natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When the sign applied for contains a protected geographical indication, an objection will be raised under Article 83 EUTMR only (and not under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR) given that a limitation of the goods can never overcome the prohibition of certification of geographical origin laid down in Article 83 EUTMR.
Če znak, za katerega je vložena prijava, vsebuje zaščiteno geografsko označbo, se vloži ugovor samo na podlagi člena 83 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (in ne na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), saj omejitev blaga nikoli ne more odpraviti prepovedi certificiranja geografskega porekla iz člena 83 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part B, Examination Page 10
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del B, Preizkušanje stran 10
OPPOSITION
UGOVOR
SECTION 0
RAZDELEK 0
1 Overview of Opposition Proceedings - the Difference Between ‘Absolute Grounds' and ‘Relative Grounds' for Refusal of an EUTM Application 3
1 Pregled postopka ugovora - razlika med „absolutnimi“ in „relativnimi razlogi“ za zavrnitev prijave blagovne znamke EU 3
2 The Grounds for Opposition 3
2 Razlogi za ugovor 3
3 The ‘Earlier Rights' upon which an Opposition must be Based 4
3 „Prejšnje pravice“, na katerih mora temeljiti ugovor 4
4 The Purpose of Opposition Proceedings and the Most Expedient Way to Treat Them 6
4 Namen postopka ugovora in najustreznejši način njegovega obravnavanja 6
1 Overview of Opposition Proceedings - the Difference Between ‘Absolute Grounds' and ‘Relative Grounds' for Refusal of an EUTM Application
Pregled postopka ugovora - razlika med „absolutnimi“ in „relativnimi razlogi“ za zavrnitev prijave blagovne znamke EU
‘Opposition' is a procedure that takes place before the EUIPO when a third party requests the Office to reject a European Union trade mark application (EUTM application) or an international registration designating the EU on the basis of the earlier rights it holds.
Ugovor je postopek, ki ga urad EUIPO vodi, kadar tretja oseba zahteva, da Urad zavrne prijavo blagovne znamke Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: prijava blagovne znamke EU) ali mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je imenovana EU, na podlagi prejšnjih pravic, ki jih ima ta tretja oseba.
When an opposition is filed against an international registration designating the EU, any reference in these Guidelines to EUTM applications must be read to cover international registrations designating the EU.
Če se ugovor vloži zoper mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je imenovana EU, je treba vsa sklicevanja na prijavo blagovne znamke EU v teh Smernicah razumeti, da vključujejo mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana EU.
The Guidelines, Part M, International Marks, cover the specific details of oppositions related to international registrations..
Za specifične podrobnosti o ugovorih v zvezi z mednarodnimi registracijami glej Smernice, del M: Mednarodne znamke.
Under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, an opposition must be based on rights held by the opponent in an earlier trade mark or other form of trade sign.
V skladu z Uredbo (EU) 2017/1001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. junija 2017 o blagovni znamki Evropske unije mora ugovor temeljiti na pravicah, ki jih ima vložnik ugovora pri prejšnji blagovni znamki ali drugi obliki znaka.
The grounds on which an opposition may be based are called ‘relative grounds for refusal', and the relevant provisions are found in Article 8 EUTMR, which bears that title.
Razlogi, na katerih lahko temelji ugovor, se imenujejo „relativni razlogi za zavrnitev“, zadevne določbe pa so vključene v člen 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU s tem naslovom.
Unlike absolute grounds for refusal, which are examined ex officio by the Office (and which may take into account third parties' observations although third parties do not become parties to the proceedings), relative grounds for refusal are inter partes proceedings based on likely conflict with earlier rights.
V nasprotju z absolutnimi razlogi za zavrnitev, ki jih Urad prouči po uradni dolžnosti (in pri katerih se lahko upoštevajo pripombe tretjih oseb, čeprav tretje osebe ne postanejo stranke v postopku), so relativni razlogi za zavrnitev proučeni v postopkih inter partes, ki temeljijo na verjetnem sporu s prejšnjimi pravicami.
Such relative grounds objections are not raised ex officio by the Office.
Urad takšnih ugovorov, ki temeljijo na relativnih razlogih, ne obravnava po uradni dolžnosti.
The onus is therefore on the earlier right owner to be vigilant concerning the filing of EUTM applications by others that could clash with such earlier rights, and to oppose conflicting marks when necessary.
Imetnik prejšnje pravice mora zato pozorno spremljati prijave blagovnih znamk EU, ki jih vložijo drugi in ki bi lahko bile v nasprotju s takšnimi prejšnjimi pravicami, ter po potrebi vložiti ugovor zoper sporne znamke.
When an opposition is filed within a prescribed time limit and the relevant fee has been paid, the proceedings are managed by the Office's specialist service (the Opposition Division).
Če se ugovor vloži v predpisanem roku in je plačana ustrezna pristojbina, postopek vodi strokovna služba Urada (oddelek za ugovore).
The Opposition Division will first examine the admissibility of the opposition.
Oddelek za ugovore najprej prouči dopustnost ugovora.
If the opposition is found admissible, normally an exchange of observations from both the opponent and the applicant (the ‘parties') will follow.
Če ugotovi, da je ugovor dopusten, običajno temu sledi izmenjava pripomb vložnika ugovora in prijavitelja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: stranki).
After considering these observations, and if agreement has not been reached between the parties, the Opposition Division will decide (in an appealable ‘decision') either to reject the contested application totally or in part or to reject the opposition.
Če stranki ne skleneta dogovora, bo oddelek za ugovore ob upoštevanju teh pripomb odločil (v odločbi, ki jo je mogoče izpodbijati), da izpodbijano prijavo v celoti ali delno zavrača ali da zavrača ugovor.
If the opposition is not well founded, it will be rejected.
Če ugovor ni ustrezno utemeljen, se zavrne.
If the EUTM application is not totally rejected, and provided there are no other oppositions pending, it will proceed to registration for the goods and/or services for which it is not rejected.
Če prijava blagovne znamke EU ni v celoti zavrnjena in če proti njej niso vloženi drugi nerešeni ugovori, se nadaljuje registracija za blago in/ali storitve, za katere ni zavrnjena.
2 The Grounds for Opposition
Razlogi za ugovor
The grounds on which an opposition may be made are set out in Article 8 EUTMR.
Razlogi, na katerih je mogoče utemeljiti ugovor, so določeni v členu 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 8 EUTMR enables the proprietors to base oppositions on their earlier rights to prevent the registration of EUTMs in a range of situations progressing from that of double identity both between goods and/or services and between marks (Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR, where likelihood of confusion is presumed, and need not be proved) to that of identity only in one factor and similarity in the other, or similarity in both (Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, where a likelihood of confusion must be established) (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion).
Člen 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnikom znamk omogoča, da ugovore utemeljijo na svojih prejšnjih pravicah in tako preprečijo registracijo blagovnih znamk EU v različnih situacijah, ki segajo od dvojne enakosti med blagom in/ali storitvami ter znamkami (člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če se domneva verjetnost zmede, ki je ni treba dokazati) do enakosti le enega dejavnika in podobnosti drugega ali podobnosti obeh dejavnikov (člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če je treba ugotoviti verjetnost zmede) (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede).
Article 8(3) EUTMR allows the proprietor of a mark to prevent the unauthorised filing of its mark by its agent or representative (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 3, Unauthorised Filing by Agents of the TM Proprietor).
Imetnik znamke lahko na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prepreči, da bi njegov posrednik ali zastopnik brez njegovega soglasja vložil prijavo za njegovo znamko (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 3: Nepooblaščena vložitev, ki jo opravijo posredniki imetnika blagovne znamke).
Article 8(4) EUTMR enables the proprietor of earlier non-registered trade marks or other signs used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance to prevent registration of a later EUTM application if the proprietor has the right to prohibit the use of the EUTM application.
Člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetniku prejšnje neregistrirane blagovne znamke ali drugega znaka, ki se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu in ki je več kot le lokalnega pomena, omogoča, da prepreči registracijo poznejše prijave blagovne znamke EU, če ima imetnik pravico do prepovedi uporabe takšne prijave blagovne znamke EU.
It enables rights holders to invoke a wide variety of rights protected under EU legislation or Member State laws, subject to the conditions of their acquisition and scope of protection under the applicable laws, and further provided that the right invoked also fulfils the EU law condition of use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 4, Rights under Article 8(4) and (6) EUTMR).
Imetniku pravic omogoča sklicevanje na širok nabor pravic, ki jih ščiti zakonodaja EU ali pravo držav članic glede na pogoje njihove pridobitve in obseg zaščite v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo ter pod pogojem, da pravica, na katero se sklicuje, v skladu z zakonodajo EU izpolnjuje tudi pogoje uporabe v gospodarskem prometu in je več kot le lokalnega pomena (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 4: Pravice iz člena 8(4) in (6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Article 8(5) EUTMR enables the proprietors of an earlier reputed registered trade mark to prevent registration of a later similar or identical EUTM application that, without due cause, would encroach on the earlier reputed mark.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnikom prejšnje registrirane blagovne znamke z ugledom, omogoča, da preprečijo registracijo poznejše prijave podobne ali enake blagovne znamke EU, ki bi brez upravičenega razloga posegala v prejšnjo znamko z ugledom.
Likelihood of confusion is not a condition for the application of this article.
Verjetnost zmede ni pogoj za uporabo tega člena.
This is because Article 8(5) EUTMR specifically (but not exclusively) protects functions and uses of trade marks that fall outside the ambit of the badge of origin protection offered by likelihood of confusion and, as such, is more directed at protecting the heightened effort and financial investment that is involved in creating and promoting trade marks to the extent that they become reputed and to facilitate full exploitation of the value of the marks (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR)).
To pa zato, ker člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zlasti (ne pa izključno) varuje funkcije in uporabe znamk, ki ne spadajo pod oznako prvotnega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja verjetnost zmede, in je kot tak usmerjen bolj v varstvo povečanih prizadevanj in finančnih naložb, vključenih v oblikovanje in oglaševanje znamk za pridobitev ugleda in olajšanje polne uporabe vrednosti znamk (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
Article 8(6) EUTMR enables beneficiaries of the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications under the Union legislation or Member State laws to oppose the registration of a later EUTM application even beyond the limited scope of ex officio protection of such rights on absolute grounds (Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR).
Člen 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU upravičencem do zaščite označb porekla in geografskih označb na podlagi zakonodaje Unije ali prava držav članic omogoča, da ugovor zoper registracijo poznejše prijave blagovne znamke EU na podlagi absolutnih razlogov vložijo tudi zunaj omejenega obsega zaščite teh pravic po uradni dolžnosti (člen 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
In order to be eligible as a ‘relative' ground for refusal, the right invoked must vest in its beneficiary a direct right of action against unauthorised use (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 4, Rights under Article 8(4) and (6) EUTMR).
Pravica, na katero se sklicuje upravičenec, mu mora dati neposredno pravico do ukrepanja zoper neupravičeno uporabo, da bi lahko bila „relativni“ razlog za zavrnitev (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 4: Pravice iz člena 8(4) in (6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
3 The ‘Earlier Rights' upon which an Opposition must be Based
„Prejšnje pravice“, na katerih mora temeljiti ugovor
An opposition must be based on at least one earlier right owned by the opponent.
Ugovor mora temeljiti na najmanj eni prejšnji pravici vložnika ugovora.
The meaning of ‘earlier' rights for Article 8(1) and (5) EUTMR is defined in Article 8(2) EUTMR, meaning such rights having an earlier date (not hour or minute, as confirmed by the Court in its judgment of 22/03/2012, C190/10, Rizo, EU:C:2012:157) of application for registration than the EUTM application, including applicable claimed priority dates, or have become well known in a Member State before the EUTM application or, if appropriate, its claimed priority date.
Pomen izraza „prejšnje“ pravice za člen 8(1) in (5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je opredeljen v členu 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pomeni takšne pravice, ki imajo zgodnejši datum (ne ure ali minute, kot je Sodišče potrdilo v sodbi z dne 22/03/2012, C190/10, Rizo, EU:C:2012:157) prijave za registracijo kot prijava blagovne znamke EU, vključno z ustreznimi datumi zahtev za priznanje prednostne pravice, ali ki so postale znane v državi članici pred prijavo blagovne znamke EU ali, če je ustrezno, pred zahtevo za priznanje njene prednostne pravice.
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve.
In essence, these rights consist of EU registered trade marks and applications for such, and ‘well-known' marks in the sense of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (which need not be registered).
Te pravice v bistvu sestavljajo registrirane znamke v EU in prijave zanje ter „dobro znane“ znamke v smislu člena 6bis Pariške konvencije (teh ni treba registrirati).
For a detailed explanation of these ‘well-known' marks under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, and how they differ from Article 8(5) EUTMR marks with reputation, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5: Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 2.1.2.
Za podrobno razlago teh „dobro znanih“ znamk iz člena 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pojasnilo, v čem se razlikujejo od znamk z ugledom iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 2.1.2.
Under Article 8(3) EUTMR, the opponent must show that it is the proprietor of a trade mark, acquired anywhere in the world by registration or by use (to the extent that the law of the country of origin recognises this kind of trade mark right), for which an agent or representative of the proprietor has applied for registration in its own name without the proprietor's consent.
Vložnik ugovora mora v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dokazati, da je imetnik znamke, ki jo je pridobil kjer koli na svetu z registracijo ali uporabo (če zakonodaja države izvora priznava takšno pravico iz znamke) in za katero je posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika zahteval registracijo v lastnem imenu brez imetnikovega soglasja.
Article 8(4) EUTMR is the ground for opposition based on earlier non-registered trade marks or other signs used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance protected under EU legislation or Member State laws that confer on their proprietor the right to prohibit the unauthorised use of a subsequent trade mark.
Člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je temelj za ugovor na podlagi prejšnjih neregistriranih blagovnih znamk ali drugih znakov, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu več kot le lokalnega pomena in so zaščiteni na podlagi zakonodaje EU ali prava držav članic, ter imetniku daje pravico do prepovedi nepooblaščene uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke.
The opponent must prove that it acquired the right invoked, which may be use or registration based, before the application date or, as the case may be, before the priority date of the contested mark, in accordance with the conditions of protection of the applicable law.
Vložnik ugovora mora dokazati, da je pridobil pravico, na katero se sklicuje in lahko temelji na uporabi ali registraciji, pred datumom prijave ali pred datumom prednostne pravice izpodbijane znamke v skladu s pogoji zaščite prava, ki se uporablja.
In addition, the opponent must also prove use of more than mere local significance of such a right before the date of priority of the contested mark.
Poleg tega mora vložnik ugovora dokazati tudi uporabo te pravice, ki je več kot le lokalnega pomena, pred datumom prednostne pravice izpodbijane znamke.
Article 8(6) EUTMR is the ground for opposition based on designations of origin or geographical indications protected under EU legislation or Member State laws that confer on the person authorised under such laws the right to prohibit the unauthorised use of a subsequent trade mark.
Člen 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je temelj za ugovor na podlagi označb porekla ali geografskih označb, zaščitenih v okviru zakonodaje EU ali prava držav članic, ki osebi, pooblaščeni na podlagi tega prava, daje pravico do prepovedi nepooblaščene uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke.
The opponent must prove that the designation of origin or geographical indication invoked is earlier than the date of application or, as the case may be, the priority date of the contested mark.
Vložnik ugovora mora dokazati, da je bila označba porekla ali geografska označba, na katero se sklicuje, prijavljena pred datumom prijave ali pred datumom prednostne pravice izpodbijane znamke.
Various legal grounds, based on different earlier rights, may be alleged in either the same or multiple oppositions against the same EUTM application.
Različni pravni razlogi, ki temeljijo na različnih prejšnjih pravicah, se lahko navedejo v istem ugovoru ali več ugovorih zoper isto prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
The Office's practice is based on the legal provisions of the EUTMR applied directly or by analogy, as confirmed by the case-law of the General Court (16/09/2004, T342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268; 11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124).
Praksa Urada temelji na pravnih določbah Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki se uporabljajo neposredno ali po analogiji, kot je potrjeno s sodno prakso Splošnega sodišča (16/09/2004, T342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268; 11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124).
Namely:
In sicer:
multiple oppositions.
Več ugovorov.
Article 9(2) and (3) EUTMDR allows the Office to examine only the ‘most effective' opposition(s), suspending the rest and eventually deeming them to have been dealt with if the application is rejected on the basis of the chosen opposition.
Člen 9(2) in (3) Delegirane uredbe Uradu omogoča, da preizkusi samo „najučinkovitejši(-e)“ ugovor(-e), drugi pa se odloži(-jo) in se na koncu šteje(jo) za rešen(-e), če se prijava zavrne na podlagi izbranega(-ih) ugovora(ov).
With regard to the ‘most effective' opposition, see below.
V zvezi z „najučinkovitejšim“ ugovorom glej besedilo v nadaljevanju.
multiple earlier rights in one opposition.
Več prejšnjih pravic v enem ugovoru.
The Court has observed that grouping various earlier rights in one opposition is, for practical purposes, the same as presenting multiple oppositions, making it possible for the Office to base the rejection of the application on the ‘most effective' right(s).
Sodišče je menilo, da je združitev različnih prejšnjih pravic v enem ugovoru iz praktičnih razlogov enako kot predložitev več ugovorov, kar Uradu omogoča, da zavrnitev prijave utemelji na podlagi „najučinkovitejše(-ih)“ pravice (pravic).
With regard to the ‘most effective' earlier right, see below.
V zvezi z „najučinkovitejšo“ prejšnjo pravico glej besedilo v nadaljevanju.
multiple legal grounds in opposition(s).
Več pravnih razlogov v ugovoru(-ih).
If the opposition is successful in its entirety on the basis of the ‘most effective' legal ground(s), it is not necessary to examine the remaining legal grounds.
Če je ugovor uspešen v celoti na podlagi „najučinkovitejšega(-ih)“ pravnega(-ih) razloga(-ov), drugih pravnih podlag ni treba proučiti.
If a necessary requirement of a legal ground is not fulfilled, it is not necessary to examine the remaining requirements of that provision.
Če nujna zahteva za pravno podlago ni izpolnjena, drugih zahtev iz navedene določbe ni treba proučiti.
With regard to the ‘most effective' legal ground(s), see below.
V zvezi z „najučinkovitejšo(-imi)“ pravno(-imi) podlago(-ami) glej besedilo v nadaljevanju.
4 The Purpose of Opposition Proceedings and the Most Expedient Way to Treat Them
Namen postopka ugovora in najustreznejši način njegovega obravnavanja
The Court of Justice has stated that the sole purpose of opposition proceedings is to decide whether the application may proceed to registration and not to pre-emptively settle potential conflicts (e.g. at a national level arising from the possible conversion of the EUTM application) (11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124, § 25-27).
Sodišče je navedlo, da je edini namen postopka ugovora določiti, ali se lahko postopek prijave nadaljuje do registracije, in ne vnaprejšnje reševanje morebitnih sporov (na primer na nacionalni ravni, ki bi izhajali iz morebitne konverzije prijave blagovne znamke EU) (11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124, § 25-27).
The Court of Justice has confirmed clearly that the Office is under no obligation to examine all the earlier oppositions, rights and legal grounds invoked against the same EUTM application, if one of them suffices to reject the EUTM application.
Sodišče je jasno potrdilo, da Uradu ni treba proučiti vseh prejšnjih ugovorov, pravic in pravnih razlogov, ki se uveljavljajo zoper isto prijavo blagovne znamke EU, če eden od njih zadostuje za zavrnitev te prijave.
Nor is it obliged to choose the earlier right with the widest territorial scope so as to prevent the eventual conversion of the application in as many territories as possible (16/09/2004, T342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268; 11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124).
Urad prav tako ni zavezan izbrati prejšnje pravice z največjim geografskim območjem veljave, da bi preprečil morebitno konverzijo prijave na čim več geografskih območjih (16/09/2004, T342/02, Moser Grupo Media, S.L., EU:T:2004:268; 11/05/2006, T194/05, Teletech International, EU:T:2006:124).
This principle allows for a more expedient treatment of oppositions.
To načelo omogoča ustreznejše obravnavanje ugovorov.
The Office is free to choose what it regards as the ‘most effective' opposition(s), earlier right(s) and legal ground(s) and which one to examine first in light of the principle of procedural economy.
Urad lahko ob upoštevanju ekonomičnosti postopka prosto določi, kaj se šteje za „najučinkovitejši(-e)“ ugovor(-e), prejšnjo(-e) pravico(-e) in pravno(-e) podlago(-e) ter katere bo proučil najprej.
The ‘most effective' opposition can normally be defined as the opposition that allows the Office to refuse the registration of the opposed EUTM application to the broadest possible extent and in the simplest manner.
„Najučinkovitejši“ ugovor je običajno mogoče opredeliti kot ugovor, ki Uradu omogoča, da registracijo izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU zavrne v najširšem možnem obsegu in na najpreprostejši način.