natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The completion of the registration procedure occurs after a pre-registration opposition or in some Member States even after completion of a post-registration opposition.
Postopek registracije se konča po ugovoru, ki poteka pred registracijo, v nekaterih državah članicah pa celo po zaključku ugovora, ki poteka po registraciji.
The exact relevant dates can be found in the table in the Annex.
Točni upoštevni datumi so na voljo v preglednici v Prilogi.
The Office does not investigate on its own initiative the actual date of completion of the registration proceedings.
Urad na svojo pobudo ne preverja dejanskega datuma zaključka postopka registracije.
Without evidence to the contrary, the Office assumes that the registration procedure was completed on the date that is indicated as the registration date in the evidence submitted.
Brez dokazov o nasprotnem Urad domneva, da se je postopek registracije končal na datum, ki je naveden kot datum registracije v predloženih dokazih.
The opponent has to rebut this presumption by proving the exact date when the registration procedure was completed.
Vložnik ugovora mora to domnevo ovreči s predložitvijo dokazov o točnem datumu zaključka postopka registracije.
3.1.2.3 Earlier international registrations designating a Member State
Prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana država članica
Under Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Madrid Protocol, the Designated Offices have a period of 12 or 18 months from the date of notification of the designation to issue provisional refusals.
Pristojni uradi imajo v skladu s členom 5(2)(a) in (b) Madridskega protokola za izdajo začasnih zavrnitev na voljo 12 ali 18 mesecev od datuma obvestila o imenovanju.
Where the Member State has not been designated in the international application but in a subsequent designation, the 12 or 18 months start from the date the subsequent designation was notified to the Designated Offices.
Če država članica ni bila imenovana v mednarodni prijavi, temveč v naknadnem imenovanju, se 12- ali 18-mesečno obdobje začne z datumom, ko so pristojni uradi uradno obveščeni o naknadnem imenovanju.
Member States that use the 12-month deadline to issue a provisional refusal under the Protocol when acting as a designated party are: Benelux, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Latvia, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia.
Države članice, ki v skladu s Protokolom uporabljajo 12-mesečni rok za izdajo začasne zavrnitve, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, so: Beneluks, Češka, Nemčija, Španija, Francija, Hrvaška, Latvija, Madžarska, Avstrija, Portugalska, Romunija in Slovenija.
Member States that have opted for the 18-month deadline to issue a provisional refusal under the Protocol when acting as a designated party are: Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Države članice, ki so se v skladu s Protokolom odločile za 18-mesečni rok za izdajo začasne zavrnitve, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, so: Danska, Estonija, Irska, Grčija, Litva, Finska, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo.
The applicable deadline (12 or 18 months) for Bulgaria, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and Slovakia when acting as a designated party depends on whether (i) such country was designated or subsequently designated before or after 01/09/2008 and (ii) the Office of origin is bound by both the Agreement and the Protocol (deadline: 12 months) or only the Protocol (deadline: 18 months).
Veljavni rok (12 ali 18 mesecev) za Bolgarijo, Italijo, Ciper, Poljsko in Slovaško, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, je odvisen od tega, ali (i) je bila takšna država imenovana ali naknadno imenovana pred 1. septembrom 2008 ali po njem in (ii) urad izvora zavezujeta Sporazum in Protokol (rok: 12 mesecev) ali samo Protokol (rok: 18 mesecev).
See overview table below:
Glej zbirno preglednico:
The Office will, on its own motion, apply the 12-month or 18-month deadline according to the above rules.
Urad bo v skladu z zgornjimi pravili na svojo pobudo uporabljal 12- ali 18-mesečni rok.
Deadlines are calculated by adding the relevant periods to the date of notification from which the time limit to notify the refusal starts, indicated by INID code 580 on the ROMARIN extract (i.e. not the date of international registration or subsequent designation) (Rule 18(1)(a)(iii) and Rule 18(2)(a) of the Common Regulations).
Roki se izračunajo tako, da se upoštevna obdobja prištejejo k datumu obvestila, ko začne teči rok za izdajo obvestila o zavrnitvi in ki je na izpisku iz podatkovne zbirke ROMARIN označen s kodo INID 580 (to ni datum mednarodne registracije ali naknadne registracije) (pravilo 18(1)(a)(iii) in pravilo 18(2)(a) Skupnega pravilnika).
Only when it is decisive for determining whether the earlier mark is subject to the proof of use obligation is it for the opponent to claim a date that is later (e.g. when a provisional refusal has been lifted after these dates or if the designated country opted for a period even longer than 18 months for notifying a refusal based on an opposition pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of the Protocol) and for the applicant or holder to claim a date that is earlier than these dates (e.g. when a Statement of Grant of Protection has been issued before these dates) and to provide the Office with conclusive documentation thereof.
Samo kadar je ključno za opredelitev, ali mora za prejšnjo znamko veljati obveznost predložitve dokaza o uporabi, mora vložnik ugovora uveljavljati poznejši datum (npr. kadar je bila začasna zavrnitev po teh datumih odpravljena ali če se je imenovana država za izdajo obvestila o zavrnitvi na podlagi ugovora v skladu s členom 5(2)(c) Protokola odločila za obdobje, ki je še daljše od 18 mesecev), prijavitelj ali imetnik pa mora uveljavljati datum, ki je zgodnejši od teh datumov (npr. kadar je bila pred temi datumi objavljena izjava o podelitvi varstva), in Uradu predložiti prepričljive dokaze.
In particular, the Court confirmed, in relation to an earlier international registration designating Germany, that the date on which an earlier international registration was deemed to have been ‘registered' had to be established in accordance with the German law giving effect to the earlier right, and not by reference to the date of registration with the International Bureau of WIPO.
Sodišče je zlasti v zvezi s prejšnjo mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je bila imenovana Nemčija, potrdilo, da je treba datum, ki se upošteva kot datum registracije prejšnje mednarodne registracije, določiti v skladu z nemško zakonodajo, ki daje učinek prejšnji pravici, in ne s sklicevanjem na datum registracije pri Mednarodnem uradu organizacije WIPO.
Under German trade mark law, if protection for an internationally registered trade mark is provisionally refused but subsequently granted, the registration is regarded as having taken place on the date of receipt by the International Bureau of WIPO of the final notification that protection has been granted.
Če se varstvo za mednarodno registrirano blagovno znamko v skladu z nemškim pravom o blagovnih znamkah začasno zavrne, vendar se ji podeli naknadno, se upošteva, da je bila registracija opravljena na datum, ko Mednarodni urad organizacije WIPO prejme končno obvestilo o podelitvi varstva.
Proper application of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR and of Article 4(1) of the Madrid Agreement cannot lead to a breach of the principle of non-discrimination (16/09/2010, C559/08 P, Atoz, EU:C:2010:529, § 44, 5356).
Pravilna uporaba člena 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ter člena 4(1) Madridskega sporazuma ne sme povzročiti kršitve načela nediskriminacije (16/09/2010, C559/08 P, Atoz, EU:C:2010:529, § 44, 5356).
3.1.2.4 Earlier international registrations designating the European Union
Prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana Evropska unija
For international registrations designating the European Union, Article 203 EUTMR provides that:
V zvezi z mednarodnimi registracijami, v katerih je imenovana Evropska unija, člen 203 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa:
For the purposes of applying Article 18(1), Article 47(2), Article 58(1)(a) and Article 64(2), the date of publication pursuant to Article 190(2) shall take the place of the date of registration for the purpose of establishing the date as from which the mark which is the subject of an international registration designating the Union shall be put to genuine use in the Union.
Za namene uporabe člena 18(1), člena 47(2), člena 58(1)(a) in člena 64(2) pri določitvi datuma, s katerim je v Uniji dana v resno in dejansko uporabo znamka, ki je predmet mednarodne registracije, v kateri je imenovana Unija, datum objave v skladu s členom 190(2) nadomesti datum registracije.
As from that publication, the international registration has the same effects as a registered EUTM pursuant to Article 189(2) EUTMR.
Mednarodna registracija ima od te objave enake učinke kot blagovna znamka EU, registrirana v skladu s členom 189(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.2.5 Summary of calculation of the grace period
Povzetek izračuna odložnega roka
3.1.3 Request must be unconditional, explicit and unambiguous
Zahteva mora biti brezpogojna, izrecna in nedvoumna
The applicant's request is a formal declaration with important procedural consequences.
Zahteva prijavitelja je formalna izjava, ki ima pomembne postopkovne posledice.
Pursuant to Article 10(1) EUTMDR, the request has to be unconditional.
V skladu s členom 10(1) Delegirane uredbe mora biti zahteva brezpogojna.
Phrases such as ‘if the opponent does not limit its goods/services in Classes “X” or “Y”, we demand proof of use', ‘if the Office does not reject the opposition because of lack of likelihood of confusion, we request proof of use' or ‘if considered appropriate by the Office, the opponent is invited to file proof of use of its trade mark' contain conditional or auxiliary claims and, therefore, are not valid requests for proof of use (26/05/2010, R 1333/20084, RFID SOLUTIONS (fig.) / rfid (fig.)).
Stavki, kot so „če vložnik ugovora ne omeji svoje blago/storitve iz razredov X ali Y, zahtevamo dokaz o uporabi“, „če Urad ne zavrne ugovora zaradi neobstoja verjetnosti zmede, zahtevamo dokaz o uporabi“ ali „če Urad to šteje za ustrezno, je vložnik ugovora pozvan k predložitvi dokaza o uporabi svoje blagovne znamke“, vključujejo pogojne ali nadomestne zahteve, ki zato niso veljavne zahteve za dokaz o uporabi (26/05/2010, R 1333/20084, RFID SOLUTIONS (fig.) / rfid (fig.)).
Moreover, the request has to be explicit and unambiguous.
Poleg tega mora biti zahteva izrecna in nedvoumna.
In general, the request for proof of use must be expressed in positive wording.
Na splošno je treba zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi izraziti s pozitivnimi besedami.
As use or non-use can be an issue in manifold constellations (for example, to invoke or deny a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark), mere observations or remarks by the applicant in respect of the (lack of) use of the opponent's mark are not sufficiently explicit and do not constitute a valid request for proof of genuine use (16/03/2005, T112/03, Flexi Air, EU:T:2005:102).
Ker je lahko uporaba ali neuporaba problematična v več primerih (npr. pri sklicevanju na povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke ali pri njegovem izpodbijanju), le pripombe ali opombe prijavitelja v zvezi z (ne)uporabo znamke vložnika ugovora niso dovolj izrecne in ne pomenijo veljavne zahteve za dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi (16/03/2005, T112/03, Flexi Air, EU:T:2005:102).
Sufficiently explicit and unambiguous request:
Dovolj jasna in nedvoumna zahteva:
‘I request the opponent to submit proof of use …';
„Zahtevam, da vložnik ugovora predloži dokaz o uporabi […]“.
‘I invite the Office to set a time limit for the opponent to prove use …';
„Urad pozivam, naj določi rok, v katerem mora vložnik ugovora dokazati uporabo […]“.
‘Use of the earlier mark is hereby contested …';
„Izpodbijam uporabo prejšnje znamke […]“.
Not sufficiently explicit and unambiguous request:
Ne dovolj jasna in nedvoumna zahteva:
‘The opponent has used its mark only for …';
„Vložnik ugovora je svojo znamko uporabljal le za […]“.
‘The opponent has not used its mark for …';
„Vložnik ugovora svoje znamke ni uporabljal za […]“.
‘There is no evidence that the opponent has ever used its mark …';
„Ni dokazov, da je vložnik ugovora sploh kdaj uporabljal svojo znamko […]“.
‘[T]he opponents' earlier registrations cannot be “validly asserted against the [EUTM] application…”, since “…no information or evidence of use … has been provided…”' (22/09/2008, B 1 120 973).
„Prejšnjih registracij vložnika ugovora ni mogoče veljavno uveljavljati zoper prijavo [blagovne znamke EU] […], saj […] niso bile predložene […] nobene informacije ali dokazov o uporabi […]“ (odločba z dne 22. septembra 2008, B 1 120 973).
An implicit request is accepted as an exception to the above rule when the opponent spontaneously sends evidence of use before the applicant's first opportunity to file arguments and, in its first reply, the applicant challenges the evidence of use submitted by the opponent (12/06/2009, T450/07, Pickwick Colour Group, EU:T:2009:202).
Implicitna zahteva je sprejeta kot izjema od zgornjega pravila, kadar vložnik ugovora na svojo pobudo predloži dokaze o uporabi, preden ima prijavitelj prvič priložnost predložiti trditve in kadar v prvem odgovoru izpodbija dokaze o uporabi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora (12/06/2009, T450/07, Pickwick Colour Group, EU:T:2009:202).
In such a case, there can be no mistake as to the nature of the exchange, and the Office should consider that a request for proof of use has been made and give the opponent a deadline for completing the evidence.
V takšnem primeru ne sme biti nobenega dvoma o naravi izmenjave, Urad pa mora šteti, da je bila zahteva za dokaz o uporabi vložena, in vložniku ugovora določiti rok za dopolnitev dokazov.
In the event that proceedings have been closed and the existence of a request for proof of use is found out only when a decision has be taken, the examiner should re-open the proceedings and give the opponent a deadline for completing the evidence.
Če se je postopek že končal in se obstoj zahteve za dokaz o uporabi odkrije šele po sprejetju odločbe, mora preizkuševalec znova začeti postopek in vložniku ugovora določiti rok za dopolnitev dokazov.
Finally, the request for proof of use must be submitted in a separate document.
Nazadnje, zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi je treba predložiti v ločenem dokumentu.
For more information see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.4.1.
Za več informacij glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.4.1.
3.1.4 Applicant's interest to deal with proof of use first
Interes prijavitelja, da se najprej obravnava dokaz o uporabi
Under Article 10(5) EUTMDR a request for proof of use may be submitted at the same time as observations.
V skladu s členom 10(5) Delegirane uredbe se lahko zahteva za dokaz o uporabi predloži skupaj s pripombami.
The applicant may limit its first observations to requesting proof of use.
Prijavitelj lahko svoje prve pripombe omeji na zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi.
It must then reply to the opposition in its second observations, namely when it is given the opportunity to reply to the proof of use submitted.
Nato mora odgovoriti na ugovor v drugih pripombah, in sicer ko ima priložnost za odgovor na predložen dokaz o uporabi.
It may also do this if only one earlier right is subject to the use requirement, as the applicant should not be obliged to split its observations.
To lahko stori tudi, če se zahteva glede uporabe uporablja le za eno od prejšnjih pravic, saj se od prijavitelja ne more zahtevati, da razdeli svoje pripombe.
If, however, the request is completely invalid, the Office will close proceedings without granting the applicant a further opportunity to submit observations (see paragraph 3.1.5 below).
Če pa je zahteva popolnoma neveljavna, bo Urad končal postopek, ne da bi prijavitelju dal dodatno možnost za predložitev pripomb (glej odstavek 3.1.5 v nadaljevanju).
3.1.5 Reaction if request is invalid
Odziv v primeru neveljavne zahteve
If the request is invalid on any of the above grounds or if the requirements of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR are not met, the Office nevertheless forwards the applicant's request to the opponent but advises both parties of the invalidity of the request.
Če je zahteva neveljavna iz katerega koli od zgornjih razlogov ali če zahteve člena 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso izpolnjene, Urad vložniku ugovora kljub temu posreduje zahtevo prijavitelja, vendar obe stranki opozori na njeno neveljavnost.
The Office will immediately terminate the proceedings if the request is completely invalid and not accompanied by any observations by the applicant.
Urad bo nemudoma končal postopek, če je zahteva popolnoma neveljavna in ji niso priložene pripombe prijavitelja.
However, the Office can extend the time limit established in Article 8(2) EUTMDR if such an invalid request was received before expiry of the time limit set for the applicant but was not dealt with by the Office until after expiry thereof.
Vendar lahko Urad podaljša rok iz člena 8(2) Delegirane uredbe, če je bila takšna neveljavna zahteva prejeta pred pretekom roka, ki je bil določen za prijavitelja, vendar jo je Urad obravnaval šele po preteku tega roka.
Because refusal of the request for proof of use after expiry of the time limit will disproportionately harm the interests of the applicant, the Office extends the time limit by the number of days that were left when the party submitted its request.
Ker zavrnitev zahteve za dokaz o uporabi po preteku roka nesorazmerno škodi interesom prijavitelja, Urad podaljša rok za število dni, ki so ostali, ko je stranka predložila zahtevo.
This practice is based on the rules of fair administration.
Ta praksa temelji na pravilih pravičnega upravnega postopka.
If the request is only invalid as regards part of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the Office expressly limits the invitation to the opponent to submit proof of use to the rights that are subject to the use requirement.
Če je zahteva neveljavna le za del prejšnjih pravic, na katerih temelji ugovor, Urad poziv vložniku ugovora za predložitev dokaza o uporabi izrecno omeji na pravice, za katere se uporablja zahteva glede uporabe.
3.2 Express invitation by the Office
Izrecni poziv Urada
If the applicant's request for proof of use is valid, the Office gives the opponent 2 months to submit proof of use or show that there are proper reasons for non-use.
Če je zahteva prijavitelja za dokaz o uporabi veljavna, Urad vložniku ugovora da na voljo dva meseca za predložitev dokaza o uporabi ali dokaza o obstoju upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo.
Taking a decision on use in the absence of an explicit invitation by the Office to submit proof of use constitutes a substantive procedural violation, even if the applicant's request is clear, and the opponent understands it and submits the requested evidence of use (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20; 19/09/2000, R 733/19991, AFFINITÉ / AFFINAGE).
Sprejetje odločbe o uporabi brez izrecnega poziva Urada k predložitvi dokaza o uporabi pomeni bistveno kršitev postopka, tudi če je zahteva prijavitelja jasna in jo vložnik ugovora razume ter predloži zahtevane dokaze o uporabi (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20; 19/09/2000, R 733/19991, AFFINITÉ / AFFINAGE).
In cases where the request for proof of use arrives during the cooling-off period and is communicated to the opponent during that period, the deadline for submitting proof of use will coincide with the deadline for providing initial or additional facts, evidence and arguments.
Kadar zahteva za dokaz o uporabi prispe med obdobjem za pobotanje in se v zadevnem obdobju sporoči vložniku ugovora, bo rok za predložitev dokaza o uporabi sovpadal z rokom za predložitev osnovnih ali dodatnih dejstev, dokazov in navedb.
The time limit will be extended automatically if the cooling-off period is extended.
Če se obdobje za pobotanje podaljša, se bo zadevni rok samodejno podaljšal.
If the request reaches the Office before the end of the period for submitting or amending facts, evidence and arguments, and is dealt with in this period, the deadline for submitting such facts, evidence and arguments will be extended to coincide with the deadline of 2 months for submitting proof of use.
Če Urad prejme zahtevo pred koncem obdobja za predložitev ali spremembo dejstev, dokazov in navedb ter jo obravnava v tem obdobju, se bo rok za predložitev takšnih dejstev, dokazov in navedb podaljšal ter bo tako sovpadal z dvomesečnim rokom za predložitev dokaza o uporabi.
3.3 Reaction from the opponent: providing proof of use
Odziv vložnika ugovora: predložitev dokaza o uporabi
3.3.1 Time limit for providing proof of use
Rok za predložitev dokaza o uporabi
The Office gives the opponent 2 months to submit proof of use.
Urad da vložniku ugovora na voljo dva meseca za predložitev dokaza o uporabi.
The opponent may request an extension of the deadline in accordance with Article 68 EUTMDR.
Vložnik ugovora lahko v skladu s členom 68 Delegirane uredbe zahteva podaljšanje roka.
The common practice on extensions is applicable to these requests .
Za te zahteve se uporablja splošna praksa o podaljšanjih.
[12: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 6.2.1, Extension of time limits in opposition proceedings.]
[12: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zahteve, odstavek 6.2.1 Podaljšanje rokov v postopku ugovora.]
Article 10(2) EUTMDR expressly states that the Office will reject the opposition if the opposing party does not provide proof of use before the time limit expires.
V členu 10(1) Delegirane uredbe je izrecno navedeno, da bo Urad zavrnil ugovor, če stranka, ki ugovarja, pred iztekom roka ne predloži dokaza o uporabi.
Three scenarios are to be differentiated.
Razlikovati je treba med tremi scenariji.
Any evidence that has been submitted by the opponent at any time during the proceedings before the expiry of the time limit for providing proof of use, even before the applicant's request for proof of use, has to be automatically taken into account when assessing proof of use.
Pri presoji dokazov o uporabi je treba samodejno upoštevati vse dokaze, ki jih je vložnik ugovora predložil kadar koli med postopkom pred iztekom roka za predložitev dokaza o uporabi, tudi preden je prijavitelj vložil zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi.
The opponent has not submitted any or any relevant indication or evidence within the time limit: the submission of relevant indications or evidence of proof of use for the first time after the expiry of the time limit results in rejection of the opposition without the Office having any discretionary powers.
Vložnik ugovora v zadevnem roku ni predložil nobenih oziroma nobenih ustreznih podatkov ali dokazov: če se ustrezni podatki ali dokazi o uporabi prvič predložijo po izteku roka, se ugovor zavrže, pri čemer Urad nima nikakršnih diskrecijskih pravic.
Article 10(2) EUTMDR is an essentially procedural provision and it is apparent from the wording of that provision that when no proof of use of the mark concerned is submitted within the time limit set by the Office, the opposition must automatically be rejected.
Člen 10(2) Delegirane uredbe je v bistvu postopkovna določba, iz njenega besedila pa je jasno razvidno, da je treba ugovor samodejno zavreči, če dokazi o uporabi zadevne znamke niso predloženi v roku, ki ga določi Urad.
The opponent has submitted relevant indications or evidence within the time limit and presents additional indications or evidence after the time limit has expired.
Vložnik ugovora je ustrezne podatke ali dokaze predložil v roku in po izteku roka predloži dodatne podatke ali dokaze.
The Office may take into account the evidence submitted out of time by exercising the discretion conferred on it by Article 95(2) EUTMR.
Urad lahko upošteva dokaze, ki so bila predložena prepozno, z uveljavljanjem diskrecijske pravice, ki mu je podeljena s členom 95(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.