natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the absence of any restriction in Article 8(3) EUTMR and in view of the need to provide the legitimate interests of the real proprietor with effective protection, the term ‘trade marks' should be interpreted broadly and must be understood as including pending applications, since there is nothing in this provision restricting its scope exclusively to registered trade marks.
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni nobenih omejitev in ker obstaja potreba po zagotavljanju učinkovite zaščite legitimnih interesov dejanskega imetnika, je treba izraz blagovne znamke razlagati široko in ga razumeti, kot da vključuje nerešene prijave, saj področje uporabe te določbe ni omejeno izključno na registrirane blagovne znamke.
For the same reasons, unregistered marks or well-known marks within the meaning of Article 6bis PC also fall within the term ‘trade marks' within the sense of Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Iz istih razlogov tudi neregistrirane znamke ali dobro znane znamke v smislu člena 6bis Pariške konvencije spadajo pod izraz „blagovne znamke“ v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Consequently, both registered and unregistered trade marks are covered by this provision, to the extent that the law of the country of origin recognises rights of the latter kind.
Zato ta določba zajema registrirane in neregistrirane blagovne znamke, če država izvora priznava zadnje navedene pravice.
In contrast, the express reference to ‘trade marks' means that Article 8(3) EUTMR does not apply to mere signs used in the course of trade, other than unregistered trade marks.
Nasprotno pa izrecno sklicevanje na „blagovne znamke“ pomeni, da se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja le za znake, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu in ki niso neregistrirane blagovne znamke.
Likewise, other kinds of intellectual property rights that could be used as a basis for an invalidity action cannot be invoked in the context of Article 8(3) EUTMR either.
Podobno se v okviru člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče sklicevati na druge vrste pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti kot podlago za zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti.
It is clear from the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR that the trade mark on which the opposition is based must be earlier than the EUTM application.
Iz besedila člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je jasno razvidno, da mora biti blagovna znamka, na kateri temelji ugovor, starejša od prijave za blagovno znamko EU.
Hence, the relevant point in time that should be taken into account is the filing or priority date of the contested application.
Zato je upoštevni datum, ki ga je treba upoštevati, datum vložitve ali datum prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave.
The rules according to which the priority should be determined depend on the kind of trade mark relied upon.
Pravila, v skladu s katerimi je treba opredeliti prednostno pravico, so odvisna od vrste blagovne znamke, ki se uveljavlja.
If the earlier mark has been acquired by registration, it is its filing or priority date that should be taken into account for assessing whether it precedes the contested EUTM application, whereas if it is a use-based right, the relevant conditions for protection through use must have been fulfilled before the filing date (or if appropriate, the priority date) of the contested EUTM application.
Če je bila prejšnja znamka pridobljena z registracijo, je treba za presojo, ali je bil datum prejšnje pravice starejši od datuma izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU, upoštevati njen datum vložitve ali datum prednostne pravice, če pa gre za pravico, ki temelji na uporabi, so morali biti ustrezni pogoji za varstvo na podlagi uporabe izpolnjeni že pred datumom vložitve (ali, če je ustrezno, datumom prednostne pravice) izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
In the case of earlier well-known marks, the mark must have become well known before the filing or priority date of the contested EUTM application.
V primeru prejšnjih dobro znanih znamk je morala znamka postati znana pred datumom vložitve ali prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
3.2 Origin of the earlier mark
Izvor prejšnje znamke
As Article 8(2) EUTMR does not apply to oppositions based on Article 8(3) EUTMR, it cannot serve to define the territorial extent of protection granted by Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Ker se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja za ugovore na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ga ni mogoče uporabiti za opredelitev ozemeljskega obsega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In the absence of any other reference in Article 8(3) EUTMR to a ‘relevant territory', it is immaterial whether the earlier trade mark rights reside in the European Union or not.
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni drugega sklicevanja na „upoštevno ozemlje“, ni pomembno, ali se pravice iz prejšnje znamke uporabljajo v Evropski uniji ali ne.
The practical importance of this provision lies precisely in the legal capacity it confers on holders of trade mark rights outside the European Union to defend these rights against fraudulent filings, since proprietors of trade mark rights within the European Union may rely on the other grounds provided for in Article 8 EUTMR to defend their earlier rights from such acts.
Praktični pomen te določbe je prav v pravni sposobnosti, ki jo podeljuje imetnikom pravic iz blagovnih znamk zunaj Evropske unije, da te pravice branijo pred goljufivimi vložitvami, saj se lahko imetniki pravic iz blagovnih znamk v Evropski uniji pri zaščiti svojih prejšnjih pravic pred takšnimi dejanji sklicujejo na druge razloge iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Of course, EUTMs or national marks, which provide a basis for opposition pursuant to Article 8 EUTMR, also qualify as earlier marks that can be invoked as a basis for an Article 8(3) EUTMR opposition.
Seveda se tudi blagovne znamke EU ali nacionalne znamke, ki so podlaga za ugovor na podlagi člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, štejejo za prejšnje znamke, na katere se je mogoče sklicevati pri vložitvi ugovora na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4 Conditions of Application
Pogoji za uporabo
Article 8(3) EUTMR entitles trade mark proprietors to oppose the registration of their marks as EUTMs, provided the following substantive cumulative requirements are met (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 61).
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnikom blagovnih znamk omogoča, da ugovarjajo registraciji svojih znamk kot blagovnih znamk EU, če so izpolnjene naslednje kumulativne vsebinske zahteve (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 61):
1. The applicant is or was an agent or representative of the proprietor of the mark.
prijavitelj je ali je bil posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika znamke;
2. The application is in the name of the agent or representative.
prijava je vložena v imenu posrednika ali zastopnika;
3. The application was filed without the proprietor's consent.
prijava je bila vložena brez soglasja imetnika;
4. The agent or representative fails to justify its acts.
posrednik ali zastopnik ne more utemeljiti svojih dejanj;
5. The signs and the goods and services are identical or closely related.
znaki ter blago in storitve so enaki ali podobni.
4.1 Agent or representative relationship
Posredniško ali zastopniško razmerje
4.1.1 Nature of the relationship
Vrsta razmerja
In view of the purpose of this provision, which is to safeguard the legal interests of trade mark proprietors against the misappropriation of their trade marks by their commercial associates, the terms ‘agent' and ‘representative' should be interpreted broadly to cover all kinds of relationships based on any business arrangement (governed by a written or oral contract) where one party is representing the interests of another, regardless of the nomen juris of the contractual relationship between the principal-proprietor and the EUTM applicant (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Ob upoštevanju namena te določbe, to je zaščititi pravne interese imetnikov blagovnih znamk pred protipravno prilastitvijo njihovih blagovnih znamk, ki jo zakrivijo njihovi poslovni partnerji, je treba pojma posrednik in zastopnik razlagati široko, da se z njima zajamejo vse oblike razmerij, ki temeljijo na katerem koli poslovnem dogovoru (ki ga ureja pisni ali ustni sporazum), na podlagi katerega ena od strank zastopa interese druge, in to ne glede na nomen juris pogodbenega razmerja med imetnikom ali naročnikom in prijaviteljem blagovne znamke EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Therefore, it is sufficient for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR that there is some agreement of commercial cooperation between the parties of a kind that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship by imposing on the applicant, whether expressly or implicitly, a general duty of trust and loyalty as regards the interests of the trade mark proprietor.
Zato za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadostuje, da med strankama obstaja nekakšen dogovor o poslovnem sodelovanju, na podlagi katerega se ustvari zaupniško razmerje, ki prijavitelju izrecno ali implicitno nalaga splošno obveznost zaupanja in lojalnosti v zvezi z interesi imetnika znamke.
It follows that Article 8(3) EUTMR may also extend, for example, to licensees of the proprietor, or to authorised distributors of the goods for which the mark in question is used.
Iz tega izhaja, da je mogoče člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razširiti na primer tudi na pridobitelje licence imetnika znamke ali pooblaščene distributerje blaga, za katero se uporablja zadevna znamka.
Given the variety of forms that commercial relationships may acquire in practice, a case-by-case approach is applied, focusing on whether the contractual link between the proprietor-opponent and the applicant is only limited to a series of occasional transactions, or if, conversely, it is of such a duration and content to justify the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR (as regards the points in time that are crucial for the relationship, see, paragraph 4.1.4 below).
Glede na raznolikost oblik, ki jih lahko ima poslovno razmerje v praksi, se obravnava vsak primer posebej, pri čemer je glavna pozornost namenjena opredelitvi, ali je pogodbeno razmerje med imetnikom ali vložnikom ugovora in prijaviteljem omejeno le na vrsto priložnostnih poslov ali pa, nasprotno, njegovo trajanje in vsebina upravičujeta uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (v zvezi s časovnimi vidiki, ki so ključni za razmerje, glej odstavek 4.1.4 v nadaljevanju).
The material question should be whether it was the cooperation with the proprietor that gave the applicant the possibility to get to know and appreciate the value of the mark and incited the applicant to subsequently try to register the mark in its own name.
Bistveno vprašanje mora biti, ali je bilo sodelovanje z imetnikom tisto, ki je prijavitelju omogočilo, da se je seznanil z vrednostjo znamke in jo ocenil, in ga napeljalo, da je nato znamko poskusil registrirati v svojem imenu.
Nevertheless, some kind of cooperation agreement has to exist between the parties.
Vendar mora med strankama obstajati neka vrsta sporazuma o sodelovanju.
If the applicant acts completely independently, without having entered into any kind of fiduciary relationship with the proprietor, it cannot be considered an agent within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Če prijavitelj ravna povsem neodvisno, ne da bi bil z imetnikom v kakršnem koli zaupniškem razmerju, ga ni mogoče šteti za posrednika v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Therefore, a mere customer or a client of the proprietor cannot amount to an ‘agent or representative' for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR, since such persons are under no special obligation of trust to the trade mark proprietor.
Zato navadnega odjemalca ali stranke imetnika ni mogoče šteti za posrednika ali zastopnika za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj te osebe nimajo nobene posebne obveznosti zaupanja v razmerju do imetnika blagovne znamke.
It is irrelevant for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR whether an exclusive agreement exists between the parties, or just a simple, non-exclusive commercial relationship.
Za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, ali med strankama obstaja izključni sporazum ali le navadno neizključno poslovno razmerje.
Indeed, a commercial cooperation agreement entailing an obligation of loyalty can exist even in the absence of an exclusivity clause (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 69).
Sporazum o poslovnem sodelovanju, ki vključuje obveznost lojalnosti, lahko obstaja tudi brez klavzule o izključnosti (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 69).
The purpose of this provision is not to protect the proprietor from infringing acts coming from within its company.
Namen te določbe ni zaščititi imetnika pred kršitvami, ki jih storijo člani njegove družbe.
It may well be that such acts can be sanctioned under the general bad faith provision in Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR.
Takšna dejanja je mogoče kaznovati na podlagi splošne določbe o slabi veri iz člena 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The burden of proof regarding the existence of a cooperation relationship lies with the opponent (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64, 67).
Dokazno breme glede obstoja sodelovalnega razmerja je na vložniku ugovora (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64, 67).
4.1.2 Form of the agreement
Oblika sporazuma
It is not necessary for the agreement between the parties to assume the form of a written contract.
Ni nujno, da ima sporazum med strankama obliko pisne pogodbe.
Of course, the existence of a formal agreement between the parties will be of great value in determining exactly what kind of relationship exists between them.
Seveda bo obstoj formalnega sporazuma med strankama zelo močno pripomogel k natančni opredelitvi, katera vrsta razmerja obstaja med njima.
As mentioned above, the title of such an agreement and the terminology chosen by the parties should not be taken as conclusive.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, se ne sme šteti, da sta naslov takšnega sporazuma in terminologija, ko sta jo izbrali stranki, odločilna.
What counts is the kind of commercial cooperation established in substance and not its formal description.
Pomembna je vrsta poslovnega sodelovanja, ki je bilo vzpostavljeno na podlagi vsebine, in ne njegov formalni opis.
Even in cases where a written contract does not exist, it may still be possible to infer the existence of a commercial agreement of the kind required by Article 8(3) EUTMR by reference to indirect indications and evidence, such as the commercial correspondence between the parties, invoices and purchase orders for goods sold to the agent, or credit notes and other banking instruments (always bearing in mind that a mere customer relationship is insufficient for Article 8(3) EUTMR).
Tudi če pisna pogodba ne obstaja, je morda še vedno mogoče sklepati o obstoju takšne vrste poslovnega dogovora, kot jo zahteva člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer s sklicevanjem na posredne navedbe in dokazi, kot so poslovna korespondenca med strankama, računi in naročilnice za blago, ki je bilo prodano posredniku, ali dobropisi in drugi bančni instrumenti (pri čemer je treba vedno upoštevati, da za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni dovolj navadno razmerje s stranko).
Even dispute resolution agreements may be relevant to the extent that they give sufficient information about the past relationship between the parties.
Pomembni so lahko celo dogovori o reševanju sporov, če vsebujejo dovolj informacij o preteklem razmerju med strankama.
Furthermore, circumstances such as sales targets imposed on the applicant, or payment of royalties, or production of the goods covered by the mark under licence or help in the setting up of a local distribution network, will be strong indications of a commercial relationship of the type covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Poleg tega so okoliščine, kot so prodajni cilji, ki so bili naloženi prijavitelju, plačilo licenčnin, proizvodnja blaga, ki ga označuje licenčna blagovna znamka, ali pomoč pri vzpostavitvi lokalne distribucijske mreže, trdni znaki obstoja takšne vrste poslovnega razmerja, kot je opredeljeno v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The Court also decided that active cooperation between an EUTM applicant and an opponent in the advertising of the product, in order to optimise the marketing thereof, could give rise to the fiduciary relationship required under Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Sodišče je odločilo tudi, da lahko aktivno sodelovanje med prijaviteljem blagovne znamke EU in vložnikom ugovora pri oglaševanju proizvoda za izboljšanje njegovega trženja ustvari zaupniško razmerje, ki se zahteva na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, the mere desire of the applicant to enter into a commercial relationship with the opponent cannot be considered as a concluded agreement between the parties.
Vendar navadne želje prijavitelja po vzpostavitvi poslovnega razmerja z vložnikom ugovora ni mogoče šteti za sklenjen sporazum med strankama.
Prospective agents or representatives are not covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR (see B 26 759 cited above).
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zajema potencialnih posrednikov ali zastopnikov (glej zgoraj navedeno zadevo B 26 759).
4.1.3 Territorial scope of the agreement
Ozemeljski obseg sporazuma
Even though the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR does not refer to the territorial scope of the agreement between the trade mark proprietor and its agent or representative, an inherent limitation to relationships covering the EU or a part thereof must be read in this provision.
Čeprav v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanja na ozemeljski obseg sporazuma med imetnikom znamke in njegovim posrednikom ali zastopnikom, je treba to določbo brati, kot da vključuje implicitno omejitev razmerij v EU ali njenem delu.
This is more in line with the economic considerations underlying Article 8(3) EUTMR, which are to prevent agents or representatives from unduly exploiting a commercial relationship covering a given territory, by filing an unauthorised application for the principal's mark precisely in that territory, that is, in the territory where the applicant will be more able to benefit from the infrastructure and know-how it possesses as a result of its prior relationship with the proprietor.
To je bolj v skladu z gospodarskimi vidiki, na katerih temelji člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, to je posrednikom ali zastopnikom preprečiti, da neupravičeno izkoriščajo poslovno razmerje na določenem ozemlju z vložitvijo nepooblaščene prijave za znamko naročnika na zadevnem ozemlju, to je na ozemlju, kjer lahko prijavitelj bolj izkorišča infrastrukturo ter strokovno znanje in izkušnje, ki jih ima zaradi svojega prejšnjega razmerja z imetnikom.
Therefore, as the filing prohibited by Article 8(3) EUTMR is an application for the acquisition of trade mark rights in the EU, the agreement must also concern the same territory.
Ker je vložitev, ki jo člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prepoveduje, zahteva za pridobitev pravic iz znamke v EU, se mora zato tudi sporazum nanašati na isto ozemlje.
Conversely, agreements exclusively applying to third territories are not covered.
Nasprotno pa niso zajeti sporazumi, ki se uporabljajo izključno za tretja ozemlja.
4.1.4 Relevant points in time
Upoštevni datumi
The agent-representative relationship must have been established prior to the filing date of the EUTM application.
Posredniško ali zastopniško razmerje je moralo biti vzpostavljeno pred datumom vložitve prijave za blagovno znamko EU.
Therefore, it is immaterial whether after that time the applicant entered negotiations with the opponent, or made unilateral proposals with the purpose of becoming a representative or agent of the latter.
Zato ni pomembno, ali se je prijavitelj začel pogajati z vložnikom ugovora po zadevnem datumu oziroma ali mu je predložil enostranske predloge, da bi postal njegov zastopnik ali posrednik.
However, even if the agreement between the parties was formally concluded after the filing date of the application, it may still be possible to deduce from the evidence that the parties were already in some form of commercial cooperation before the signature of the relevant contract and that the applicant was already acting as the opponent's agent, representative, distributor or licensee.
Tudi če je bil sporazum med strankama formalno sklenjen po datumu vložitve prijave, je morda iz dokazov še vedno mogoče sklepati, da sta stranki pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe že bili v nekakšnem razmerju poslovnega sodelovanja in da je prijavitelj že deloval kot posrednik, zastopnik, distributer ali pridobitelj licence vložnika ugovora.
However, the agreement between the parties does not have to be still in force technically when the application is filed.
Vendar ni nujno, da je sporazum med strankama ob vložitvi prijave še vedno formalno veljaven.
The reference to a filing made by an ‘agent or representative' should not be understood as a formal requirement that must be present at the time the EUTM application is filed.
Sklicevanja na vložitev, ki jo opravi posrednik ali zastopnik, ne gre razumeti kot formalne zahteve, ki mora biti izpolnjena ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU.
Article 8(3) EUTMR also applies to agreements that expired before the filing date of the EUTM application, provided that the time that has lapsed is of such duration that it can be reasonably assumed that the obligation of trust and confidentiality was still present when the EUTM application was filed (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 65).
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja tudi za dogovore, ki so prenehali veljati pred dnevom vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU, če je mogoče na podlagi preteklega časa upravičeno domnevati, da je obveznost zaupanja in zaupnosti še obstajala ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 65).
Article 8(3) EUTMR and Article 6septies PC do not protect a trade mark proprietor that is careless and makes no efforts to secure trade mark protection on its own.
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člen 6septies Pariške konvencije ne zagotavljata varstva imetnikom znamk, ki so nepazljivi in ne poskrbijo za varstvo svojih znamk na lastno pobudo.
Post-contractual fiduciary obligations mean that none of the parties may use the termination of an agreement as a pretext for getting rid of its obligations, for example, by terminating an agreement and immediately afterwards filing a trade mark.
Popogodbene zaupniške obveznosti pomenijo, da nobena od strank ne sme uporabiti prenehanja sporazuma kot pretvezo, da se znebi svojih obveznosti, na primer z odpovedjo sporazuma in takoj zatem vložitvijo prijave za znamko.
However, this does not create absolute rights for the principal to obtain trade mark protection in other countries.
Vendar to ne ustvari absolutnih pravic za naročnika, da pridobi varstvo blagovne znamke v drugih državah.
The mere fact that the principal holds a trade mark in country B does not give the principal an absolute right to obtain trade marks in all other countries; the trade marks registered in different countries are in principle independent from each other and may have different proprietors, in accordance with Article 6(3) PC.
Dejstvo, da je naročnik imetnik blagovne znamke v državi B, mu ne daje absolutne pravice za pridobitev blagovnih znamk v vseh drugih državah; blagovne znamke, ki so registrirane v različnih državah, so načeloma medsebojno neodvisne in lahko imajo v skladu s členom 6(3) Pariške konvencije različne imetnike.