natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, two different situations, both referred to as ‘coexistence' by the parties, should be distinguished:
Zato je treba razlikovati med položajema, za katera stranke uporabljajo izraz „soobstoj“:
coexistence between the two marks involved in the opposition can be persuasive of the absence of a likelihood of confusion in the relevant public's perception (see below);
soobstoj dveh znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru, lahko nakazuje, da v dojemanju upoštevne javnosti ni verjetnosti zmede (glej v nadaljevanju),
where many similar marks (other than the two marks involved in the opposition) are used by competitors, the coexistence may affect the scope of protection of the earlier right.
kadar konkurenti uporabljajo veliko podobnih znamk (razen dveh znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru), lahko soobstoj vpliva na obseg varstva iz prejšnje pravice.
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark.
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke.
3.1 Coexistence between the marks involved in the opposition
Soobstoj znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru
In opposition proceedings, it is most commonly argued by the EUTM applicant that the conflicting marks coexist on a national level and that the coexistence is tolerated by the opponent.
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU v postopku ugovora najpogosteje trdi, da na nacionalni ravni obstajajo nasprotujoče znamke in da vložnik ugovora nima nič proti soobstoju.
Occasionally, it is argued that coexistence is accepted by the parties in a coexistence agreement.
Občasno se pojavijo tudi trditve, da soobstoj sprejemajo stranke, ki so sklenile sporazum o soobstoju.
The possibility cannot be ruled out that the coexistence of two marks on a particular market might, together with other elements, contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82).
Ne more biti popolnoma izključeno, da lahko soobstoj dveh znamk na določenem trgu skupaj z drugimi elementi prispeva k zmanjšanju verjetnosti zmede med tema znamkama pri upoštevni javnosti (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82).
In certain cases, the coexistence of earlier marks in the market could reduce the likelihood of confusion that the Office finds between two conflicting marks (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86).
V nekaterih primerih lahko soobstoj prejšnjih znamk na trgu zmanjša verjetnost zmede med nasprotujočima si znamkama, ki jo je ugotovil Urad (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86).
However, the indicative value of coexistence should be treated with caution.
Včasih pa je treba dejstva, ki kažejo na soobstoj, obravnavati previdno.
There might be different reasons why the two signs coexist on a national level, for example, a different legal or factual situation in the past or prior rights agreements between the parties involved.
Za soobstoj dveh znakov na nacionalni ravni lahko obstaja več razlogov, na primer pravno ali dejansko različen položaj v preteklosti ali sporazumi o prejšnjih pravicah med vpletenimi strankami.
Therefore, whilst the impact of coexistence on the finding of likelihood of confusion is accepted in theory, the conditions for this coexistence to be persuasive of the absence of a risk of confusion are, in practice, very difficult to establish and seldom prevail.
Zato je vpliv soobstoja na ugotovitev o verjetnosti zmede priznan teoretično, v praksi pa je pogoje, da zaradi tega soobstoja ni tveganja za zmedo, zelo težko ugotoviti in so redko odločilni.
For the EUTM applicant to prove that the coexistence was based upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, certain conditions must be met.
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU lahko dokaže, da soobstoj temelji na neobstoju verjetnosti zmede pri upoštevni javnosti, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji:
Comparable situation.
primerljiv položaj.
The earlier (‘coexisting') marks and the marks at issue are identical to those involved in the opposition before the Office (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) and cover the same goods or services as those in conflict (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14).
Prejšnje znamke (ki soobstajajo) in zadevne znamke so enake znamkama, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru pred Uradom (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) in zajemata blago ali storitve, ki je enako nasprotujočem blagu ali storitvam (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14),
The coexistence concerns the relevant countries in the case (e.g. alleged coexistence in Denmark is irrelevant when the opposition is based on a Spanish trade mark; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85).
soobstoj se nanaša na upoštevne države, ki so v zadevi pomembne (npr. domnevni soobstoj na Danskem ni pomemben, če ugovor temelji na španski blagovni znamki; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85).
If the earlier trade mark is an EUTM, the EUTM applicant must show coexistence in the entire EU.
Če je prejšnja znamka blagovna znamka EU, mora prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU dokazati soobstoj v vsej EU,
Only coexistence in the marketplace can be taken into account.
upoštevati je mogoče samo soobstoj na trgu.
The mere fact that both trade marks exist in the national register (formal coexistence) is insufficient.
Zgolj dejstvo, da sta obe blagovni znamki vpisani v nacionalni register (formalni soobstoj), ni dovolj.
The EUTM applicant has to prove that the trade marks were actually used (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34).
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora dokazati, da sta se blagovni znamki dejansko uporabljali (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34).
Coexistence should be understood as ‘co-use' of concurrent and supposedly conflicting marks (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE.
Soobstoj je treba razumeti kot „souporabo“ znamk, ki obstajata hkrati in si domnevno nasprotujeta (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE.
The period of coexistence must be taken into consideration: in the judgment of 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, the alleged coexistence of only 4 months was considered obviously too short.
upoštevati je treba obdobje soobstoja: v sodbi z dne 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, je bilo odločeno, da so samo štirje meseci domnevnega soobstoja odločno prekratko obdobje.
Moreover, the coexistence of the trade marks has to relate to a period close to the filing date of the EUTM application (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39).
Poleg tega se mora soobstoj blagovnih znamk nanašati na obdobje, ki ni preveč oddaljeno od datuma prijave blagovne znamke EU (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39),
The absence of a likelihood of confusion may be only inferred from the ‘peaceful' nature of the coexistence of the marks at issue on the market concerned (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64).
o odsotnosti verjetnosti zmede je mogoče sklepati samo na podlagi „mirnega“ soobstoja zadevnih znamk na zadevnem trgu (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64).
This is not the case when the conflict has been an issue before the national courts or administrative bodies (infringement cases, oppositions or applications for annulment of a trade mark).
To pa ne drži, če so spor obravnavala že nacionalna sodišča ali upravni organi (postopki v primeru kršitev, ugovori ali zahteve za razveljavitev blagovne znamke),
Moreover, the peaceful coexistence of the trade marks in the relevant national market does not outweigh the likelihood of confusion if it is based on prior rights agreements between the parties, including agreements settling disputes before national courts, since these agreements, even if based on the assessment of the legal situation made by the parties, may have purely economic or strategic reasons.
poleg tega nemoten soobstoj blagovnih znamk na upoštevnem nacionalnem trgu ne prevlada nad verjetnostjo zmede, če temelji na sporazumih glede prejšnjih pravic, ki sta jih sklenili stranki, vključno s sporazumi o poravnavi sporov pred nacionalnimi sodišči, saj so lahko razlogi za sklenitev takšnih sporazumov, tudi če temeljijo na presoji pravnega položaja, ki sta ga ustvarili stranki, le gospodarski ali strateški.
However, exceptional situations are possible.
Seveda so mogoče izjemne okoliščine.
In its preliminary ruling of 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, the Court of Justice ruled that two identical trade marks designating identical goods can coexist on the market to the extent that there has been a long period of honest concurrent use of those trade marks and that use neither has nor is liable to have an adverse effect on the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee consumers the origin of the goods and services.
Sodišče je v svoji predhodni sodbi z dne 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, odločilo, da lahko enaki blagovni znamki, ki označujeta enako blago, soobstajata na trgu ob njuni dolgotrajni pošteni sočasni uporabi ter če uporaba ne vpliva ali ne more vplivati na bistveno funkcijo blagovne znamke, tj. potrošnikom jamčiti za izvor blaga in storitev.
As regards coexistence agreements between the parties, when assessing likelihood of confusion, the Office's policy is that these agreements may be taken into account like any other relevant factor, but they are in no way binding on the Office.
V zvezi s sporazumi o soobstoju, ki jih skleneta stranki, Urad pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede upošteva politiko, da je mogoče te sporazume upoštevati tako kot vsak drug pomemben dejavnik, vendar niso v nobenem primeru zavezujoči za Urad.
This is particularly true when the application of the relevant provisions of the EUTMR and the established case-law lead to a conclusion that is not in accordance with the content of the agreement.
Tako je zlasti, kadar se na podlagi ustreznih določb Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ustaljene sodne prakse sprejme odločitev, ki ni v skladu z vsebino sporazuma.
If an agreement is disputed before national instances or there are pending court proceedings and the Office estimates that the outcome could be relevant for the case at issue, it may decide to suspend the proceedings.
Če glede sporazuma poteka spor pred nacionalnimi organi ali če v zvezi s tem poteka sodni postopek in Urad ocenjuje, da bi lahko bil izid pomemben za obravnavano zadevo, lahko sprejme odločitev o začasni prekinitvi postopka.
In addition, as a general rule, nothing precludes the opponent from filing an opposition against an EUTM application, whether or not it previously opposed other (national) marks of the applicant.
Poleg tega vložniku ugovora načeloma nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi vložil ugovora zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU, ne glede na to, ali je že prej ugovarjal drugim (nacionalnim) znamkam prijavitelja ali ne.
This cannot be considered as ‘contradictory behaviour' and interpreted to the opponent's disadvantage, especially since in opposition proceedings, unlike invalidity proceedings, the defence of ‘acquiescence' is not available (the rules for opposition proceedings do not contain an equivalent to Article 61 EUTMR, according to which an EUTM proprietor may invoke as a defence the fact that the applicant for invalidity has acquiesced to the use of the EUTM for more than 5 years).
To se ne more šteti za „protislovno ravnanje“ in se ne more razlagati v škodo vložnika ugovora, zlasti zato, ker v postopku ugovora v nasprotju s postopkom za ugotovitev ničnosti ni na voljo obramba „privolitve“ (pravila za postopek ugovora ne vsebujejo določbe, ki bi ustrezala členu 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim lahko imetnik v svoj zagovor navede dejstvo, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti privolil v uporabo blagovne znamke EU za več kot pet let).
4 Incidences of Actual Confusion
Dejanski primeri zmede
Likelihood of confusion means a probability of confusion on the part of the relevant consumer and does not require actual confusion.
Verjetnost zmede pomeni, da pri upoštevnem potrošniku obstaja možnost za zmedo, ni pa nujno, da zmeda dejansko nastopi.
As expressly confirmed by the Court: ‘… it is not necessary to establish the existence of actual confusion, but the existence of a likelihood of confusion' (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69).
Kot je izrecno potrdilo Sodišče: „[…] ni treba ugotoviti obstoja dejanske zmede, temveč obstoj verjetnosti zmede“ (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69).
In the global assessment of likelihood of confusion, all relevant factors have to be taken into consideration.
Pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede je treba upoštevati vse pomembne dejavnike.
Evidence of actual confusion is a factor that may weigh in favour of likelihood of confusion; its indicative value should not, however, be overestimated for the following reasons:
Dokaz o dejanski zmedi je lahko dejavnik, ki potrjuje verjetnost zmede, vendar mu iz naslednjih razlogov ne bi smeli pripisovati prevelikega pomena:
in everyday life there are always people who confuse and misconstrue everything, and others who are extremely observant and very familiar with every trade mark.
v vsakdanjem življenju so ljudje, ki vse zamešajo ali si napačno razlagajo, in ljudje, ki so izjemno pozorni in poznajo vsako blagovno znamko.
Therefore, there is no legal value in highlighting the existence of these people since it could lead to subjective results;
Zato pri poudarjanju obstoja teh ljudi ni nobene pravne veljavnosti, ker bi to lahko privedlo do subjektivnih rezultatov,
insofar as the targeted consumer's perception is concerned, the assessment is normative.
presoja glede dojemanja ciljnega potrošnika je normativna.
The average consumer is assumed to be ‘reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect', even though in purely factual terms some consumers are extremely observant and well informed, whilst others are careless and credulous (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32).
Za povprečnega potrošnika se šteje, da je „povprečno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in pazljiv“, čeprav so nekateri potrošniki v resnici izjemno pozorni in dobro obveščeni, drugi pa so brezbrižni in lahkoverni (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32).
Therefore, incidences of actual confusion can influence the finding of likelihood of confusion only if it is proven that these incidences usually accompany the existence of the conflicting trade marks in the market in the typical situation in trade involving the goods and/or services concerned.
Zato lahko dejanski primeri zmede vplivajo na odločitev o verjetnosti zmede samo, če se dokaže, da so ti primeri pri obstoju nasprotujočih blagovnih znamk na trgu običajni v običajnih okoliščinah pri trgovanju z navedenim blagom in/ali storitvami.
To properly weigh evidence on the number of occasions when actual confusion has arisen, the assessment must be made in the light of the number of opportunities for confusion.
Za ustrezno upoštevanje dokazov o številu primerov, ko je dejansko nastopila zmeda, je treba presojo utemeljiti na številu priložnosti za zmedo.
If the business transactions are voluminous but the instances of confusion are sparse, this evidence will have little weight in the assessment of likelihood of confusion.
Če je poslovnih transakcij veliko, primeri zmede pa so redki, bodo imeli ti dokazi majhno težo pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede.
Lack of actual confusion has been treated in the context of coexistence, in paragraph 3 above.
Odsotnost dejanske zmede se je obravnavala v okviru soobstoja v odstavku 3 zgoraj.
5 Prior Decisions by EU or National Authorities Involving Conflicts Between the Same (or Similar) Trade Marks
Predhodne odločbe organov EU ali nacionalnih organov, v katerih je bilo obravnavano navzkrižje med enakimi (ali podobnimi) blagovnimi znamkami
5.1 Prior Office decisions
Predhodne odločbe Urada
As regards previous decisions of the Office in conflicts between identical or similar trade marks, the General Court has stated that:
Splošno sodišče je v zvezi s predhodnimi odločbami Urada v sporih med enakimi ali podobnimi blagovnimi znamkami navedlo:
… it is settled case-law … that the legality of the decisions of the [Office] is to be assessed purely by reference to [the EUTMR] and not the Office's practice in earlier decisions.
[…] na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse […] se zakonitost odločb [Urada] presoja izključno glede na [Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU], in ne glede na prakso Urada v prejšnjih odločbah
Accordingly, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions, since each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities.
V skladu s tem Urada njegove prejšnje odločbe ne zavezujejo, saj je treba vsak primer obravnavati posebej in ob upoštevanju njegovih posebnosti.
Notwithstanding the fact that previous decisions of the Office are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should still be duly considered when deciding upon the case in question.
Pri obravnavanju zadevnega primera je treba, ne glede na to, da prejšnje odločbe Urada niso zavezujoče, kljub temu ustrezno upoštevati njihovo utemeljevanje in izid.
This was reinforced in the judgment of 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75:
To je bilo podkrepljeno s sodbo 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75:
The Office is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Urad mora izvajati svoje pristojnosti v skladu s splošnimi načeli prava Evropske unije, kot sta načelo enakega obravnavanja in načelo dobrega upravljanja.
In the light of those two principles, the Office must, when examining an application for registration of a European Union trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not …
Glede na ti načeli mora Urad v okviru preizkusa zahteve za registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije upoštevati odločbe, ki so že bile sprejete o podobnih zahtevah, in posebno pozornost nameniti vprašanju, ali je treba odločiti v enakem smislu …
That said, the way in which the principles of equal treatment and sound administration are applied must be consistent with respect for legality.
Poleg tega morata biti načeli enakega obravnavanja in dobrega upravljanja usklajeni s spoštovanjem zakonitosti.
The indicative value of the previous decisions will in principle be limited to cases that bear a sufficiently close resemblance to the case in question.
Vrednost prejšnjih odločb bo načeloma omejena na primere, ki so dovolj podobni zadevnemu primeru.
However, according to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in opposition proceedings the Office is restricted in the examination of the case to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties.
Vendar je Urad v skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku ugovora pri tem preizkusu omejen na dejstva, dokaze in utemeljitve, ki so jih predložile stranke.
For this reason, even in cases based on comparable facts and involving similar legal problems, the outcome may still vary due to the different submissions made by the parties and the evidence they present.
Zato se lahko izid celo v zadevah, ki temeljijo na primerljivih dejstvih in vključujejo podobne pravne težave, razlikuje glede na stališča in dokaze, ki jih predložijo stranke.
5.2 Prior national decisions and judgments
Prejšnje nacionalne odločbe in sodbe
Decisions of national courts and of national offices in cases regarding conflicts between identical or similar trade marks on the national level do not have a binding effect on the Office.
Odločbe nacionalnih sodišč in nacionalnih uradov v zadevah, ki se nanašajo na spore med enakimi ali podobnimi blagovnimi znamkami na nacionalni ravni, za Urad niso zavezujoče.
According to case-law, the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it and applies independently of any national system.
Glede na sodno prakso je ureditev, ki se uporablja na področju blagovnih znamk Evropske unije, avtonomen sistem z lastnimi cilji in posebnimi pravili ter se uporablja neodvisno od vseh nacionalnih sistemov.
Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trade mark is to be assessed on the basis of the relevant legislation alone (13/09/2010, T292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399, § 84; 25/10/2006, T13/05, Oda, EU:T:2006:335, § 59).
V skladu s tem je treba o možnosti registracije znaka kot blagovne znamke Evropske unije presojati le na podlagi ustrezne zakonodaje (13/09/2010, T292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399, § 84; 25/10/2006, T13/05, Oda, EU:T:2006:335, § 59).
Therefore, the decisions adopted in a Member State or in a state that is not a member of the European Union are not binding for the Office (24/03/2010, T363/08, Nollie, EU:T:2010:114, § 52).
Zato odločbe, ki se sprejmejo v državi članici ali nečlanici Evropske unije, za Urad niso zavezujoče (glej 24/03/2010, T363/08, Nollie, EU:T:2010:114, § 52).
Still, their reasoning and outcome should be duly considered, particularly when the decision has been taken in the Member State that is relevant to the proceedings.
Kljub temu je treba ustrezno upoštevati njihovo utemeljitev in izid, zlasti če je bila odločba sprejeta v državi članici, ki je pomembna za postopek.
National courts have a thorough knowledge of the specific characteristics of their Member State, in particular as regards the marketplace reality in which goods and services are marketed and the customer perception of signs.
Nacionalna sodišča dobro poznajo posebnosti svoje države članice, zlasti glede dejanskega stanja na trgu, kjer se prodajajo blago in storitve, ter glede tega, kako znak dojemajo stranke.
This may, in particular cases, be relevant for the assessment made by the Office.
To je lahko v nekaterih primerih pomembno za presojo, ki jo opravi Urad.
Whilst it is, in principle, permissible to take into account decisions of national courts and authorities, these decisions should be examined with all the required care and in a diligent manner (15/07/2011, T108/08, Good Life, EU:T:2011:391, § 23).
Čeprav je načeloma dovoljeno upoštevati odločbe nacionalnih sodišč in organov, je treba te odločbe preveriti z vso zahtevano skrbnostjo in vestnostjo (15/07/2011, T108/08, Good Life, EU:T:2011:391, § 23).
Usually the understanding of such a decision will require the submission of sufficient information, in particular about the facts on which the decision was based.
Razumevanje takšne odločbe navadno zahteva, da se predložijo zadostne informacije, zlasti o dejstvih, na katerih je temeljila odločba.
Their indicative value will therefore be limited to the rare cases when the factual and legal background of the case was presented completely in the opposition proceedings and is conclusive, clear and not disputed by the parties.
Njihova povedna vrednost bo torej omejena na redke primere, v katerih sta bila dejansko in pravno ozadje zadeve v postopku ugovora predstavljena v celoti ter sta prepričljiva, jasna in jima stranke niso ugovarjale.
The above guidelines are without prejudice to the effects of the judgments of EUTM courts dealing with counterclaims for revocation or for a declaration of invalidity of EUTMs.
Zgornje smernice ne posegajo v učinke sodb sodišč glede blagovnih znamk EU, v katerih so bile obravnavane nasprotne tožbe za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti blagovnih znamk EU.