natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, it is not an easy matter to correctly formulate and implement an opinion poll so that it can be seen to be truly neutral and representative.
Ni pa tako lahko pravilno zasnovati in izvesti javnomnenjske raziskave, da bi bila dejansko nepristranska in reprezentativna.
Leading questions, unrepresentative samples of the public, and undue editing of responses should be avoided, as these can undermine the probative value of such surveys.
Izogniti se je treba napeljujočim vprašanjem, nereprezentativnim vzorcem javnosti in neustreznemu urejanju odgovorov, saj lahko škodujejo dokazni vrednosti teh raziskav.
Accordingly, any opinion poll evidence must be assessed carefully.
Glede na to je treba o vseh dokazih na podlagi javnomnenjskih raziskav presojati previdno.
It is important that the questions asked are not leading ones (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79).
Pomembno je, da postavljena vprašanja niso napeljujoča (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79).
The criteria for selecting the public interviewed must be assessed carefully.
O merilih za izbiro javnosti, vključene v raziskavo, je treba skrbno presoditi.
The sample must be indicative of the entire relevant public and must be selected randomly (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88).
Vzorec mora biti značilen za vso upoštevno javnost in izbran naključno (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88).
The Court does not exclude that a survey compiled some time before or after the filing date could contain useful indications, although it is clear that its evidential value is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date or priority date of the trade mark application at issue.
Sodišče ne izključuje, da bi lahko raziskava, izvedena nekoliko pred datumom vložitve ali po njem, vsebovala koristne podatke, čeprav je jasno, da se bo njena dokazna vrednost verjetno razlikovala glede na to, ali je zajeto obdobje časovno blizu ali daleč od datuma vložitve ali datuma priznanja prednostne pravice zadevne prijave blagovne znamke.
Furthermore, its evidential value depends on the survey method used (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39).
Poleg tega je njena dokazna vrednost odvisna od uporabljene raziskovalne metode (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39).
However, the Court of Justice has made it clear that the results of a consumer survey cannot be the only decisive criterion in support of the conclusion that distinctive character has been acquired through use (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
Sodišče pa je pojasnilo, da rezultati javnomnenjske raziskave ne morejo biti edino odločilno merilo, ki podpira ugotovitev, da je bil razlikovalni učinek pridobljen z uporabo (19/06/2014, C217/13 in C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
They must therefore be complemented by other means of evidence.
Zato jih je treba dopolniti z drugimi dokazi.
For further details on the assessment of opinion polls, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4.
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji javnomnenjskih raziskav glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.2 Market share, advertising and turnover
Tržni delež, oglaševanje in promet
The market share held by the trade mark in relation to the goods and/or services applied for may be relevant for assessing whether that mark has acquired distinctive character through use, since such market penetration might enable the Office to infer that the relevant public would recognise the mark as identifying the goods or services as originating from a specific undertaking, and thus distinguish them from the goods and services of other undertakings.
Tržni delež blagovne znamke glede na blago in/ali storitve, za katere je vložena prijava, je lahko pomemben pri presoji tega, ali je znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo, saj lahko ta uveljavitev na trgu Uradu omogoči sklepanje, da bi upoštevna javnost prepoznala znamko tako, da označuje blago ali storitve, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja, in jih tako razlikuje od blaga in storitev drugih podjetij.
The investment in advertising or promoting the mark in the relevant market for the goods or services claimed may also be relevant for assessing whether the mark has acquired distinctive character through use (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.).
Tudi naložbe v oglaševanje ali uveljavljanje znamke na zadevnem trgu za blago ali storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo, so lahko pomembne pri presoji tega, ali je znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.).
However, many attempts to prove distinctiveness acquired through use fail because the evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to prove a link between the market share and advertising, on the one hand, and consumer perceptions on the other.
Številni poskusi dokazovanja razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, pa niso uspešni, ker dokazi prijavitelja ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje povezave med tržnim deležem in oglaševanjem na eni strani in zaznavo potrošnikov na drugi strani.
Information concerning turnover and advertising expenses is one of the most readily available forms of evidence.
Informacije o prometu in stroških oglaševanja so ena od oblik dokazov, ki so najprej na voljo.
These figures can have a significant impact on the assessment of the evidence, but in the great majority of cases are not sufficient alone to prove acquired distinctiveness of a trade mark through use.
Ti podatki lahko pomembno vplivajo na presojo dokazov, vendar v veliki večini primerov sami ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka blagovne znamke, pridobljenega z uporabo.
This is because turnover/advertising costs alone, without additional corroborative details, are frequently too general to allow specific conclusions to be drawn about the use of one particular trade mark.
To pa zato, ker so promet ali stroški oglaševanja brez dodatnih podpornih podatkov pogosto preveč splošni, da bi omogočali ustrezno sklepanje o uporabi določene blagovne znamke.
It is thus necessary to identify precisely the turnover/advertising figures and evidence relating to the mark applied for, as well as their link to the relevant goods and services.
Zato je treba natančno opredeliti podatke o prometu ali oglaševanju in dokaze, ki se nanašajo na znamko, za katero je vložena prijava, ter njihovo povezavo z zadevnim blagom in storitvami.
Furthermore, it is desirable that the figures be segregated on an annual and market-by-market basis.
Zaželeno je še, da so podatki navedeni ločeno na letni ravni in na ravni posameznega trga.
The evidence should show the specific period(s) of use (including details of when use commenced), so that the Office is able to establish whether the evidence proves that the trade mark acquired distinctiveness before the filing date.
Dokazi morajo izkazovati zadevno(-a) obdobje(-a) uporabe (vključno s podatki, kdaj se je začela uporaba), da lahko Urad ugotovi, ali dokazi izkazujejo, da je blagovna znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek pred datumom vložitve.
Goods and services are often marketed under several trade marks, which makes it difficult to see the relevant customer's perception of the EUTM applied for on its own, that is to say, without such perception being affected by the other marks present.
Blago in storitve se pogosto tržijo pod več blagovnimi znamkami, zaradi česar je težko razpoznati, kako upoštevni uporabnik zaznava samo blagovno znamko EU, za katero je vložena prijava, to je brez vpliva drugih obstoječih znamk na zaznavo.
Turnover and advertising figures can often include sales or promotion of other trade marks, or of significantly different forms of the trade mark at issue (for example, figurative trade marks rather than word marks, or differing word elements in a figurative mark), or are too general to allow identification of the specific markets under consideration.
Podatki o prometu in oglaševanju lahko pogosto vključujejo prodajo ali uveljavljanje drugih blagovnih znamk ali zelo drugačnih oblik zadevne blagovne znamke (na primer, figurativne blagovne znamke namesto besednih znamk ali različni besedni elementi v figurativni znamki) ali pa so preveč splošni, da bi omogočali opredelitev obravnavanih posameznih trgov.
As a consequence, broadly consolidated turnover or advertising figures may not be sufficient to prove whether the relevant public perceives the trade mark at issue as a badge of origin or not.
Zaradi tega splošni konsolidirani podatki o prometu ali oglaševanju lahko ne zadostujejo za dokaz, ali upoštevna javnost zaznava zadevno blagovno znamko kot označbo porekla ali ne.
For further details on the assessment of market share, advertising and turnover, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4.
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji tržnega deleža, oglaševanja in prometa glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.3 Declarations, affidavits and written statements
Izjave, zaprisežene pisne izjave in pisne izjave
Pursuant to Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR, ‘statements in writing, sworn or affirmed or having a similar effect under the law of the State in which [they are] drawn up' are valid means of evidence.
V skladu s členom 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so „zaprisežene ali potrjene pisne izjave ali izjave, ki imajo podoben učinek po zakonu države, v kateri je izjava sestavljena“ veljavna dokazna sredstva.
With regard to admissibility, only in cases where the statements have not been sworn or affirmed is it necessary to consider the rules of law of the national jurisdiction as to the effects of a written statement (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40).
V zvezi z dopustnostjo je treba zakonodajo zadevne države članice upoštevati le, če izjave niso bile zaprisežene ali potrjene (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40).
In case of doubt as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the applicant to submit evidence in this regard.
Prijavitelj mora v primeru dvoma, ali je bila izjava zaprisežena ali potrjena, predložiti zadevne dokaze.
The weight and probative value of statutory declarations is determined by the general rules applied by the Office to the assessment of such evidence.
Teža in dokazna vrednost uradnih izjav sta določeni s splošnimi pravili, ki jih Urad uporablja za presojo takih dokazov.
In particular, both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of the contents of the statement to the particular case must be taken into account.
Upoštevati je treba zlasti položaj osebe, ki zagotovi dokaze, in pomen vsebine izjave za posamezni primer.
Statements from independent trade associations, consumer organisations and competitors are an important means of evidence insofar as they come from independent sources.
Izjave neodvisnih trgovinskih združenj, organizacij potrošnikov in konkurence so pomembni dokazi, če prihajajo iz neodvisnih virov.
However, they must be examined carefully, as they might not be enough to prove distinctiveness acquired through use if, for example, they refer to ‘the trade marks of the applicant' instead of to the specific mark in question (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84).
Treba jih je skrbno proučiti, saj morda ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, če se na primer nanašajo na „blagovne znamke prijavitelja“, in ne na zadevno posebno znamko (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84).
Evidence from suppliers or distributors should, generally, be given less weight, since it is less likely that their evidence will be from an independent perspective.
Dokazom dobaviteljev ali distributerjev je treba na splošno pripisati manjši pomen, saj je manj verjetno, da bodo njihovi dokazi neodvisni.
In this regard, the degree of independence of the latter will influence the weight to be given to the evidence by the Office (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56).
V zvezi s tem stopnja neodvisnosti takih dokazov vpliva na pomen, ki ga dokazom pripiše Urad (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56).
Insofar as a declaration is not made by an independent third party, but by a person connected to the applicant through an employment relationship, it cannot in itself constitute sufficient evidence that the mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use.
Če izjave ne da neodvisna tretja oseba, ampak oseba, ki je s prijaviteljem povezana z delovnim razmerjem, ta izjava ne more biti zadosten dokaz za to, da je znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, razlikovalni učinek pridobila z uporabo.
In consequence, it must be treated as merely indicative and needs to be corroborated by other evidence (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS.
Zato jo je treba obravnavati kot samo informativno in podpreti z drugimi dokazi (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS.
As regards statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations and certifications and awards, the Court has noted that such statements and certifications must identify precisely the trade mark applied for (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.).
V zvezi z izjavami gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih trgovinskih in strokovnih združenj ter certifikati in priznanji je Sodišče menilo, da morajo te izjave in certifikati natančno opredeliti blagovno znamko, za katero je vložena prijava (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.).
However, cease and desist letters against competitors or letters to newspapers complaining against the use of the sign in a generic sense have been considered evidence against acquired distinctiveness (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66)
Vendar so se opomini konkurenci ali dopisi časopisom s pritožbami zoper uporabo znaka v splošnem smislu šteli za dokaz zoper pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66).
For further details on the assessment of means of evidence, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4.
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji dokazov glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.4 Prior registrations and acquired distinctiveness
Prejšnje registracije in pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek
For evidence that consists of or includes Member State registrations obtained on the basis of acquired distinctiveness, the date to which the evidence submitted at national level refers will usually be different from the filing date of the EUTM application.
Za dokaze, ki jih sestavljajo ali vključujejo registracije držav članic, pridobljene na podlagi pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka, se datum, na katerega se nanašajo dokazi, predloženi na nacionalni ravni, običajno razlikuje od datuma vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
These registrations are not binding, but may be taken into account, provided that the Office is able to assess the evidence submitted to the national IP office in question.
Te registracije niso zavezujoče, vendar se lahko upoštevajo, če Urad lahko presodi o dokazih, predloženih zadevnemu nacionalnemu uradu za intelektualno lastnino.
The applicant may also refer to prior national registrations where no acquired distinctiveness is claimed.
Prijavitelj se lahko sklicuje tudi na prejšnje nacionalne registracije, v katerih se ne zahteva pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek.
Nevertheless, it is established case-law that such registrations do not bind the Office.
Ustaljena sodna praksa je, da te registracije Urada ne zavezujejo.
Moreover, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions and such cases must be assessed on their own merits (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73).
Poleg tega Urada ne zavezujejo prejšnje odločbe, o teh primerih pa je treba presojati na podlagi njegovih značilnosti (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73).
Acquired distinctiveness must be demonstrated with respect to the sign applied for.
Pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek je treba dokazati v zvezi z znakom, za katerega je vložena prijava.
The evidence should show examples of how the trade mark is actually used (brochures, packaging, samples of the goods, etc.).
Dokazi morajo pokazati primere dejanske uporabe blagovne znamke (brošure, embalaža, vzorci blaga itd.).
Only insignificant variations may be acceptable.
Sprejemljive so samo nepomembne razlike.
It is possible to prove acquired distinctiveness of a sign that has been used together with other trade marks (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), provided that the relevant consumer attributes to the sign in question the function of identification (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46).
Mogoče je dokazati pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek znaka, ki se je uporabljal skupaj z drugimi blagovnimi znamkami (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), če upoštevni potrošnik zadevnemu znaku pripisuje funkcijo identifikacije (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46).
The Court further ruled that, although the trade mark for which registration is sought may have been used as part of a registered trade mark or in conjunction with such a mark, the fact remains that, for the purposes of registration of the mark itself, the trade mark applicant must prove that that mark alone, as opposed to any other trade mark that may also be present, identifies the particular undertaking from which the goods originate (16/09/2015, C215/14, Nestlé KIT KAT, EU:C:2015:604, § 66; 24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 76; 16/03/2016, T363/15, LAATIKON MUOTO (3D), EU:T:2016:149, § 51).
Sodišče je odločilo še, da čeprav se je blagovna znamka, za katero se zahteva registracija, morda uporabljala kot del registrirane blagovne znamke ali v povezavi s tako znamko, ostaja dejstvo, da mora prijavitelj blagovne znamke za namene registracije znamke dokazati, da samo ta znamka, v nasprotju s katero koli drugo znamko, ki je lahko prav tako prisotna, identificira zadevno podjetje, iz katerega izhaja blago (16/09/2015, C215/14, Nestlé KIT KAT, EU:C:2015:604, § 66; 24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 76; 16/03/2016, T363/15, LAATIKON MUOTO (3D), EU:T:2016:149, § 51).
Moreover, the Court has held on numerous occasions that advertising material on which a sign that is devoid of any distinctive character always appears with other marks that, by contrast, do have distinctive character does not constitute proof that the public perceives the sign applied for as a mark that indicates the commercial origin of the goods.
Poleg tega je Sodišče večkrat odločilo, da reklamno gradivo, na katerem se znak, ki je brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka, vedno pojavlja z drugimi znamkami, ki imajo v nasprotju z njim razlikovalni učinek, ni dokaz, da javnost znak, za katerega je vložena prijava, zaznava kot znamko, ki označuje trgovski izvor blaga.
For instance, the Court considered that the use of the sign ‘Gifflar' (which indicates a kind of bread in Swedish) on the packaging of pastries, together with the trade mark Pågen, was made in a descriptive context, not as a badge of origin (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45).
Sodišče je na primer menilo, da je uporaba znaka Gifflar (ki v švedščini označuje vrsto kruha) na embalaži peciva skupaj z blagovno znamko Pågen opisna in ni označba porekla (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45).
The evidence should indicate when use commenced and should also show that the use was continuous or indicate reasons if there are gaps in the period of use.
Dokazi morajo izkazovati, kdaj se je začela uporaba, in tudi, da je bila uporaba neprekinjena, ali pa morajo biti navedeni razlogi za vrzeli v obdobju uporabe.
As a general rule, long-standing use is likely to be an important persuasive element in establishing acquired distinctiveness.
Splošno pravilo je, da bo dolgotrajna uporaba verjetno pomemben prepričevalni element pri ugotavljanju pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka.
The longer customers and potential customers have been exposed to a mark the more likely they are to have made the connection between that mark and a single source in trade.
Dlje ko so bili kupci in morebitni kupci izpostavljeni znamki, verjetneje je, da so ustvarili povezavo med znamko in enotnim virom v trgovini.
Considering, however, that length of use is only one of the factors to be taken into account, there may be situations where exceptions to the above rule are justified, in particular when other factors may also come into play that are capable of making up for a short length of use.
Ker pa je trajanje uporabe samo eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upoštevati, lahko nastanejo okoliščine, v katerih so izjeme od zgornjega pravila utemeljene, zlasti kadar obstajajo tudi drugi dejavniki, ki lahko nadomestijo kratko trajanje uporabe.
For example, where products or services are the subject of a major advertising launch and/or the sign applied for is a mere variant of a sign already in long use, it may be the case that acquired distinctiveness can be achieved quite quickly.
Na primer, če so proizvodi ali storitve del začetka obsežnega oglaševanja in/ali je znak, za katerega je vložena prijava, samo različica znaka, ki se že dolgo uporablja, se lahko zgodi, da se lahko pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek doseže precej hitro.
This could be the case, for instance, where a new version of an existing and widely used computer-operating system is launched under a sign that essentially reproduces the structure and/or contents of the trade mark applied to previous versions of the product.
Tako je lahko na primer, če se nova različica obstoječega in splošno uporabljanega računalniškega operacijskega sistema da na trg pod znakom, ki v bistvu vsebuje strukturo in/ali vsebino blagovne znamke, ki se je uporabljala za prejšnje različice proizvoda.
The trade mark for such a product would be capable of achieving widespread acquired distinctiveness within a fairly short period of time simply because all existing users will immediately be made aware that the sign applied for refers to the upgrading to the new version.
Blagovna znamka za tak proizvod bi bila sposobna doseči obsežen pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek v dokaj kratkem času, saj bi se vsi obstoječi uporabniki takoj zavedli, da se znak, za katerega je vložena prijava, nanaša na nadgradnjo nove različice.
In the same vein, it is in the nature of certain major sporting, musical or cultural events that they take place at regular intervals and are known to have extremely wide appeal.
Podobno je za določene glavne športne, glasbene ali kulturne dogodke značilno, da potekajo v rednih presledkih in so znani po tem, da pritegnejo obsežno publiko.
These major events are anticipated by millions, and the knowledge that the event is due on a particular date precedes the formal announcement of where it will take place.
Teh pomembnih dogodkov se udeležijo milijoni ljudi, obvestilo o tem, da bo dogodek na določen datum, pa ima prednost pred uradno napovedjo kraja dogodka.
This circumstance creates intense interest in the nominated location of such events and in the announcement thereof (‘city/country+year' marks).
Te okoliščine ustvarijo veliko zanimanje za predlagano lokacijo teh dogodkov in njihovo napoved (znamke „mesto/država + leto“).