natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In assessing the value of the goods, account may be taken of criteria such as the nature of the category of goods concerned, the artistic value of the shape or other characteristic in question, its dissimilarity from other shapes in common use on the market concerned, a substantial price difference compared with similar goods, and the development of a promotion strategy that focuses on accentuating the aesthetic characteristics of the product in question (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 35).
Pri presoji vrednosti blaga se lahko upoštevajo merila, kot so narava zadevne kategorije blaga, umetniška vrednost zadevne oblike ali druge značilnosti, posebnost te oblike v primerjavi z drugimi oblikami, ki so v uporabi na zadevnem trgu, precejšnja razlika v ceni glede na podobne proizvode in razvoj promocijske strategije, v kateri so poudarjene predvsem estetske značilnosti zadevnega proizvoda (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 35).
The fact that the shape also performs other functions in addition to its aesthetic function (e.g. functional functions) does not exclude the application of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 31).
Uporaba člena 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne izključi zato, ker oblika poleg estetske funkcije zagotavlja tudi druge funkcije (npr. funkcionalne) (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 31).
An example of a sign that consists exclusively of ‘other characteristics' that give substantial value to the goods could be a sound mark, representing a specific sound of a motorbike that may be appealing to a significant part of the relevant public to the extent that it may indeed affect the consumer's choice of purchase.
Primer znaka, ki ga sestavljajo izključno druge značilnosti, ki dajo blagu bistveno vrednost, bi lahko bil zvočni znak, ki ponazarja poseben zvok motornega kolesa, ki lahko tako močno pritegne velik del upoštevne javnosti, da lahko dejansko vpliva na potrošnikovo izbiro pri nakupu.
For the examination of these trade marks, a case-by-case approach is necessary.
Preizkušanje teh blagovnih znamk je treba opraviti za vsak primer posebej.
In most of these cases a proper examination will only be possible where there is evidence that the aesthetic value of the shape or other characteristic can, in its own right, determine the commercial value of the product and the consumer's choice to a large extent.
V večini primerov je mogoče primerno preizkušanje opraviti le, če se lahko dokaže, da estetska vrednost oblike ali druge značilnosti same po sebi pomembno določijo komercialno vrednost proizvoda in potrošnikovo izbiro.
If a shape or other characteristic derives its appeal from the fame of its designers and/or marketing efforts rather than from the aesthetic value of the shape or other characteristic itself, Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR will not apply (14/12/2010, R 486/20102, SHAPE OF A CHAIR (3D), § 20-21).
Če privlačnost oblike ali druge značilnosti izhajajo iz slovesa njenih oblikovalcev in/ali tržnih prizadevanj, ne pa iz estetske vrednosti oblike ali druge značilnosti, se člen 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporabi (14/12/2010, R 486/20102, SHAPE OF A CHAIR (3D), § 20-21).
A leading case when it comes to shapes bestowing substantial value on the goods concerns the three-dimensional representation below of a loudspeaker.
Glavni primer pri oblikah, ki dajo blagu bistveno vrednost, ponazarja tridimenzionalni prikaz zvočnika v nadaljevanju.
The General Court confirmed the Board of Appeal's finding that the sign at issue fell within the scope of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575).
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora za pritožbe, da zadevni znak spada na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575).
The General Court held that for goods such as those listed above, the design was an element that would be very important in the consumer's choice even if the consumer took other characteristics of the goods at issue into account.
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je za blago, kot je tisto, ki je navedeno zgoraj, podoba zadevnega proizvoda element, ki bi bil zelo pomemben za izbiro potrošnika, tudi če bi potrošnik upošteval druge značilnosti zadevnega proizvoda.
After having stated that the shape for which registration was sought revealed a very specific design and that it was an essential element of the applicant's branding, which increased the appeal of the product and, therefore, its value, the General Court also noted that it was apparent from the evidence on record, namely extracts from the distributors' websites and online auction or second-hand websites, that the aesthetic characteristics of that shape were emphasised first and that the shape was perceived as a kind of pure, slender, timeless sculpture for music reproduction, which made it an important selling point (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575, § 75).
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da ima oblika, za katero je bila zahtevana registracija, zelo posebno podobo in da je bistven element prijaviteljeve znamke, ki povečuje privlačnost zadevnega proizvoda, torej njegovo vrednost, je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo še, da iz dokumentiranih elementov, in sicer iz povzetkov spletnih strani distributerja ter spletne dražbe ali prodaje rabljenih proizvodov izhaja, da so najprej poudarjene estetske značilnosti te oblike in da se takšna oblika dojema kot neke vrste čist, vitek in brezčasen kip za predvajanje glasbe, zaradi česar je bistveni element za utemeljitev trženja (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575, § 75).
The General Court thus concluded that, independently of the other characteristics of the goods at issue, the shape for which registration was sought bestowed substantial value on the goods concerned.
Splošno sodišče je tako sklenilo, da oblika, za katero je bila zahtevana registracija, neodvisno od drugih značilnosti zadevnega blaga, zadevnemu blagu daje bistveno vrednost.
It follows from the above judgment that it is important to determine whether the aesthetic value of a shape (or, by analogy, other characteristic) can, in its own right, determine the commercial value of the product and the consumer's choice to a large extent.
Iz navedene sodbe izhaja, da je pomembno ugotoviti, ali lahko estetska vrednost oblike (ali po analogiji druge značilnosti) sama po sebi pomembno opredeli komercialno vrednost proizvoda in potrošnikovo izbiro.
See another example of such an application below:
Znak Št. zadeve Blago in storitve
Sign Case No Goods and services
Blagovna znamka EU št.
EUTM No 107 029 10/07/2006, R 856/2004 G 12/11/2008, T270/06 14/09/2010, C48/09 P Class 28 (construction toys)
107 029 10/07/2006, R 856/2004 G 12/11/2008, T270/06 14/09/2010, C48/09 P Razred 28 (igrače za sestavljanje)
In this case, the shape applied for was described as ... a slightly curved knife handle characterised by a small angle of 5 to 10 degrees between the knife blade and the longitudinal axis of the shell grip, which has a middle section with a somewhat rounded outer cross section, which broadens towards a tapered rear end.
V tej zadevi je bila prijavljena oblika opisana kot: [...] nekoliko ukrivljen ročaj noža, za katerega je značilen manjši od pet- do desetstopinjski kot med rezilom noža in vzdolžno osjo ročaja z ohišjem, katerega srednji del ima nekoliko zaobljen zunanji presek, ki se razširi proti koničastemu zadnjemu delu.
The handle also incorporates a knurled screw in the shell of the knife (para. 28).
Ročaj ima na ohišju tudi narebričen vijak (točka 28).
The Court stated that As is apparent from that patent [relied upon by the invalidity applicant], the technical effect of the angle between the knife blade and the longitudinal axis of the mother-of-pearl handle is to facilitate cutting.
Sodišče je navedlo, da: kot je razvidno iz patenta [na katerega se opira vložnik zahteve za ničnost], je tehnični namen kota med rezilom noža in vzdolžno osjo ročaja z ohišjem iz biserovine olajšati rezanje.
The intermediate section is of particular importance for long cuts.
Srednji del je zlasti pomemben za dolge reze.
It makes the cut more precise while allowing greater pressure to be exerted.
Omogoča natančnejše reze in hkrati omogoča večji pritisk na rezilo.
Finally, the knurled screw allows the shell to be opened and the blades of the knife to be changed without using other tools and without hindering manipulation of the knife during use (para. 30). and concluded that the most important elements of the sign, constituting its essential characteristics, are all exclusively functional (para. 33).
Narebričen vijak omogoča odpiranje ohišja in menjavo rezil brez uporabe drugega orodja, ne da bi to oviralo rokovanje z nožem med uporabo (točka 30), in sklenilo, da so najpomembnejši elementi znaka, ki tvorijo njegove bistvene značilnosti, izključno funkcionalni (točka 33).
The applicant, in this regard, accused the Boards of Appeal of limiting itself to an assessment, in an isolated manner, of all the elements constituting the contested sign without taking into account the overall impression produced by the sign.
Prijavitelj je v tej zvezi odbore za pritožbe obtožil, da so se omejili na presojo vseh posamičnih elementov, ki sestavljajo sporni znak, ne da bi upoštevali celoten vtis, ki ga daje ta znak.
However, as the Court noted: In this case, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Boards of Appeal did state … that the shape of the knife constituting the disputed trade mark could be perceived as being a fish or a dolphin.
Vendar je Sodišče ugotovilo, da: so odbori za pritožbe v tem primeru in v nasprotju s trditvami prijavitelja navedli, [...] da bi oblika noža, ki pomeni sporno blagovno znamko, lahko dajala vtis ribe ali delfina.
However, that resemblance with a fish is conditioned by elements having a technical function, namely the invention covered by the expired American patent with a slightly less curved handle and a slight prolongation of the points at the rear end (para. 39).
Toda podobnost z ribo je odvisna od elementov s tehničnimi učinkom, tj. izuma, ki ga pokriva ameriški patent, ki je potekel, in sicer z nekoliko manj ukrivljenim ročajem in rahlo podaljšanimi točkami na hrbtni strani (točka 39).
Sign Case No Goods
Znak Št. zadeve Blago
10/09/2008, R 497/20051, LOUDSPEAKER (3D) 06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker Apart from loudspeakers, other apparatus for the reception, processing, reproduction, regulation or distribution of sound signals in Class 9 as well as music furniture in Class 20.
10/09/2008, R 497/20051, LOUDSPEAKER (3D) 06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker Poleg zvočnikov še drugi aparati za sprejem, obdelavo, reprodukcijo, regulacijo ali širjenje zvočnih signalov iz razreda 9 ter pohištvo za hi-fi sisteme iz razreda 20.
EUTM Case No
Blagovna znamka EU Št. zadeve
The BoA cancelled the EUTM in view of the fact that the chair shape as registered had substantial value.
Odbor za pritožbe je izbrisal blagovno znamko EU, ker je imela registrirana oblika stola bistveno vrednost.
The BoA examined the evidence put forward in detail and concluded, among others, that the promotional strategy of the EUTM proprietor had been dominated by references to the aesthetic value of the chair shape over many years, including well before the registration date.
Odbor za pritožbe je natančno proučil predložena dokazila in med drugim ugotovil, da so med promocijsko strategijo imetnika blagovne znamke EU več let prevladovala sklicevanja na estetsko vrednost oblike stola, med drugim tudi veliko pred datumom registracije.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part B, Examination Page 2
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del B, Preizkušanje stran 11
Absolute Grounds for Refusal - Trade Marks Contrary to Public Policy or Acceptable Principles of Morality
Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev - Blagovne znamke, ki nasprotujejo javnemu redu ali sprejetim moralnim načelom
CHAPTER 7
POGLAVJE 7
TRADE MARKS CONTRARY TO
BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE, KI NASPROTUJEJO
PUBLIC POLICY OR ACCEPTABLE
JAVNEMU REDU ALI SPREJETIM
PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY
MORALNIM NAČELOM
(ARTICLE 7(1)(f) EUTMR)
(ČLEN 7(1)(f) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU)
1 General Remarks 3
1 Splošne pripombe 3
2 ‘Public Policy' 4
2 „Javni red“ 4
2.1 Concept and categories 4
2.1 Pojem in kategorije 4
3 Accepted Principles of Morality 4
3 Sprejeta moralna načela 4
Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR excludes from registration trade marks that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality.
V skladu s členom 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so iz registracije izključene blagovne znamke, ki so v nasprotju z javnim redom ali sprejetimi moralnimi načeli.
Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR mirrors that of Article 6quinquies(B)(3) of the Paris Convention , which provides for the refusal of trade mark applications and for the invalidation of registrations where trade marks are ‘contrary to morality or public order'.
Člen 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU temelji na členu 6 quinquies(B)(3) Pariške konvencije, ki predvideva zavrnitev prijave blagovne znamke in razveljavitev registracij, če blagovne znamke nasprotujejo morali ali javnemu redu.
[2: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883 (as amended on 28 September 1979).]
[2: Pariška konvencija za varstvo industrijske lastnine z dne 20. marca 1883 (kakor je bila spremenjena 28. septembra 1979).]
The wording of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is very broad and allows a great deal of room for interpretation.
Besedilo člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je zelo široko in pušča veliko prostora za razlage.
A judicious application of this provision necessarily entails balancing the right of traders to freely employ words and images in the signs they wish to register as trade marks against the right of the public not to encounter disturbing, abusive, insulting and even threatening trade marks (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 14).
Preudarna uporaba te določbe nujno pomeni usklajevanje pravice trgovcev do svobodne uporabe besed in podob v znakih, ki jih želijo registrirati kot blagovne znamke, ter pravico javnosti, da ne naleti na vznemirjajoče, prostaške, žaljive in celo grozilne blagovne znamke (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 14).
The rationale of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is not to identify and filter out signs whose use in commerce must at all costs be prevented, but to preclude trade marks from registration where granting a monopoly would contravene the state of law or would be perceived by the relevant public as going directly against the basic moral norms of society.
Namen člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni prepoznati in izločiti znake, katerih uporabo v trgovini je treba na vsak način preprečiti, temveč onemogočiti registracijo blagovnih znamk, kadar bi bila odobritev monopolnega položaja v nasprotju s pravno državo ali bi upoštevna javnost v zvezi z njo menila, da je v neposrednem nasprotju s temeljnimi moralnimi načeli družbe.
In other words, the Office should not positively assist people who wish to further their business aims by means of trade marks that offend against certain basic values of civilised society (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 13).
Z drugimi besedami, Urad ne bi smel pozitivno pomagati tistim, ki želijo pospešiti doseganje svojih poslovnih ciljev z blagovnimi znamkami, ki so žaljive z vidika nekaterih temeljnih vrednot civilizirane družbe (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 13).
The application of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is not limited by the principle of freedom of expression (Article 10, Freedom of expression, European Convention on Human Rights) since the refusal to register only means that the sign is not granted protection under trade mark law and does not stop the sign from being used - even in business (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye!
Uporaba člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni omejena z načelom svobode izražanja (10. člen: Svoboda izražanja, Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic), saj zavrnitev registracije pomeni le, da znaku ni dodeljeno varstvo v skladu z zakonodajo o blagovnih znamkah, kar ne preprečuje uporabe znaka - celo pri poslovanju (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye!
‘Public policy' and ‘accepted principles of morality' are two different concepts that often overlap.
Javni red in sprejeta moralna načela sta različna pojma, ki se pogosto prekrivata.
The question whether the goods or services for which protection is sought can or cannot be legally offered in a particular Member State's market is irrelevant for the question as to whether the sign itself falls foul of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 33).
Vprašanje, ali se blago ali storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo, sme ali ne sme zakonito ponujati na trgu neke države članice, ni pomembno za vprašanje, ali je znak kot tak v nasprotju s členom 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 33).
Whether or not a mark is contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality must be determined by the intrinsic qualities of the mark applied for, and not by the circumstances relating to the conduct of the person applying for the trade mark (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 28).
Vprašanje, ali je znamka v nasprotju z javnim redom ali sprejetimi moralnimi načeli, je treba opredeliti na podlagi značilnosti, ki jih ima prijavljena znamka, in ne na podlagi okoliščin, ki se nanašajo na vedenje prijavitelja blagovne znamke (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 28).
In its judgment of 20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, the General Court held that the concepts of ‘public policy' and ‘acceptable principles of morality' must be interpreted not only with reference to the circumstances common to all Member States but by taking into account ‘the particular circumstances of individual Member States which are likely to influence the perception of the relevant public within those States' (para. 34).
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi 20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, menilo, da je treba pri razlagi pojmov javni red in sprejeta moralna načela upoštevati ne le okoliščine, ki so skupne vsem državam članicam, ampak tudi „posebne okoliščine posameznih držav članic, ki lahko vplivajo na zaznavo upoštevne javnosti, ki je na ozemlju teh držav“ (točka 34).
The legislation and administrative practice of certain Member States can also be taken into account in this context (i.e. for assessing subjective values), not because of their normative value, but as evidence of facts that make it possible to assess the perception of the relevant public in those Member States (20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, § 57).
V tem okviru je mogoče upoštevati tudi zakonodajo in upravno prakso nekaterih držav članic (tj. za presojo subjektivne vrednosti), in sicer ne zaradi njune normativne veljave, temveč kot dokaze o dejstvih, ki omogočajo presojo tega, kako upoštevna javnost v zadevnih državah članicah zaznava znake (20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, § 57).
In such a case, the illegality of the EUTM applied for is not the determining factor for the application of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, but rather is of evidential value with regard to the perception of the relevant public in the Member State(s) in question.
V takšnem primeru nezakonitost blagovne znamke EU, za katero je vložena prijava, ni odločilni dejavnik za uporabo člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, temveč ima dejansko dokazno vrednost v zvezi z zaznavo upoštevne javnosti v zadevni(-ih) državi(-ah) članici(-ah).
Considering that the specific circumstances of individual Member States may not be widely known in EU territory, the objection letter should explain these circumstances clearly in order to make sure that the applicant is able to fully understand the reasoning behind the objection and is able to respond accordingly.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da posebne okoliščine posameznih držav članic na ozemlju EU morda niso splošno znane, je treba v obvestilu o ugovoru te okoliščine jasno pojasniti, da lahko prijavitelj v celoti razume razlog za ugovor in ustrezno odgovori.
2 ‘Public Policy'
„Javni red“
2.1 Concept and categories
Pojem in kategorije
This objection derives from an assessment based on objective criteria.
Ta ugovor izhaja iz presoje na podlagi objektivnih meril.
‘Public policy' is the body of all legal rules that are necessary for the functioning of a democratic society and the state of law.
„Javni red“ je korpus vseh pravnih pravil, ki so potrebna za delovanje demokratične družbe in pravne države.
In the context of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, ‘public policy' refers to the body of EU law applicable in a certain area, as well as to the legal order and the state of law as defined by the Treaties and secondary EU legislation, which reflect a common understanding of certain basic principles and values, such as human rights.
V okviru člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se javni red nanaša na korpus prava EU, ki se uporablja na posebnem področju, ter pravni red in pravno državo, kot sta opredeljena v Pogodbah in sekundarni zakonodaji EU ter ki izražata skupno razumevanje nekaterih temeljnih načel in vrednot, kot so človekove pravice.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of when signs will be caught by this prohibition:
Naslednji neizčrpen seznam primerov ponazarja, kdaj se ta prepoved uporablja za znake:
Any EUTM applied for that can be deemed to support or benefit an individual or a group on the list will be rejected as being against public policy.
Katera koli blagovna znamka EU, za katero je vložena prijava in v zvezi s katero je mogoče šteti, da podpira posameznika ali skupino z navedenega seznama oziroma mu/ji koristi, bo zavrnjena, ker je v nasprotju z javnim redom.
3 Accepted Principles of Morality
Sprejeta moralna načela
This objection concerns subjective values, but these must be applied as objectively as possible by the examiner.
Ta ugovor se nanaša na subjektivne vrednosti, ki jih mora preizkuševalec uporabljati čim objektivneje.
The provision excludes registration as European Union trade marks of blasphemous, racist, discriminatory or insulting words or phrases, but only if that meaning is clearly conveyed by the mark applied for in an unambiguous manner; the standard to be applied is that of the reasonable consumer with average sensitivity and tolerance thresholds (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye!
Določba izključuje registracijo blagovnih znamk Evropske unije, ki vsebujejo bogokletne, rasistične, diskriminatorne ali žaljive besede ali izraze, vendar samo, če prijavljena blagovna znamka prenaša ta pomen jasno in nedvoumno; pri tem se kot standard uporabi razumen potrošnik s povprečnim pragom občutljivosti in tolerance (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye!
The concept of morality in Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is not concerned with bad taste or the protection of individuals' feelings.
Pojem morale v členu 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne nanaša na slab okus ali varstvo občutkov posameznikov.
In order to fall foul of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, a trade mark must be perceived by the relevant public, or at least a significant part of it, as going directly against the basic moral norms of society.
Da bi bila znamka v nasprotju s členom 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, jo mora upoštevna javnost ali vsaj njen velik del zaznavati, kot da neposredno krši temeljna moralna načela družbe.
It is not sufficient if the trade mark is only likely to offend a small minority of exceptionally puritanical citizens.
Ne zadostuje namreč, da bi bila blagovna znamka morda žaljiva samo za maloštevilno manjšino izredno moralističnih prebivalcev.
Conversely, a trade mark should not be allowed to be registered simply because it would not offend the equally small minority at the other end of the spectrum who find even gross obscenity acceptable.
Nasprotno se registracija blagovne znamke ravno tako ne bi smela dovoliti samo zato, ker ne bi bila žaljiva za enako maloštevilno manjšino na drugi strani, za katero je sprejemljiva tudi prostaška opolzkost.