natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the possibility of simultaneous detriment to the opponent's interests should not be ruled out completely, especially in instances where use of the sign applied for could affect the opponent's merchandising schemes, or would hinder its plans to penetrate a new market sector.
Vendar se ne sme popolnoma izključiti možnost sočasnega oškodovanja interesov vložnika ugovora, zlasti kadar bi lahko uporaba znaka, za katerega je bila vložena prijava, prizadela njegove programe trženja ali ovirala načrte za prodor v novi tržni sektor.
Cases on unfair advantage
Primeri neupravičenega izkoriščanja
Risk of unfair advantage established
Potrjeno tveganje neupravičenega izkoriščanja
Risk of unfair advantage denied
Zavrnjeno tveganje neupravičenega izkoriščanja
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka
Detriment to the distinctive character of an earlier reputed mark (also referred to as ‘dilution', ‘whittling away' or ‘blurring') is caused when that mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor is weakened because use of a later similar mark leads to dispersion of the identity of the earlier reputed mark by making it less distinctive or unique (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 29).
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje ugledne znamke (uporabljajo se tudi izrazi „oslabitev“, „izpodjedanje“ ali „zabris“) obstaja, če je sposobnost te znamke - da blago/storitve, za katere je registrirana in za katere se uporablja, označuje tako, kot da jih zagotavlja imetnik navedene znamke - oslabljena, ker uporaba poznejše podobne znamke povzroči razpršitev identitete prejšnje ugledne znamke, katere razlikovalni učinek ali edinstvenost se zato zmanjšata (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 29).
Article 8(5) EUTMR states that a proprietor of a reputed mark may oppose EUTM applications that, without due cause, would be detrimental to the distinctive character of earlier reputed marks.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da lahko imetnik ugledne znamke ugovarja prijavi blagovne znamke EU, ki bi brez upravičenega razloga oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
Clearly, therefore, the object of protection is the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark.
Predmet varstva je torej očitno razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke z ugledom.
As demonstrated in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, ‘distinctiveness' refers to the greater or lesser capacity of a mark to identify the goods/services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking.
Kot je pojasnjeno v Smernicah, delu C: Ugovor, razdelku 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavju 5: „Razlikovalni učinek“ prejšnje znamke, se razlikovalni učinek nanaša na večjo ali manjšo sposobnost znamke, da blago/storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, označuje, kot da izhajajo iz določenega podjetja.
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR protects reputed marks against a reduction of their distinctive quality by a later similar mark even where the later mark relates to dissimilar goods/services.
Zato člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ščiti ugledne znamke pred tem, da bi poznejša podobna znamka zmanjšala njihov razlikovalni učinek, tudi kadar se poznejša znamka nanaša na različno blago/storitve.
Although the former wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR only referred to conflicts between dissimilar goods/services, in its judgments of 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9; 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, the Court held that this Article also covers similar or identical goods/services.
Čeprav se ubeseditev člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša samo na spore med različnim blagom ali storitvami, je Sodišče v sodbah z dne 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9 in z dne 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, odločilo, da ta člen zajema tudi podobno ali enako blago ali storitve.
The protection provided in Article 8(5) EUTMR, therefore, acknowledges that unrestrained use of a reputed mark by third parties, even on dissimilar goods, will eventually reduce the distinctive quality or uniqueness of that reputed mark.
Varstvo, zagotovljeno s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, torej temelji na priznavanju, da se bosta razlikovalni učinek ali edinstvenost ugledne znamke, tudi če gre za različno blago, sčasoma zmanjšala, če jo bodo neomejeno uporabljale tretje osebe.
For example, if Rolls Royce were used on restaurants, pants, candy, plastic pens, yard brushes, etc., its distinctiveness would eventually be dispersed and its special hold upon the public would be reduced - even in relation to cars, for which it is reputed.
Če bi se na primer znamka Rolls Royce uporabljala za restavracije, hlače, sladkarije, plastična pisala, metle za dvorišče itd., bi se njen razlikovalni učinek postopno razpršil, poseben vpliv, ki ga ima v javnosti, pa bi se zmanjšal celo glede avtomobilov, v zvezi s katerimi ima ugled.
Consequently, the Rolls Royce mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor would be weakened in the sense that consumers of the goods for which the reputed mark is protected and reputed will be less inclined to associate it immediately with the owner that has built up the trade mark's reputation.
Posledično bi sposobnost znamke Rolls Royce, za označevanje blaga/storitev, za katere je registrirana in se uporablja, kot da jih zagotavlja imetnik te znamke, oslabila, saj bi jo bili potrošniki blaga, v zvezi s katerim je znamka zaščitena in ima ugled, manj sposobni neposredno povezati z imetnikom, ki je ustvaril njen ugled.
This is because, for those consumers, the mark now has several or many ‘other' associations, where it previously had only one.
To pa zato, ker ima znamka za te potrošnike zdaj nekaj ali veliko „drugih“ asociacij, prej pa je imela samo eno.
Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier reputed mark must be assessed by reference to the average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke z ugledom je treba presojati z vidika povprečnega potrošnika blaga in storitev, za katere je ta znamka registrirana, ki je normalno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in preudaren (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
The assessment of detriment to distinctiveness
Presoja oškodovanja razlikovalnega učinka
Detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark occurs where use of a later similar mark reduces the distinctive quality of the earlier reputed mark.
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke z ugledom se pojavi, kadar se zaradi uporabe poznejše podobne znamke zmanjša razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke z ugledom.
However, this cannot be found to occur merely because the earlier mark has a reputation and is identical with or similar to the mark applied for - such an approach would apply an automatic and indiscriminate finding of likelihood of dilution against all marks that are similar to reputed trade marks and would negate the requirement of proving detriment.
Vendar taka ugotovitev ne more temeljiti samo na tem, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled in je enaka ali podobna znamki, za katero je vložena prijava - tak pristop bi pomenil, da se samodejno in brez razlikovanja ugotovi, da obstaja verjetnost oslabitve v zvezi z vsemi znamkami, ki so podobne ugledni znamki, in bi bil v nasprotju z zahtevo, da je treba dokazati oškodovanje.
The Court held in Intel that Article 4(4)(a) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (the equivalent of Article 8(5) EUTMR) must be interpreted as meaning that proof that use of the later mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a ‘change in the economic behaviour' of the average consumer of the goods/services for which the earlier mark was registered, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Intel odločilo, da je treba člen 4(4)(a) Prve direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS (ki je enakovreden členu 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) razlagati, kot da se v okviru dokaza, da bi uporaba poznejše znamke oškodovala razlikovalni značaj prejšnje znamke, zahteva, da se dokaže bodisi „sprememba ekonomskega ravnanja“ povprečnega potrošnika blaga/storitev, za katere je prejšnja znamka registrirana, bodisi resno tveganje za nastanek take spremembe v prihodnosti.
The Court has further elaborated on the concept of ‘change in the economic behaviour of the average consumers' in its judgment of 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
Sodišče je koncept „spremembe ekonomskega ravnanja“ povprečnega potrošnika dodatno opredelilo v sodbi z dne 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
It indicated that it is an autonomous objective condition, which cannot be deduced solely from subjective elements such as how consumers perceive the dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity.
Navedlo je, da gre za samostojni objektivni pogoj, ki ga ni mogoče zožiti le na subjektivne elemente, kot je, kako potrošniki dojemajo razpršitev podobe in identitete znamke z ugledom.
The mere fact that consumers note the presence of a new similar sign that is likely to undermine the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods for which it is registered as coming from the mark's proprietor, is not sufficient by itself to establish the existence of detriment or a risk of detriment to the distinctive character of the reputed mark (paras 35 to 40).
Dejstvo, da potrošniki opazijo obstoj novega podobnega znaka, ki bo verjetno spodkopal sposobnost prejšnje znamke, da proizvode, za katere je registrirana, označuje tako, kot da izvirajo od imetnika znamke, samo po sebi ne zadostuje za dokaz škodovanja ali nevarnosti škodovanja razlikovalnemu učinku znamke z ugledom (točke od 35 do 40).
The Court insists on a ‘higher standard' for establishing dilution.
Sodišče vztraja pri „višjem standardu“ za dokaz oslabitve.
The following two autonomous conditions must be substantiated by the opponent and reasoned by the Office.
Vložnik ugovora mora utemeljiti, Urad pa obrazložiti naslednja samostojna pogoja.
Dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity in the relevant public's perception (subjective condition).
Dojemanje upoštevne javnosti v zvezi z oslabitvijo podobe in identitete blagovne znamke z ugledom (subjektivni pogoj).
A change in the economic behaviour of this public (objective condition).
Sprememba ekonomskega ravnanja te javnosti (objektivni pogoj).
Whilst the opponent does not need to submit evidence of actual detriment, it must convince the Office by adducing evidence of a serious future risk - which is not merely hypothetical - of detriment.
Vložniku ugovora sicer ni treba predložiti dokazov o dejanskem oškodovanju, vendar mora Urad prepričati s predložitvijo dokazov o resnem tveganju oškodovanja v prihodnosti, ki ni samo hipotetično.
The opponent may do this by submitting evidence that proves a likelihood of detriment on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities (and not mere suppositions), and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, as cited in 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; confirmed 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
Vložnik ugovora lahko to stori s predložitvijo dokazov, ki kažejo verjetnost oškodovanja na podlagi logičnih sklepanj, ki izhajajo iz analize možnosti (ne samo predpostavk), in ob upoštevanju običajne prakse v upoštevni gospodarski panogi ter vseh drugih okoliščin obravnavanega primera (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, kakor je navedena v sodbi 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52, in potrjena s sodbo 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
Detriment to distinctive character is characterised by an ‘avalanche effect', meaning that the first use of a similar mark in a distinct market may not, in itself, dilute the identity or ‘uniqueness' of the reputed mark but, over time, this would be the result, because this first use may trigger further acts of use by different operators, thus leading to its dilution or detriment to its distinctive character.
Za oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja je značilen „učinek plazu“, kar pomeni, da prva uporaba podobne znamke na samostojnem trgu sama po sebi ne prispeva nujno k oslabitvi identitete ali „edinstvenosti“ znamke z ugledom, vendar se lahko to sčasoma zgodi, saj lahko prva uporaba sproži nadaljnjo uporabo pri različnih gospodarskih subjektih, s čimer se oslabi ali oškoduje razlikovalni značaj te znamke.
The Court has held that the first use of an identical or similar mark may suffice, in some circumstances, to cause actual and present detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark or to give rise to a serious likelihood that such detriment will occur in the future (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75).
Sodišče je odločilo, da lahko prva uporaba enake ali podobne poznejše znamke zadošča, odvisno od primera, da povzroči dejansko in sedanje oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke ali da nastane resno tveganje za nastanek takega oškodovanja v prihodnosti (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75).
In opposition proceedings before the Office, use of the contested sign may not have occurred at all.
V postopku ugovora pred Uradom je mogoče, da se izpodbijani znak sploh še ne uporablja.
In this regard, the Office takes into account that future use of the contested sign, even if it were first use, may trigger further acts of use by different operators, under particular circumstances that are to be provided by the opponent, therefore leading to dilution by blurring.
V zvezi s tem Urad upošteva, da lahko prihodnja uporaba izpodbijanega znaka, tudi če gre za prvo uporabo, v določenih okoliščinah, ki jih določi vložnik ugovora, sproži nadaljnjo uporabo pri različnih gospodarskih subjektih, kar povzroči oslabitev z zabrisom.
As seen above, the wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR provides for this by stating that use of the mark applied for without due cause ‘would … be detrimental to … the distinctivecharacter or the repute of the earlier trade mark'.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, je ta možnost predvidena v ubeseditvi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da bi se z uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, brez upravičenega razloga „[...] oškodoval razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke“.
Nevertheless, as set out above, the opponent bears the burden of showing that actual or future use causes, or is likely to cause, detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark.
Vendar vložnik ugovora, kot je navedeno zgoraj, nosi dokazno breme, da bo dejanska ali prihodnja uporaba oškodovala ali bi lahko oškodovala razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke z ugledom.
Inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke
The Court has stated that ‘the more “unique” the earlier mark appears, the greater the likelihood that the use of a later identical or similar mark will be detrimental to its distinctive character' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458).
Sodišče je navedlo, da „večji ko ima prejšnja znamka edinstveni značaj, bolj bo lahko uporaba enake ali podobne poznejše znamke oškodovala njen razlikovalni značaj“ (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458).
Indeed, the earlier mark must possess an exclusive character in the sense that it should be associated by the consumers with a single source of origin - since it is only in this case that a likelihood of detriment to distinctiveness may be envisaged.
Prejšnja znamka mora biti resnično ekskluzivna, tako da jo potrošniki povezujejo z enim samim izvorom - saj je mogoče samo v tem primeru predvideti verjetnost oškodovanja razlikovalnega učinka.
If the same sign, or a variation thereof, is already in use in connection with a range of different goods, there can be no immediate link with any of the goods it distinguishes and, thus, there will be little or no room for further dilution.
Če se isti znak ali njegova različica že uporablja v zvezi z različnim blagom, ne more imeti neposredne zveze s katerim koli blagom, ki ga označuje, zato ni možnosti za nadaljnjo oslabitev ali je zelo majhna.
Accordingly, ‘… the risk of dilution appears, in principle, to be lower if the earlier mark consists of a term which, because of a meaning inherent in it, is very common and frequently used, irrespective of the earlier mark consisting of the term at issue.
V skladu s tem „[...] se zdi, da je tveganje oslabitve načeloma manjše, če je prejšnja znamka sestavljena iz besede z lastnim pomenom, ki je zelo razširjena in se pogosto uporablja, neodvisno od prejšnje znamke, ki je sestavljena iz zadevne besede.
In such a case, reuse of the term in question by the mark applied for is less likely to result in a dilution of the earlier mark' (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38).
V takem primeru je manj verjetno, da bo prevzetje zadevne besede v prijavljeni znamki pripeljalo do oslabitve prejšnje znamke“ (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38).
If, therefore, the mark is suggestive of a characteristic shared by a wide range of goods, the consumer is more likely to associate it with the specific feature of the product that it alludes to rather than with another mark.
Če torej znamka nakazuje značilnost, ki si jo deli več vrst blaga, jo bodo potrošniki verjetneje povezali s posebno značilnostjo izdelka, na katerega se nanaša, kot z drugo znamko.
In its judgment of 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, the General Court confirmed the finding that the use of the mark Spa-Finders for publications and travel agency services would neither blur the distinctiveness nor tarnish the reputation of the mark Spa for mineral water: The term ‘spa' in Spa-Finders may be used otherwise than in a trade mark context since it ‘is frequently used to designate, for example, the Belgian town of Spa and the Belgian racing circuit of Spa-Francorchamps or, in general, places for hydrotherapy such as hammams or saunas, [and consequently] the risk of detriment to the distinctive character of the mark SPA seems to be limited' (para. 44).
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, potrdilo ugotovitev, da uporaba znamke Spa-Finders za publikacije in storitve potovalnih agencij ne bi zabrisala ugleda znamke Spa za mineralno vodo niti vplivala nanj: Izraz „spa“ v Spa-Finders se lahko uporablja drugače kot v kontekstu blagovne znamke, saj se „pogosto uporablja za določitev, na primer belgijskega mesta Spa in belgijskega avtomobilskega dirkališča Spa-Francorchamps, oziroma splošno za prostore, namenjene hidroterapiji, kot so turške kopeli in savne, [zato] je verjetnost oškodovanja razlikovalnega značaja znamke SPA majhna“ (točka 44).
Thus, if the applicant shows that the earlier sign or the element that gives rise to similarity is commonplace and is already used by different undertakings in various sectors of the market, it may successfully refute the existence of a likelihood of dilution, because it will be difficult to accept that the attractiveness of the earlier mark risks being diluted if it is not particularly unique.
Če prijavitelj dokaže, da je prejšnji znak ali element, ki povzroča podobnost, običajen in ga že uporabljajo različna podjetja v različnih tržnih sektorjih, lahko uspešno izpodbija verjetnost oslabitve, saj bo težko sprejeti, da obstaja tveganje oslabitve privlačnosti prejšnje znamke, če ni res edinstvena.
Cases on dilution by blurring
Primeri oslabitve z zabrisom
Dilution established
Potrjena oslabitev
Dilution denied
Zavrnjena oslabitev
3.4.3.3 Detriment to repute
Oškodovanje ugleda
The final type of damage under Article 8(5) EUTMR concerns harming the earlier mark by way of detriment to its repute.
Zadnja vrsta oškodovanja v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se nanaša na škodo, povzročeno prejšnji znamki zaradi oškodovanja njenega ugleda.
It can be seen as a step beyond blurring in that the mark is not merely weakened but actually degraded by the link that the public makes with the later mark.
Lahko se šteje za stopnjo, ki presega zabris, saj znamka ni le oslabljena, ampak dejansko razvrednotena zaradi zveze, ki jo javnost vzpostavi s poznejšo znamko.
Detriment to repute, also often referred to as ‘dilution by tarnishing' or simply as ‘tarnishing', relates to situations where use of the contested mark without due cause is likely to devalue the image or the prestige that a mark with reputation has acquired among the public.
Oškodovanje ugleda, pogosto imenovano „oslabitev z očrnitvijo“ ali preprosto „očrnitev“, se nanaša na okoliščine, v katerih se lahko z uporabo izpodbijane znamke brez upravičenega razloga razvrednoti podoba ali prestiž, ki ga je znamka pridobila v javnosti.
The reputation of the earlier trade mark may be tainted or debased in this way, either when it is reproduced in an obscene, degrading or inappropriate context, or in a context that is not inherently unpleasant but that proves to be incompatible with a particular image the earlier trade mark has acquired in the eyes of the public due to the promotional efforts of its owner.
Ugled prejšnje znamke se lahko tako očrni ali razvrednoti, če se reproducira žaljivo, ponižujoče ali neprimerno, ali na način, ki sam po sebi ni neugoden, ampak se izkaže za neskladnega z določeno podobo, ki jo je prejšnja znamka pridobila pri javnosti zaradi promocijskih prizadevanj imetnika.
The likelihood of such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that the goods or services offered by the third party possess a characteristic or a quality that is liable to have a negative impact on the image of the mark (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
Verjetnost takega oškodovanja je lahko zlasti posledica tega, da imajo blago ali storitve, ki jih zagotavlja tretja oseba, značilnost ali lastnost, ki bi lahko imela negativen učinek na podobo znamke (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
For example, if a reputed mark for gin were used by a third party on liquid detergent, this would reverberate negatively on the reputed mark in a way that makes it less attractive.
Če bi na primer tretja oseba ugledno znamko za gin uporabila za tekoče čistilno sredstvo, bi imelo to negativne posledice za ugledno znamko, ker bi postala manj privlačna.
In short, tarnishment occurs where there is an association between the earlier reputed mark, at the level of either the signs or the goods, that is injurious to the earlier trade mark's repute.
Če povzamemo, očrnitev se pojavi, kadar se izoblikuje asociacija na prejšnjo ugledno znamko, bodisi na ravni znakov bodisi na ravni blaga, ki škoduje ugledu prejšnje znamke.
As with dilution by blurring, detriment to the reputation of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
Enako kot oslabitev z zabrisom je treba tudi oškodovanje ugleda prejšnje znamke presojati z vidika povprečnega potrošnika blaga in storitev, za katere je ta znamka registrirana, ki je normalno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in preudaren (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of tarnishment
Presoja očrnitve