal concepts of double identity and likelihood of confusion are used to protect trade marks and, at the same time, to define their scope of protection.
Pravna pojma dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede se uporabljata za varstvo blagovnih znamk in hkrati za opredelitev obsega njihovega varstva.
It is thus important to bear in mind what aspects or functions of trade marks merit protection.
Zato je treba upoštevati, kateri vidiki ali funkcije blagovnih znamk so upravičeni do varstva.
Trade marks have various functions.
Blagovne znamke imajo različne funkcije.
The most fundamental one is to act as ‘indicators of origin' of the commercial provenance of goods/services.
Najosnovnejša je, da so označbe izvora tržnega izvora blaga ali storitev.
This is their ‘essential function'.
To je njihova bistvena funkcija.
In the Canon judgment the Court held that:
Sodišče EU je v sodbi v zadevi Canon menilo, da:
… according to the settled case-law of the Court, the essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others that have another origin (emphasis added).
[…] je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča bistvena funkcija blagovne znamke potrošniku ali končnemu uporabniku zagotavljati istovetnost izvora proizvoda, ki ga blagovna znamka označuje, in mu brez verjetnosti zmede omogočiti razlikovanje tega proizvoda ali storitve od tistih, ki izvirajo od drugod (dodan poudarek).
The essential function of trade marks as indicating origin has been emphasised repeatedly and has become a precept of European Union trade mark law (18/06/2002, C299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 30; 06/10/2005, C120/04, Thomson Life, EU:C:2005:594, § 23).
Bistvena funkcija blagovnih znamk, to je označevanje izvora, je bila večkrat poudarjena in je postala načelo prava blagovnih znamk Evropske unije (18/06/2002, C299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 30; 06/10/2005, C120/04, Thomson Life, EU:C:2005:594, § 23).
Whilst indicating origin is the essential function of trade marks, it is not the only one.
Čeprav je označevanje izvora bistvena funkcija blagovnih znamk, to ni njihova edina funkcija.
Indeed, the term, ‘essential function' implies other functions.
Izraz bistvena funkcija dejansko nakazuje druge funkcije.
The Court alluded to the other functions of trade marks several times (16/11/2004, C245/02, Budweiser, EU:C:2004:717, § 59; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 21) but addressed them directly in the L'Oréal judgment, where it stated that the functions of trade marks include:
Sodišče EU se je večkrat sklicevalo na druge funkcije blagovnih znamk (16/11/2004, C245/02, Budweiser, EU:C:2004:717, § 59; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 21), neposredno pa jih je obravnavalo v sodbi v zadevi L'Oréal, v kateri je navedlo, da funkcije blagovne znamke vključujejo:
… not only the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services, but also its other functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of the goods or services in question and those of communication, investment or advertising (emphasis added).
[…] ne samo bistvene naloge blagovne znamke potrošniku jamčiti za poreklo proizvoda ali storitve, ampak tudi druge, zlasti zagotavljanje kakovosti zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve, sporočanje, investiranje ali oglaševanje (dodan poudarek).
In examining the concepts of double identity and likelihood of confusion, this chapter touches upon several themes that are explained comprehensively in the chapters of the Guidelines that follow.
To poglavje pri proučevanju pojmov dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede obravnava več tem, ki so izčrpno pojasnjene v naslednjih poglavjih teh Smernic.
A summary of the key cases from the Court dealing with the core principles and concepts of likelihood of confusion is added in the Annex.
V Prilogi je na voljo povzetek ključnih zadev Sodišča EU, ki obravnavajo temeljna načela in pojme glede verjetnosti zmede.
2 Article 8(1) EUTMR
Člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 8 EUTMR enables the proprietor of an earlier right to oppose the registration of later EUTM applications in a range of situations.
Člen 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetniku prejšnje blagovne znamke omogoča, da ugovarja registraciji poznejših prijav blagovnih znamk EU v najrazličnejših primerih.
The present chapter will concentrate on the interpretation of double identity and likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1) EUTMR.
V tem poglavju bo glavna pozornost namenjena razlagi pojmov dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede v smislu člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
An opposition pursuant to Article 8(1) EUTMR can be based on earlier trade mark registrations or applications (Article 8(2)(a) and (b) EUTMR) and earlier well-known marks (Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR) .
Ugovor na podlagi člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko temelji na prejšnjih registracijah blagovnih znamk ali prijavah blagovne znamke (člen 8(2)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) in prejšnjih znanih blagovnih znamkah (člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
[3: Further guidance on earlier well-known trade marks is found in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).]
[3: Nadaljnja navodila o prejšnjih znanih blagovnih znamkah so na voljo v Smernicah, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
2.1 Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR - double identity
Člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - dvojna enakost
Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR provides for oppositions based on identity.
Člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ureja ugovore na podlagi enakosti.
It provides that, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, an EUTM application will not be registered:
Določa, da se ob ugovoru imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke v smislu člena 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prijava blagovne znamke EU ne registrira:
if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected.
če je enaka prejšnji blagovni znamki in če so blago ali storitve, za katere je registracija zahtevana, enaki blagu ali storitvam, za katere je varovana prejšnja blagovna znamka.
The wording of Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR clearly requires identity between both the signs concerned and the goods/services in question.
Besedilo člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU jasno zahteva enakost tako med obema zadevnima znakoma kot med zadevnim blagom ali storitvami.
This situation is referred to as ‘double identity'.
To se imenuje dvojna enakost.
Whether there is double identity is a legal finding to be established from a direct comparison of the two conflicting signs and the goods/services in question .
Obstoj dvojne enakosti je pravna ugotovitev, ki izhaja iz neposredne primerjave dveh nasprotujočih si znakov in zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
Where double identity is established, the opponent is not required to demonstrate likelihood of confusion in order to prevail; the protection conferred by Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is absolute.
Če je ugotovljena dvojna enakost, vložniku ugovora za prevlado ni treba dokazati verjetnosti zmede, saj je varstvo na podlagi člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU absolutno.
Consequently, where there is double identity, there is no need to carry out an evaluation of likelihood of confusion, and the opposition will automatically be upheld.
Zato v primeru dvojne enakosti ni treba izvesti presoje verjetnosti zmede, ugovor pa bo sprejet samodejno.
[4: Comprehensive guidance on the criteria to find identity between goods and services and between signs can be found in the respective paragraphs of the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services, and Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.]
[4: Izčrpna navodila o merilih za ugotavljanje enakosti med blagom in storitvami ter znaki so na voljo v ustreznih odstavkih Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 2: Primerjava blaga in storitev in poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.]
2.2 Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR - likelihood of confusion
Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - verjetnost zmede
Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR states that, upon opposition, an EUTM application will not be registered:
Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se prijava blagovne znamke EU ob ugovoru ne registrira: