natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Germany, however, the right to an unregistered trade mark is acquired through use that has led to recognition by the relevant public of it as a trade mark (Verkehrsgeltung). 
V Nemčiji pa se pravica do neregistrirane blagovne znamke pridobi z uporabo, ki je privedla do tega, da jo je upoštevna javnost prepoznala kot blagovno znamko (Verkehrsgeltung).
According to case-law, distinctive signs require 20 to 25 % recognition whereas non-distinctive signs must demonstrate recognition by 50 % of the relevant public. 
V skladu s sodno prakso se za razlikovalne znake zahteva od 20- do 25-odstotna prepoznavnost, za znake brez razlikovalnega učinka pa je treba dokazati prepoznavnost pri 50 % upoštevne javnosti.
3.3.2 European standard - use in the course of trade of more than mere local significance 
Evropski standard - uporaba v gospodarskem prometu z več kot le lokalnim pomenom
Under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the existence of an earlier non-registered trade mark or of another sign gives good grounds for opposition if the sign satisfies, inter alia, the following conditions: it must be used in the course of trade and the use must be of more than mere local significance. 
Na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU obstoj prejšnje neregistrirane blagovne znamke ali drugega znaka pomeni dober razlog za ugovor, če znak med drugim izpolnjuje naslednje pogoje: mora se uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu in uporaba mora biti več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The above two conditions are apparent from the very wording of Article 8(4) EUTMR (reiterated in Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR), and must, therefore, be interpreted in the light of EU law. 
Zgoraj navedena pogoja sta razvidna iz besedila člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (ponovljeno v členu 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe) in ju je treba zato razlagati v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
The common purpose of the two conditions laid down in Article 8(4) EUTMR is to limit conflicts between signs by preventing an earlier right that is not sufficiently definite - that is to say, important and significant in the course of trade - from preventing registration of a new European Union trade mark. 
Skupni cilj obeh pogojev iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je omejevanje sporov v zvezi z znaki, s čimer se prepreči, da bi prejšnja pravica, ki ni dovolj prepoznavna, tj. pomembna in znatna v gospodarskem prometu, ovirala registracijo nove blagovne znamke Evropske unije.
A right of opposition of that kind must be reserved to signs which actually have a real presence on their relevant market (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 157). 
Takšna možnost ugovora mora biti omejena na znake, ki so učinkovito in dejansko prisotni na svojem upoštevnem trgu (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 157).
3.3.2.1 Use in the course of trade 
Uporaba v gospodarskem prometu
The first requirement under Article 8(4) EUTMR is that the sign must be used in the course of trade. 
Prva zahteva na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je, da se mora znak uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu.
The notion of ‘use in the course of trade' in accordance with Article 8(4) EUTMR is not the same as ‘genuine use' in accordance with Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR (30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 24-27). 
Pojem „uporaba v gospodarskem prometu“ v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne pomeni enako kot „resna in dejanska uporaba“ v skladu s členom 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 24-27).
The aims and conditions connected with proof of genuine use of registered European Union or national trade marks are different from those relating to proof of use in the course of trade of the signs referred to in Article 8(4) EUTMR (09/07/2010, T430/08, Grain Millers, EU:T:2010:304, § 26; 29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 143). 
Cilji in pogoji, povezani z dokazi o resni in dejanski uporabi registriranih blagovnih znamk Evropske unije ali nacionalnih blagovnih znamk, se razlikujejo od tistih, ki se nanašajo na dokaze o uporabi znakov v gospodarskem prometu iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (09/07/2010, T430/08, Grain Millers, EU:T:2010:304, § 26; 29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 143).
Therefore, use must be interpreted according to the particular type of right at issue. 
Zato je treba uporabo razlagati v skladu z zadevno vrsto zadevne pravice.
The Court of Justice ruled that the ‘use of the sign in the course of trade' within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR refers to the use of the sign ‘in the course of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter' (12/11/2002, C206/01, Arsenal, EU:C:2002:651, § 40; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 18; 11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 17). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da se „uporaba znaka v gospodarskem prometu“ v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša na uporabo tega znaka v okviru poslovne dejavnosti zaradi pridobivanja gospodarske koristi in ne na zasebnem področju (12/11/2002, C206/01, Arsenal, EU:C:2002:651, § 40; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 18; 11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 17).
However, the Court of Justice also ruled that deliveries made without charge may be taken into account in order to ascertain whether the requirement for use of the earlier right in the course of trade has been met, since those deliveries could have been made in the context of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage, namely to acquire new outlets (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 152). 
Vendar je Sodišče ugotovilo tudi, da je mogoče brezplačne dobave upoštevati za preizkus zahteve glede uporabe prejšnje pravice v gospodarskem prometu, saj so lahko te dobave potekale v okviru poslovne dejavnosti zaradi pridobivanja gospodarske koristi, in sicer osvojitve novih trgov (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 152).
As far as the time of use of the sign is concerned, an opponent must prove that use took place before the filing of the EUTM application or the priority date if relevant (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 166-168). 
V zvezi z obdobjem uporabe znaka mora vložnik ugovora dokazati, da se je znak uporabljal pred vložitvijo prijave za blagovno znamko EU ali pred datumom prednostne pravice, kadar je to ustrezno (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 166-168).
Moreover, it must be clear from the evidence that the use continues on the date of the filing of the opposition. 
Poleg tega mora biti iz dokazov razvidno, da se uporaba na datum vložitve ugovora nadaljuje.
In this context, Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR expressly states that if an opposition is based on an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opponent must provide evidence of its acquisition, continued existence (emphasis added) and scope of protection of that right. 
V zvezi s tem je v členu 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe izrecno navedeno, da mora vložnik ugovora, če ugovor temelji na prejšnji pravici v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, predložiti dokaz o njeni pridobitvi, nadaljnjem obstoju (dodan je poudarek) in obsegu varstva te pravice.
The following is an example of an inter partes case relating to invalidity proceedings. 
V nadaljevanju je naveden primer zadeve inter partes v zvezi s postopkom za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The reasoning and the findings also apply to oppositions, given that Article 8(4) EUTMR is a ground that can be invoked both in opposition and in invalidity. 
Obrazložitev in ugotovitve se uporabljajo tudi za ugovore, glede na to, da je člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlog, na katerega se je mogoče sklicevati v ugovoru in postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti:
The requirement that the sign be used in the course of trade must, as stated above, be interpreted in the light of EU law. 
Zahtevo, da se mora znak uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu, je treba, kot je bilo navedeno že zgoraj, razlagati v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
It must be distinguished from the requirements provided for under the applicable national laws that might set specific requirements as far as the intensity of the use is concerned. 
Razlikovati jo je treba od zahtev, ki so določene na podlagi veljavnih nacionalnih zakonodaj, ki lahko določajo posebne zahteve v zvezi z intenzivnostjo uporabe.
The European Union use requirement as prescribed by Article 8(4) EUTMR applies independently of whether national law allows prohibition of a subsequent trade mark on the basis of the registration of a sign alone, that is, without any requirement relating to use. 
Zahteva Evropske unije glede uporabe, kot določa člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, se uporablja neodvisno od tega, ali nacionalna zakonodaja dovoljuje prepoved poznejše blagovne znamke na podlagi le registracije znaka, tj. brez kakršne koli zahteve v zvezi z uporabo.
The following is an example where the opponent relied on the registration, at national level, of a trade name, but failed to prove that the sign was used in trade. 
Naveden je primer, ko se je vložnik ugovora skliceval na registracijo trgovskega imena na nacionalni ravni, vendar ni dokazal, da se je znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu.
Depending on the applicable national law, an opponent might have to prove not only that the sign relied on is used in the course of trade (this being, as stated, a requirement under EU law), but also that it has been registered with the competent national authorities. 
Glede na veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo se lahko od vložnika ugovora zahteva, da dokaže, ne samo, da se znak, na katerega se sklicuje, uporablja v gospodarskem prometu (to je, kot je navedeno, zahteva na podlagi zakonodaje EU), temveč da je bil tudi registriran pri pristojnih nacionalnih organih.
It would not be sufficient that the European Union requirement of ‘use in trade' is met if the registration requirement is not fulfilled. 
Izpolnitev zahteve Evropske unije o „uporabi v gospodarskem prometu“ ne bi bila dovolj, če ne bi bila izpolnjena tudi zahteva glede registracije.
However, under certain national laws, rights in a company name may be invoked, as long as the company name has been used, prior to the registration of the entity in the companies register. 
Vendar se je mogoče na podlagi nekaterih nacionalnih zakonodaj sklicevati na pravice v zvezi z imenom podjetja, če se je ime podjetja uporabljalo pred vpisom subjekta v register podjetij.
The following is an example where the opponent invoked prior rights in a company name used in the course of trade in Germany that was not registered at the time of filing the contested EUTM application. 
Naveden je primer, ko se je vložnik ugovora skliceval na prejšnje pravice v zvezi z imenom podjetja, ki se je uporabljalo v gospodarskem prometu v Nemčiji in ki v času vložitve izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU ni bilo registrirano.
A sign is used in the course of trade where that use occurs in the context of commercial activity with a view to economic advantage and not as a private matter. 
Znak se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu, če se navedena uporaba izvaja v okviru poslovne dejavnosti zaradi pridobivanja gospodarske koristi, in ne na zasebnem področju.
Therefore, the Office will reject an opposition in the absence of actual use of the invoked sign. 
Zato bo Urad v odsotnosti dejanske uporabe znaka, na katerega se vložnik ugovora sklicuje, ugovor zavrnil.
The following are examples where the opponent failed to meet this basic requirement. 
Navedena sta primera, ko vložnik ugovora ni izpolnjeval te osnovne zahteve.
3.3.2.2 Use of more than mere local significance 
Uporaba z več kot le lokalnim pomenom
Rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR may only be invoked if their use is of more than mere local significance. 
Na pravice, ki spadajo v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, se je mogoče sklicevati samo, če je njihova uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
This requirement applies for all the rights within the scope of Article 8(4) EUTMR, that is, both to unregistered trade marks and to other trade signs identifying commercial origin. 
Ta zahteva se uporablja za vse pravice na področju uporabe člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, tj. za neregistrirane blagovne znamke in druge trgovske znake, ki označujejo tržni izvor.
The proprietors of rights the use of which is of mere local significance retain their exclusive rights under the applicable national law pursuant to Article 138 EUTMR. 
Imetniki pravic, katerih uporaba je več kot le lokalnega pomena, ohranijo svoje izključne pravice v okviru veljavne nacionalne zakonodaje v skladu s členom 138 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The question whether the use of a non-registered sign is of more than mere local significance will be answered by applying a uniform European standard (18/04/2013, T506/11 & T507/11, Peek & Cloppenburg, EU:T:2013:197, § 19, 47-48). 
Na vprašanje, ali je uporaba neregistriranega znaka več kot le lokalnega pomena, se odgovori z uporabo enotnega evropskega standarda (18/04/2013, T506/11 in T507/11, Peek & Cloppenburg, EU:T:2013:197, § 19, 47-48).
The General Court held that the significance of a sign used to identify specific business activities must be established in relation to the identifying function of that sign. 
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je treba pomen znaka, ki se uporablja za označevanje specifičnih poslovnih dejavnosti, opredeliti glede na njegovo vlogo označevanja.
That consideration means that account must be taken, firstly, of the geographical dimension of the sign's significance, that is to say, of the territory in which it is used to identify its proprietor's economic activity, as is apparent from a textual interpretation of Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Ta ugotovitev pomeni, da je treba upoštevati, prvič, ozemeljsko razsežnost pomena znaka, torej ozemlje, na katerem se uporablja za označevanje gospodarske dejavnosti njegovega imetnika, kot je razvidno iz besedne razlage člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Account must be taken, secondly, of the economic dimension of the sign's significance, which is assessed in view of the length of time for which it has fulfilled its function in the course of trade and the degree to which it has been used, of the group of addressees among which the sign in question has become known as a distinctive element, namely consumers, competitors or even suppliers, or even of the exposure given to the sign, for example, through advertising or on the internet (24/03/2009, T318/06 - T321/06, General Optica, EU:T:2009:77, § 36-37; 30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 19). 
Upoštevati je treba, drugič, gospodarsko razsežnost pomena znaka, ki se presoja ob upoštevanju časa, v katerem je imetnik opravljal svojo vlogo v gospodarskem prometu, in intenzivnosti njegove uporabe glede na krog naslovnikov, ki jim je zadevni znak postal znan kot razlikovalni element, torej potrošnikom, konkurentom ali celo dobaviteljem, in glede na širjenje prepoznavnosti znaka na primer z oglaševanjem ali po spletu (24/03/2009, T318/06 - T321/06, General Optica, EU:T:2009:77, § 36-37; 30/09/2010, T534/08, Granuflex, EU:T:2010:417, § 19).
The Court of Justice clarified that the significance of a sign cannot be a function of the mere geographical extent of its protection, since, if that were the case, a sign whose protection is not merely local could, by virtue of that fact alone, prevent registration of a European Union trade mark, even though the sign might be used only to a very limited extent in the course of trade. 
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da pomen znaka ne more biti odvisen le od geografskega obsega njegovega varstva, saj če bi bilo tako, bi lahko znak, ki ni zaščiten le v lokalnem obsegu, že le zato oviral registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije, in to tudi če bi se v gospodarskem prometu uporabljal le v zelo omejenem obsegu.
The sign must be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 158-159). 
Znak se mora uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu v dovolj velikem obsegu in imeti geografski obseg, ki je več kot le lokalen, kar pomeni, da se ta znak, kadar je mogoče šteti, da ozemlje, na katerem je zaščiten, ni le lokalno, uporablja na velikem delu tega ozemlja (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 158-159).
However, it is not possible to establish a priori, in an abstract manner, which part of a territory must be used to prove that the use of a sign is of more than mere local significance. 
Vendar ni mogoče vnaprej teoretično določiti, kateri del ozemlja je treba uporabiti kot dokaz, da je uporaba znaka več kot le lokalnega pomena.
Therefore, the assessment of the sign's significance must be made in concreto, according to the circumstances of each case. 
Zato je treba izvesti konkretno oceno pomena znaka v skladu z okoliščinami posameznega primera.
Therefore, the criterion of ‘more than mere local significance' is more than just a geographical examination. 
Iz tega sledi, da merilo „več kot le lokalni pomen“ vključuje več kot le proučitev ozemeljske razsežnosti.
The economic impact of the use of the sign must also be evaluated. 
Proučiti je treba tudi gospodarski učinek uporabe znaka.
Consideration must be given, and the evidence must relate, to these elements: 
Upoštevati je treba naslednje elemente, na katere se morajo nanašati tudi dokaze:
a) the intensity of use (sales made under the sign) 
intenzivnost uporabe (prodaje na podlagi znaka);
b) the length of use 
trajanje uporabe;
c) the spread of the goods (location of the customers) 
razširjenost blaga (lokacija strank);
d) the advertising under the sign and the media used for that advertising, including the distribution of the advertising. 
oglaševanje na podlagi znaka in sredstva, ki se uporabljajo za navedeno oglaševanje, vključno z razširjanjem oglasov.
In the following examples, both the geographic and the economic dimension of use of the sign were found to meet the standards. 
V naslednjih primerih sta ozemeljska in gospodarska razsežnost znaka v skladu s standardi.
As far as the use of the sign is concerned, in general, neither the territory of a city alone, even a large one, nor a regional district or province, is of more than mere local significance. 
V zvezi z uporabo znaka na splošno ni več kot le lokalnega pomena niti samo ozemlje mesta, tudi velikega, niti okrožje ali pokrajina.
It will depend on the circumstances of the case (see examples below). 
Pomen bo odvisen od okoliščin primera (glej primere v nadaljevanju).
The leading judgment in this respect is the one rendered by the General Court in the General Óptica case, where use of the sign was confined to a specific locality and was, therefore, insufficient to meet the prescribed requirements. 
V zvezi s tem je najpomembnejša sodba tista, ki jo je Splošno sodišče sprejelo v zadevi General Optica, v kateri je bila uporaba znaka omejena na določen kraj in zato ni bila zadostna za izpolnitev predpisanih zahtev:
The notion that the use in trade of the sign relied on must be proven in the territory of the Member State/s where protection is sought is not incompatible with use of the sign in connection with cross-border commercial transactions. 
Zamisel, da je treba uporabo uveljavljanega znaka v gospodarskem prometu dokazati na ozemlju države članice ali več držav članic, na katerem se zahteva varstvo, je v skladu z uporabo znaka v povezavi s čezmejnim trgovinskim poslovanjem.
The following are examples where the opponent failed to prove that the economic dimension of the use of the signs concerned was sufficient to meet the prescribed legal requirements. 
V naslednjih primerih vložniku ugovora ni uspelo dokazati, da gospodarska razsežnost uporabe zadevnih znakov zadostuje za izpolnitev predpisanih pravnih zahtev.
3.3.2.3 Nature of the use 
Narava uporabe
Use of a sign relied on under Article 8(4) EUTMR must be made in accordance with the essential function of such a sign. 
Uporaba znaka, ki se uveljavlja na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora biti v skladu z bistveno funkcijo takšnega znaka.
This means that if an opponent relies on a non-registered trade mark, proof of use of the sign as a company name would not be sufficient to substantiate the earlier right. 
Če vložnik ugovora torej uveljavlja neregistrirano znamko, dokaz o uporabi znaka kot imena podjetja ne bi zadostoval za utemeljitev prejšnje pravice.
The following is an example where the evidence shows use of a sign whose function does not correspond to that of the sign relied on. 
V naslednjem primeru dokazi kažejo na uporabo znaka, katerega funkcija ni v skladu s funkcijo znaka, ki se uveljavlja.
The requirement that the sign must be used in trade for its own particular economic function does not exclude that the same sign might be used for several purposes. 
Zahteva, da je treba znak uporabljati v gospodarskem prometu zaradi njegove posebne gospodarske funkcije, ne izključuje možnosti, da se isti znak uporablja tudi za druge namene.
It is common market practice to also use company or trade names as trade marks, either alone, or together with other product identifiers. 
Običajna tržna praksa je, da se tudi imena podjetij ali trgovska imena uporabljajo kot blagovne znamke, bodisi samostojno bodisi skupaj z drugimi identifikatorji proizvodov.
This is the case when use of a ‘house mark' is concerned, that is, an indication which usually coincides with the manufacturer's company or trade name and which not only identifies the product or service as such, but also provides a direct link between one or more product/service lines and a specific undertaking. 
To velja v primeru, ki se nanaša na uporabo „krovne znamke“, tj. označbe, ki običajno sovpada s proizvajalčevim imenom podjetja ali trgovskim imenom ter označuje proizvod ali storitev kot tako in zagotavlja neposredno povezavo med eno ali več proizvodnimi/storitvenimi linijami ter posameznim podjetjem.
Therefore, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, in a case where an opponent relies on a non-registered trade mark, the use of the same sign as a company name or trade name may well also accomplish the function of indicating the origin of the goods/services concerned (thus, a trade mark function), as long as the sign is used in such a way that a link is established between the sign that constitutes the company or trade name and the goods marketed or the services provided (11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 22-23). 
Glede na posamezne okoliščine primera lahko torej uporaba istega znaka kot imena podjetja ali trgovskega imena, kadar vložnik ugovora uveljavlja neregistrirano blagovno znamko, izpolnjuje tudi funkcijo označbe porekla zadevnega blaga/storitev (zato funkcija blagovne znamke), če se znak uporablja tako, da se vzpostavi povezava med znakom, ki pomeni ime podjetja ali trgovsko ime, in blagom, ki se trži, ali storitvami, ki se ponujajo (11/09/2007, C17/06, Céline, EU:C:2007:497, § 22-23).
Use must be made in accordance with the essential function of such a sign, namely to guarantee to consumers in the course of trade the geographical origin of the goods and the special qualities inherent in them (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147, 149,). 
Znak se mora uporabljati v skladu z bistveno funkcijo takega znaka, in sicer mora potrošnikom zagotavljati geografsko poreklo proizvodov in njihove svojstvene značilnosti (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 147, 149).
Therefore, documents mentioning a geographical indication exclusively in a non-trade context are not sufficient for the purposes of Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Zato dokumenti, ki navajajo geografsko označbo izključno v okviru, ki ni povezan z uporabo v gospodarskem prometu, ne zadostujejo za namene člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.4 Earlier right 
Prejšnja pravica
The right invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR must be earlier than the EUTM application. 
Pravica, ki je predmet sklicevanja na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora obstajati pred prijavo blagovne znamke EU.