natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In other words, since likelihood of confusion can be established on the basis of a finding of genuine use for some of the earlier goods and/or services, it is unnecessary to examine the evidence of use submitted by the opponent with respect to the remaining earlier goods and/or services.
Z drugimi besedami, ker je mogoče verjetnost zmede opredeliti na podlagi ugotovitve resne in dejanske uporabe za nekatero prejšnje blago in/ali storitve, ni treba proučiti dokazov o uporabi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora v zvezi s preostalim prejšnjim blagom in/ali storitvami.
The following sections include a number of guidelines to help establish whether the earlier trade mark has been effectively used for the registered goods and services.
V naslednjih razdelkih je na voljo več smernic, s katerimi bo mogoče lažje opredeliti, ali se je prejšnja blagovna znamka dejansko uporabljala za registrirano blago in storitve.
For further details, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services and, in particular, the practice regarding the use of all the general indications in the class heading, and the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 3, Classification.
Za dodatne podrobnosti glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 2: Primerjava blaga in storitev, zlasti prakso v zvezi z uporabo splošnih označb v naslovih razredov, in Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 3: Razvrstitev blaga in storitev.
2.8.1 Comparison between goods/services used and specification of goods/services
Primerjava uporabljenega blaga/storitev in njihova specifikacija
It must always be carefully assessed whether the goods and services for which the mark has been used fall within the category of the registered goods and services.
Vedno je treba skrbno presoditi, ali blago in storitve, za katere se znamka uporablja, spadajo v kategorijo registriranega blaga in storitev.
2.8.2 Relevance of the classification
Pomen razvrstitve
It is relevant to establish whether the specific goods or services for which a mark has been used fall under any general indication listed in the class heading of a particular class of goods or services, and if so, which.
Opredeliti je treba, ali določeno blago ali storitve, za katere se je uporabljala blagovna znamka, spadajo pod katero od splošnih označb, zapisanih v naslovu razreda posebnega razreda blaga ali storitev, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, katero.
For instance, in Class 25, the class heading is clothing, footwear, headgear, and each of these three items constitutes a ‘general indication'.
Na primer, v razredu 25 je naslov razreda oblačila, obutev in pokrivala, vsaka od teh treh postavk pa je splošna označba.
Whereas, in general, classification does not serve more than administrative purposes, it is relevant, in order to assess the nature of the use, to establish whether the goods for which a mark has been used fall under the general indication of clothing, footwear, headgear.
Čeprav se razvrstitev na splošno uporablja v upravne namene, je za presojo narave uporabe pomembna opredelitev, ali blago, za katero se je znamka uporabljala, spada pod splošno označbo oblačila, obutev ali pokrivala.
This is apparent when similar categories of goods have been classified differently for certain reasons.
To je jasno, kadar so podobne kategorije blaga razvrščene drugače iz določenih razlogov.
For instance, shoes have been classified in various classes according to their intended purpose: orthopaedic shoes in Class 10 and ordinary shoes in Class 25.
Na primer, obutev je bila razvrščena v različne razrede glede na svoj namen: ortopedska obutev v razred 10 in navadna obutev v razred 25.
It must be established, according to the evidence provided, to which kind of shoes the use relates.
V skladu s predloženimi dokazi je treba opredeliti, na katero vrsto obutve se nanaša uporaba.
2.8.3 Use and registration for general indications in ‘class headings'
Uporaba in registracija za splošne označbe v naslovih razredov
Where a mark is registered under all or part of the general indications listed in the class heading of a particular class and where it has been used for several goods or services that are properly classified in the same class under one of these general indications, the mark will be considered as having been used for that specific general indication.
Če je znamka registrirana pod vsemi ali nekaterimi splošnimi označbami, zapisanimi v naslovu določenega razreda, in če se je uporabljala za več vrst blaga ali storitev, ki so ustrezno razvrščene v isti razred pod eno od teh splošnih označb, se bo štelo, da se je blagovna znamka uporabljala za navedeno specifično splošno označbo.
Example: The earlier mark is registered for clothing, footwear, headgear in Class 25.
Primer: Prejšnja znamka je registrirana za oblačila, obutev, pokrivala iz razreda 25.
The evidence relates to ‘skirts', ‘trousers' and ‘Tshirts'.
Dokazi se nanašajo na krila, hlače in majice s kratkimi rokavi.
Conclusion: The mark has been used for clothing.
Sklepna ugotovitev: Znamka se je uporabljala za oblačila.
On the other hand, when a mark is registered for only part of the general indications listed in the class heading of a particular class but has been used only for goods or services which fall under another general indication of that same class, the mark will not be considered as having been used for the registered goods or services (see also paragraph 2.8.4 below).
Po drugi strani, če je znamka registrirana le za del splošnih označb, navedenih v naslovu določenega razreda, vendar se je uporabljala le za blago ali storitve, ki spadajo pod drugo splošno označbo v istem razredu, se ne bo štelo, da se je znamka uporabljala za registrirano blago ali storitve (glej tudi odstavek 2.8.4 v nadaljevanju).
Example: The earlier mark is registered for clothing in Class 25.
Primer: Prejšnja znamka je registrirana za oblačila iz razreda 25.
The evidence relates to ‘boots' only.
Dokazi se nanašajo le na škornje.
Conclusion: The mark has not been used for the goods for which it is registered.
Sklepna ugotovitev: Znamka se ni uporabljala za blago, za katero je registrirana.
2.8.4 Use for subcategories of goods/services and similar goods/services
Uporaba za podkategorije blaga/storitev in podobnega blaga/storitev
This part deals with the extent of protection granted where there is use for subcategories of goods and of ‘similar' goods (or services).
V tem delu je obravnavan obseg odobrenega varstva v primeru uporabe za podkategorije blaga in podobnega blaga (ali storitev).
In general, it is not appropriate to accept proof of use for ‘different' but somehow ‘linked' goods or services as automatically covering registered goods and services.
Na splošno ni ustrezno sprejeti dokaza o uporabi za drugačno, vendar nekako povezano blago ali storitve, ki bi samodejno zajemal registrirano blago in storitve.
In particular, the concept of similarity of goods and services is not a valid consideration within this context.
Zlasti pojem podobnost blaga in storitev ni tehten razlog v zvezi s tem.
The third sentence of Article 47(2) EUTMR does not provide any exception in this regard.
V tretjem stavku člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glede tega ni predvidena nikakršna izjema.
2.8.4.1 Earlier mark registered for broad category of goods/services
Prejšnja znamka, registrirana za široko kategorijo blaga/storitev
In the Aladin case, the General Court held:
Splošno sodišče je v zadevi Aladin razsodilo:
if a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services which is sufficiently broad for it to be possible to identify within it a number of sub-categories capable of being viewed independently, proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection, in opposition proceedings, only for the sub-category or sub-categories to which the goods or services for which the trade mark has actually been used belong.
[…] če je bila blagovna znamka registrirana za dovolj široko kategorijo proizvodov ali storitev, ki bi se lahko v njej razporedili v več podkategorij, ki bi se lahko upoštevale samostojno, dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe znamke za del teh proizvodov ali storitev v postopku z ugovorom daje varstvo samo tej ali podkategorijam, ki navajajo proizvode ali storitve, za katere je bila blagovna znamka dejansko uporabljena
Therefore, if the earlier mark has been registered for a broad category of goods or services but the opponent provides evidence of use only for specific goods or services falling within this category, this raises the question of whether the submitted evidence is to be regarded strictly as proof of use only for the particular goods or services, which are not mentioned as such in the list of goods or services, or for the broad category as specified in the registration.
Če je bila prejšnja znamka registrirana za široko kategorijo blaga ali storitev, vendar vložnik ugovora predloži dokaze o uporabi le za posebno blago ali storitve, ki spadajo v to kategorijo, se zato postavlja vprašanje, ali je treba predložene dokaze strogo obravnavati kot dokaz o uporabi le za posebno blago ali storitve, ki kot taki niso navedeni na seznamu blaga ali storitev, ali za široko kategorijo, kot je navedena v registraciji.
The General Court further pointed out, on the one hand, that it is necessary to interpret the last sentence of Article 47(2) EUTMR as seeking to deny a trade mark extensive protection, if it has only been used in relation to part of the goods or services for which it is registered, merely because it has been registered for a wide range of goods or services.
Splošno sodišče je poudarilo še, da je treba po eni strani zadnji stavek člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlagati tako, kot da se z njim želi preprečiti, da bi blagovna znamka, ki se je uporabljala le za del blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana, uživala obsežno varstvo le zato, ker je bila registrirana za velik obseg blaga ali storitev.
Therefore, it is necessary to take account of the breadth of the categories of goods or services for which the earlier mark is registered, in particular the extent to which the categories concerned are described in general terms for registration purposes, and to do so in the light of the goods or services for which genuine use has actually been established (paragraph 44).
Zato je treba upoštevati tudi obseg kategorij proizvodov ali storitev, za katere je prejšnja blagovna znamka registrirana, zlasti obseg, v katerem so bile kategorije v zvezi z registracijo na splošno opisane, in to storiti za blago ali storitve, katerih resna in dejanska uporaba je bila dejansko dokazana (točka 44).
On the other hand, it is not necessary for the opponent to file evidence of all the commercial variations of similar goods or services but merely of those goods or services that are sufficiently distinct to constitute coherent categories or subcategories (paragraph 46).
Po drugi strani vložniku ugovora ni treba predložiti dokazov za vse tržne različice podobnega blaga ali storitev, ampak samo proizvode ali storitve, ki so dovolj različni, da lahko oblikujejo koherentne kategorije ali podkategorije (točka 46).
The underlying reason is that in practice it is impossible for the proprietor of a trade mark to prove that the mark has been used for all conceivable variations of the goods concerned by the registration.
Osnovni razlog je, da je praktično nemogoče, da bi imetnik blagovne znamke dokazal uporabo te znamke za vse mogoče različice blaga, ki jih zajema registracija.
Thus, protection is available only for the subcategory or subcategories to which the used goods or services belong if:
Zato je varstvo na voljo le za podkategorijo ali več podkategorij, v katere spadajo uporabljeno blago in storitve, če:
1. a trade mark has been registered for a category of goods or services:
je bila blagovna znamka registrirana za kategorijo blaga ali storitev:
(a) that is sufficiently broad to cover a number of subcategories other than in an arbitrary manner;
ki je dovolj široka, da zajema več podkategorij, in sicer ne samovoljno;
(b) that are capable of being perceived as being independent from each other;
ki jih je mogoče dojemati za medsebojne neodvisne;
2. it can be shown that the mark has been genuinely used in relation to only part of the initial broad specification.
je mogoče dokazati, da se je blagovna znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala le za del široke prvotne opredelitve.
Appropriate reasoning should be given for defining the subcategories and, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the opponent, it must be explained whether use has been shown in relation to only part of the initial broad specification or subcategory/subcategories.
Zagotoviti je treba ustrezno obrazložitev za določitev podkategorij in na podlagi dokazov, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, pojasniti, ali je bila uporaba dokazana le za del široke prvotne opredelitve ali podkategorije/podkategorij.
See examples in paragraph 2.8.4.3 below.
Glej primere v odstavku 2.8.4.3 v nadaljevanju.
This is especially important in the case of trade marks registered for pharmaceutical preparations, which are usually used only for one kind of medicine for treating a certain disease (see the examples of pharmaceutical preparations in paragraph 2.8.4.3 below).
To je še zlasti pomembno v primeru blagovnih znamk, registriranih za farmacevtske pripravke, ki se običajno uporabljajo le za eno vrsto zdravil za zdravljenje določene bolezni (glej primere v zvezi s farmacevtskimi pripravki v odstavku 2.8.4.3 v nadaljevanju).
On the other hand, the use for a whole category has to be accepted if there are examples of different kinds of products belonging to this category and there is no other subcategory that covers the different products.
Po drugi strani je treba uporabo za celotno kategorijo sprejeti, če obstajajo primeri različnih vrst proizvodov, ki spadajo v to kategorijo, in če ni nobene druge podkategorije, ki zajema različne proizvode.
2.8.4.2 Earlier mark registered for precisely specified goods/services
Prejšnja znamka, registrirana za natančno opredeljeno blago/storitve
In contrast, proof of genuine use of the mark for some of the specified goods or services necessarily covers the entire category if:
Nasprotno pa dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi znamke za nekatero navedeno blago ali storitev nujno zajema celotno kategorijo, če:
(1) a trade mark has been registered for goods or services specified in a relatively precise manner; so that
je bila blagovna znamka registrirana za blago ali storitve, opredeljene razmeroma natančno, tako da
(2) it is not possible, without any artificiality, to make any significant subdivisions within the category concerned (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45).
brez izumetničenosti ni mogoče določiti pomembnih podrazdelkov v zadevni kategoriji (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45).
The decision should duly indicate in which cases it is considered impossible to make subdivisions and, if necessary, why.
V odločbi je treba ustrezno navesti, v katerih primerih se šteje, da ni mogoče določiti pomembnih podrazdelkov, in po potrebi navesti tudi, zakaj to ni mogoče.
2.8.4.3 Examples
Primeri
In order to define adequate subcategories of general indications, the criterion of the purpose or intended use of the product or service in question is of fundamental importance, as consumers do employ this criterion before making a purchase (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37).
Za opredelitev ustreznih podkategorij splošnih označb je bistvenega pomena merilo namena ali namembnosti zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve, saj potrošniki upoštevajo to merilo pred nakupom (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37).
Other applicable criteria for defining adequate subcategories could be the characteristics of the product or service, for instance the nature of the product or service or the target consumer of the product or service.
Druga merila za opredelitev ustreznih podkategorij bi se lahko nanašala na značilnosti proizvoda ali storitve, na primer vrsto proizvoda ali storitve ali ciljnega potrošnika proizvoda ali storitve.
The geographical origin of the goods is not relevant.
Geografsko poreklo blaga ni pomembno.
Even if the geographical origin of wines is an important factor when they are being chosen, such a factor is not so important that wines with different appellations of origin could constitute subcategories of goods that could be viewed autonomously (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37).
Čeprav je geografsko poreklo vin pomemben dejavnik pri njihovi izbiri, takšen dejavnik ni tako pomemben, da bi lahko vina z različno označbo porekla sestavljala podkategorije blaga, ki bi jih bilo mogoče obravnavati neodvisno (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37).
Pharmaceutical preparations
Farmacevtski pripravki
In a number of cases, the Court had to define adequate subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5.
Sodišče je moralo v več zadevah opredeliti ustrezne podkategorije za farmacevtske pripravke iz razreda 5.
It held that the purpose and intended use of a therapeutic preparation are expressed in its therapeutic indication.
Odločilo je, da sta namen in namembnost terapevtskega pripravka izražena v njegovi terapevtski indikaciji.
Thus, the therapeutic indication is the key for defining the relevant subcategory of pharmaceutical products.
Terapevtska indikacija je zato ključna za opredelitev ustrezne podkategorije farmacevtskih proizvodov.
Other criteria (such as dosage form, active ingredients, whether it is sold on prescription or over the counter) are irrelevant in this regard.
Druga merila (kot so farmacevtska oblika, učinkovine, ali se prodaja na recept ali v prosti prodaji) so v zvezi s tem nepomembna.
The following subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations were assumed to be adequate by the Court:
Sodišče je za ustrezne upoštevalo naslednje podkategorije za farmacevtske pripravke:
2.8.5 Use of the mark as regards integral parts and after-sales services of the registered goods
Uporaba znamke v zvezi s sestavnimi deli in poprodajnimi storitvami registriranega blaga
In the Minimax judgment, the Court held that, in certain circumstances, use of the mark may be considered genuine also for ‘registered' goods that had been sold at one time and were no longer available (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.).
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Minimax odločilo, da je mogoče uporabo znamke v nekaterih okoliščinah šteti za resno in dejansko tudi za predhodno prodano registrirano blago, ki ni več na voljo (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.).
This may apply where the proprietor of the trade mark under which such goods had been put on the market sells parts that are integral to the make-up or structure of the goods previously sold.
To lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke, pod katero je bilo takšno blago dano na trg, prodaja dele, ki so sestavni deli strukture predhodno prodanega blaga.
The same may apply where the trade mark proprietor makes actual use of the mark for after-sales services, such as the sale of accessories or related parts, or the supply of maintenance and repair services.
Enako lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke dejansko uporablja znamko za poprodajne storitve, kot so prodaja dodatkov ali povezanih delov ali zagotavljanje storitev vzdrževanja in popravil.
However, this finding of the Court should be interpreted strictly and applied only in very exceptional cases.
Vendar je treba to ugotovitev Sodišča razlagati strogo in jo uporabljati v zelo izjemnih primerih.
In Minimax, the Court accepted use for goods other than those registered, which runs counter to the general rule laid down in Article 47(2) EUTMR.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Minimax sprejelo uporabo za blago, ki ni bilo registrirano blago, kar je v nasprotju s splošnim pravilom iz člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.9 Use by the proprietor or on its behalf
Uporaba s strani imetnika ali v njegovem imenu
2.9.1 Use by the proprietor
Uporaba s strani imetnika
According to Articles 18(1) and 47(2) EUTMR, it is in general the owner who has to put the earlier registered mark to genuine use.
V skladu s členom 18(1) in členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je na splošno imetnik tisti, ki mora resno in dejansko uporabljati prejšnjo registrirano znamko.
These provisions also cover use of the mark by the previous owner during its ownership (10/12/1999, B 74 494).
Te določbe pokrivajo tudi uporabo znamke s strani prejšnjega imetnika med njegovim lastništvom (10/12/1999, B 74 494).
2.9.2 Use by authorised third parties
Uporaba s strani pooblaščenih tretjih oseb
According to Article 18(2) EUTMR, use of the mark with the consent of the proprietor is deemed to constitute use by the proprietor.
V skladu s členom 18(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se šteje, da uporaba znamke s soglasjem imetnika pomeni uporabo s strani imetnika.
A typical case of use by third parties is use made by licensees.
Značilen primer uporabe s strani tretjih oseb je uporaba s strani pridobiteljev licenc.
Use by companies economically related to the trade mark proprietor, such as members of the same group of companies (affiliates, subsidiaries, etc.) is similarly to be considered as authorised use (30/01/2015, T278/13, now, EU:T:2015:57, § 38).
Uporabo s strani podjetij, ki so gospodarsko povezana z imetnikom blagovne znamke, kot so člani iste skupine podjetij (odvisna podjetja, hčerinske družbe itd.), je treba podobno šteti za dovoljeno uporabo (30/01/2015, T278/13, now, EU:T:2015:57, § 38).
Where goods are produced by the trade mark proprietor (or with its consent), but subsequently placed on the market by distributors at wholesale or retail level, this is to be considered as use of the mark (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73).
Če blago proizvaja imetnik blagovne znamke (ali če se proizvaja z njegovim soglasjem), vendar ga pozneje dajejo na trg distributerji na veleprodajni ravni ali ravni prodaje na drobno, je treba to šteti za uporabo znamke (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73).
At the evidence stage it is prima facie sufficient that the opponent only submits evidence that a third party has used the mark.
V fazi dokazovanja na prvi pogled zadostuje, da vložnik ugovora predloži le dokaze, da je znamko uporabljala tretja oseba.
The Office infers from such use, combined with the opponent's ability to present evidence of it, that the opponent has given prior consent.
Urad na podlagi takšne uporabe, skupaj s sposobnostjo vložnika ugovora, da predloži dokaze o njej, sklepa, da je vložnik ugovora dal predhodno soglasje.
This position of the Office was confirmed by judgment of 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (further confirmed 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310).
To stališče Urada je bilo potrjeno s sodbo 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (potrjeno tudi s sodbo 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310).
The Court pointed out that it was unlikely that the proprietor of a trade mark would be in a position to submit evidence if the mark had been used against its wishes.
Po opozorilih Sodišča ni verjetno, da bi lahko imetnik blagovne znamke predložil dokaze, če bi bila znamka uporabljena proti njegovi volji.
There was all the more reason to rely on that presumption, given that the applicant did not dispute the opponent's consent.
Ker prijavitelj ni izpodbijal soglasja vložnika ugovora, je bil razlog za zanašanje na to domnevo še toliko večji.
However, if the Office has doubts or, in general, in cases where the applicant explicitly contests the opponent's consent, the burden is on the opponent to submit further evidence that it gave its consent prior to use of the mark.
Če pa ima Urad dvome ali, na splošno, če prijavitelj izrecno izpodbija soglasje vložnika ugovora, mora vložnik ugovora predložiti dodatne dokaze, da je dal soglasje pred uporabo znamke.