natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Goods (not included in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials, or of plastics (Class 20) Door fittings, made of plastics (Class 20) Figurines of wood (Class 20)
Izdelki (ki jih ne zajemajo drugi razredi) iz lesa, plute, trsa, rogoza, vrbovega protja, roževine, kosti, slonovine, ribje kosti, želvovine, jantarja, biserne matice, morske pene in nadomestkov vseh teh snovi ali iz umetnih snovi (razred 20) Oprema za vrata, izdelana iz umetnih snovi (razred 20) Figurice iz lesa (razred 20)
Repair (Class 37) Shoe repair (Class 37) Repair of computer hardware (Class 37)
Popravila (razred 37) Popravilo čevljev (razred 37) Popravilo računalniške strojne opreme (razred 37)
Installation services (Class 37) Installation of doors and windows (Class 37) Installation of burglar alarms (Class 37)
Storitve v zvezi z montažo (razred 37) Vgradnja vrat in oken (razred 37) Inštalacija protivlomnih alarmov (razred 37)
Treatment of materials (Class 40) Treatment of toxic waste (Class 40) Air purification (Class 40)
Obdelava materialov (razred 40) Obdelava strupenih odpadkov (razred 40) Čiščenje zraka (razred 40)
Personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals (Class 45) Personal background investigations (Class 45) Personal shopping for others (Class 45) Adoption agency services (Class 45)
Individualne in socialne storitve za potrebe posameznika (razred 45) Preverjanja osebne preteklosti (razred 45) Osebno nakupovanje za druge (razred 45) Storitve agencij za posvojitve (razred 45)
Absolute Grounds for Refusal - General Principles
Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev - Splošna načela
ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL
ABSOLUTNI RAZLOGI ZA ZAVRNITEV
CHAPTER 1
POGLAVJE 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
SPLOŠNA NAČELA
1 Reasoned Objection 3
1 Obrazložen ugovor 3
2 Dialogue with the Applicant 3
2 Dialog s prijaviteljem 3
3 Decision 5
3 Odločba 5
4 European Criteria 5
4 Evropska merila 5
5 Irrelevant Criteria 6
5 Nepomembna merila 6
5.1 Term not used 6
5.1 Izraz se ne uporablja 6
5.2 Need to keep free 6
5.2 Potreba po ohranitvi prostega dostopa 6
5.3 Factual monopoly 6
5.3 Dejanski monopol 6
5.4 Double meaning 6
5.4 Dvojni pomen 6
6 Scope of Objections to the Goods and Services 7
6 Obseg uporabe ugovorov glede blaga in storitev 7
7 Timing of Objections 8
7 Časovni okvir za ugovore 8
8 Disclaimers 8
8 Odklonitve 8
1 Reasoned Objection
Obrazložen ugovor
Any one of the grounds listed in Article 7(1) EUTMR is sufficient for the refusal of a European Union trade mark.
Kateri koli od razlogov iz člena 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadostuje za zavrnitev blagovne znamke Evropske unije.
For the sake of sound administration and economy of proceedings, the Office will raise any objections to registration of the sign under Article 7(1) EUTMR as soon as possible and preferably all at once.
Urad zaradi dobrega upravljanja in ekonomičnosti postopkov vloži kakršne koli ugovore zoper registracijo znaka v skladu s členom 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU čim prej in po možnosti vse naenkrat.
This is particularly important in those cases where the applicant cannot overcome the objection by demonstrating that the sign has acquired distinctive character through use (for instance, when Article 7(1)(e) EUTMR is invoked).
To je še zlasti pomembno v tistih primerih, v katerih prijavitelj ne more odpraviti ugovora tako, da dokaže, da je znak pridobil razlikovalni značaj z uporabo (na primer, kadar se uporabi člen 7(1)(e) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Each of the grounds for refusal listed in Article 7(1) EUTMR is independent and must be examined separately.
Vsak razlog za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je neodvisen in ga je treba preizkusiti ločeno.
Therefore, when various absolute grounds for refusal are invoked, a reasoned objection will be issued, specifying the individual grounds for refusal and providing clear and distinct reasoning for each ground.
Zato se, kadar se uporabijo različni absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, izda obrazložen ugovor, ki navaja posamezne razloge za zavrnitev in jasno ter razločno obrazložitev vsakega razloga.
Even when some grounds for refusal overlap, each ground for refusal must be reasoned in the light of the general interest underlying each of them.
Tudi če se nekateri razlogi za zavrnitev prekrivajo, je treba vsak razlog za zavrnitev obrazložiti glede na splošni interes, na katerem temelji.
For example, where a word mark is found to have a semantic meaning that gives rise to an objection under both Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR, the notification of grounds for refusal should deal with each of those grounds in separate paragraphs.
Na primer, kadar se ugotovi, da ima besedna znamka semantični pomen, ki privede do ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba v obvestilu o razlogih za zavrnitev vsakega od teh razlogov obrazložiti v ločenem odstavku.
In such a case, it will be clearly indicated whether the lack of distinctiveness arises out of the same, or different, considerations from those that lead to the mark being deemed descriptive.
V takšnem primeru je treba jasno navesti, ali neobstoj razlikovalnega učinka izhaja iz enakih ali drugačnih ugotovitev, kot so tisti, zaradi katerih se šteje, da je znamka opisna.
Occasionally, arguments put forward by the applicant, or a restriction (partial withdrawal) of the list of goods and services, will lead to the application of other grounds for refusal.
Občasno se zaradi utemeljitev, ki jih predloži prijavitelj, ali omejitve (delnega umika) seznama blaga in storitev uporabijo drugi razlogi za zavrnitev.
In these cases, the party will always be given the opportunity to comment thereon.
V teh primerih se stranki vedno omogoči odgovor nanje.
2 Dialogue with the Applicant
Dialog s prijaviteljem
During examination proceedings, the Office will seek a dialogue with the applicant.
Urad med preizkusom poskuša vzpostaviti dialog s prijaviteljem.
At all stages of the proceedings, the observations submitted by the applicant will be considered carefully.
Pripombe, ki jih predloži prijavitelj, natančno prouči v vseh fazah postopka.
The Office will likewise consider, of its own motion, new facts or arguments that plead in favour of acceptance of the mark.
Po uradni dolžnosti prouči tudi nova dejstva ali utemeljitve v korist sprejetju znamke.
The application can only be refused if the Office is convinced that the objection is well founded at the point in time when the decision is taken.
Prijava se lahko zavrne samo, če je Urad prepričan, da je ugovor utemeljen v trenutku sprejetja odločitve.
If several grounds for refusal are raised, the applicant must overcome all of them, since a refusal can be based on a single ground for refusal (19/09/2002, C104/00 P, Companyline, EU:C:2002:506, § 28).
Če se pojavi več razlogov za zavrnitev, mora prijavitelj odpraviti vse, ker lahko zavrnitev temelji že na enem razlogu za zavrnitev (19/09/2002, C104/00 P, Companyline, EU:C:2002:506, § 28).
No observations submitted by the applicant
Prijavitelj ne predloži pripomb
Where the applicant has not submitted any observations, if the application is to be refused, the notification to the applicant will include the original objection letter(s), state that the application is ‘hereby refused', and contain a notice on the availability of an appeal.
Kadar prijavitelj ne predloži pripomb, uradno obvestilo, ki se pošlje prijavitelju, v primeru zavrnitve vsebuje izvirnik dopisa (dopisov) o ugovoru, navedbo „zavrnjeno“ in obvestilo o možnosti vložitve pritožbe.
Observations submitted by the applicant
Prijavitelj predloži pripombe
If the applicant contests the reasons given in the original notification, the refusal will first provide the original reasoning given, and then address the applicant's arguments.
Če prijavitelj izpodbija razloge, navedene v prvotnem obvestilu, se v zavrnitvi najprej navede prvotna obrazložitev in nato obravnavajo utemeljitve prijavitelja.
Where the Office needs to provide new facts or arguments to sustain a refusal, the applicant must be given the opportunity of commenting on these before a final decision is taken.
Če mora Urad predložiti nova dejstva ali utemeljitve, da bi zadržal zavrnitev, mora dati prijavitelju priložnost za predložitev pripomb, preden se sprejme končna odločitev.
Restriction of goods and services
Omejitev blaga in storitev
Where the applicant tries to overcome the objection by restricting the list of goods and services, it is possible that the restriction may give rise to a new ground for refusal, for example, deceptiveness in addition to descriptiveness.
Kadar prijavitelj poskuša odpraviti ugovor z omejitvijo seznama blaga in storitev, je mogoče, da omejitev sproži nov razlog za zavrnitev, na primer zavajajoč učinek poleg opisnosti.
In this case another objection letter will be issued, so as to give the applicant the opportunity to comment on all grounds for refusal found pertinent.
V tem primeru se izda še eno obvestilo o ugovoru, v katerem se prijavitelju da priložnost za predložitev pripomb na vse razloge za zavrnitev, za katere je ugotovljeno, da so pomembni.
A specification of goods or services that is restricted by a condition that the goods or services do not possess a particular characteristic should not be accepted (12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 114).
Specifikacija blaga ali storitev, ki je omejena s pogojem, da blago ali storitve nimajo določenih lastnosti, se ne sme sprejeti (12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 114).
For example, in respect of the trade mark ‘Theatre', a specification claiming ‘books, except for books about theatre' should not be accepted.
Na primer, v zvezi z blagovno znamko „Gledališče“ se ne sme sprejeti specifikacija „knjige, razen knjige o gledališču“.
By contrast, restrictions that are worded in a positive way are usually acceptable, such as ‘books about Chemistry'.
Nasprotno pa so običajno sprejemljive omejitve, ki so pozitivno oblikovane, kot je na primer „knjige o kemiji“.
Proof of acquired distinctiveness
Dokaz o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku
The applicant has the right to claim that its mark has acquired distinctiveness through use (Article 7(3) EUTMR) and to submit relevant proof thereof.
Prijavitelj ima pravico do zahteve, da je znamka z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni učinek (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), in predložiti ustrezne dokaze.
The applicant must make its claim under Article 7(3) EUTMR either together with the application or, at the latest, in reply to the Office's first objection (Article 2(2) EUTMIR).
Prijavitelj mora svojo zahtevo vložiti v skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU skupaj s prijavo ali najpozneje v odgovoru na prvi ugovor Urada (člen 2(2) Izvedbene uredbe).
The claim can no longer be made for the first time at the appeal stage (Article 27(3)(a) EUTMDR).
Zahteve ni mogoče prvič vložiti v fazi pritožbe (člen 27(3)(a) Delegirane uredbe).
The claim of acquired distinctiveness through use can be made either as a principal claim or as a subsidiary one (Article 2(2) EUTMIR).
Zahteva za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, se lahko vloži kot glavna ali pomožna zahteva (člen 2(2) Izvedbene uredbe).
The applicant must, however, clearly and precisely specify the type of claim, either together with the application or, at the latest, in reply to the Office's first objection.
Prijavitelj pa mora jasno in natančno navesti vrsto zahteve, ki jo vloži skupaj s prijavo ali najpozneje v odgovoru na prvi ugovor Urada.
Where the applicant has made a principal claim, the Office will take one (single) decision both on the mark's inherent distinctiveness and, where there is no inherent distinctiveness, on the submission of acquired distinctiveness through use.
Kadar prijavitelj vloži glavno zahtevo, Urad sprejme eno (edino) odločbo o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku znamke in, kadar znamka nima svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, o vložitvi razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo.
Where the applicant has made a subsidiary claim, the Office will take a first decision on the mark's inherent distinctiveness and then, once that decision (finding lack of inherent distinctiveness) has become final, the applicant will be invited to submit its evidence on acquired distinctiveness through use.
Kadar prijavitelj vloži pomožno zahtevo, Urad sprejme prvo odločbo o svojstvenem razlikovalnem učinku znamke in nato, ko ta odločba (s katero se ugotovi, da znamka nima svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka) postane dokončna, prijavitelja pozove k predložitvi dokazil o razlikovalnem učinku, pridobljenem z uporabo.
For further information on acquired distinctiveness through use, please see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 14, Acquired Distinctiveness Through Use (Article 7(3) EUTMR).
Več informacij o razlikovalnem učinku, pridobljenem z uporabo, je na voljo v Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 14: Razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
3 Decision
Odločba
After the dialogue with the applicant has taken place, the Office will take a decision if it considers that the objection is well founded despite the facts and arguments submitted by the applicant.
Urad po dialogu s prijaviteljem sprejme odločbo, če meni, da je ugovor utemeljen kljub dejstvom in pripombam, ki jih predloži prijavitelj.
The decision will include the original objection, summarise the applicant's arguments, address the applicant's arguments and submissions, and give reasons and a detailed explanation as to why they are not convincing.
Odločba vsebuje izvirnik ugovora, povzame pripombe prijavitelja, obravnava pripombe in predložitve prijavitelja ter navede razloge in natančno obrazložitev, zakaj niso prepričljivi.
The objection can be waived in part if the Office considers that (i) some of the grounds have been overcome or (ii) all grounds have been overcome for some of the goods and services.
Ugovor se lahko delno opusti, če Urad meni, da (i) so bili nekateri razlogi odpravljeni ali (ii) so bili odpravljeni vsi razlogi za nekatere vrste blaga in storitev.
The decision will state that the application has been refused, either partly or in its entirety, indicating the goods and services rejected, and contain a notice on the availability of an appeal.
V odločbi se navede, da je prijava delno ali v celoti zavrnjena, ter se navede zavrnjeno blago in storitve, vsebuje pa tudi obvestilo o možnosti vložitve pritožbe.
If a subsidiary claim of acquired distinctiveness through use has been made, the first decision will declare the inherent distinctiveness of the mark.
Če je bila vložena pomožna zahteva za razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, se s prvo odločbo razglasi svojstveni razlikovalni učinek znamke.
It will only be after examining this evidence that the Office will decide whether to refuse the application.
Urad šele po proučitvi teh dokazil odloči o morebitni zavrnitvi prijave.
The above, obviously, applies only to those cases where a claim under Article 7(3) EUTMR can be made.
To se seveda uporablja samo za tiste primere, v katerih se lahko vloži zahteva v skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
When an application is refused on the basis of a ground for refusal that cannot be overcome by means of Article 7(3) EUTMR (e.g. a refusal under Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii)), a subsidiary claim of acquired distinctiveness will fail.
Kadar se prijava zavrne na podlagi razloga za zavrnitev, ki ga ni mogoče odpraviti v skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (npr. zavrnitev v skladu s členom 7(1)(e)(i) do (iii)), pomožni zahtevi za pridobljen razlikovalni učinek ne bo ugodeno.
4 European Criteria
Evropska merila
Article 7(1) EUTMR is a European provision and has to be interpreted on the basis of a common European standard.
Člen 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je evropska določba in jo je treba razlagati na podlagi skupnih evropskih standardov.
It would be incorrect to apply different standards of distinctiveness, based on different national traditions, or to apply different (i.e. more lenient or stricter) standards on the breach of public order or morality, depending on the country concerned.
Nepravilno bi bilo uporabiti različne standarde razlikovalnega učinka, ki temeljijo na različnih nacionalnih tradicijah, ali različne (tj. milejše ali strožje) standarde o kršenju javnega reda ali moralnih načel, odvisno od zadevne države.
However, Article 7(2) EUTMR excludes an application from registration if a ground for refusal pertains to only part of the European Union (EU).
Vendar člen 7(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izključuje registracijo prijave, če razlogi za zavrnitev obstajajo le v delu Evropske unije (EU).
For example, it suffices for a refusal if the trade mark is descriptive, or lacks distinctive character, in any one of the official languages of the EU (03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57).
Na primer, za zavrnitev zadostuje, da je blagovna znamka opisna ali nima razlikovalnega značaja v katerem koli uradnem jeziku EU (03/07/2013, T236/12, Neo, EU:T:2013:343, § 57).
As regards other languages, a trade mark will be refused if it gives rise to an objection under Article 7(1) EUTMR in a language understood by a significant section of the relevant public in at least part of the European Union (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 4, Descriptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR), paragraph 1.2, and 13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 35-36).
V zvezi z drugimi jeziki se blagovna znamka zavrne, če privede do ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v jeziku, ki ga razume precejšen del upoštevne javnosti v vsaj delu Evropske unije (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 4: Opisne blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 1.2, in sodbo z dne 13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 35-36).
Where the objection is not based on a semantic meaning of a word, the ground for refusal will normally pertain to the European Union as a whole.
Kadar ugovor ne temelji na semantičnem pomenu besede, razlog za zavrnitev običajno obstaja v celotni Evropski uniji.
However, the perception of the sign by the relevant public, the practice in trade, or the use of the goods and services claimed may be different in some parts of the European Union.
Vendar se lahko dojemanje znaka pri upoštevni javnosti, praksa trgovanja ali uporaba zadevnega blaga in storitev v nekaterih delih Evropske unije razlikujejo.
5 Irrelevant Criteria
Nepomembna merila
Applicants often advance arguments that have already been declared irrelevant by the courts.
Prijavitelji pogosto navedejo utemeljitve, ki so jih sodišča že označila za nepomembne.
These arguments should be rejected and the corresponding passages of the applicable judgments cited.
Te utemeljitve je treba zavrniti in navesti ustrezne odlomke iz veljavnih sodb.
5.1 Term not used
Izraz se ne uporablja
The fact that a descriptive use of the term applied for cannot be ascertained is irrelevant.
Dejstvo, da ni mogoče ugotoviti opisne uporabe izraza, za katerega je vložena prijava, ni pomembno.
Examination of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR has to be made by means of prognostics (assuming that the mark will be used with respect to the goods or services claimed).
Člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba proučiti na podlagi predvidevanj (predpostavka, da se bo znamka uporabljala v zvezi z zadevnim blagom ali storitvami).
It follows clearly from the text of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR that it suffices if the mark ‘may serve' to designate characteristics of the goods and services (23/10/2003, C191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 33).
Iz besedila člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU jasno izhaja, da zadostuje, če se lahko znamke uporabijo za označevanje lastnosti blaga in storitev (23/10/2003, C191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 33).
5.2 Need to keep free
Potreba po ohranitvi prostega dostopa
It is frequently claimed that other traders do not need the term applied for, can use more direct and straightforward indications or have synonyms at their disposal to describe the respective characteristics of the goods.
Pogosta trditev je, da drugi trgovci ne potrebujejo izraza, za katerega je vložena prijava, da lahko uporabijo bolj neposredne in jasne označbe ali da imajo na voljo sopomenke za opis ustreznih lastnosti blaga.
All these arguments must be refused as irrelevant.
Vse te utemeljitve je treba zavrniti kot nepomembne.
Although there is a public interest underlying Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR that descriptive terms should not be registered as trade marks so as to remain freely available to all competitors, it is not necessary for the Office to show that there is, on the part of third parties, a present or future need to use, or concrete interest in using, the descriptive term applied for (no konkretes Freihaltebedürfnis) (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 35; 12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 61).
Čeprav člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU temelji na javnem interesu, da se opisni izrazi ne smejo registrirati kot blagovne znamke in morajo ostati na voljo vsem konkurentom, Uradu ni treba nujno izkazati, da imajo tretje osebe zdaj ali v prihodnje potrebo po uporabi ali dejanski interes za uporabo prijavljenega opisnega izraza (neobstoj konkretes Freihaltebedürfnis) (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 35 in 12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 61).
Whether there are synonyms or other, even more usual, ways of expressing the descriptive meaning is thus irrelevant (12/02/2004, C265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 42).
Zato ni pomembno, ali obstajajo sopomenke ali drugi še običajnejši načini izražanja opisnega pomena (12/02/2004, C265/00, Biomild, EU:C:2004:87, § 42).
5.3 Factual monopoly
Dejanski monopol
The fact that the applicant is the only person offering the goods and services for which the mark is descriptive is not relevant for Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.
Dejstvo, da je prijavitelj edina oseba, ki ponuja blago in storitve, ki jih znamka opisuje, ni pomembno za člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, in this case the applicant will be more likely to succeed on acquired distinctiveness.
Vendar je v tem primeru verjetneje, da bo prijavitelj uspešen glede pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka.
5.4 Double meaning
Dvojni pomen
The argument frequently put forward by applicants that the terms applied for have more than one meaning, one of them not being descriptive for the goods/services, should be rejected.
Pogosto utemeljitev, ki jo predložijo prijavitelji, da imajo izrazi, za katere je vložena prijava, več kot en pomen, od katerih eden ne opisuje lastnosti blaga ali storitev, je treba zavrniti.
It suffices for a refusal under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR if at least one of the possible meanings of the term is descriptive in relation to the relevant goods and services (23/10/2003, C191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 32; confirmed by 12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 97).
Za zavrnitev v skladu s členom 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadostuje, če vsaj eden od možnih pomenov izraza opisuje lastnosti zadevnega blaga in storitev (sodba z dne 23/10/2003, C191/01 P, Doublemint, EU:C:2003:579, § 32, ki jo potrjuje sodba z dne 12/02/2004, C363/99, Postkantoor, EU:C:2004:86, § 97).
Given that the examination must focus on the goods/services covered by the application, arguments concerning other possible meanings of the word(s) making up the trade mark applied for (that are unrelated to the goods/services concerned) are irrelevant.
Glede na to, da se je treba pri preizkusu osredotočiti na blago ali storitve, zajete v prijavi, utemeljitve v zvezi z drugimi možnimi pomeni besede ali več besed, ki sestavljajo blagovno znamko, za katero je vložena prijava (ki se ne nanašajo na zadevno blago ali storitve), niso pomembne.