natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sufficiently explicit and unambiguous request: 
Dovolj jasna in nedvoumna zahteva:
‘I request the opponent to submit proof of use …'; 
„Zahtevam, da vložnik ugovora predloži dokaz o uporabi […]“.
‘I invite the Office to set a time limit for the opponent to prove use …'; 
„Urad pozivam, naj določi rok, v katerem mora vložnik ugovora dokazati uporabo […]“.
‘Use of the earlier mark is hereby contested …'; 
„Izpodbijam uporabo prejšnje znamke […]“.
Not sufficiently explicit and unambiguous request: 
Ne dovolj jasna in nedvoumna zahteva:
‘The opponent has used its mark only for …'; 
„Vložnik ugovora je svojo znamko uporabljal le za […]“.
‘The opponent has not used its mark for …'; 
„Vložnik ugovora svoje znamke ni uporabljal za […]“.
‘There is no evidence that the opponent has ever used its mark …'; 
„Ni dokazov, da je vložnik ugovora sploh kdaj uporabljal svojo znamko […]“.
‘[T]he opponents' earlier registrations cannot be “validly asserted against the [EUTM] application…”, since “…no information or evidence of use … has been provided…”' (22/09/2008, B 1 120 973). 
„Prejšnjih registracij vložnika ugovora ni mogoče veljavno uveljavljati zoper prijavo [blagovne znamke EU] […], saj […] niso bile predložene […] nobene informacije ali dokazov o uporabi […]“ (odločba z dne 22. septembra 2008, B 1 120 973).
An implicit request is accepted as an exception to the above rule when the opponent spontaneously sends evidence of use before the applicant's first opportunity to file arguments and, in its first reply, the applicant challenges the evidence of use submitted by the opponent (12/06/2009, T450/07, Pickwick Colour Group, EU:T:2009:202). 
Implicitna zahteva je sprejeta kot izjema od zgornjega pravila, kadar vložnik ugovora na svojo pobudo predloži dokaze o uporabi, preden ima prijavitelj prvič priložnost predložiti trditve in kadar v prvem odgovoru izpodbija dokaze o uporabi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora (12/06/2009, T450/07, Pickwick Colour Group, EU:T:2009:202).
In such a case, there can be no mistake as to the nature of the exchange, and the Office should consider that a request for proof of use has been made and give the opponent a deadline for completing the evidence. 
V takšnem primeru ne sme biti nobenega dvoma o naravi izmenjave, Urad pa mora šteti, da je bila zahteva za dokaz o uporabi vložena, in vložniku ugovora določiti rok za dopolnitev dokazov.
In the event that proceedings have been closed and the existence of a request for proof of use is found out only when a decision has be taken, the examiner should re-open the proceedings and give the opponent a deadline for completing the evidence. 
Če se je postopek že končal in se obstoj zahteve za dokaz o uporabi odkrije šele po sprejetju odločbe, mora preizkuševalec znova začeti postopek in vložniku ugovora določiti rok za dopolnitev dokazov.
Finally, the request for proof of use must be submitted in a separate document. 
Nazadnje, zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi je treba predložiti v ločenem dokumentu.
For more information see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.4.1. 
Za več informacij glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.4.1.
3.1.4 Applicant's interest to deal with proof of use first 
Interes prijavitelja, da se najprej obravnava dokaz o uporabi
Under Article 10(5) EUTMDR a request for proof of use may be submitted at the same time as observations. 
V skladu s členom 10(5) Delegirane uredbe se lahko zahteva za dokaz o uporabi predloži skupaj s pripombami.
The applicant may limit its first observations to requesting proof of use. 
Prijavitelj lahko svoje prve pripombe omeji na zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi.
It must then reply to the opposition in its second observations, namely when it is given the opportunity to reply to the proof of use submitted. 
Nato mora odgovoriti na ugovor v drugih pripombah, in sicer ko ima priložnost za odgovor na predložen dokaz o uporabi.
It may also do this if only one earlier right is subject to the use requirement, as the applicant should not be obliged to split its observations. 
To lahko stori tudi, če se zahteva glede uporabe uporablja le za eno od prejšnjih pravic, saj se od prijavitelja ne more zahtevati, da razdeli svoje pripombe.
If, however, the request is completely invalid, the Office will close proceedings without granting the applicant a further opportunity to submit observations (see paragraph 3.1.5 below). 
Če pa je zahteva popolnoma neveljavna, bo Urad končal postopek, ne da bi prijavitelju dal dodatno možnost za predložitev pripomb (glej odstavek 3.1.5 v nadaljevanju).
3.1.5 Reaction if request is invalid 
Odziv v primeru neveljavne zahteve
If the request is invalid on any of the above grounds or if the requirements of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR are not met, the Office nevertheless forwards the applicant's request to the opponent but advises both parties of the invalidity of the request. 
Če je zahteva neveljavna iz katerega koli od zgornjih razlogov ali če zahteve člena 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso izpolnjene, Urad vložniku ugovora kljub temu posreduje zahtevo prijavitelja, vendar obe stranki opozori na njeno neveljavnost.
The Office will immediately terminate the proceedings if the request is completely invalid and not accompanied by any observations by the applicant. 
Urad bo nemudoma končal postopek, če je zahteva popolnoma neveljavna in ji niso priložene pripombe prijavitelja.
However, the Office can extend the time limit established in Article 8(2) EUTMDR if such an invalid request was received before expiry of the time limit set for the applicant but was not dealt with by the Office until after expiry thereof. 
Vendar lahko Urad podaljša rok iz člena 8(2) Delegirane uredbe, če je bila takšna neveljavna zahteva prejeta pred pretekom roka, ki je bil določen za prijavitelja, vendar jo je Urad obravnaval šele po preteku tega roka.
Because refusal of the request for proof of use after expiry of the time limit will disproportionately harm the interests of the applicant, the Office extends the time limit by the number of days that were left when the party submitted its request. 
Ker zavrnitev zahteve za dokaz o uporabi po preteku roka nesorazmerno škodi interesom prijavitelja, Urad podaljša rok za število dni, ki so ostali, ko je stranka predložila zahtevo.
This practice is based on the rules of fair administration. 
Ta praksa temelji na pravilih pravičnega upravnega postopka.
If the request is only invalid as regards part of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based, the Office expressly limits the invitation to the opponent to submit proof of use to the rights that are subject to the use requirement. 
Če je zahteva neveljavna le za del prejšnjih pravic, na katerih temelji ugovor, Urad poziv vložniku ugovora za predložitev dokaza o uporabi izrecno omeji na pravice, za katere se uporablja zahteva glede uporabe.
3.2 Express invitation by the Office 
Izrecni poziv Urada
If the applicant's request for proof of use is valid, the Office gives the opponent 2 months to submit proof of use or show that there are proper reasons for non-use. 
Če je zahteva prijavitelja za dokaz o uporabi veljavna, Urad vložniku ugovora da na voljo dva meseca za predložitev dokaza o uporabi ali dokaza o obstoju upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo.
Taking a decision on use in the absence of an explicit invitation by the Office to submit proof of use constitutes a substantive procedural violation, even if the applicant's request is clear, and the opponent understands it and submits the requested evidence of use (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20; 19/09/2000, R 733/19991, AFFINITÉ / AFFINAGE). 
Sprejetje odločbe o uporabi brez izrecnega poziva Urada k predložitvi dokaza o uporabi pomeni bistveno kršitev postopka, tudi če je zahteva prijavitelja jasna in jo vložnik ugovora razume ter predloži zahtevane dokaze o uporabi (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20; 19/09/2000, R 733/19991, AFFINITÉ / AFFINAGE).
In cases where the request for proof of use arrives during the cooling-off period and is communicated to the opponent during that period, the deadline for submitting proof of use will coincide with the deadline for providing initial or additional facts, evidence and arguments. 
Kadar zahteva za dokaz o uporabi prispe med obdobjem za pobotanje in se v zadevnem obdobju sporoči vložniku ugovora, bo rok za predložitev dokaza o uporabi sovpadal z rokom za predložitev osnovnih ali dodatnih dejstev, dokazov in navedb.
The time limit will be extended automatically if the cooling-off period is extended. 
Če se obdobje za pobotanje podaljša, se bo zadevni rok samodejno podaljšal.
If the request reaches the Office before the end of the period for submitting or amending facts, evidence and arguments, and is dealt with in this period, the deadline for submitting such facts, evidence and arguments will be extended to coincide with the deadline of 2 months for submitting proof of use. 
Če Urad prejme zahtevo pred koncem obdobja za predložitev ali spremembo dejstev, dokazov in navedb ter jo obravnava v tem obdobju, se bo rok za predložitev takšnih dejstev, dokazov in navedb podaljšal ter bo tako sovpadal z dvomesečnim rokom za predložitev dokaza o uporabi.
3.3 Reaction from the opponent: providing proof of use 
Odziv vložnika ugovora: predložitev dokaza o uporabi
3.3.1 Time limit for providing proof of use 
Rok za predložitev dokaza o uporabi
The Office gives the opponent 2 months to submit proof of use. 
Urad da vložniku ugovora na voljo dva meseca za predložitev dokaza o uporabi.
The opponent may request an extension of the deadline in accordance with Article 68 EUTMDR. 
Vložnik ugovora lahko v skladu s členom 68 Delegirane uredbe zahteva podaljšanje roka.
The common practice on extensions is applicable to these requests . 
Za te zahteve se uporablja splošna praksa o podaljšanjih.
[12: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 6.2.1, Extension of time limits in opposition proceedings.] 
[12: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zahteve, odstavek 6.2.1 Podaljšanje rokov v postopku ugovora.]
Article 10(2) EUTMDR expressly states that the Office will reject the opposition if the opposing party does not provide proof of use before the time limit expires. 
V členu 10(1) Delegirane uredbe je izrecno navedeno, da bo Urad zavrnil ugovor, če stranka, ki ugovarja, pred iztekom roka ne predloži dokaza o uporabi.
Three scenarios are to be differentiated. 
Razlikovati je treba med tremi scenariji.
Any evidence that has been submitted by the opponent at any time during the proceedings before the expiry of the time limit for providing proof of use, even before the applicant's request for proof of use, has to be automatically taken into account when assessing proof of use. 
Pri presoji dokazov o uporabi je treba samodejno upoštevati vse dokaze, ki jih je vložnik ugovora predložil kadar koli med postopkom pred iztekom roka za predložitev dokaza o uporabi, tudi preden je prijavitelj vložil zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi.
The opponent has not submitted any or any relevant indication or evidence within the time limit: the submission of relevant indications or evidence of proof of use for the first time after the expiry of the time limit results in rejection of the opposition without the Office having any discretionary powers. 
Vložnik ugovora v zadevnem roku ni predložil nobenih oziroma nobenih ustreznih podatkov ali dokazov: če se ustrezni podatki ali dokazi o uporabi prvič predložijo po izteku roka, se ugovor zavrže, pri čemer Urad nima nikakršnih diskrecijskih pravic.
Article 10(2) EUTMDR is an essentially procedural provision and it is apparent from the wording of that provision that when no proof of use of the mark concerned is submitted within the time limit set by the Office, the opposition must automatically be rejected. 
Člen 10(2) Delegirane uredbe je v bistvu postopkovna določba, iz njenega besedila pa je jasno razvidno, da je treba ugovor samodejno zavreči, če dokazi o uporabi zadevne znamke niso predloženi v roku, ki ga določi Urad.
The opponent has submitted relevant indications or evidence within the time limit and presents additional indications or evidence after the time limit has expired. 
Vložnik ugovora je ustrezne podatke ali dokaze predložil v roku in po izteku roka predloži dodatne podatke ali dokaze.
The Office may take into account the evidence submitted out of time by exercising the discretion conferred on it by Article 95(2) EUTMR. 
Urad lahko upošteva dokaze, ki so bila predložena prepozno, z uveljavljanjem diskrecijske pravice, ki mu je podeljena s členom 95(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In that context, it must be assessed first, whether the Office may exercise discretion, and, if so, second, how to exercise its discretion, that is, whether to admit or reject such late facts or evidence. 
V tem okviru je treba najprej presoditi, ali lahko Urad uveljavlja svojo diskrecijsko pravico, in nato, če je odgovor pritrdilen, kako naj jo uveljavlja, tj. ali naj takšna prepozno predložena dejstva ali dokaze sprejme ali zavrne.
According to Article 10(7) EUTMDR, the Office must exercise its discretion if the late indications or evidence merely supplement, strengthen and clarify the prior relevant evidence submitted within the time limit with the purpose of proving the same legal requirement laid down in Article 10(3) EUTMDR, namely, place, time, extent and nature of use of the opposing trade mark for the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and on which opposition is based. 
V skladu s členom 10(7) Delegirane uredbe mora Urad uveljavljati svojo diskrecijsko pravico, če prepozno predloženi podatki ali dokazi le dopolnjujejo, krepijo in pojasnjujejo prejšnje ustrezne dokaze, ki so bili predloženi v roku in se nanašajo na isto pravno zahtevo iz člena 10(3) Delegirane uredbe, in sicer se na njihovi podlagi ugotovijo kraj, čas, obseg in narava uporabe blagovne znamke, na kateri temelji ugovor, za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana.
It follows that the Office may not exercise any discretion if the late evidence intends to prove a legal requirement for which no initial evidence at all had been submitted. 
Iz tega sledi, da Urad ne sme uveljavljati diskrecijske pravice, če je namen prepozno predloženih dokazov dokazovanje pravne zahteve, v zvezi s katero sploh niso bili predloženi prvotni dokazi.
For example, if no indications or evidence related to the place of use were submitted at all within the relevant time limit, any evidence submitted in this respect after the time limit must be discarded. 
Če na primer v zadevnem roku sploh niso bili predloženi podatki ali dokazi v zvezi s krajem uporabe, je treba zavreči vse dokaze, ki so bili v zvezi s tem predloženi po izteku roka.
When exercising its discretion, the Office must take into account, in particular, the stage of proceedings and whether the facts or evidence are, prima facie, likely to be relevant for the outcome of the case and whether there are valid reasons for the late submission of the facts or evidence. 
Urad mora pri uveljavljanju svoje diskrecijske pravice upoštevati zlasti fazo postopka in to, ali so dejstva ali dokazi na prvi pogled verjetno pomembna za izid zadeve in ali obstajajo tehtni razlogi za zapoznelo predložitev dejstev ali dokazov.
Therefore, additional indications or evidence can be accepted if, prima facie, they are likely to be relevant for the outcome of the case and are submitted at an early stage of the proceedings with justification for why they are submitted at this stage of the proceedings. 
Zato se dodatni podatki ali dokazi lahko sprejmejo, če so na prvi pogled verjetno pomembna za izid postopka in če so predložena v zgodnji fazi postopka skupaj z utemeljitvijo, zakaj so predložena v tej fazi postopka.
There may be other relevant factors. 
Obstajajo lahko tudi drugi upoštevni dejavniki.
The intention to prolong the proceedings by submitting evidence in parts (delaying tactics), if the circumstances of the case allow that conclusion, argues against the admission of late evidence. 
Ob nameri, da se postopek podaljša s predložitvijo dokazov v delih (taktika zavlačevanja), če okoliščine zadeve omogočajo to ugotovitev, se prepozno predloženi dokazi ne sprejmejo.
The natural difficulties in obtaining the evidence are not, as such, a valid reason for its belated submission. 
Osnovne težave pri pridobivanju dokazov niso tehten razlog za zapoznelo predložitev.
The Office will duly provide reasons for why it rejects or takes into account ‘additional evidence' in the decision. 
Urad bo v odločbi ustrezno obrazložil, zakaj zavrača ali upošteva dodatne dokaze.
3.3.2 Means of evidence 
Dokazi
The evidence of use must be provided in a structured manner. 
Dokazi o uporabi je treba predložiti strukturirano.
Essentially, the Office is prevented from making the case for one or other party and cannot take the place of the opponent, or its counsel, by itself trying to locate and identify among the documents on file the information that it might regard as supporting proof of use. 
Urad v bistvu ne more podpreti nobene stranke in prevzeti vloge vložnika ugovora ali njegovega svetovalca tako, da bi v dokumentih iz spisa sam poskušal najti in opredeliti informacije, v zvezi s katerimi bi lahko štel, da podpirajo dokaz o uporabi.
This means that the Office should not seek to improve the presentation of any party's evidence. 
To pomeni, da Urad ne sme poskušati izboljšati predstavitve dokazov strank.
Responsibility for putting evidence in order rests with the party. 
Odgovornost za ureditev dokazov nosi stranka.
Article 10(4) EUTMDR provides that the evidence of use must be submitted in accordance with Article 55 EUTMDR, which defines the basic structure and format of written evidence. 
Člen 10(4) Delegirane uredbe določa, da je treba dokaze o uporabi predložiti v skladu s členom 55 Delegirane uredbe, ki določa osnovno strukturo in obliko pisnih dokazov.
This provision means that the submission must clearly identify the evidence and arguments raised by the parties and thus assure expeditious proceedings. 
Ta določba pomeni, da je treba v vlogi jasno opredeliti dokaze in navedbe strank, s čimer se zagotovi hiter postopek.
Pursuant to Article 55(3) EUTMDR, where the submissions or the annexes do not comply with the requirements set, the Office may invite the opponent to remedy any deficiency, within a set time limit. 
Če vloga ali priloge ne izpolnjujejo določenih pogojev, lahko Urad v skladu s členom 55(3) Delegirane uredbe vložnika ugovora pozove, naj pomanjkljivosti odpravi v roku, ki ga določi.
If the deficiencies are not remedied and it is still not possible for the Office to clearly establish to which ground or argument a document or item refers, that item of evidence will not be taken into account (Article 55(4) EUTMDR). 
Če se pomanjkljivosti ne odpravijo in če Urad še vedno ne more jasno opredeliti, na kateri razlog ali navedbo se dokument ali dokaz nanaša, se ta dokaz ne upošteva (člen 55(4) Delegirane uredbe).
In terms of format and content of evidence submitted, Article 55(2) EUTMDR provides that the documents or other items of evidence must be contained in annexes to a submission, which must be numbered consecutively. 
V zvezi z obliko in vsebino predloženih dokazov o ugledu člen 55 Delegirane uredbe določa, da morajo biti dokumentacija ali drugi dokazi predloženi v prilogah k vlogam, ki so zaporedno oštevilčene.
Submissions for documents with evidence of use must include an index indicating, for each document or item annexed the following: 
Vloge za dokumente z dokazi morajo vsebovati kazalo, ki za vsak dokument ali priložen dokaz navaja:
1. the number of each annex; 
številko vsake priloge;
2. a short description of the document or item, and if applicable, the number of pages; 
kratek opis dokumenta ali dokazi in, kjer je to potrebno, število strani;
3. the page number of the submission where the document or item is mentioned. 
številko strani vloge, kjer se sklicuje na zadevni dokument ali dokaz.
The opponent may also indicate, in the index of annexes, which specific parts of a document it relies upon in support of its arguments. 
Vložnik ugovora lahko v kazalu prilog navede tudi, na katere dele dokumenta opira svoje navedbe.
In addition, the Office recommends that the following be taken into account as key aspects of a structured presentation: 
Poleg tega Urad priporoča, naj se kot ključni vidiki strukturirane predložitve upoštevajo naslednje točke:
1. the corresponding file number (EUTM, Opposition, Cancellation and Appeal) should be included at the top of all correspondence; 
ustrezno številka spisa (blagovna znamka EU, ugovor, izbris in pritožba) je treba navesti na zgornjem delu celotne korespondence;
2. the Office strongly recommends that the opponent does not exceed a maximum of 110 pages in its correspondence; 
Urad vložniku ugovora močno priporoča, naj ne preseže največjega števila korespondence, ki je 110 strani;
3. if the documentation is sent in different packages, an indication of the number of packages is recommended, 
če je dokumentacija poslana v različnih paketih, je priporočljivo navesti število paketov;
4. if a large amount of documentation is submitted by fax in different batches, an indication of the total number of pages, number of batches and identification of the pages contained in each batch is recommended; 
če so po telefaksu predložene velike količine dokumentov v različnih sklopih, je priporočljivo navesti skupno število strani, število sklopov in število strani, ki jih vsebujejo posamezni sklopi;
5. plain DIN-A4 sheets should be used in preference to other formats or devices for all the documents submitted, including separators between annexes or enclosures, as they can also be scanned; 
za vse predložene dokumente, vključno z ločilnimi listi med prilogami, raje uporabite navadne liste DIN-A4 namesto drugih oblik ali sredstev, saj jih je mogoče tudi skenirati;
7. original documents or items sent to the Office should not be stapled, bound or placed in folders; 
izvirni dokumenti ali izdelki, poslani Uradu, ne smejo biti speti, vezani ali vloženi v mape;
8. the second copy for forwarding to the other party should be clearly identified; 
drugi izvod, ki se pošlje drugi stranki, mora biti jasno opredeljen;
9. if the original is submitted to the Office only by fax, no second fax copy should be sent; 
če je izvirni dokument predložen Uradu le po telefaksu, druge kopije po telefaksu ni treba pošiljati;
10. the front page should clearly indicate whether the correspondence submitted contains colour elements of relevance to the file; 
na prvi strani je treba jasno navesti, ali predložena korespondenca vsebuje barvne elemente, ki so pomembni za spis;
11. a second set of colour elements should be included for sending to the other party. 
priložiti je treba drugi sklop barvnih dokumentov, ki se pošljejo drugi stranki.
These recommendations together with the requirements for written evidence set in Article 55(2) EUTMDR are sent to the opponent together with the Office's communication of the applicant's request for proof of use. 
Ta priporočila in zahteve glede pisnih dokazov iz člena 55(2) Delegirane uredbe se skupaj s sporočilom Urada o prijaviteljevi zahtevi za dokaz o uporabi pošljejo vložniku ugovora.
According to Article 10(4) EUTMDR, the evidence is to be submitted in accordance with Article 55(2) and Articles 63 and 64 EUTMDR and, in principle, is confined to the submission of supporting documents and items such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs, newspaper advertisements, and statements in writing as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR. 
V skladu s členom 10(4) Delegirane uredbe je treba dokaze predložiti v skladu s členom 55(2) ter členoma 63 in 64 Delegirane uredbe, pri čemer so načeloma omejena na predložitev dodatne dokumentacije in predmetov, kot so embalaža, nalepke, ceniki, katalogi, računi, fotografije, časopisni oglasi in pisne izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.