natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
None of these elements has a higher distinctive character than the other (paras 5051) - likelihood of confusion.
Nobeden od teh elementov nima večjega razlikovalnega značaja kot drugi (točki 50 in 51) - verjetnost zmede.
(Emidio Tucci fig.) 13/12/2004, T8/03, EU:T:2004:358, 03/10/2002, R 700/20004 & R 746/20004, confirmed 28/09/2006, C104/05 P, EU:C:2006:611
(Emidio Tucci fig.) 13/12/2004, T8/03, EU:T:2004:358, 03/10/2002, R 700/20004 in R 746/20004, potrjeno z dne 28/09/2006, C104/05 P, EU:C:2006:611
G&S: Classes 3, 18, 24, 25 Territory: Spain Assessment: Both marks consist of the combination of a first name and a surname and give a similar overall impression - likelihood of confusion.
Blago in storitve: razredi 3, 18, 24 in 25 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Obe znamki sta sestavljeni iz kombinacije imena in priimka ter ustvarjata podoben celoten vtis - verjetnost zmede.
G&S: Classes 18, 25 Territory: Italy Assessment: Since it was contested that ‘Fusco' was not one of the most common surnames in Italy, the Court considered that, since the Italian consumer generally attributes greater distinctiveness to the surname than the forename, it will keep in mind the (neither rare nor common) surname ‘Fusco' rather than the (common) forenames ‘Antonio' or ‘Enzo'.
Blago in storitve: razreda 18 in 25 Ozemlje: Italija Presoja: Zaradi izpodbijanja, da priimek „Fusco“ ni med najbolj običajnimi v Italiji, je Sodišče menilo, da si bo italijanski potrošnik, ker na splošno pripisuje večji razlikovalni učinek priimku kot imenu, namesto (običajnega) imena „Antonio“ ali „Enzo“ zapomnil priimek „Fusco“ (ki ni niti redek niti običajen).
Therefore, a consumer faced with goods bearing the trade mark applied for, ENZO FUSCO, might confuse it with the earlier trade mark, ANTONIO FUSCO, so that there is a likelihood of confusion (paras 53, 67) - likelihood of confusion.
Zato bi lahko potrošnik, ko vidi blago s prijavljeno blagovno znamko ENZO FUSCO, to zamenjal s prejšnjo blagovno znamko ANTONIO FUSCO, tako da obstaja verjetnost zmede (točki 53 in 67) - verjetnost zmede.
G&S: Classes 18, 25 Territory: EU Assessment: Not only are consumers throughout the EU aware of the fact that people share the same surname without being necessarily related, but they will also be able to distinguish the Italian surname ‘ROSSI' bearing two different first names in the fashion field (paras 33-35) - no likelihood of confusion.
Blago in storitve: razreda 18 in 25 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Potrošniki po vsej EU vedo, da ima veliko ljudi enak priimek, ne da bi bili nujno povezani, poleg tega bodo na področju mode sposobni razlikovati med italijanskim priimkom „ROSSI“, pred katerim stojita drugačni imeni (točke 33-35) - ni verjetnosti zmede.
G&S: Class 25 Territory: EU Assessment: Both of the marks at issue are made up of a first name and a surname.
Blago in storitve: razred 25 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Obe zadevni znamki sta sestavljeni iz imena in priimka.
It is common ground that the element ‘storm' in the two marks at issue can be a surname.
Ni sporno, da je lahko element „storm“ v obeh zadevnih znamkah priimek.
The elements ‘peer' and ‘peter' in the mark applied for and the earlier mark respectively are first names.
Elementa „peer“ in „peter“ v znamki, za katero je vložena prijava, in prejšnji znamki, sta imeni.
In particular in the Nordic countries and in Germany, Peer is a first name.
Peer je ime zlasti v skandinavskih državah in Nemčiji.
The fact that the mark applied for is written as one word cannot cast doubt on the finding that the two marks at issue are made up of a first name and a surname (para. 66) - likelihood of confusion.
Dejstvo, da je znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, napisana z eno besedo, vzbuja dvom glede ugotovitve, da sta obe zadevni znamki sestavljeni iz imena in priimka (točka 66) - verjetnost zmede.
G&S: Class 33 Territory: Spain Assessment: It is common ground that the Spanish public will perceive the verbal element making up the trade mark applied for as a proper name (first name plus surnames) and the earlier trade mark as a surname.
Blago in storitve: razred 33 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Ni sporno, da bo španska javnost besedni element, ki sestavlja prijavljeno blagovno znamko, zaznala kot lastno ime (ime in priimek), prejšnjo blagovno znamko pa kot priimek.
It is quite likely that the relevant public will regard the addition, in the trade mark applied for, of the first name ‘Julián' and the surname ‘Entrena' merely as a way of distinguishing a range of wines produced by the undertaking that owns the earlier trade mark or, at least, an undertaking economically linked to the intervener (paras 42, 78) - likelihood of confusion.
Precej verjetno je, da bo upoštevna javnost dodatek imena „Julián“ in priimka „Entrena“ pri prijavljeni blagovni znamki štela le kot način razlikovanja izbora vin, ki jih izdeluje podjetje, ki je lastnik prejšnje blagovne znamke, ali vsaj podjetje, ki je s posrednikom gospodarsko povezano (točki 42 in 78) - verjetnost zmede.
G&S: Class 11 Territory: EU Assessment: The sign for which the EUTM applied for seeks protection consists of the term ‘Vera Bradley', which will most probably be seen as the name (forename and family name) of a person, fictitious or real.
Blago in storitve: razred 11 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Znak, za katerega je vložena prijava za blagovno znamko EU in za katerega se zahteva varstvo, je sestavljen iz izraza „Vera Bradley“, ki se bo najverjetneje štel za ime (ime in priimek) osebe, ki je lahko izmišljena ali resnična.
It is composed of the first name ‘VERA', which is a common name for women in many EU countries such as, e.g. the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia and the United Kingdom, and the surname ‘BRADLEY', which is an English family name.
Sestavljeno je iz običajnega ženskega imena „VERA“ v številnih državah EU, npr. na Češkem, v Nemčiji, na Irskem in Nizozemskem, v Avstriji, Sloveniji in Združenem kraljestvu, in angleškega priimka „BRADLEY“.
The latter surname is not a common family name, neither in English-speaking countries nor in any other countries within the European Union.
Ta priimek ni običajen niti v angleško govorečih državah niti v drugih državah Evropske unije.
Even if consumers might be able to distinguish between the signs due to the element ‘Vera', which has no counterpart in the earlier trade mark, they will see a specific line of products or an extended form of the mark.
Čeprav bi bili potrošniki lahko sposobni razlikovati med znakoma zaradi elementa „Vera“, ki ga v prejšnji blagovni znamki ni, bodo izpodbijani znak razumeli kot posebno linijo izdelkov ali razširjeno obliko znamke.
Consequently, consumers might believe that the trade marks belong to the same undertakings or economically linked undertakings (paras 36-37, 52) -likelihood of confusion.
Zato je verjetno, da bodo potrošniki mislili, da blagovni znamki pripadata istemu podjetju ali gospodarsko povezanim podjetjem (točke 36, 37 in 52) - verjetnost zmede.
G&S: Class 8 Territory: EU Assessment: In the case at hand, the colour combinations, identified by different colour codes, are not sufficiently close to lead to a likelihood of confusion, taking into account that the inherent distinctiveness is limited (para. 18).
Blago in storitve: razred 8 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: V obravnavanem primeru barvne kombinacije, določene z različnimi barvnimi lestvicami, niso dovolj podobne, da bi povzročile verjetnost zmede, ob upoštevanju, da je svojstveni razlikovalni učinek omejen (točka 18).
The BoA referred to CJEU judgments and public interest in ensuring that colours remain available to competitors (para. 19).
Odbor za pritožbe se je pri zagotavljanju razpoložljivosti barv za tekmece skliceval na sodbe Sodišča Evropske unije in javni interes (točka 19).
The opponent did not prove enhanced distinctive character (para. 25) - no likelihood of confusion.
Vložnik ugovora ni dokazal povečanega razlikovalnega značaja (točka 25) - ni verjetnosti zmede.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 20
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 1
Unauthorised Filing by Agents of the TM Proprietor
Nepooblaščena vložitev, ki jo opravijo posredniki imetnika blagovne znamke
UNAUTHORISED FILING
NEPOOBLAŠČENA VLOŽITEV,
BY AGENTS OF THE TM PROPRIETOR (ARTICLE 8(3) EUTMR)
KI JO OPRAVIJO POSREDNIKI IMETNIKA BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE (ČLEN 8(3) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU)
1 Preliminary Remarks 3
1 Uvodne pripombe 3
1.1 Origin of Article 8(3) EUTMR 3
1.1 Izvor člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 3
1.2 Purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR 4
1.2 Namen člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 4
2 Entitlement of the Opponent 4
2 Upravičenost vložnika ugovora 4
3 Scope of Application 5
3 Področje uporabe 5
3.1 Kinds of mark covered 5
3.1 Vrste upoštevnih znamk 5
3.2 Origin of the earlier mark 6
3.2 Izvor prejšnje znamke 6
4 Conditions of Application 7
4 Pogoji za uporabo 7
4.1 Agent or representative relationship 7
4.1 Posredniško ali zastopniško razmerje 7
4.1.1 Nature of the relationship 7
4.1.1 Vrsta razmerja 7
4.1.2 Form of the agreement 10
4.1.2 Oblika sporazuma 10
4.1.3 Territorial scope of the agreement 11
4.1.3 Ozemeljski obseg sporazuma 11
4.1.4 Relevant points in time 11
4.1.4 Upoštevni datumi 11
4.2 Application in the agent's name 13
4.2 Prijava v imenu posrednika 13
4.3 Application without the proprietor's consent 14
4.3 Prijava brez soglasja imetnika 14
4.4 Absence of justification on the part of the applicant 16
4.4 Neobstoj utemeljitve prijavitelja 16
4.5 Applicability beyond identical signs - goods and services 18
4.5 Uporaba, ki ni omejena na enake znake - blago in storitve 18
1 Preliminary Remarks
Uvodne pripombe
According to Article 8(3) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, a trade mark will not be registered:
V skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ob ugovoru imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke blagovna znamka ne registrira:
where an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor's consent, unless the agent or representative justifies his action.
če posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika blagovne znamke zahteva njeno registracijo v lastnem imenu brez imetnikovega soglasja, razen če posrednik ali zastopnik svoje ravnanje upraviči.
1.1 Origin of Article 8(3) EUTMR
Izvor člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 8(3) EUTMR has its origin in Article 6septies of the Paris Convention (PC), which was introduced into the convention by the Revision Conference of Lisbon in 1958.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izhaja iz člena 6septies Pariške konvencije, ki je bil v Konvencijo uveden na lizbonski revizijski konferenci leta 1958.
The protection it affords to trade mark proprietors consists of the right to prevent, cancel, or claim as their own unauthorised registrations of their marks by their agents or representatives, and to prohibit use thereof, where the agent or representative cannot justify its acts.
Varstvo, ki ga zagotavlja imetnikom blagovnih znamk, vključuje pravico do preprečevanja, izbrisa ali prenosa nepooblaščenih registracij njihovih znamk, ki jih njihovi posredniki ali zastopniki opravijo na svoje ime, in pravico do prepovedi njihove uporabe, če posrednik ali zastopnik ne more upravičiti svojih dejanj.
Article 6septies PC reads as follows:
Člen 6septies Pariške konvencije se glasi:
(1) If the agent or representative of the person who is the proprietor of the mark in one of the countries of the Union applies, without such proprietor's authorization, for the registration of the mark in his own name, in one or more countries of the Union, the proprietor shall be entitled to oppose the registration applied for, or demand its cancellation or, if the law of the country so allows, the assignment in his favour of the said registration, unless such agent or representative justifies his action.
Če zahteva predstavnik ali zastopnik upravičenca do znamke v posamezni državi Unije registracijo zadevne znamke na svoje ime v eni ali več državah Unije, ne da bi ga upravičenec za to pooblastil, se lahko upravičenec upre zahtevni registraciji ali lahko zahteva črtanje znamke oziroma prenos te registracije na svoje ime, če zakon države to dovoljuje, kolikor predstavnik ali zastopnik ne opraviči svojih postopkov.
(2) The proprietor of the mark shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (1), above, be entitled to oppose the use of his mark by his agent or representative if he has not authorized such use.
Upravičenec do znamke ima pod pogoji iz zgornjega odstavka (1) pravico upreti se uporabi svoje znamke s strani svojega predstavnika ali zastopnika, če ni dal svojega pooblastila zanjo.
(3) Domestic legislation may provide an equitable time limit within which the proprietor of a mark must exercise the rights provided for in this Article.
Nacionalne zakonodaje lahko določijo pravičen rok, v katerem mora upravičenec do znamke zahtevati svoje pravice iz tega člena.
Article 8(3) EUTMR implements this provision only to the extent it gives the rightful proprietor the right to oppose applications filed without its authorisation.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izvaja to določbo le v tolikšnem obsegu, da zakonitemu imetniku daje pravico do ugovora zoper prijave, ki so bile vložene brez njegovega soglasja.
The other elements of Article 6septies PC are implemented by Articles 13, 21 and Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR.
Drugi elementi člena 6septies Pariške konvencije se izvajajo s členoma 13 in 21 ter členom 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR gives the proprietor the right to cancel unauthorised registrations, whereas Articles 13 and 21 EUTMR enable the proprietor to prohibit the use thereof and/or to request the transfer of the registration to its own name.
Člen 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU daje imetniku pravico, da vloži zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti nepooblaščene registracije, člena 13 in 21 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa mu omogočata, da prepove njeno uporabo in/ali zahteva prenos registracije na svoje ime.
Since Article 46 EUTMR provides that an opposition may only be based on the grounds provided for in Article 8 EUTMR, the additional rights conferred on the proprietor by the above provisions may not be invoked in opposition proceedings.
Ker člen 46 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da lahko ugovor temelji le na razlogih iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, se v postopku ugovora ni mogoče sklicevati na dodatne pravice, ki jih imetniku podeljujejo zgornje določbe.
Hence, any request by the opponent, either for the prohibition of use of the agent's mark, or for an assignment of the application to itself, will be dismissed as inadmissible.
Zato bo vsaka zahteva vložnika ugovora za prepoved uporabe posrednikove znamke oziroma prenos prijave na lastno ime zavrnjena kot nedopustna.
In view of the specific subject matter for protection under Article 8(3) EUTMR, while the use or lack of use made of the earlier rights may have a bearing on arguments regarding the justification for applying for the EUTM, the opponent cannot be obliged to provide proof of use under Article 47(3) EUTMR for any earlier rights thereby relied upon (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 1.2.1.2).
Zaradi posebnega predmeta varstva na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU od vložnika ugovora ni mogoče zahtevati, naj predloži dokaz o uporabi na podlagi člena 47(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za vse tako uveljavljene prejšnje pravice, čeprav lahko uporaba ali neuporaba prejšnjih pravic vpliva na trditve glede utemeljenosti prijave za blagovno znamko EU (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 1.2.1.2).
This practice of the Office is also justified by the fact that Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR refer to the ‘earlier mark' in the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, which does not apply to Article 8(3) EUTMR.
To prakso Urada utemeljuje tudi dejstvo, da se člen 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša na „prejšnjo znamko“ v smislu člena 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kar ne velja za člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
1.2 Purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR
Namen člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
The unauthorised filing of the proprietor's trade mark by its agent or representative is contrary to the general obligation of trust underlying commercial cooperation agreements of this type.
Nepooblaščena vložitev blagovne znamke imetnika, ki jo opravi njegov posrednik ali zastopnik, je v nasprotju s splošno obveznostjo zaupanja, ki je podlaga za tovrstne sporazume o poslovnem sodelovanju.
Such a misappropriation of the proprietor's mark is particularly harmful to its commercial interests, as the applicant may exploit the knowledge and experience acquired during its business relationship with the proprietor and, thus, improperly benefit from the proprietor's effort and investment (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 38; 19/05/2011, R 85/20104, LINGHAMS'S (fig.) / LINGHAMS'S (fig.), § 14; 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al., § 24; 30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL, § 17).
Taka neupravičena prisvojitev znamke imetnika je posebno škodljiva za njegove poslovne interese, saj lahko prijavitelj izkorišča znanje in izkušnje, ki jih je pridobil v poslovnem razmerju z imetnikom, in ima tako neupravičeno koristi od prizadevanj in naložb imetnika (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 38; 19/05/2011, R 85/20104, LINGHAMS'S (fig.) / LINGHAMS'S (fig.), § 14; 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al., § 24; 30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL, § 17).
Therefore, the purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR is to safeguard the legitimate interests of trade mark proprietors against the arbitrary appropriation of their trade marks, by granting them the right to prohibit registrations by agents or representatives that are applied for without their consent.
Zato je namen člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zaščititi legitimne interese imetnikov blagovnih znamk pred arbitrarno prilastitvijo njihovih blagovnih znamk, tako da jim je dodeljena pravica do prepovedi registracij, ki so jih brez njihovega soglasja vložili posredniki ali zastopniki.
Article 8(3) EUTMR is a manifestation of the principle that commercial transactions must be conducted in good faith.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izraža načelo, da mora trgovanje potekati v dobri veri.
Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, which allows for the declaration of invalidity of an EUTM on the ground that the applicant was acting in bad faith, is the general expression of this principle.
Člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki omogoča vložitev zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU, ker je prijavitelj ravnal v slabi veri, pa je splošen izraz tega načela.
However, the protection granted by Article 8(3) EUTMR is narrower than that afforded by Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, because the applicability of Article 8(3) EUTMR is subject to the fulfilment of a number of additional conditions laid down in this provision.
Vendar je varstvo, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ožje od varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj je uporaba člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU odvisna od izpolnitve več dodatnih pogojev iz te določbe.
2 Entitlement of the Opponent
Upravičenost vložnika ugovora
According to Article 46(1)(b) EUTMR, the right to file an opposition on the grounds of Article 8(3) EUTMR is reserved only for the proprietors of earlier trade marks.
V skladu s členom 46(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko le imetniki prejšnjih blagovnih znamk vložijo ugovor na podlagi razlogov iz člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
This is in contrast both to Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR, which stipulates that oppositions based on Articles 8(1) or (5) EUTMR may also be filed by authorised licensees, and to Article 46(1)(c) EUTMR, which stipulates that for oppositions based on Article 8(4) EUTMR, the right to file an opposition is also extended to persons authorised by national law to exercise the relevant rights.
To je v nasprotju s členom 46(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da lahko ugovore na podlagi člena 8(1) ali (5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vložijo tudi pooblaščeni pridobitelji licence, in členom 46(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da se v zvezi z ugovori na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravica do vložitve ugovora razširi tudi na osebe, ki so po nacionalni zakonodaji pooblaščene za uveljavljanje zadevnih pravic.
It follows that since the right to oppose an EUTM application on the grounds of Article 8(3) EUTMR belongs exclusively to the proprietors of earlier trade marks, oppositions filed in the name of third persons, be they licensees or otherwise authorised by the relevant national laws, will be dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of entitlement.
Iz tega sledi, da bodo ugovori, ki se vložijo v imenu tretjih oseb, ne glede na to, ali so to pridobitelji licenc ali osebe, ki so kako drugače pooblaščene po ustrezni nacionalni zakonodaji, zavrnjeni kot nedopustni zaradi neupravičenosti, saj pravica do vložitve ugovora zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pripada izključno imetnikom prejšnjih blagovnih znamk.
Likewise, if the opponent fails to prove that it was the rightful proprietor of the mark when the opposition was filed, the opposition will be dismissed without any examination of its merits due to lack of substantiation.
Podobno velja, če vložnik ugovora ne more dokazati, da je bil ob vložitvi ugovora zakoniti imetnik znamke, saj bo ugovor tako zavrnjen brez vsakršne proučitve njegovih vsebinskih razlogov zaradi pomanjkljive utemeljitve.
The evidence required in each case will depend on the kind of right relied upon.
Dokazi, ki se zahtevajo v posameznem primeru, bodo odvisni od vrste pravice, na kateri temelji ugovor.
The current proprietor may also invoke the rights of its predecessor in title if the agency/representation agreement was concluded between the previous proprietor and the applicant, but this needs to be duly substantiated by evidence.
Sedanji imetnik se lahko sklicuje tudi na pravice svojega pravnega predhodnika, če sta prejšnji imetnik in prijavitelj sklenila pogodbo o zastopstvu, vendar je to treba ustrezno podpreti z dokazi.
3 Scope of Application
Področje uporabe
3.1 Kinds of mark covered
Vrste upoštevnih znamk
Article 8(3) EUTMR applies to earlier ‘trade marks' that have been applied for as EUTMs without their proprietor's consent.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja za prejšnje „blagovne znamke“, za katere je bila vložena prijava za blagovne znamke EU brez soglasja njihovega imetnika.
However, Article 8(2) EUTMR does not apply to oppositions based on this ground, as it only enumerates the kinds of earlier rights on which an opposition may be entered under paragraphs (1) and (5) of the same article.
Vendar se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja za ugovore na podlagi tega razloga, saj le navaja vrste prejšnjih pravic, na podlagi katerih je mogoče v skladu z odstavkoma 1 in 5 istega člena vložiti ugovor.
Therefore, the kinds of rights on which an opposition based on Article 8(3) EUTMR may be entered needs to be determined in more detail, both as regards their nature and their geographical origin.
Zato je treba podrobneje opredeliti vrste pravic, na podlagi katerih je mogoče vložiti ugovor v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer v zvezi z njihovo naravo in geografskim poreklom.