natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the deficiencies are not remedied and if it is still not possible for the Office to clearly establish to which ground or argument a document or item refers, that evidence will not be taken into account (Article 55(4) EUTMDR). 
Če se pomanjkljivosti ne odpravijo in če še vedno ni jasno razvidno, na kateri razlog ali navedbo se dokument ali dokaz nanaša, se ta dokaz ne upošteva (člen 55(4) Delegirane uredbe).
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of the evidence 
Ovrednotenje dokazov
The basic rules on the evaluation of evidence are also applicable here: the evidence should be assessed as a whole, that is, each indication should be weighed up against the others, with information confirmed by more than one source generally being considered more reliable than facts derived from isolated references. 
Osnovna pravila za ovrednotenje dokazov se uporabljajo tudi v tem primeru: dokaze je treba oceniti kot celoto, kar pomeni, da je treba vsak podatek presojati v primerjavi z drugimi, informacije, ki jih potrjuje več kot en vir, pa so navadno zanesljivejše od dejstev, ki izhajajo iz posameznih virov.
Indeed, the more independent, reliable and well-informed the source of the information is, the higher the probative value of the evidence will be. 
Seveda je dokazna vrednost večja, čim bolj neodvisen, zanesljiv in dobro utemeljen je vir informacij.
Therefore, information deriving directly from the opponent is unlikely to be enough on its own, especially if it only consists of opinions and estimates instead of facts, or if it is of an unofficial character and lacks objective confirmation, as for example when the opponent submits internal memoranda or tables with data and figures of unknown origin. 
Zato informacije, ki izvirajo neposredno od vložnika ugovora, same najverjetneje ne zadostujejo, zlasti če vsebujejo samo mnenja in ocene, ne pa tudi dejstev, ali če so neuradne in ne vsebujejo objektivne potrditve, kot na primer, kadar vložnik ugovora predloži notranje dopise ali preglednice s podatki in številkami neznanega izvora.
However, if such information is publicly available or has been compiled for official purposes and contains information and data that have been objectively verified, or reproduces statements made in public, its probative value is generally higher. 
Če pa je taka dokumentacija javno dostopna ali je bila zbrana za uradne namene ter vsebuje informacije in podatke, ki so bili objektivno potrjeni, ali javno navedene trditve, je njena dokazna vrednost na splošno večja.
As regards its contents, the more indications the evidence gives about the various factors from which reputation may be inferred, the more relevant and conclusive it will be. 
Kar zadeva vsebino dokazov, so ta toliko bolj pomembna in odločilna, če vsebujejo več podatkov o različnih dejavnikih, na podlagi katerih je mogoče sklepati o ugledu.
In particular, evidence that, as a whole, gives little or no quantitative data and information will not be appropriate for providing indications about vital factors, such as trade mark awareness, market share and intensity of use and, consequently, will not be sufficient to support a finding of reputation. 
Dokazi, ki kot celota vsebujejo malo ali nič kvantitativnih podatkov in informacij, niso primerna za zagotavljanje podatkov o bistvenih dejavnikih, kot so poznanost, tržni delež in intenzivnost uporabe znamke, zaradi česar ne zadostujejo za potrditev ugotovitve o obstoju ugleda.
3.1.4.4 Means of evidence 
Dokazi
There is no direct indication in the Regulations as to which kind of evidence is more appropriate for proving reputation. 
V uredbah ni neposredne navedbe, katera vrsta dokazov je primernejša za dokazovanje ugleda.
The opponent may avail itself of all the means of evidence of Article 97(1) EUTMR, provided they are capable of showing that the mark does indeed have the required reputation. 
Vložnik ugovora lahko uporabi vse dokaze iz člena 97(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če je mogoče z njimi potrditi, da ima znamka resnično zahtevani ugled.
The following means of evidence are the most frequently submitted by opponents in opposition proceedings before the Office (this list does not reflect their relative importance or probative value): 
Vložniki ugovora v postopku pred Uradom najpogosteje predložijo naslednji dokazi (seznam ne izraža njihovega relativnega pomena ali dokazne vrednosti):
1. sworn or affirmed statements 
zaprisežene ali potrjene izjave;
2. decisions of courts or administrative authorities 
odločbe pravosodnih ali upravnih organov;
3. decisions of the Office 
odločbe Urada;
4. opinion polls and market surveys 
javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave;
5. audits and inspections 
revizije in inšpekcijske preglede;
6. certification and awards 
certifikate in nagrade;
7. articles in the press or in specialised publications 
članke v tisku ali specializiranih publikacijah;
8. annual reports on economic results and company profiles 
letna poročila o ekonomskih rezultatih in profile družbe;
9. invoices and other commercial documents 
račune in druge poslovne dokumente;
10. advertising and promotional material. 
oglaševalsko in promocijsko gradivo.
Evidence of this kind may also be submitted under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR in order to prove that the earlier mark has obtained a higher degree of distinctiveness, or under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in relation to well-known marks. 
Takšni dokazi se lahko predložijo tudi v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za potrditev, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila višjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, ali v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zvezi z dobro znanimi znamkami.
Sworn or affirmed statements 
Zaprisežene ali potrjene izjave
In particular, both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of such evidence to the particular case must be taken into account. 
Upoštevati je treba zlasti položaj osebe, ki zagotovi dokaze, in pomen teh dokazov za posamezni primer.
For further details on the weight and probative value of affidavits, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use. 
Za dodatne informacije o teži in dokazni vrednosti zapriseženih izjav glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi.
Decisions of courts or administrative authorities 
Odločbe pravosodnih ali upravnih organov
Opponents often invoke decisions of national authorities or courts that have accepted the reputation of the earlier mark. 
Vložniki ugovorov se pogosto sklicujejo na odločbe nacionalnih organov ali sodišč, ki so priznali ugled prejšnje znamke.
Even though national decisions are admissible evidence and may have evidentiary value, especially if they originate from a Member State the territory of which is also relevant for the opposition concerned, they are not binding for the Office, in the sense that it is not mandatory for the Office to follow their conclusion. 
Čeprav so nacionalne odločbe dopustni dokazi in lahko imajo dokazno vrednost, zlasti če izvirajo iz države članice, katere ozemlje je upoštevno tudi v zadevnem ugovoru, za Urad niso zavezujoče, saj mu ni treba sprejeti enake ugotovitve.
Since such decisions may serve to indicate reputation and to record successful enforcement of the mark, their relevance should be addressed and examined. 
Ker se lahko take odločbe uporabljajo kot znak ugleda in za evidentiranje uspešnega uveljavljanja znamk, je treba njihov pomen obravnavati in proučiti.
Consideration should be given to the type of proceedings involved, to whether the issue was in fact reputation within the sense of Article 8(5) EUTMR, to the level of the court, and to the number of such decisions. 
Upoštevati je treba zadevno vrsto postopka, dejstvo, ali je pri zadevi dejansko šlo za ugled v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ter stopnjo sodišča in število takih odločb.
There might be differences between the substantive and procedural conditions applicable in national proceedings and those applied in opposition proceedings before the Office. 
Vsebinski in postopkovni pogoji, ki se uporabljajo v nacionalnih postopkih, se lahko razlikujejo od tistih, ki se uporabljajo v postopku ugovora pred Uradom.
Firstly, there may be differences as to how the requirement of reputation is defined or interpreted. 
Prvič, lahko se razlikujejo glede na način opredelitve in razlage zahteve glede ugleda.
Secondly, the weight the Office gives to the evidence is not necessarily the same as the weight given to it in national proceedings. 
Drugič, ni nujno, da Urad dokazom pripiše enako težo, kot jim je pripisana v nacionalnih postopkih.
Furthermore, national instances may be able to take into account ex officio facts known to them directly, whereas, under Article 95 EUTMR, the Office may not. 
Poleg tega lahko nacionalni organi morda upoštevajo dejstva, ki so jim znana neposredno po uradni dolžnosti, medtem ko jih Urad v skladu s členom 95 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme.
For these reasons, the probative value of national decisions will be considerably enhanced if the conditions of law and facts on the basis of which they were taken are made abundantly clear. 
Iz teh razlogov se dokazna vrednost nacionalnih odločb znatno poveča, če so pogoji prava in dejstva, na podlagi katerih so bile sprejete, povsem jasni.
This is because, in the absence of these elements, it will be more difficult both for the applicant to exercise its right of defence and for the Office to assess the decision's relevance with a reasonable degree of certainty. 
Brez teh elementov namreč prijavitelj težje uveljavlja svojo pravico do obrambe, Urad pa težje presodi pomen odločbe z ustrezno stopnjo gotovosti.
Similarly, if the decision is not yet final, or if it is outdated due to the time that has elapsed between the two cases, its probative value will be diminished accordingly. 
Podobno se dokazna vrednost odločbe zmanjša tudi, kadar odločba še ni pravnomočna ali je zastarela, ker je med zadevama preteklo preveč časa.
Consequently, the probative value of national decisions should be assessed on the basis of their contents and may vary depending on the case. 
Posledično je treba dokazno vrednost nacionalnih odločb presojati glede na njihovo vsebino, pri čemer se lahko ta dokazna vrednost razlikuje glede na primer.
Office Decisions 
Odločbe Urada
The opponent may also refer to earlier Office decisions, on condition that such a reference is clear and unambiguous, and that the language of the proceedings is the same. 
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje tudi na predhodne odločbe Urada, če je tako sklicevanje jasno in nedvoumno ter je jezik postopka enak.
Otherwise, the opponent must also file a translation of the decision within the 4month period for filing further facts, evidence and arguments, in order to allow the applicant to exercise its right of defence. 
V nasprotnem primeru mora vložnik ugovora predložiti prevod odločbe v štirih mesecih, ki so na voljo za predložitev dodatnih dejstev, dokazov in trditev, da lahko prijavitelj uveljavlja svojo pravico do zagovora.
As regards the relevance and probative value of previous Office decisions, the same rules as for national decisions apply. 
V zvezi s pomenom in dokazno vrednostjo predhodnih odločb Urada se uporabljajo enaka pravila kot za nacionalne odločbe.
Even where the reference is admissible and the decision is relevant, the Office is not bound to come to the same conclusion and must examine each case on its own merits. 
Tudi če je sklicevanje dopustno in odločba pomembna, Uradu ni treba sprejeti enake ugotovitve, saj mora proučiti vsak primer posebej.
Recognition of the reputation of an earlier mark cannot depend on prior recognition in the context of separate proceedings concerning the parties and different legal and factual elements. 
Priznanje ugleda prejšnje znamke ne more biti odvisno od predhodnega priznanja v okviru ločenih postopkov, ki zadevajo stranke in različne pravne ter stvarne elemente.
It is therefore for any party relying on the reputation of its earlier mark to establish, in the circumscribed context of each set of proceedings to which it is a party and on the basis of the facts that it considers most appropriate, that that mark has acquired a reputation; it cannot merely claim to adduce that evidence by virtue of its having been recognised, even for the same mark, in a separate administrative procedure (23/10/2015, T597/13, dadida / CALIDA, EU:T:2015:804, § 43-45). 
Zato mora vsaka stranka, ki se sklicuje na ugled svoje prejšnje znamke, v omejenem okviru vsakega postopka, v katerem je stranka, in na podlagi dejstev, ki so po njenem mnenju najustreznejša, dokazati, da je znamka pridobila ugled; ne more samo trditi, da je bil dokaz priznan v ločenem upravnem postopku, tudi če gre za isto znamko (23/10/2015, T597/13, dadida / CALIDA, EU:T:2015:804, § 43-45).
It follows that previous Office decisions only have a relative probative value and should be evaluated in conjunction with the rest of the evidence, especially where the opponent relies on a previous Office decision without referring to particular materials filed in the corresponding proceedings, that is, where the applicant has not had a chance to comment on such materials, or where the time that has elapsed between the two cases is quite long. 
Iz tega sledi, da imajo predhodne odločbe Urada samo relativno dokazno vrednost in jih je treba zato ovrednotiti skupaj s preostalimi dokazi, zlasti kadar se vložnik ugovora opira na predhodno odločbo Urada, ne da bi se skliceval na določeno gradivo, predloženo v ustreznih postopkih, torej kadar prijavitelj ni imel priložnosti, da bi predložil pripombe v zvezi z gradivom, ali kadar je med zadevama preteklo precej časa.
The situation may be different if the evidence to which the opponent refers had been submitted in other proceedings between the same parties and the applicant had been aware of the evidence concerning the reputation of an earlier mark (22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO, EU:T:2015:47, § 18). 
Situacija je lahko drugačna, če bi bili dokazi, na katere se sklicuje vložnik ugovora, predloženi v drugih postopkih med istima strankama in bi bil prijavitelj seznanjen z dokazi o ugledu prejšnje znamke (22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO, EU:T:2015:47, § 18).
Opinion polls and market surveys 
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave
Opinion polls and market surveys are the most suitable means of evidence for providing information about the degree of knowledge of the mark, the market share it has, or the position it occupies in the market in relation to competitors' goods. 
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave so najustreznejše dokazno sredstvo za zagotavljanje informacij o stopnji poznanosti znamke, njenem tržnem deležu ali položaju, ki ga ima na trgu glede na konkurenčno blago.
The probative value of opinion polls and market surveys is determined by the status and degree of independence of the entity conducting it, by the relevance and accuracy of the information it provides, and by the reliability of the method applied. 
Dokazna vrednost javnomnenjskih in tržnih raziskav je odvisna od statusa in stopnje neodvisnosti subjekta, ki jih izvaja, pomena in točnosti informacij, ki jih zagotovijo, ter zanesljivosti uporabljene metode.
More particularly, in evaluating the credibility of an opinion poll or market survey, the Office needs to know the following. 
Urad mora pri vrednotenju verodostojnosti javnomnenjske ali tržne raziskave vedeti zlasti naslednje:
1. Whether or not it has been conducted by an independent and recognised research institute or company, in order to determine the reliability of the source of the evidence (27/03/2014, R 540/20132, Shape of a bottle (3D), § 49). 
ali jo je opravil neodvisni in priznani raziskovalni inštitut ali družba, da se ugotovi zanesljivost vira dokazov (27/03/2014, R 540/20132, Shape of a bottle (3D), § 49);
2. The number and profile (sex, age, occupation and background) of the interviewees, in order to evaluate whether the results of the survey are representative of the different kinds of potential consumers of the goods in question. 
število in profil (spol, starost, poklic in izobrazba) anketirancev, da se ovrednoti, ali so rezultati raziskave reprezentativni za različne vrste morebitnih potrošnikov zadevnega blaga.
3. The method and circumstances under which the survey was carried out and the complete list of questions included in the questionnaire. 
metodo in okoliščine, v katerih je bila izvedena raziskava, ter popoln seznam vprašanj iz vprašalnika.
It is also important to know how and in what order the questions were formulated, in order to ascertain whether the respondents were confronted with leading questions. 
Pomembno je tudi vedeti, kako in v kakšnem vrstnem redu so bila zastavljena vprašanja, da se ugotovi, ali so anketiranci odgovarjali na vprašanja, ki napeljujejo k odgovoru;
4. Whether the percentage reflected in the survey corresponds to the total amount of persons questioned or only to those who actually replied. 
ali se odstotek, naveden v raziskavi, nanaša na celotno število anketirancev ali samo na tiste, ki so dejansko odgovarjali.
Unless the above indications are present, the results of a market survey or opinion poll should not be considered of high probative value, and will not in principle be sufficient on their own to support a finding of reputation. 
Brez zgoraj navedenih podatkov se rezultati tržne ali javnomnenjske raziskave ne bi smeli obravnavati, kot da imajo veliko dokazno vrednost, in načeloma sami po sebi ne zadostujejo za potrditev ugotovitve o obstoju ugleda.
Likewise, if the above indications are given, but the reliability of source and method are questionable, the statistical sample is too small, or the questions were leading, the credibility of the evidence will be diminished accordingly. 
Če so zgoraj navedeni podatki zagotovljeni, vendar sta zanesljivost vira in metoda dvomljiva, statistični vzorec premajhen ali če so vprašanja napeljevala k odgovoru, se tudi verodostojnost dokazov ustrezno zmanjša.
Conversely, opinion polls and market surveys that fulfil the above requirements (independence and trustworthiness of source, reasonably large and widespread sample and reliable method) will be a strong indication of reputation, especially if they show a high degree of trade mark awareness. 
Nasprotno so javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave, ki izpolnjujejo zgornje zahteve (neodvisnost in zanesljivost vira, dovolj velik in širok vzorec ter zanesljiva metoda), dober znak ugleda, zlasti če je iz njih razvidna visoka stopnja poznanosti znamke.
Audits and inspections 
Revizije in inšpekcijski pregledi
Audits and inspections may be carried out on the initiative of the opponent itself, or may be required by company law and/or financial regulations. 
Revizije in inšpekcijski pregledi se lahko opravijo na pobudo vložnika ugovora ali pa v skladu z zahtevami prava družb in/ali finančnimi predpisi.
In the former case, the same rules as for opinion polls and market surveys apply, that is, the status of the entity conducting the audit and the reliability of the applied method will be of essence for determining its credibility, with the probative value of official audits and inspections being as a rule much higher, since they are usually conducted by a state authority or by a recognised body of auditors on the basis of generally accepted standards and rules. 
V prvem primeru se uporabljajo enaka pravila kot za javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave, pri čemer sta status subjekta, ki opravi revizijo, in zanesljivost uporabljene metode bistvena za opredelitev verodostojnosti revizije, medtem ko je dokazna vrednost uradnih revizij in inšpekcijskih pregledov praviloma veliko večja, saj jih navadno opravijo državni organi ali priznani revizijski organi na podlagi splošno sprejetih standardov in pravil.
This kind of evidence includes certification and awards by public authorities or official institutions, such as chambers of commerce and industry, professional associations and societies, consumer organisations, etc. 
Takšni dokazi vključujejo certifikate in nagrade javnih organov ali uradnih institucij, kot so gospodarske zbornice, strokovna združenja in društva, potrošniške organizacije itd.
The reliability of certification by authorities is generally high, as emanating from independent and specialised sources, which attest facts in the course of their official tasks. 
Zanesljivost certifikatov, ki jih podelijo javni organi, je navadno velika, saj jih zagotavljajo neodvisni in specializirani viri, ki preverijo dejstva med opravljanjem uradnih nalog.
For example, the average circulation figures for periodicals issued by the competent press-distribution associations are conclusive evidence about the performance of a mark in the sector. 
Na primer, podatki o povprečni nakladi periodičnega tiska, ki jih objavijo pristojna združenja za distribucijo tiska, so trden dokaz o uspešnosti znamke v sektorju.
The same applies to quality certification and awards granted by such authorities, as the opponent usually has to meet objective standards in order to receive the award. 
Enako velja tudi za certifikate kakovosti in nagrade, ki jih podelijo taki organi, saj mora vložnik ugovora navadno izpolnjevati objektivne standarde, da prejme nagrado.
Conversely, prizes and awards offered by unknown entities, or on the basis of unspecified or subjective criteria, should be given very little weight. 
Nasprotno pa je treba priznanjem in nagradam, ki jih podelijo neznani subjekti ali ki se podelijo na podlagi nedoločenih ali subjektivnih meril, pripisati zelo malo pomena.
The relevance of a certification or award to the specific case largely depends on its contents. 
Pomen certifikata ali nagrade za posamezni primer je odvisen predvsem od vsebine.
For example, the fact that the opponent is a holder of an ISO 9001 quality certificate, or of a royal warrant, does not automatically mean that the sign is known to the public. 
To, da je vložnik ugovora na primer imetnik certifikata kakovosti ISO 9001 ali kraljevega priznanja, ne pomeni nujno, da javnost pozna znak.
It only means that the opponent's goods meet certain quality or technical standards or that it is a supplier of a royal house. 
Pomeni le, da blago vložnika ugovora izpolnjuje določene standarde kakovosti ali tehnične standarde ali pa da je vložnik ugovora dobavitelj kraljevske hiše.
However, if such evidence is coupled with other indications of quality and market success, it may lead to the conclusion that the earlier mark has a reputation. 
Če pa so ti dokazi združeni z drugimi znaki kakovosti in uspeha na trgu, je mogoče z njimi utemeljiti ugotovitev, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled.
Articles in the press or in specialised publications 
Članki v tisku ali specializiranih publikacijah
The probative value of press articles and other publications concerning the opponent's mark mainly depends on whether such publications are covert promotional matter, or if, on the contrary, they are the result of independent and objective research. 
Dokazna vrednost člankov v tisku in drugih publikacijah v zvezi z znamko vložnika ugovora je odvisna predvsem od tega, ali so take objave prikrito oglaševanje ali, nasprotno, rezultat neodvisnega in objektivnega raziskovanja.
Hence, if such articles appear in publications of a high status or are written by independent professionals, they will have quite a high value, as for example when the success of a specific brand becomes the object of a case study in specialised journals or in scientific publications. 
Taki članki imajo zato precej veliko vrednost, če so objavljeni v prestižnih publikacijah ali jih napišejo neodvisni strokovnjaki, kot na primer, kadar postane uspeh neke znamke predmet študije primera v specializiranih revijah ali znanstvenih publikacijah.
The presence of a mark in a dictionary (which is not a press article but is still a publication) is a means of evidence with high value. 
Če je znamka navedena v slovarju (kar ni članek v tisku, je pa publikacija), ima to veliko dokazno vrednost.
Annual reports on economic results and company profiles 
Letna poročila o ekonomskih rezultatih in profili družb