natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court has held that transit, which consists in transporting goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State to a non-member country by passing through one or more Member States, does not involve any marketing of the goods in question and is therefore not liable to infringe the specific subject matter of the trade mark (regarding the transit through France of goods originating in Spain and destined for Poland, see judgments of 23/10/2003, C115/02, Rioglass and Transremar, EU:C:2003:587, § 27; 09/11/2006, C281/05, Diesel, EU:C:2006:709, § 19).
Sodišče je odločilo, da tranzit, ki zajema prevoz blaga, zakonito proizvedenega v državi članici, v tretjo državo skozi eno ali več držav članic, ne vključuje trženja zadevnega blaga in da zato ne more kršiti posebnega predmeta blagovne znamke (v zvezi s tranzitom blaga skozi Francijo, ki je izviralo iz Španije in je bilo namenjeno na Poljsko, glej sodbi 23/10/2003, C115/02, Rioglass and Transremar, EU:C:2003:587, § 27; 09/11/2006, C281/05, Diesel, EU:C:2006:709, § 19).
Therefore, mere transit through a Member State cannot constitute genuine use of the earlier mark in that territory (09/12/2015, T354/14, ZuMEX (fig.) / JUMEX, EU:T:2015:947, § 62).
Zato le tranzit skozi državo članico ne more pomeniti resne in dejanske uporabe prejšnje znamke na navedenem ozemlju (09/12/2015, T354/14, ZuMEX (fig.) / JUMEX, EU:T:2015:947, § 62.
2.5 Time of use
Čas uporabe
2.5.1 Oppositions filed on or after 23/03/2016
Ugovori, vloženi 23. marca 2016 ali po tem datumu
If the earlier mark is subject to the use requirement at all (registered for not less than 5 years), the actual period for which use must be shown can simply be computed backwards from the filing or, if the contested EUTM application has a priority date, from the priority date of the contested EUTM application.
Če za prejšnjo znamko sploh velja zahteva glede uporabe (registrirana najmanj pet let), se lahko dejansko obdobje, za katero mora biti dokazana uporaba, preprosto izračuna s štetjem nazaj od datuma vložitve ali, če ima izpodbijana prijava blagovne znamke EU datum prednostne pravice, od datuma prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
For example, if the contested EUTM application was filed on 15/06/2016, or if this date was the priority date of the contested EUTM application, the opponent would have to prove genuine use of its mark within the period from 15/06/2011 to 14/06/2016.
Na primer, če bi bila izpodbijana prijava blagovne znamke EU vložena 15. junija 2016 ali če je ta datum datum prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU, bi moral vložnik ugovora dokazati resno in dejansko uporabo svoje blagovne znamke v obdobju od 15. junija 2011 do 14. junija 2016.
If the contested mark is an international registration designating the European Union, the actual period for which use must be proven can simply be computed backwards from the date of registration (INID code 151) or 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).
Če je izpodbijana znamka mednarodna registracija, v kateri je imenovana Evropska unija, se lahko dejansko obdobje, za katero je treba dokazati uporabo, preprosto izračuna s štetjem nazaj od datuma registracije (koda INID 151) ali datuma prednostne pravice (koda INID 300) oziroma datuma naknadnega imenovanja Evropske unije (koda INID 891).
For example, if the contested international registration were registered, or if the European Union were subsequently designated, on 15/06/2016, the opponent would have to prove genuine use of its mark within the period from 15/06/2011 to 14/06/2016.
Na primer, če bi bila izpodbijana mednarodna registracija registrirana oziroma če bi bila Evropska unija naknadno imenovana 15. junija 2016, bi moral vložnik ugovora dokazati resno in dejansko uporabo svoje blagovne znamke v obdobju od 15. junija 2011 do 14. junija 2016.
Evidence referring to use made outside the relevant time frame is in general immaterial, unless it constitutes conclusive indirect proof that the mark must have also been put to genuine use during the relevant period.
Dokazi o uporabi zunaj zadevnega časovnega okvira so na splošno brezpredmetni, razen če so prepričljiv posredni dokaz, da se je znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala tudi v zadevnem obdobju.
The Court held in this context that circumstances subsequent to the relevant point of time may make it possible to confirm or better assess the extent to which the trade mark was used during the relevant period and the real intentions of the proprietor during that time (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31).
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem odločilo, da lahko okoliščine, ki nastanejo po upoštevnem trenutku, omogočajo, da se potrdijo ali bolje presodijo obseg uporabe blagovne znamke v upoštevnem obdobju in resnične namere imetnika v navedenem obdobju (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31).
Where a mark has not been genuinely used for more than 5 years before the filing or priority date of the contested EUTM application, the fact that there may be remaining goodwill or knowledge of the mark in the mind of the trade or customers does not ‘save' the mark.
Če se znamka ni resno in dejansko uporabljala več kot pet let pred datumom vložitve ali datumom prednostne pravice izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, dejstvo, da morda še vedno obstaja dobro ime ali poznavanje znamke v zadevni dejavnosti ali med strankami, ne bo rešilo znamke.
The use need not have been made throughout the period of 5 years, but rather within the 5 years.
Blagovne znamke ni bilo treba uporabljati v celotnem petletnem obdobju, temveč jo je bilo treba uporabljati v tem obdobju.
The provisions on the use requirement do not require continuous use (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 52).
Določbe o zahtevi glede uporabe ne zahtevajo stalne uporabe (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 52).
2.5.2 Oppositions filed before 23/03/2016
Ugovori, vloženi pred 23. marcem 2016
Before the entry into force of the Amending Regulation, the 5-year period was computed backwards from the date of publication of the contested EUTM application.
Pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) 2015/2424 o spremembi se je petletno obdobje izračunalo s štetjem nazaj od datuma, ko je bila objavljena izpodbijana prijava blagovne znamke EU.
2.6 Extent of use
Obseg uporabe
2.6.1 Criteria
Merila
In this regard, it has to be evaluated whether, in view of the market situation in the particular industry or trade concerned, it can be deduced from the material submitted that the owner has seriously tried to acquire a commercial position in the relevant market.
V zvezi s tem je treba presoditi, ali je mogoče ob upoštevanju tržnih razmer v posebni zadevni gospodarski panogi ali trgovini na podlagi predloženega gradiva sklepati, da je imetnik resno poskušal pridobiti poslovni položaj na upoštevnem trgu.
The trade mark has to be used for goods or services already marketed or about to be marketed and for which preparations by the undertaking to secure customers are under way, particularly in the form of advertising campaigns (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 37).
Blagovno znamko je treba uporabljati za blago ali storitve, ki se že tržijo ali se bodo kmalu začele tržiti in v zvezi s katerimi podjetje že izvaja dejavnosti za pritegnitev strank, zlasti z oglaševalskimi kampanjami (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 37).
This does not mean that the opponent has to reveal the total volume of sales or turnover figures.
To ne pomeni, da mora vložnik ugovora razkriti podatke o celotnem obsegu prodaje ali prometu.
Concerning the extent of use made of the earlier mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the commercial volume of all the acts of use on the one hand and the duration of the period in which those acts of use occurred, as well as the frequency of those acts, on the other (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 35).
V zvezi z obsegom uporabe prejšnje znamke je treba upoštevati zlasti, na eni strani, gospodarski obseg celote dejanj, ki pomenijo uporabo, in, na drugi strani, trajanje obdobja, v katerem so bila dejanja, ki pomenijo uporabo, izvrševana, ter pogostost dejanj (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 35).
The assessment entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account.
Taka presoja pomeni neko stopnjo soodvisnosti med upoštevanimi dejavniki.
Thus, the fact that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 42).
Tako se lahko majhen obseg proizvodov, ki se tržijo pod navedeno znamko, izravna z močno intenzivnostjo ali veliko stalnostjo med uporabo te znamke in obratno (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 42).
Under certain circumstances, even circumstantial evidence such as catalogues featuring the trade mark, despite not providing direct information on the quantity of goods actually sold, can be sufficient by themselves to prove the extent of use in an overall assessment (15/07/2015, T398/13 TVR ITALIA (fig.) / TVR et al., EU:T:2015:503, § 57-58; 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq.).
V nekaterih okoliščinah so lahko tudi posredni dokazi, kot so katalogi, v katerih je prikazana blagovna znamka, čeprav ne zagotavljajo neposrednih podatkov o količini dejansko prodanega blaga, sami po sebi zadostni za dokaz obsega uporabe v okviru celovite presoje (15/07/2015, T398/13 TVR ITALIA (fig.) / TVR et al., EU:T:2015:503, § 57-58; 08/07/2010, T30/09, Peerstorm, EU:T:2010:298, § 42 et seq.).
Use does not have to be made during a minimum period of time to qualify as ‘genuine'.
Da bi se uporaba štela za resno in dejansko, ni nujno, da je potekala v minimalnem obdobju.
In particular, use does not have to be continuous throughout the relevant period of 5 years.
Zlasti ni nujno, da v upoštevnem petletnem obdobju ves čas poteka neprekinjeno.
It is sufficient if use was made at the very beginning or end of the period, provided the use was genuine (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577).
Zadostuje že, da je uporaba potekala na začetku ali koncu tega obdobja, če je le bila resna in dejanska (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577).
The exact decisive threshold proving genuine use cannot be defined out of context.
Natančnega odločilnega praga za dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe ni mogoče opredeliti zunaj zadevnega okvira.
The turnover and volume of sales of the product must always be assessed in relation to all the other relevant factors, such as the volume of business, production or marketing capacity, or the degree of diversification of the undertaking using the trade mark, and the characteristics of the products or services on the relevant market.
Promet in obseg prodaje zadevnega proizvoda je treba vedno presojati v povezavi z vsemi drugimi upoštevnimi dejavniki, kot so obseg poslovne dejavnosti, proizvodna ali prodajna zmogljivost oziroma stopnja razvejanosti podjetja, ki izkorišča blagovno znamko, in značilnosti proizvodov ali storitev na zadevnem trgu.
Use need not always be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine, as that depends on the characteristics of the goods or services concerned on the corresponding market (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 39; 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 42).
Ni nujno, da je obseg uporabe vedno zelo velik, da bi jo bilo mogoče označiti za resno in dejansko, saj je ta odvisen od značilnosti zadevnega blaga ali storitev na zadevnem trgu (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 39; 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 42).
Low turnover and sales, in absolute terms, of a medium- or low-priced product might support the conclusion that use of the trade mark in question is not genuine.
Majhen obseg prometa in prodaje proizvoda srednjega ali nizkega cenovnega razreda, izražen v absolutni vrednosti, bi lahko podpiral sklepno ugotovitev, da uporaba zadevne blagovne znamke ni resna in dejanska.
However, with regard to expensive goods or an exclusive market, low turnover figures can be sufficient (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22).
Vendar lahko v zvezi z dragim blagom ali ekskluzivnim trgom zadostujejo podatki o majhnem obsegu prometa (04/09/2007, R 35/20072, DINKY, § 22).
It is, therefore, always necessary to take the characteristics of the market in question into account (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 51).
Zato je treba vedno upoštevati značilnosti zadevnega trga (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 51).
A de minimis rule cannot be laid down.
Pravila de minimis ni mogoče določiti.
Use of the mark by a single client, which imports the products for which the mark is registered, can be sufficient to demonstrate that such use is genuine if it appears that the import operation has a genuine commercial justification for the proprietor of the mark (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 24 et seq.).
Uporaba blagovne znamke s strani ene stranke, ki uvaža blago, za katero je znamka registrirana, lahko zadostuje za dokaz, da je takšna uporaba resna in dejanska, če se zdi, da je dejavnost uvoza za imetnika blagovne znamke pristen poslovni razlog (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 24 et seq.).
Genuine use is not excluded only because all use involves the same customer, as long as the trade mark is used publicly and outwardly and not solely within the undertaking that owns the earlier trade mark or within a distribution network owned or controlled by that undertaking (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 50; 08/10/2014, T300/12, Fairglobe, EU:T:2014:864, § 36).
Resna in dejanska uporaba ni izključena le zato, ker vsa uporaba vključuje isto stranko, če se blagovna znamka uporablja javno in zunanje, in ne le v podjetju, ki je imetnik prejšnje znamke, ali v distribucijskem omrežju, ki ga ima to podjetje v lasti ali ga nadzira (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 50; 08/10/2014, T300/12, Fairglobe, EU:T:2014:864, § 36).
The smaller the commercial volume of the exploitation of the mark, the more necessary it is for the opposing party to produce additional evidence to dispel any doubts as to its genuineness (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 37).
Vendar manjši ko je tržni obseg uporabe znamke, bolj se zahteva, da vložnik ugovora predloži dodatne dokaze za odpravo morebitnih dvomov glede resne in dejanske uporabe zadevne blagovne znamke (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 37).
Concerning the ratio between the turnover generated by the sales of products under the earlier mark and the applicant's annual turnover, it should be noted that the degree of diversification of the activities of undertakings operating in one and the same market varies.
V zvezi z razmerjem med prometom, ustvarjenim s prodajo proizvodov pod prejšnjo znamko, in letnim prometom tožeče stranke je treba opozoriti, da je stopnja razvejanosti dejavnosti podjetij, ki nastopajo na istem trgu, različna.
Moreover, the obligation to produce evidence of genuine use of an earlier trade mark is not designed to monitor the commercial strategy of an undertaking.
Poleg tega obveznost predložitve dokazov o resni in dejanski uporabi prejšnje blagovne znamke ne pomeni spremljanja poslovne strategije podjetja.
It may be economically and objectively justified for an undertaking to market a product or a range of products even if their share in the annual turnover of the undertaking in question is minimal (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 49).
Morda je za podjetje gospodarsko in stvarno upravičeno, da trži proizvod ali raznovrstne proizvode, čeprav je njihov delež v letnem prometu zadevnega podjetja minimalen (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 49).
Special circumstances, for example, lower sales figures during the initial marketing phase of a product, could be of relevance when assessing the genuineness of use (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 53).
Pri presoji resne in dejanske uporabe so lahko pomembne posebne okoliščine, na primer manjši obseg prodaje v začetni fazi trženja proizvoda (08/07/2004, T334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 53).
The initial phase of marketing a product may last more than a few months but it cannot be prolonged indefinitely (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 54-55; confirmed 17/03/2016, C252/15 P, SMART WATER, EU:C:2016:178).
Začetna faza trženja proizvoda lahko traja več kot nekaj mesecev, vendar je ni mogoče podaljševati v nedogled (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 54-55; potrjena 17/03/2016, C252/15 P, SMART WATER, EU:C:2016:178).
2.6.2 Examples of insufficient use
Primeri nezadostne uporabe
2.6.3 Examples of sufficient use
Primeri zadostne uporabe
2.7 Use of the mark in forms different from that registered
Uporaba blagovne znamke v oblikah, ki se razlikujejo od registrirane oblike
2.7.1 Introduction
Uvod
Article 18 EUTMR states that use of the mark in a form different from that registered still constitutes use of the trade mark as long as the differing elements do not alter the distinctive character of the trade mark, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor.
Člen 18 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da uporaba znamke v obliki, ki se razlikuje od registrirane oblike, še vedno pomeni uporabo blagovne znamke, če elementi, ki so različni, ne spreminjajo razlikovalnega značaja blagovne znamke, ne glede na to, ali je blagovna znamka v obliki, v kateri se uporablja, tudi registrirana v imenu imetnika.
The purpose of this provision is to allow its proprietor to make variations in the sign that, without altering its distinctive character, enable it to be better adapted to the marketing and promotion requirements of the goods or services concerned (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 50).
Namen te določbe je imetniku blagovne znamke omogočiti, da naredi spremembe na znaku, ki brez spremenjenega razlikovalnega značaja omogočajo boljše prilagajanje zahtevam trženja in oglaševanja zadevnega blaga ali storitev (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 50).
The General Court further mentioned that strict conformity between the sign as used and the sign registered is not necessary.
Splošno sodišče je poleg tega navedlo, da ni potrebna stroga skladnost med obliko, v kateri se znak uporablja, in registrirano obliko znaka.
However, the difference must be in negligible elements and the signs as used and registered must be broadly equivalent (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 50).
Razlika mora biti v zanemarljivih elementih, znaki, kot se uporabljajo, in registrirani znaki pa morajo biti na splošno enaki (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 50).
In order to decide whether the sign as used and the sign as registered are broadly equivalent, it must first be established what elements are negligible.
Za opredelitev, ali sta znak, ki se uporablja, in registrirani znak na splošno enaka, je treba najprej določiti, kateri elementi so zanemarljivi.
The General Court has developed criteria for doing so in several judgments.
Splošno sodišče je zadevna merila razvilo v več sodbah.
Paragraph 2.7.2 will deal with these criteria.
Ta merila bodo obravnavana v odstavku 2.7.2.
Paragraph 2.7.3 will describe Office practice in relation to the ‘variation' of marks, ‘additions' of elements to marks and ‘omissions' of elements of marks.
V odstavku 2.7.3 bo opisana praksa Urada v zvezi z različicami znamk, dodatki elementov k znamkam in opustitvami elementov znamk.
2.7.2 Criteria of the Court
Merila Sodišča
In brief, the test developed by the Court consists of first determining what the distinctive and dominant elements of the registered sign are and then verifying if they are also present in the sign as used.
Na kratko, preizkus, ki ga je razvilo Sodišče, zajema najprej opredelitev, kateri so razlikovalni in prevladujoči elementi registriranega znaka, nato pa preverjanje, ali so prisotni tudi v znaku, kot se uporablja.
The General Court has held that:
Splošno sodišče je menilo, da:
the assessment of the distinctive or dominant character of one or more components of a complex trade mark must be based on the intrinsic qualities of each of those components, as well as on the relative position of the different components within the arrangement of the trade mark (24/11/2005, T135/04, Online Bus, EU:T:2005:419, § 36).
[…] je treba presojo o razlikovalnem in prevladujočem značaju enega ali več sestavnih delov sestavljene blagovne znamke utemeljiti z bistvenimi lastnostmi vsakega sestavnega dela in z relativnim položajem različnih sestavnih delov v sestavi blagovne znamke […] (24/11/2005, T135/04, Online Bus, EU:T:2005:419, § 36).
With regard to additions:
V zvezi z dodatki je menilo:
several signs may be used simultaneously without altering the distinctive character of the registered sign (08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 34);
hkrati je mogoče uporabljati več znakov, ne da bi ti spreminjali razlikovalni značaj registriranega znaka (08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 34);
if the addition is not distinctive, is weak and/or is not dominant, it does not alter the distinctive character of the registered trade mark (30/11/2009, T353/07, Coloris, EU:T:2009:475, § 2933 et seq.; 10/06/2010, T482/08, Atlas Transport, EU:T:2010:229, § 36 et seq.).
če je dodatek nerazlikovalen, šibek in/ali ni prevladujoč, ne spreminja razlikovalnega značaja registrirane blagovne znamke (30/11/2009, T353/07, Coloris, EU:T:2009:475, § 2933 et seq.; 10/06/2010, T482/08, Atlas Transport, EU:T:2010:229, § 36 et seq.).
With regard to omissions:
V zvezi z opustitvami pa je menilo:
if the omitted element is in a secondary position and not distinctive, its omission does not alter the distinctive character of the trade mark (24/11/2005, T135/04, Online Bus, EU:T:2005:419, § 37).
če ima opuščeni element podrejen položaj in ni razlikovalen, njegova opustitev ne spreminja razlikovalnega značaja blagovne znamke (24/11/2005, T135/04, Online Bus, EU:T:2005:419, § 37).
2.7.3 Office practice
Praksa Urada
In general, it has to be assessed whether use of the mark constitutes an acceptable or unacceptable ‘variation' of its registered form.
Na splošno je treba presoditi, ali uporaba znamke pomeni sprejemljivo ali nesprejemljivo različico njene registrirane oblike.
Therefore, there are two questions to be answered.
Zato je treba odgovoriti na dve vprašanji.
Firstly, it must be clarified what is to be regarded as the distinctive character of the mark as registered .
Prvič, pojasniti je treba, kaj se bo upoštevalo kot razlikovalni značaj znamke, kot je registrirana.
Secondly, it must be evaluated whether the mark as used alters this distinctive character.
Drugič, presoditi je treba, ali znamka, kot se uporablja, spreminja ta razlikovalni značaj.
These questions have to be answered on a case-by-case basis.
Na ti vprašanji je treba odgovoriti za vsak primer posebej.
[6: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.]
[6: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.]
There is interdependence between the strength of the distinctive character of a mark and the effect of alterations.
Moč razlikovalnega značaja znamke in učinek sprememb sta soodvisna.
Marks of strong distinctive character may be less influenced by changes than marks of limited distinctiveness.
Na znamke z močnim razlikovalnim značajem bodo spremembe morda vplivale manj kot na znamke z omejenim razlikovalnim učinkom.
Adding elements to or omitting elements from the mark are more likely to affect the distinctive character of marks of limited distinctiveness.
Dodajanje elementov znamki ali opustitev njenih elementov bosta verjetno bolj vplivala na razlikovalni značaj znamk, ki imajo omejen razlikovalni učinek.