natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to fulfil the objectives of the registration system for trade marks, namely to ensure legal certainty and sound administration, it is also essential to require that the sign is capable of being represented in a manner which is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
Da bi dosegli cilje sistema registracije blagovnih znamk, in sicer zagotavljanje pravne varnosti in dobrega upravljanja, je prav tako bistveno, da se zahteva, da je znak mogoče prikazati na jasen, natančen, samostojen, lahko dostopen, razumljiv, trajen in objektiven način.
A sign should therefore be permitted to be represented in any appropriate form using generally available technology, and thus not necessarily by graphic means, as long as the representation offers satisfactory guarantees to that effect.
Zato bi bilo treba dovoliti, da se znak prikaže v kakršni koli ustrezni obliki, pri kateri se uporabi splošno dostopna tehnologija, torej ne nujno grafično, če ima tak prikaz zadovoljiva jamstva v ta namen.
Furthermore, the grounds for refusal or invalidity concerning the trade mark itself, including the absence of any distinctive character, or concerning conflicts between the trade mark and earlier rights, should be listed in an exhaustive manner, even if some of those grounds are listed as an option for the Member States which should therefore be able to maintain or introduce them in their legislation.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba izčrpno navesti razloge za zavrnitev ali ničnost v zvezi s samo blagovno znamko, vključno z odsotnostjo slehernega razlikovalnega značaja, ali v zvezi s kolizijami med blagovno znamko in prejšnjimi pravicami, tudi če so nekateri od teh razlogov navedeni kot izbira držav članic, ki torej te razloge lahko ohranijo ali uvedejo v svoji zakonodaji.
In order to ensure that the levels of protection afforded to geographical indications by Union legislation and national law are applied in a uniform and exhaustive manner in the examination of absolute and relative grounds for refusal throughout the Union, this Directive should include the same provisions in relation to geographical indications as contained in Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Zaradi potrebe, da se raven varstva geografskih označb na podlagi zakonodaje Unije in nacionalnega prava pri preizkusu absolutnih in relativnih razlogov za zavrnitev uporablja enotno in temeljito po vsej Uniji, bi morala ta direktiva vključevati enake določbe v zvezi z geografskimi označbami kot Uredba (ES) št. 207/2009.
Furthermore, it is appropriate to ensure that the scope of absolute grounds is extended to also cover protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialties guaranteed.
Poleg tega je primerno zagotoviti razširitev obsega absolutnih razlogov, da bi vključeval tudi zaščitene tradicionalne izraze za vina in zajamčene tradicionalne posebnosti.
The protection afforded by the registered trade mark, the function of which is in particular to guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin, should be absolute in the event of there being identity between the mark and the corresponding sign and the goods or services.
Varstvo, ki ga zagotovi registrirana blagovna znamka in katere funkcija je zlasti zagotovitev, da blagovna znamka označuje poreklo, bi morala biti popolna v primeru enakosti znamke in znaka ter blaga ali storitev.
The protection should apply also in the case of similarity between the mark and the sign and the goods or services.
Varstvo bi moralo veljati tudi v primeru podobnosti med znamko in znakom ter blagom ali storitvami.
It is indispensable to give an interpretation of the concept of similarity in relation to the likelihood of confusion.
Nujno je treba zagotoviti interpretacijo pojma podobnosti v zvezi z verjetnostjo zmede.
The likelihood of confusion, the appreciation of which depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified, should constitute the specific condition for such protection.
Verjetnost zmede, katere upoštevanje je odvisno od številnih elementov, zlasti od prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke na tržišču, povezovanja, ki ga lahko povzroči uporabljen ali registriran znak, stopnje podobnosti med blagovno znamko in znakom ter označenim blagom ali storitvami, bi morala biti poseben pogoj za takšno varstvo.
The ways in which a likelihood of confusion can be established, and in particular the onus of proof in that regard, should be a matter for national procedural rules which should not be prejudiced by this Directive.
Načini, na katere se lahko ugotovi verjetnost zmede, in zlasti zadevno dokazno breme, bi morali biti predmet nacionalnih postopkovnih pravil, v katere ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati.
In order to ensure legal certainty and full consistency with the principle of priority, under which a registered earlier trade mark takes precedence over later registered trade marks, it is necessary to provide that the enforcement of rights which are conferred by a trade mark should be without prejudice to the rights of proprietors acquired prior to the filing or priority date of the trade mark.
Zaradi zagotovitve pravne varnosti in popolne skladnosti s prednostnim načelom, da ima predhodno registrirana blagovna znamka prednost pred pozneje registriranimi blagovnimi znamkami, je treba določiti, da uveljavljanje pravic, pridobljenih z blagovno znamko, ne bi smelo posegati v pravice imetnikov, pridobljene pred vložitvijo prijave ali pred datumom prednostne pravice blagovne znamke.
Such an approach is in conformity with Article 16(1) of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights of 15 April 1994 (‘TRIPS Agreement’).
Takšen pristop je v skladu s členom 16(1) Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine z dne 15. aprila 1994 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum TRIPS).
It is appropriate to provide that an infringement of a trade mark can only be established if there is a finding that the infringing mark or sign is used in the course of trade for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services.
Primerno je zagotoviti, da se kršitev blagovne znamke lahko ugotovi le, če obstaja dokaz, da se nedovoljena znamka ali znak uporablja v gospodarskem prometu za razlikovanje blaga ali storitev.
Use of the sign for purposes other than for distinguishing goods or services should be subject to the provisions of national law.
Za uporabo znaka, ki ni namenjena razlikovanju blaga ali storitev, bi morali veljati predpisi nacionalnega prava.
The concept of infringement of a trade mark should also comprise the use of the sign as a trade name or similar designation, as long as such use is made for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services.
Pojem kršitve blagovne znamke bi moral vključevati tudi uporabo znaka kot trgovskega imena ali podobne oznake, če se uporablja za razlikovanje blaga ali storitev.
In order to ensure legal certainty and full consistency with specific Union legislation, it is appropriate to provide that the proprietor of a trade mark should be entitled to prohibit a third party from using a sign in comparative advertising where such comparative advertising is contrary to Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [5].
Zaradi zagotovitve pravne varnosti in popolne skladnosti z zadevno zakonodajo Unije je primerno imetniku blagovne znamke zagotoviti pravico, da tretji osebi prepove uporabo znaka v primerjalnem oglaševanju, kadar je tako primerjalno oglaševanje v nasprotju z Direktivo 2006/114/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [5].
In order to strengthen trade mark protection and combat counterfeiting more effectively, and in line with international obligations of the Member States under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework, in particular Article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on freedom of transit and, as regards generic medicines, the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the proprietor of a trade mark should be entitled to prevent third parties from bringing goods, in the course of trade, into the Member State where the trade mark is registered without being released for free circulation there, where such goods come from third countries and bear without authorisation a trade mark which is identical or essentially identical with the trade mark registered in respect of such goods.
Zaradi okrepljenega varstva blagovnih znamk in učinkovitejšega boja proti ponarejanju ter v skladu z mednarodnimi obveznostmi držav članic v okviru Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO), zlasti na podlagi člena V Splošnega sporazuma o carinah in trgovini, ki se nanaša na prosti tranzit, ter – v zvezi z generičnimi zdravili – Deklaracije o Sporazumu TRIPS in javnem zdravju, ki jo je 14. novembra 2001 sprejela ministrska konferenca STO v Dohi, bi moral imetnik blagovne znamke imeti pravico tretjim osebam preprečiti, da bi v gospodarskem prometu vnesle blago v državo članico, kjer je blagovna znamka registrirana, ne da bi bilo to blago tam sproščeno v prosti promet, če tako blago prihaja iz tretjih držav in brez dovoljenja nosi blagovno znamko, ki je enaka ali v bistvenem enaka blagovni znamki, registrirani za takšno blago.
To this effect, it should be permissible for trade mark proprietors to prevent the entry of infringing goods and their placement in all customs situations, including, in particular transit, transhipment, warehousing, free zones, temporary storage, inward processing or temporary admission, also when such goods are not intended to be placed on the market of the Member State concerned.
V ta namen bi bilo treba dovoliti, da imetniki blagovne znamke preprečijo vnos blaga, ki krši pravice, in izvajanje kakršnih koli carinskih postopkov za takšno blago, vključno zlasti s tranzitom, pretovarjanjem, skladiščenjem, prostimi conami, začasno hrambo, aktivnim oplemenitenjem ali začasnim uvozom, tudi kadar takšno blago ni namenjeno dajanju na trg v zadevni državi članici.
In performing customs controls, the customs authorities should make use of the powers and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6], also at the request of the right holders.
Carinski organi bi morali pri izvajanju carinskega nadzora uporabljati pooblastila in postopke iz Uredbe (EU) št. 608/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [6], tudi na zahtevo imetnikov pravic.
In particular, the customs authorities should carry out the relevant controls on the basis of risk analysis criteria.
Carinski organi bi morali zlasti izvajati ustrezen nadzor na podlagi meril analize tveganja.
In order to reconcile the need to ensure the effective enforcement of trade mark rights with the necessity to avoid hampering the free flow of trade in legitimate goods, the entitlement of the proprietor of the trade mark should lapse where, during the subsequent proceedings initiated before the judicial or other authority competent to take a substantive decision on whether the registered trade mark has been infringed, the declarant or the holder of the goods is able to prove that the proprietor of the registered trade mark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market in the country of final destination.
Da bi uskladili potrebo po zagotavljanju učinkovitega uveljavljanja pravic iz blagovne znamke s potrebo po odpravi ovir za prosto trgovino z zakonitim blagom, bi moral imetnik blagovne znamke zadevno pravico izgubiti, kadar deklarant ali imetnik blaga v naknadnem postopku pred sodnim ali drugim organom, pristojnim za sprejetje meritorne odločitve o morebitni kršitvi registrirane blagovne znamke, lahko dokaže, da imetnik registrirane blagovne znamke nima pravice prepovedati dajanja blaga na trg v državi, v katero je namenjeno.
Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 provides that a right holder is to be liable for damages towards the holder of the goods where, inter alia, the goods in question are subsequently found not to infringe an intellectual property right.
Člen 28 Uredbe (EU) št. 608/2013 določa, da je imetnik pravice odgovoren za škodo, ki jo imetnik blaga utrpi, kadar je med drugim naknadno ugotovljeno, da zadevno blago ne krši pravice intelektualne lastnine.
Appropriate measures should be taken with a view to ensuring the smooth transit of generic medicines.
Sprejeti bi bilo treba ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev nemotenega tranzita generičnih zdravil.
With respect to international non-proprietary names (INN) as globally recognised generic names for active substances in pharmaceutical preparations, it is vital to take due account of the existing limitations on the effect of trade mark rights.
Kar zadeva mednarodna nelastniška imena kot svetovno priznana generična imena za aktivne snovi v farmacevtskih preparatih, je ključnega pomena, da se ustrezno upoštevajo obstoječe omejitve učinka pravic iz blagovne znamke.
Consequently, the proprietor of a trade mark should not have the right to prevent a third party from bringing goods into a Member State where the trade mark is registered without being released for free circulation there based upon similarities between the INN for the active ingredient in the medicines and the trade mark.
Imetnik blagovne znamke torej ne bi smel imeti pravice, da tretji osebi prepreči vnos blaga v državo članico, kjer je blagovna znamka registrirana, ne da bi bilo to blago tam sproščeno v prosti promet, zaradi podobnosti med mednarodnim nelastniškim imenom za aktivno sestavino zdravila in blagovno znamko.
In order to enable proprietors of registered trade marks to combat counterfeiting more effectively, they should be entitled to prohibit the affixing of an infringing trade mark to goods, and certain preparatory acts carried out prior to such affixing.
Da bi se imetniki registrirane blagovne znamke lahko bolj učinkovito zoperstavili ponarejanju, bi morali imeti pravico, da prepovedo namestitev nedovoljene blagovne znamke na blago in nekatere pripravljalne ukrepe, izvedene pred takšno namestitvijo.
The exclusive rights conferred by a trade mark should not entitle the proprietor to prohibit the use of signs or indications by third parties which are used fairly and thus in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.
Imetnik ne bi smel imeti pravice, da v okviru izključnih pravic, pridobljenih z blagovno znamko, tretjim osebam prepove uporabo znakov ali označb, ki se uporabljajo pravično in torej v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji v industrijskih in trgovinskih zadevah.
In order to create equal conditions for trade names and trade marks against the background that trade names are regularly granted unrestricted protection against later trade marks, such use should only be considered to include the use of the personal name of the third party.
Za trgovska imena običajno velja neomejeno varstvo glede na poznejše blagovne znamke, zato bi bilo zaradi zagotavljanja enakih pogojev za trgovska imena in blagovne znamke primerno, da bi taka uporaba zajemala samo osebno ime tretje osebe.
Such use should further permit the use of descriptive or non-distinctive signs or indications in general.
Taka uporaba bi morala dopustiti tudi splošno uporabo opisnih ali nerazlikovalnih znakov ali označb.
Furthermore, the proprietor should not be entitled to prevent the fair and honest use of the mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to the goods or services as those of the proprietor.
Poleg tega imetnik ne bi smel imeti pravice, da prepreči pravično in pošteno uporabo znamke za namene opredelitve ali navedbe blaga ali storitev kot svojih.
Use of a trade mark by third parties to draw the consumer`s attention to the resale of genuine goods that were originally sold by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the trade mark in the Union should be considered as being fair as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.
Kadar tretje osebe blagovno znamko uporabljajo, da bi potrošnika opozorile na ponovno prodajo originalov, ki jih je prvotno prodajal imetnik blagovne znamke v Uniji ali so se prodajali z njegovim soglasjem, bi bilo takšno uporabo treba šteti za pravično, če je obenem v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji v industrijskih in trgovinskih zadevah.
Use of a trade mark by third parties for the purpose of artistic expression should be considered as being fair as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.
Kadar tretje osebe blagovno znamko uporabljajo za namene umetniškega izražanja, bi se morala takšna uporaba šteti za pravično, če je obenem v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji v industrijskih in trgovinskih zadevah.
Furthermore, this Directive should be applied in a way that ensures full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular the freedom of expression.
Poleg tega bi se morala ta direktiva uporabljati tako, da bi zagotovili dosledno spoštovanje temeljnih pravic in svoboščin, zlasti svobode izražanja.
It follows from the principle of free movement of goods that the proprietor of a trade mark should not be entitled to prohibit its use by a third party in relation to goods which have been put into circulation in the Union, under the trade mark, by him or with his consent, unless the proprietor has legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods.
Iz načela prostega pretoka blaga izhaja, da imetnik blagovne znamke ne bi smel imeti pravice tretjim osebam prepovedati uporabe blaga, ki ga je imetnik dal v promet v Uniji, pod varstvom blagovne znamke, ali se je to zgodilo z njegovim soglasjem, razen če obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi, da imetnik nasprotuje nadaljnji komercializaciji blaga.
It is important, for reasons of legal certainty to provide that, without prejudice to his interests as a proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the latter may no longer request a declaration of invalidity or oppose the use of a trade mark subsequent to his own trade mark, of which he has knowingly tolerated the use for a substantial length of time, unless the application for the subsequent trade mark was made in bad faith.
Zaradi pravne varnosti, brez poseganja v interese imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke, je pomembno določiti, da ta ne sme več zahtevati ugotovitve ničnosti ali ugovarjati uporabi blagovne znamke, ki je poznejša od njegove blagovne znamke, katere uporabo je v dolgem časovnem obdobju vede dopuščal, razen če je prijava poznejše blagovne znamke vložena v slabi veri.
In order to ensure legal certainty and safeguard legitimately acquired trade mark rights, it is appropriate and necessary to provide that, without prejudice to the principle that the later trade mark cannot be enforced against the earlier trade mark, proprietors of earlier trade marks should not be entitled to obtain refusal or invalidation or to oppose the use of a later trade mark if the later trade mark was acquired at a time when the earlier trade mark was liable to be declared invalid or revoked, for example because it had not yet acquired distinctiveness through use, or if the earlier trade mark could not be enforced against the later trade mark because the necessary conditions were not applicable, for example when the earlier mark had not yet obtained a reputation.
Zaradi zagotovitve pravne varnosti in zaščite pravic iz blagovne znamke, ki so bile zakonito pridobljene, je primerno in potrebno določiti, da imetniki prejšnjih blagovnih znamk – ne da bi to vplivalo na načelo, da se poznejša blagovna znamka ne more uveljavljati proti prejšnjim blagovnim znamkam – nimajo pravice pridobiti zavrnitve ali ugotovitve ničnosti ali ugovarjati uporabi poznejše blagovne znamke, če je bila ta pridobljena v času, ko je bilo mogoče, da se prejšnja blagovna znamka ugotovi za nično ali razveljavi, ker na primer še ni pridobila razlikovalnega značaja z uporabo, ali če prejšnje blagovne znamke ni bilo mogoče uporabljati zaradi poznejše blagovne znamke, ker potrebni pogoji niso bili izpolnjeni, na primer, ko prejšnja znamka še ni pridobila ugleda.
Trade marks fulfil their purpose of distinguishing goods or services and allowing consumers to make informed choices only when they are actually used on the market.
Blagovne znamke so namenjene razlikovanju blaga ali storitev ter potrošnikom omogočajo, da se odločajo na podlagi informacij, samo kadar se dejansko uporabljajo na trgu.
A requirement of use is also necessary in order to reduce the total number of trade marks registered and protected in the Union and, consequently, the number of conflicts which arise between them.
Zaradi zmanjšanja skupnega števila blagovnih znamk, registriranih in varovanih v Uniji, ter posledično zmanjšanja števila sporov, ki se pojavljajo med njimi, je treba zahtevati, da se uporabljajo.
It is therefore essential to require that registered trade marks actually be used in connection with the goods or services for which they are registered, or, if not used in that connection within five years of the date of the completion of the registration procedure, be liable to be revoked.
Zato je bistvenega pomena zahtevati, da se registrirane blagovne znamke dejansko uporabljajo v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, za katere so registrirane, ali da se v primeru zadevne neuporabe v petih letih od datuma zaključka postopka registracije lahko razveljavijo.
Consequently, a registered trade mark should only be protected in so far as it is actually used and a registered earlier trade mark should not enable its proprietor to oppose or invalidate a later trade mark if that proprietor has not put his trade mark to genuine use.
Zato bi bilo treba registrirano blagovno znamko varovati le, če se dejansko uporablja, imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke pa ne bi smel imeti pravice, da ugovarja poznejši blagovni znamki ali zahteva ugotovitev njene ničnosti, če ta imetnik svoje blagovne znamke ni uporabljal resno in dejansko.
Furthermore, Member States should provide that a trade mark may not be successfully invoked in infringement proceedings if it is established, as a result of a plea, that the trade mark could be revoked or, when the action is brought against a later right, could have been revoked at the time when the later right was acquired.
Poleg tega bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da se blagovna znamka ne more uspešno uveljavljati v postopku zaradi kršitve pravic, če se na podlagi zahteve za razveljavitev blagovne znamke ugotovi, da bi se blagovna znamka lahko razveljavila, ali, kadar se zahtevek nanaša na pravico z zvezi s poznejšo blagovno znamko, da bi se lahko razveljavila v času pridobitve pravice v zvezi s poznejšo blagovno znamko.
It is appropriate to provide that, where the seniority of a national mark or a trade mark registered under international arrangements having effect in the Member State has been claimed for an EU trade mark and the mark providing the basis for the seniority claim has thereafter been surrendered or allowed to lapse, the validity of that mark can still be challenged.
Če se prednost starejše nacionalne znamke ali blagovne znamke, registrirane na podlagi mednarodnih sporazumov z učinkom v državi članici, zahteva za blagovno znamko EU in če se znamki, ki je podlaga zahteve po prednosti starejše blagovne znamke, odpove ali se dopusti, da njena registracija poteče, je primerno zagotoviti, da se veljavnost navedene znamke še vedno lahko izpodbija.
Such a challenge should be limited to situations where the mark could have been declared invalid or revoked at the time it was removed from the register.
Takšno izpodbijanje bi bilo treba omejiti na primere, v katerih bi bila lahko znamka razglašena za nično ali razveljavljena, v času, ko je bila odstranjena iz registra.