natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In such cases, the Office gives the opponent a further period of 2 months for the submission of such evidence.
Urad v takšnih primerih da vložniku ugovora na voljo dodatna dva meseca za predložitev takšnih dokazov.
2.9.3 Use of collective and certification marks by authorised users
Uporaba kolektivnih in certifikacijskih znamk s strani pooblaščenih uporabnikov
Collective marks are generally used not by the proprietor but by members of an association.
Kolektivne znamke na splošno uporabljajo člani združenja, in ne imetnik.
As far as EU collective marks are concerned, this is reflected in Article 78 EUTMR, which provides that use by any authorised person satisfies the user requirement.
Kar zadeva kolektivne znamke EU, je to upoštevano v členu 78 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da uporaba navedene znamke s strani katere koli osebe, upravičene do njene uporabe, ustreza zahtevi glede uporabnika.
Certification marks are not used by their proprietors but by authorised users, for the purpose of guaranteeing to consumers that the goods or services possess a particular characteristic.
Certifikacijske znamke ne uporabljajo njihovi imetniki, temveč pooblaščeni uporabniki, da potrošnikom zagotovijo, da imajo blago ali storitve posebne značilnosti.
As far as EU certification marks are concerned, this is reflected in Article 87 EUTMR, which provides that use by the authorised person in accordance with the regulations governing the use of the certification mark satisfies the user requirement.
Kar zadeva certifikacijske znamke EU, je to upoštevano v členu 87 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da uporaba navedene znamke s strani pooblaščene osebe v skladu s pravilnikom o uporabi certifikacijske znamke, ustreza zahtevi glede uporabnika.
Whether a mark has been used in a way that satisfies the use requirements of Articles 18 and 47 EUTMR requires a factual finding of genuine use.
Da uporaba znamke izpolnjuje zahteve glede uporabe iz členov 18 in 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora biti v zvezi z njo dejansko ugotovljeno, da je resna in dejanska.
Use will be ‘genuine' in this context even if the user violates legal provisions.
V zvezi s tem bo uporaba resna in dejanska tudi, če uporabnik krši zakonske določbe.
Use that is deceptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(g) or Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR or under provisions of national law remains ‘genuine' for the purpose of asserting earlier marks in opposition proceedings.
Uporaba, ki je zavajajoča v smislu člena 7(1)(g) ali člena 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali v skladu z določbami nacionalnega prava, ostaja resna in dejanska za zaščito prejšnjih znamk v postopku ugovora.
The sanctions for deceptive use are invalidation or revocation, as the case may be, or a prohibition of use (provided for pursuant to Article 137(2) EUTMR).
Kazni za zavajajočo uporabo so razglasitev ničnosti oziroma razveljavitev ali prepoved uporabe (v skladu s členom 137(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The same principle applies where use is made under an illegal licensing arrangement (for example arrangements violating the competition rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or national rules).
Enako načelo se uporablja, če uporaba poteka na podlagi nezakonitih licenčnih dogovorov (na primer dogovorov, ki kršijo pravila o konkurenci iz Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ali nacionalna pravila).
Similarly, the fact that use may infringe third-party rights is also irrelevant.
Podobno je nepomembno tudi dejstvo, da lahko uporaba krši pravice tretjih oseb.
2.11 Justification of non-use
Utemeljitev neuporabe
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, the opponent may alternatively prove that there are justifiable reasons for non-use of its earlier registered mark.
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko vložnik ugovora tudi dokaže, da obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi za neuporabo prejšnje registrirane znamke.
These reasons cover, as mentioned in the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the TRIPS agreement, circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trade mark that constitute an obstacle to the use of the trade mark.
Kot je navedeno v drugem stavku člena 19(1) sporazuma o TRIPS, ti razlogi zajemajo okoliščine, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke in so ovira za uporabo te blagovne znamke.
As an exception to the obligation of use, the concept of proper reasons for non-use is to be interpreted rather narrowly.
Kot izjemo od obveznosti uporabe je treba pojem upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo razlagati zelo ozko.
‘Bureaucratic obstacles' as such, that arise independently of the will of the trade mark proprietor, are not sufficient, unless they have a direct relationship with the mark, so much so that use of the trade mark depends on successful completion of the administrative action concerned.
Birokratske ovire kot take, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke, ne zadostujejo, razen če so neposredno povezane z znamko, in sicer v tolikšnem obsegu, da je uporaba blagovne znamke odvisna od uspešnega zaključka zadevnega upravnega ukrepa.
However, the criterion of a direct relationship does not necessarily imply that use of the trade mark is impossible; it might suffice that use is unreasonable.
Vendar merilo neposrednega odnosa ne pomeni nujno, da je uporaba blagovne znamke nemogoča; morda zadostuje, da je uporaba nerazumna.
It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether a change in the undertaking's strategy to circumvent the obstacle under consideration would make use of the mark unreasonable.
Za vsak primer posebej je treba presoditi, ali bi bila uporaba znamke zaradi spremembe strategije podjetja za premostitev zadevne ovire nerazumna.
Thus, for example, the proprietor of a mark cannot reasonably be required to change its corporate strategy and sell its goods in its competitors' sales outlets (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52).
Tako na primer od imetnika znamke ni mogoče razumno zahtevati, da spremeni strategijo podjetja in prodaja svoje blago na prodajnih mestih konkurentov (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52).
2.11.1 Business risks
Poslovna tveganja
The concept of proper reasons must be considered to refer to circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner that make use of the mark impossible or unreasonable, rather than to circumstances associated with commercial difficulties it is experiencing (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69).
V zvezi s pojmom upravičeni razlogi je treba šteti, da se nanaša na okoliščine, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke, zaradi katerih je uporaba znamke nemogoča ali nerazumna, in ne na tiste, ki so povezane s poslovnimi težavami, s katerimi se srečuje imetnik (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69).
Thus, financial difficulties encountered by a company as a result of an economic recession or due to its own financial problems are not considered to constitute proper reasons for non-use within the meaning of Article 47(2) EUTMR, as these kinds of difficulties constitute a natural part of running a business.
Zato se šteje, da finančne težave, s katerimi se podjetje srečuje zaradi gospodarske recesije ali lastnih finančnih težav, niso upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo v smislu člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj so tovrstne težave običajen del vodenja podjetja.
2.11.2 Government or court intervention
Vladni poseg ali poseg sodišča
Import restrictions or other government requirements are two examples of proper reasons for non-use that are explicitly mentioned in the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the TRIPS agreement.
Uvozne omejitve ali druge vladne zahteve so primer upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo, ki so izrecno navedeni v drugem stavku člena 19(1) sporazuma o TRIPS.
Import restrictions include a trade embargo affecting the goods protected by the mark.
Uvozne omejitve vključujejo trgovinski embargo, ki vpliva na blago, zaščiteno z znamko.
Other government requirements can be a state monopoly, which impedes any kind of use, or a state prohibition of the sale of goods for reasons of health or national defence.
Druge vladne zahteve so lahko državni monopol, ki preprečuje vsakršno uporabo, ali državna prepoved prodaje blaga iz zdravstvenih razlogov ali razlogov v zvezi z nacionalno obrambo.
Typical cases in this respect are regulatory procedures such as:
Značilni primeri v zvezi s tem so regulativni postopki, kot so:
clinical trials and authorisation for new medicines (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA); or
klinična preskušanja in dovoljenje za promet za nova zdravila (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA) ali
the authorisation of a food safety authority, which the owner has to obtain before offering the relevant goods and services on the market.
odobritev pristojnega organa za varnost hrane, ki jo mora imetnik pridobiti, preden da zadevno blago ali storitve na trg.
With regard to Court proceedings or interim injunctions the following must be differentiated:
V zvezi s sodnimi postopki ali začasnimi prepovedmi je treba razlikovati med naslednjim:
On the one hand, the mere threat of litigation or a pending cancellation action against the earlier mark should, in general, not exempt the opponent from the obligation to use its trade mark in the course of trade.
Po eni strani le grožnja sodnega postopka ali še nerešena zahteva za izbris zoper prejšnjo znamko vložnika ugovora na splošno ne bi smela izvzeti iz obveznosti uporabe njegove blagovne znamke v gospodarskem prometu.
It is up to the opponent, being the attacking party in opposition proceedings, to conduct an adequate risk assessment of its chances to prevail in the litigation proceedings and to draw the appropriate conclusions from this evaluation as to whether or not to continue with use of its mark (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160).
Vložnik ugovora, ki je tožeča stranka v postopku ugovora, mora opraviti ustrezno oceno tveganja glede svojih možnosti, da bo uspešen v sodnem postopku, in na podlagi te presoje sprejeti ustrezne sklepe, ali naj še naprej uporablja to znamko ali ne (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160).
On the other hand, for example, an interim injunction or a restraining court order in insolvency proceedings, imposing a general prohibition of transfers or disposals on the trade mark owner, can be a proper reason for non-use because it obliges the opponent to refrain from using its mark in the course of trade.
Po drugi strani je lahko na primer začasna prepoved ali sodna prepoved razpolaganja v postopku insolventnosti, ki imetniku blagovne znamke nalaga splošno prepoved prenosov ali odtujitev, upravičen razlog za neuporabo, saj vložnika ugovora zavezuje k neuporabi znamke v gospodarskem prometu.
Use of the mark contrary to such a court order would make the trade mark owner liable to damage claims (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51).
Zaradi uporabe znamke, ki je v nasprotju s takšno sodno odločbo, se lahko zoper imetnika blagovne znamke vloži odškodninski zahtevek (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51).
2.11.3 Defensive registrations
Obrambne registracije
The General Court has clarified that the existence of a national provision recognising what are known as ‘defensive' registrations (i.e. of signs not intended to be used in trade on account of their purely defensive function in relation to another sign that is being commercially exploited) cannot constitute a proper reason for non-use of an earlier trade mark invoked as a basis of an opposition (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46).
Splošno sodišče je pojasnilo, da obstoj nacionalne določbe, ki priznava tako imenovane obrambne registracije (tj. znakov, ki zaradi svoje izključno obrambne naloge za druge znake, ki se bodo gospodarsko izkoriščali, niso namenjeni za uporabo v trgovini), ne more biti upravičen razlog za neuporabo prejšnje blagovne znamke, ki je bila navedena kot razlog za ugovor (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46).
2.11.4 Force majeure
Višja sila
Further justifiable reasons for non-use are cases of force majeure that hinder the normal functioning of the owner's enterprise.
Drugi utemeljeni razlogi za neuporabo so primeri višje sile, ki ovirajo normalno poslovanje imetnikovega podjetja.
2.11.5 Consequences of justification of non-use
Posledice utemeljitve neuporabe
The existence of justified reasons does not mean that non-use during the period concerned is treated as equivalent to actual use, which would result in a new grace period beginning after the end of the period of justified non-use.
Obstoj upravičenih razlogov ne pomeni, da se neuporaba v zadevnem obdobju obravnava kot enakovredna dejanski uporabi, kar bi pomenilo nov odložni rok, ki se začne po koncu obdobja upravičene neuporabe.
Rather, non-use during such period merely stops the 5-year period from running.
Namesto tega neuporaba v takšnem obdobju le prekine zadevno petletno obdobje.
This means that the period of justified non-use is not taken into account in calculating the grace period of 5 years.
To pomeni, da se obdobje upravičene neuporabe ne upošteva pri izračunu petletnega odložnega roka.
In addition, the length of time during which justified reasons existed may be significant.
Poleg tega je lahko obdobje, v katerem so obstajali upravičeni razlogi, zelo dolgo.
Reasons for non-use existing during only part of the relevant 5-year-period may not always be considered justification for setting the proof-of-use requirement aside.
Če so razlogi za neuporabo obstajali le v delu zadevnega petletnega obdobja, ni mogoče vedno šteti, da upravičujejo neupoštevanje zahteve za dokaz o uporabi.
In this context, the period of time during which these reasons were pertinent and the elapse of time since they no longer applied are of particular importance (01/07/1999, B 2 255).
V zvezi s tem sta še zlasti pomembna obdobje, v katerem so ti razlogi obstajali, in čas, ki je pretekel od trenutka, ko so prenehali obstajati (01/07/1999, B 2 255).
3 Procedure
Postopek
3.1 Admissibility of the request for proof of use
Dopustnost zahteve za dokaz o uporabi
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, use of the earlier mark needs to be shown only if the applicant requests proof of use.
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba uporabo prejšnje znamke dokazati le, če dokaz o uporabi zahteva prijavitelj.
The institution of proof of use is, therefore, designed in opposition proceedings as a defence plea of the applicant.
Inštitut dokaza o uporabi je zato v postopku ugovora zasnovan kot sredstvo obrambe prijavitelja.
The Office may neither inform the applicant that it could request proof of use nor invite it to do so.
Urad prijavitelja ne sme niti obvestiti, da lahko zahteva dokaz o uporabi, niti ga pozvati, naj to stori.
In view of the Office's impartial status in opposition proceedings, it is left to the parties to provide the factual basis and to argue and defend their respective positions (see second sentence of Article 95(1) EUTMR).
Zaradi nepristranskega položaja Urada v postopku ugovora je strankam prepuščeno, da predložijo dejstva in argumente ter zagovarjajo svoja stališča (glej drugi stavek člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Article 47(2) EUTMR is not applicable when the opponent, on its own motion, submits material relating to use of the earlier mark invoked (see paragraph 3.1.3 below for an exception to this rule).
Člen 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne uporablja, če vložnik ugovora na svojo pobudo predloži gradivo v zvezi z uporabo prejšnje blagovne znamke, na katero se sklicuje (za izjemo od tega pravila glej odstavek 3.1.3 v nadaljevanju).
As long as the EUTM applicant does not request proof of use, the issue of genuine use will not be addressed by the Office ex officio.
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU ne zahteva dokaza o uporabi, Urad ne bo obravnaval vprašanja resne in dejanske uporabe po uradni dolžnosti.
In such cases, in principle, it is even irrelevant that the evidence produced by the opponent might demonstrate only a particular type or manner of use, or use that is limited to only part of the goods or services for which the earlier mark is registered.
V takšnih primerih je načeloma celo nepomembno, da bi lahko bili iz dokazov, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, razvidni le določena vrsta ali način uporabe ali uporaba, ki je omejene le na del blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka.
The request to submit proof of use is only valid if the earlier mark is under the use requirement at all, that is to say if it has been registered for not less than 5 years.
Zahteva za predložitev dokaza o uporabi je veljavna le, če se v zvezi s prejšnjo znamko uporablja zahteva glede uporabe, tj. če je bila blagovna znamka registrirana najmanj pet let.
3.1.1 Time of request
Čas zahteve
Pursuant to Article 10(1) EUTMDR, the request for proof of use pursuant to Article 47(2) or (3) EUTMR will be admissible only if the applicant submits such a request within the period specified by the Office.
V skladu s členom 10(1) Delegirane uredbe je zahteva za dokaz o uporabi na podlagi člena 47(2) ali (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dopustna le, če jo prijavitelj predloži v roku, ki ga določi Urad.
The request for proof of use must be made within the first time limit for the applicant to reply to the opposition under Article 10(2) EUTMDR.
Zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi je treba vložiti v prvem roku, ki ga ima prijavitelj na voljo za odgovor na ugovor v skladu s členom 10(2) Delegirane uredbe.
If the request for proof of use is submitted during the cooling-off period or during the 2-month period given to the opponent for filing or amending facts, evidence and arguments, it is forwarded to the opponent without delay.
Če je zahteva za dokaz o uporabi predložena v obdobju za pobotanje ali dvomesečnem obdobju, ki ga ima vložnik ugovora na voljo za predložitev ali spremembo dejstev, dokazov in navedb, mu jo je treba nemudoma posredovati.
3.1.2 Earlier mark registered for not less than 5 years
Prejšnja znamka, registrirana najmanj pet let
In accordance with Article 47(2) EUTMR, the obligation to provide proof of use requires that the earlier registered mark has, at the date of filing or the date of priority of the EUTM application, been registered for not less than 5 years.
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se pri obveznosti predložitve dokaza o uporabi zahteva, da je bila prejšnja registrirana znamka na datum vložitve ali datum prijave za prednostno pravico blagovne znamke EU registrirana najmanj pet let.
[7: For oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is the date of publication.]
[7: V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum datum objave.]
For oppositions filed against international registrations designating the EU, the opponent's mark is under use obligation if on the date of registration (INID code 151) or on the date of priority (INID code 300), or, as the case may be, the date of subsequent designation of the European Union (INID code 891), it has been registered for not less than 5 years.
V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi zoper mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana EU, za znamko vložnika ugovora velja obveznost uporabe, če je bila na datum registracije (koda INID 151) ali datum prednostne pravice (koda INID 300) oziroma na datum naknadnega imenovanja Evropske unije (koda INID 891), registrirana najmanj pet let.
[8: For oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is 6 months after the date of the first re-publication by the Office.]
[8: V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum šest mesecev po datumu, ko Urad prvič znova objavi mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je imenovana EU.]
3.1.2.1 Earlier EUTMs
Prejšnje blagovne znamke EU
The decisive date for establishing whether a trade mark has been registered for not less than 5 years at the relevant date is, according to Article 18 and Article 47(2) EUTMR, the registration date of the earlier EUTM.
V skladu s členom 18 in členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je odločilni datum za opredelitev, ali je bila blagovna znamka na upoštevni datum registrirana najmanj pet let, datum registracije prejšnje blagovne znamke EU.
If 5 years or more have elapsed between the registration date of the earlier EUTM and the relevant date, the applicant (or in the case of a contested IR, the holder) is entitled to request proof of use.
Če je med datumom registracije prejšnje blagovne znamke EU in upoštevnim datumom minilo pet let ali več, lahko prijavitelj (ali imetnik v primeru izpodbijane mednarodne registracije) zahteva dokaz o uporabi.
3.1.2.2 Earlier national marks
Prejšnje nacionalne znamke
For national marks, it is necessary to determine the date that is equivalent to the registration date for EUTMs.
V zvezi z nacionalnimi znamkami je treba določiti datum, ki ustreza datumu registracije blagovnih znamk EU.
In interpreting this term, it should be taken into account that some national trade mark systems have an opposition procedure after registration.
Pri razlagi tega izraza je treba upoštevati, da v nekaterih sistemih nacionalnih blagovnih znamk postopek ugovora poteka po registraciji.
In view of these differing national proceedings, Article 10(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/95 (which is the equivalent of Article 47 EUTMR) refers, as concerns the use requirement for national marks, to the period of ‘five years following the date of the completion of the registration procedure'.
Zaradi teh različnih nacionalnih postopkov se člen 10(1) Direktive (ES) 2008/95 (ki je enakovreden členu 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) v zvezi z zahtevo glede uporabe za nacionalne blagovne znamke sklicuje na obdobje „petih let po zaključku postopka registracije“.
The date of completion of the registration procedure (Article 10(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/95) that serves for calculating the starting point of the 5-year period for the obligation of use for national and international registrations (Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR) is determined by each Member State according to its own procedural rules (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 2628).
Datum zaključka postopka registracije (člen 10(1) Direktive (ES) 2008/95), ki se uporablja za izračun izhodiščne točke petletnega obdobja v zvezi z obveznostjo uporabe za nacionalne in mednarodne registracije (člen 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), določi vsaka država članica posebej v skladu s svojimi postopkovnimi pravili (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 2628).
The owner of a mark is not expected to make genuine use of the mark while examination or opposition proceedings are pending, before the 5-year grace period mentioned.
Od imetnika znamke se ne pričakuje, da bo med potekajočim postopkom preizkušanja ali ugovora resno in dejansko uporabljal znamko pred iztekom navedenega petletnega odložnega roka.
This is in harmony with the approach towards earlier EUTMs, since the registration date of an EUTM, which is mentioned in Article 47(2) EUTMR as the decisive date for the beginning of the grace period, is always the date of completion of the registration procedure.
To je skladno s pristopom, sprejetim za prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, saj je datum registracije blagovne znamke EU, ki je v členu 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU naveden kot odločilni datum za začetek odložnega roka, vedno datum zaključka postopka registracije.
Furthermore, this interpretation keeps the use requirement under the EUTMR in line with the relevant national laws (06/05/2004, R 463/20031, Wrap House (fig.) / HOUSE OF WRAPS, § 19; 18/06/2010, R 236/20084, RENO 911!
Poleg tega ta razlaga ohranja zahtevo glede uporabe iz Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v skladu z zadevnimi nacionalnimi zakoni (06/05/2004, R 463/20031, Wrap House (fig.) / HOUSE OF WRAPS, § 19; 18/06/2010, R 236/20084, RENO 911!
/ RENO).
R 236/20084).