natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In general, however, when evaluating whether the part of the territory in question is a substantial one, account must be taken both of the size of the geographical area concerned and of the proportion of the overall population living there, since both these criteria may affect the overall significance of the specific territory.
Na splošno pa je treba pri presoji, ali je del zadevnega ozemlja znaten, upoštevati velikost zadevnega geografskega območja in delež celotnega prebivalstva, ki živi na tem območju, saj lahko obe merili vplivata na skupen pomen zadevnega ozemlja.
Opponents often indicate in the notice of opposition that the earlier mark has a reputation in an area that extends beyond the territory of protection (e.g. a pan-European reputation is alleged for a national mark).
Vložniki ugovora v ugovoru zoper registracijo pogosto navedejo, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled na območju, večjem od ozemlja varstva (npr. nacionalna znamka naj bi imela vseevropski ugled).
In such a case the opponent's claim must be examined for the territory of protection only.
V takem primeru je treba trditev vložnika ugovora proučiti samo glede na ozemlje varstva.
Similarly, the evidence submitted must specifically concern the relevant territory.
Podobno se morajo predloženi dokazi posebej nanašati na upoštevno ozemlje.
For example, if the evidence relates to Japan, or to undefined regions, it will not be able to prove reputation in the EU or in a Member State.
Če se dokazi na primer nanašajo na Japonsko ali nedoločene regije, z njimi ni mogoče dokazati ugleda v EU ali posamezni državi članici.
Therefore, figures concerning sales in the EU as a whole, or worldwide sales, are not appropriate for showing reputation in a specific Member State, if the relevant data are not broken down by territory.
Zato podatki, ki se nanašajo na prodajo v EU kot celoti ali na svetovno prodajo, niso primerni za dokazovanje ugleda v posamezni državi članici, če zadevni podatki niso razčlenjeni po ozemljih.
In other words, a ‘wider' reputation must also be specifically proven for the relevant territory if it is to be taken into account.
Povedano drugače, „širši“ ugled je treba posebej dokazati tudi za upoštevno območje, da se lahko to upošteva.
However, where reputation is claimed as extending beyond the territory of protection and there is evidence to this effect, this must be taken into account because it may reinforce the finding of reputation in the territory of protection.
Kadar pa se trdi, da ima znamka ugled tudi zunaj ozemlja varstva, in so za to na voljo dokazi, jih je treba upoštevati, saj lahko okrepijo ugotovitev, da ima znamka ugled na ozemlju varstva.
3.1.2.5 Relevant point in time
Upoštevni trenutek
The opponent must show that the earlier mark had acquired a reputation by the filing date of the contested EUTM application, taking account, where appropriate, of any priority claimed, on condition of course that the priority claim has been accepted by the Office.
Vložnik ugovora mora dokazati, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila ugled do datuma vložitve izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU, ob upoštevanju, kadar je to primerno, morebitne zahteve za priznanje prednostne pravice, če je seveda Urad sprejel to zahtevo.
In addition, the reputation of the earlier mark must subsist until the decision on the opposition is taken.
Poleg tega mora prejšnja znamka ohraniti ugled do sprejetja odločitve o ugovoru.
However, in principle it will be sufficient for the opponent to show that its mark already had a reputation on the filing/priority date of the EUTM application, while any subsequent loss of reputation is for the applicant to claim and prove.
Vendar načeloma zadostuje, da vložnik ugovora dokaže, da je znamka že imela ugled na datum vložitve/prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU, prijavitelj pa mora zahtevati priznanje kakršne koli poznejše izgube ugleda in jo dokazati.
In practice, such an occurrence will be rather exceptional, since it presupposes a dramatic change of market conditions over a relatively short period of time.
V praksi je tak primer precej neobičajen, saj vključuje veliko spremembo tržnih pogojev v sorazmerno kratkem času.
Where the opposition is based on an earlier application, there is no formal obstacle for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR, which encompasses earlier applications by reference to Article 8(2) EUTMR.
Kadar ugovor temelji na prejšnji prijavi, ni nobene formalne ovire za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki vključuje prejšnje prijave s sklicevanjem na člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Although, in most cases, the earlier application will not have acquired sufficient reputation in so short a time, it cannot be a priori excluded that a sufficient degree of reputation may be achieved in an exceptionally short period.
Čeprav v večini primerov prejšnja prijava ne pridobi dovolj ugleda v tako kratkem času, ni mogoče takoj izključiti, da je mogoče doseči zadostno stopnjo ugleda v izjemno kratkem obdobju.
In addition, the application may be for a mark that was already in use long before the application was filed and has therefore had sufficient time to acquire a reputation.
Poleg tega se lahko prijava nanaša na znamko, ki se je uporabljala že dolgo pred vložitvijo prijave in je tako preteklo dovolj časa, da bi pridobila ugled.
In any event, as the effects of registration are retroactive, the applicability of Article 8(5) EUTMR to earlier applications cannot be regarded as a deviation from the rule that Article 8(5) EUTMR only applies to earlier registrations, as concluded in paragraph 2.1 above.
Ker ima registracija učinek za nazaj, uporabe člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za prejšnje prijave nikakor ni mogoče obravnavati kot odstopanje od pravila, da se člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporablja samo za prejšnje registracije, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v odstavku 2.1 zgoraj.
In general, the closer to the relevant date the evidence is, the easier it will be to assume that the earlier mark had acquired reputation at that time.
Na splošno velja - bližje ko so dokazi upoštevnemu datumu, lažje je sklepati, da je prejšnja znamka v tistem času pridobila ugled.
The evidential value of a particular document is likely to vary depending on how close the period covered is to the filing date.
Dokazna vrednost določenega dokumenta se navadno razlikuje glede na to, kako blizu datumu vložitve je zajeto obdobje.
Evidence of reputation with regard to a later point in time than the relevant date might nevertheless allow conclusions to be drawn as to the earlier mark's reputation at the relevant date (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
Dokazi o ugledu v zvezi s poznejšim datumom od upoštevnega datuma lahko kljub temu omogočajo sklepanje o ugledu prejšnje znamke na upoštevni datum (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
For this reason, the materials submitted with a view to proving reputation must be dated, or at least clearly indicate when the facts attested therein took place.
Zato mora biti gradivo, ki je predloženo za dokazovanje ugleda, datirano ali pa mora biti iz njega vsaj jasno razvidno, kdaj so se zgodila dejstva, ki jih dokazuje.
Consequently, undated documents, or documents bearing a date added afterwards (e.g. hand-written dates on printed documents), are not appropriate for giving reliable information about the material time.
Nedatirani dokumenti ali dokumenti, ki so bili datirani pozneje (npr. ročno napisani datumi na tiskanih dokumentih), zato niso primerni za zagotavljanje zanesljivih informacij o upoštevnem času.
If the period between the latest evidence of use and the filing of the EUTM application is quite significant, the relevance of the evidence should be carefully assessed by reference to the kind of goods and services concerned.
Če je obdobje med zadnjim dokazom o uporabi in vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU precej dolgo, je treba ustreznost dokazov presojati previdno ob upoštevanju zadevne vrste blaga in storitev.
This is because changes in consumer habits and perceptions may take some time to happen, usually depending on the particular market involved.
To pa zato, ker je lahko za spremembe potrošniških navad in zaznavanja potrebnega nekaj časa, kar je navadno odvisno od zadevnega trga.
For instance, the clothing market is strongly tied to yearly seasons and to the different collections presented every quarter.
Na primer, trg oblačil je tesno povezan z letnimi časi in različnimi kolekcijami, ki se dajo na trg vsako četrtletje.
This will have to be taken into account in assessing a possible loss of reputation in this particular field.
To je treba upoštevati pri presoji morebitne izgube ugleda na tem področju.
Likewise, the market for internet providers and ecommerce companies is very competitive and undergoes rapid growth, as well as rapid demise, which means that reputation in this area may be diluted faster than in other market sectors.
Podobno je trg ponudnikov internetnih storitev in elektronskih trgovinskih podjetij zelo konkurenčen in lahko hitro raste ali hitro propade, kar pomeni, da se lahko ugled na tem področju izgubi hitreje kot v drugih tržnih sektorjih.
A similar question arises in the case of evidence that post-dates the filing date of the EUTM application.
Podobno vprašanje se pojavi tudi v primeru dokazov s poznejšim datumom od datuma vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
Even though such evidence will not usually be sufficient on its own to prove that the mark had acquired a reputation when the EUTM was filed, it is not appropriate to reject it as irrelevant either.
Čeprav taki dokazi sami po sebi navadno ne zadostujejo za potrditev, da je znamka pridobila ugled, ko je bila vložena prijava blagovne znamke EU, jih tudi ni ustrezno zavrniti kot nepomembne.
Given that reputation is usually built up over a period of years and cannot simply be switched on and off, and that certain kinds of evidence (e.g. opinion polls, affidavits) are not necessarily available before the relevant date, as they are usually prepared only after the dispute arises, such evidence must be evaluated on the basis of its contents and in conjunction with the rest of the evidence.
Glede na to, da je ugled navadno rezultat večletnega dela in se ne pojavi ali izgine kar naenkrat, in da nekatere vrste dokazov (npr. javnomnenjske raziskave, izjave pod prisego) niso nujno na voljo pred upoštevnim datumom, saj se navadno pridobijo šele po začetku spora, je treba take dokaze ovrednotiti na podlagi njihove vsebine in v povezavi s preostalimi dokazi.
For example, an opinion poll conducted after the material time but showing a sufficiently high degree of recognition might be sufficient to prove that the mark had acquired a reputation on the relevant date if it is also shown that the market conditions have not changed (e.g. the same levels of sales and advertising expenditure were maintained before the opinion poll was carried out).
Na primer, javnomnenjska raziskava, ki je opravljena po upoštevnem času in pokaže zadostno stopnjo prepoznavnosti, je lahko dovolj kot dokaz, da je znamka pridobila ugled do upoštevnega datuma, če se tudi dokaže, da se tržni pogoji niso spremenili (npr. pred izvedbo javnomnenjske raziskave se je ohranjala enaka raven prodaje in izdatkov za oglaševanje).
The possibility cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively.
Ni mogoče samodejno izključiti možnosti, da lahko dokument, ki je nastal nekaj časa pred tem datumom ali po njem, vsebuje koristne informacije, saj se ugled znamke navadno pridobiva postopoma.
The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on how close the period covered is to the filing date (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
Verjetno je, da se dokazna vrednost takega dokumenta razlikuje glede na to, kako blizu je zajeto obdobje datumu vložitve (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
3.1.2.6 Reputation acquired as part of another mark
Ugled, pridobljen kot del druge znamke
Reputation proven for a complex sign refers to that sign as such and not a particular element alone.
Ugled, dokazan za sestavljeni znak, se nanaša na znak, in ne samo na določen element.
As an example, the reputation acquired by a figurative mark may, but will not automatically, benefit a word mark with which it is subsequently used.
Kot primer, ugled, ki ga pridobi figurativna znamka, lahko koristi, vendar ne samodejno, besedni znamki, s katero se pozneje uporablja.
To establish the reputation of a trade mark on the basis of evidence relating to the use and well-known nature of a different trade mark, the former must be included in the latter and play therein ‘a predominant or even significant role' (21/05/2005, T55/13, F1H20 / F1 et al., EU:T:2015:309 § 47).
Za ugotovitev ugleda blagovne znamke na podlagi dokazov, ki se nanašajo na uporabo in znano naravo druge blagovne znamke, mora biti prva vključena v slednjo in imeti v njej prevladujočo ali celo pomembno vlogo (21/05/2005, T55/13, F1H20 / F1 et al., EU:T:2015:309 § 47).
When the earlier mark has been used as part of another mark, it is incumbent on the opponent to prove that the earlier mark has independently acquired a reputation (12/02/2015, T505/12, B, EU:T:2015:95, § 121).
Če se je prejšnja znamka uporabljala kot del druge znamke, mora vložnik ugovora dokazati, da je prejšnja znamka samostojno pridobila ugled (12/02/2015, T505/12, B, EU:T:2015:95, § 121).
The examples below give guidance.
Primeri v nadaljevanju predstavljajo smernice.
3.1.3 Assessment of reputation - relevant factors
Presoja ugleda - upoštevni dejavniki
Apart from indicating that ‘[i]t cannot be inferred from either the letter or the spirit of Article 5(2) of the [TMD] that the trade mark must be known by a given percentage of the public', the Court also held that all the relevant facts must be considered when assessing the reputation of the earlier mark, ‘in particular the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of investment made by the undertaking in promoting it' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25, 27).
Sodišče je navedlo, da niti na podlagi besedila niti bistva člena 5(2) [direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami] ni mogoče sklepati, da mora znamko poznati določen odstotek javnosti, in poleg tega odločilo, da je treba pri presoji ugleda prejšnje znamke upoštevati vsa pomembna dejstva, zlasti tržni delež znamke, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje njene uporabe ter obseg naložb podjetja v njeno promocijo“ (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25, 27).
If these two statements are taken together, it follows that the level of knowledge required for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR cannot be defined in the abstract, but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account not only the degree of awareness of the mark, but also any other fact relevant to the specific case, that is, any factor capable of giving information about the performance of the mark in the market.
Če se ti dve izjavi upoštevata skupaj, sledi, da ravni poznanosti, ki se zahteva za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ni mogoče opredeliti v abstraktnem smislu, ampak jo je treba ovrednotiti za vsak posamezen primer, ob upoštevanju stopnje poznavanja znamke in vseh drugih dejstev, pomembnih za posamezen primer, torej vseh dejavnikov, ki lahko zagotovijo informacije o uspešnosti znamke na trgu.
The list of factors to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the reputation of an earlier mark (such as the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the amount spent by the undertaking in promoting it) only serve as examples.
Seznam dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri ugotavljanju ugleda prejšnje znamke (npr. tržni delež znamke, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje njene uporabe ter znesek, ki ga je podjetje porabilo za njeno promocijo), se uporablja samo kot primer za ponazoritev.
The conclusion that the mark enjoys reputation does not necessarily have to be reached on the basis of indications regarding all those factors.
Ugotovitve, da ima znamka ugled, ni treba nujno doseči na podlagi podatkov v zvezi z vsemi temi dejavniki.
Moreover, the relevant factors should be assessed with a view not only to establishing the degree of recognition of the mark amongst the relevant public, but also to ascertaining whether the other requirements related to reputation are fulfilled, for example, whether the alleged reputation covers a significant part of the territory concerned or whether the reputation had indeed been acquired by the filing/priority date of the contested EUTM application.
Upoštevne dejavnike je treba presojati ne samo za opredelitev stopnje prepoznavnosti znamke pri upoštevni javnosti ampak tudi za ugotavljanje, ali so izpolnjene druge zahteve v zvezi z ugledom, na primer ali se domnevni ugled nanaša na znaten del zadevnega ozemlja in ali je bil resnično pridobljen do datuma vložitve/prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave znamke EU.
The same kind of test is applied to ascertain whether the trade mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through use for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, or whether the mark is well known within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, since what has to be proven in all these cases is in substance the same, namely the degree to which the mark is known by the relevant public, without prejudice to the threshold required in each case.
Enak preizkus se uporablja za ugotavljanje, ali je znamka z uporabo pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek za namene člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ali je znamka dobro znana v smislu člena 6bis Pariške konvencije, saj je predmet dokazovanja v vseh teh primerih vsebinsko enak, tj. stopnja poznanosti znamke pri upoštevni javnosti, ne da bi to vplivalo na prag, ki se zahteva v vsakem primeru.
3.1.3.1 Trade mark awareness
Poznanost znamke
The statement of the Court that it is not necessary for the mark to be ‘known by a given percentage of the public', cannot be taken in itself as meaning that figures of trade mark awareness are irrelevant, or should be given a lower probative value, when assessing reputation.
Izjave Sodišča, da znamka ni nujno „znana določenemu odstotku javnosti“, ni mogoče razlagati, kot da sama po sebi pomeni, da so podatki v zvezi s poznavanjem znamke brez pomena ali da bi jim bilo treba pripisati manjšo dokazno vrednost pri presoji ugleda.
It only implies that percentages of awareness defined in the abstract may not be appropriate for all cases and that, consequently, it is not possible to fix a priori a generally applicable threshold of recognition beyond which it should be assumed that the mark is reputed (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 22/06/1999, C342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 24; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 52).
Pomeni samo, da odstotek poznanosti, določen v abstraktnem smislu, ni ustrezen za vse primere in da posledično ni mogoče vnaprej določiti splošno veljavnega praga prepoznavnosti, nad katerim bi bilo treba domnevati, da ima znamka ugled (04/05/1999, C108/97 in C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 52; 22/06/1999, C342/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 24; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 52).
Therefore, even though not expressly listed by the Court among the factors to be taken into account for assessing reputation, the degree of recognition of the mark amongst the relevant public is directly relevant and can be particularly helpful in evaluating whether the mark is sufficiently known for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR, provided of course that the method of its calculation is reliable.
Čeprav Sodišče stopnje prepoznavnosti znamke pri upoštevni javnosti ni izrecno navedlo med dejavniki, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji ugleda, je zato neposredno pomembna in je lahko zlasti koristna pri presoji, ali je znamka dovolj znana za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če je seveda metoda njenega izračuna zanesljiva.
As a rule, the higher the percentage of trade mark awareness, the easier it will be to accept that the mark has a reputation.
Praviloma velja, da je lažje sprejeti, da ima znamka ugled, če je odstotek poznavanja znamke višji.
However, in the absence of a clear threshold, only if the evidence shows a high degree of trade mark awareness, will percentages of recognition be persuasive.
Vendar so odstotki prepoznavnosti brez jasnega praga prepričljivi samo, če je iz dokazov razvidna visoka stopnja poznanosti znamke.
Percentages alone are not conclusive.
Odstotki niso odločilni.
Rather, as explained before, reputation has to be evaluated by making an overall assessment of all the factors relevant to the case.
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, je treba ugled ovrednotiti s skupno presojo vseh dejavnikov, pomembnih za posamezni primer.
The higher the degree of awareness, the less additional evidence may be required to prove reputation and vice versa.
Višja ko je stopnja poznavanja, manj dodatnih dokazov je potrebnih za dokazovanje ugleda in obratno.
Where the evidence shows that the mark only enjoys a lesser degree of recognition, it should not automatically be assumed that the mark is reputed; this means that, most of the time, mere percentages will not be conclusive in themselves.
Kadar je iz dokazov razvidno, da ima znamka samo nižjo stopnjo prepoznavnosti, ni mogoče samodejno sklepati, da je znamka ugledna, kar pomeni, da v večini primerov odstotki sami po sebi niso odločilni.
In such cases, only if evidence of awareness is coupled with sufficient indications of the overall performance of the mark in the market will it be possible to evaluate with a reasonable degree of certainty whether the mark is known by a significant part of the relevant public.
V takih primerih je mogoče z ustrezno stopnjo gotovosti presoditi, ali je znamka znana znatnemu delu upoštevne javnosti samo, če dokaze glede poznavanja spremljajo zadostni znaki skupne uspešnosti znamke na trgu.
3.1.3.2 Market share
Tržni delež
The market share enjoyed by the goods offered or sold under the mark and the position it occupies in the market are valuable indications for assessing reputation, as they both serve to indicate the percentage of the relevant public that actually buys the goods and to measure the success of the mark against competing goods.
Tržni delež blaga, ki se ponuja ali prodaja pod znamko, in njegov položaj na trgu sta dragocena podatka za presojo ugleda, saj oba kažeta odstotek upoštevne javnosti, ki dejansko kupuje to blago, in merita uspeh znamke v primerjavi s konkurenčnim blagom.
Market share is defined as the percentage of total sales obtained by a brand in a particular sector of the market.
Tržni delež je opredeljen kot odstotek celotne prodaje, ki ga ima znamka v določenem tržem sektorju.
When defining the relevant market sector, the goods and services for which the mark has been used must be taken into account.
Pri opredelitvi upoštevnega tržnega sektorja je treba upoštevati blago in storitve, za katere se ta znamka uporablja.