natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘In the present case, SPA and SPA-FINDERS designate very different goods consisting, on the one hand, in mineral waters and, on the other, in publications and travel agency services. 
„V zadevnem primeru znamki SPA in SPA-FINDERS označujeta zelo različne proizvode, po eni strani mineralne vode, po drugi strani publikacije in storitve potovalnih agencij.
The Court finds that it is therefore unlikely that the goods and services covered by the mark SPA-FINDERS, even if they turn out to be of lower quality, would diminish the power of attraction of the mark SPA' (para. 49). 
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je zato malo verjetno, da bi proizvodi in storitve, označeni z znamko SPA-FINDERS, celo če bi bili slabše kakovosti, zmanjšali privlačnost znamke SPA“ (točka 49).
The applicant neither cited, nor a fortiori proved, any characteristic or quality of that kind. 
Tožeča stranka ni navedla ali a fortiori dokazala nobene take značilnosti ali lastnosti.
The mere existence of a connection between the services covered by the conflicting marks is neither sufficient nor determinative. 
Zgolj obstoj zveze med storitvami, na katere se nanašata nasprotujoči si znamki, ni niti zadosten niti odločilen.
It is true that the existence of such a connection strengthens the probability that the public, faced with the mark applied for, would also think of the earlier mark. 
Obstoj take zveze sicer poveča verjetnost, da javnost, ki se sreča s prijavljeno znamko, prav tako pomisli na prejšnjo znamko.
However, that factor is not, in itself, sufficient to diminish the earlier mark's power of attraction. 
Vendar pa ta okoliščina sama ni dovolj za zmanjšanje privlačnosti prejšnje znamke.
Such an outcome can arise only if it is established that the services covered by the mark applied for have characteristics or qualities that are potentially detrimental to the reputation of the earlier mark. 
Do takega izida lahko pride zgolj, če je dokazano, da imajo storitve, na katere se nanaša prijavljena znamka, značilnosti ali lastnosti, ki bi lahko morebiti škodile ugledu prejšnje znamke.
Such evidence has not been adduced in the present case' (para. 67). 
Tak dokaz pa v tem primeru ni bil predložen“ (točka 67).
Reputed for crystal products, including glassware in Class 21 Alcoholic beverages, namely wines produced in the Stellenbosch district, South Africa in Class 33 
Ugled v zvezi iz izdelki iz kristala, vključno s steklenino, iz razreda 21 Alkoholne pijače, in sicer vina, pridelana v okrožju Stellenbosch v Južni Afriki, iz razreda 33
‘In the present case, on the one hand, it is not possible to attribute from the outset either any specific image to the reputed trade mark or any prima facie evidence of its tarnishment. 
V obravnavanem primeru po eni strani ni mogoče vnaprej ugotoviti posebne podobe blagovni znamki z ugledom ali dokazov, ki bi na prvi pogled kazali na njeno očrnitev.
On the other hand, the opponent has confined itself to pleading that “use and registration of the [contested] trade mark will take unfair advantage of the opponent's trade mark”, without giving any evidence or prima facie evidence, even only by way of logical deductions, of such tarnishment. 
Po drugi strani je vložnik ugovora sam potrdil, da je navedel, da bosta uporaba in registracija [izpodbijane] blagovne znamke neupravičeno izkoriščala blagovno znamko vložnika ugovora, ne da bi za to predložil kakršen koli dokaz ali dokaz, ki bi na prvi pogled podprl tako očrnitev, tudi samo z logičnimi sklepanji.
On the contrary, the Board finds no antagonism between either the nature or the way of using glassware and wine, such as that the use of the contested mark might tarnish the earlier mark's image. 
Odbor ni ugotovil nobenih nasprotij med vrsto ali načinom uporabe steklenine in vina, zaradi katerih bi lahko uporaba izpodbijane znamke očrnila podobo prejšnje znamke (točka 91).
' (para. 91). 
Št. zadeve Pripomba
26/02/2008, R 320/20072, GULLON Mini O2 (3D) / GALLETA (3D) The Board held that the applicant had due cause to represent the series of sandwich-type biscuits in the three-dimensional mark applied for, namely, to indicate to consumers the type of biscuits concerned, as defined by the relevant Spanish legislation. 
26/02/2008, R 320/20072, GULLON Mini O2 (3D) / GALLETA (3D) Odbor je odločil, da je imel prijavitelj upravičen razlog za označitev serije piškotov v obliki sendviča s tridimenzionalno znamko, za katero je vložil prijavo, in sicer da bi potrošnikom v skladu z veljavno špansko zakonodajo sporočil, za katero vrsto piškotov gre.
30/07/2007, R 1244/20061, MARTINI FRATELLI (fig.) / MARTINI The Board confirmed that the applicant had two good reasons to use the name MARTINI in the mark applied for: (i) MARTINI is the family name of the founder of the applicant's company, and (ii) a coexistence agreement was signed in 1990. 
30/07/2007, R 1244/20061, MARTINI FRATELLI (fig.) / MARTINI Odbor je potrdil, da je imel prijavitelj dva dobra razloga za uporabo imena MARTINI v znamki, za katero je bila vložena prijava: (i) MARTINI je priimek ustanovitelja podjetja prijavitelja in (ii) leta 1990 je bil podpisan sporazum o soobstoju.
20/04/2007, R 710/20062, SPA et al. / CAL SPAS The Board confirmed that the applicant had due cause to use the term SPAS as it corresponds to one of the generic uses of the term ‘spa' as indicated by the Court of First Instance in the judgment of 19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215. 
20/04/2007, R 710/20062, SPA et al. R 710/20062 Odbor je potrdil, da je imel prijavitelj upravičen razlog za uporabo izraza SPAS, saj ustreza eni od splošnih rab izraza „spa“, kot je navedlo sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi 19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215.
23/01/2009, R 237/20081 & R 263/20081, CARLO RONCATO / RONCATO et al. The business affairs of the Roncato family, showing that both parties had the right to use the name RONCATO as a trade mark in the suitcase and trunk sector, were held to constitute ‘due cause' for use of the RONCATO name in the contested trade mark. 
23/01/2009, R 237/20081 in R 263/20081, CARLO RONCATO / RONCATO et al. Bilo je odločeno, da so posli družine Roncato, iz katerih je bilo razvidno, da imata obe stranki pravico do uporabe imena RONCATO za znamko v sektorju kovčkov in potovalnih kovčkov, upravičen razlog za uporabo imena RONCATO v izpodbijani znamki.
25/08/2011, B 1 708 398, Posten AB v Česká pošta s.p. It was held that the applicant had due cause to use the figurative element of a postal horn since that device is widely used as a long-standing and historical symbol of postal services (trade mark registrations and internet evidence were submitted showing 29 European countries use the postal horn as a symbol for their postal services). 
25/08/2011, B 1 708 398, Posten AB v Česká pošta s.p. Odločeno je bilo, da je imel prijavitelj upravičen razlog za uporabo figurativnega elementa poštnega roga, saj se ta element vsesplošno uporablja kot tradicionalni in zgodovinski simbol poštnih storitev (predložene so bile registracije znamk in spletni dokazi, iz katerih je bilo razvidno, da 29 evropskih držav uporablja poštni rog kot simbol za poštne storitve).
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare The General Court held that, in order to establish due cause, it is not use per se of the contested trade mark that is required, but a reason justifying use of the trade mark. 
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare Splošno sodišče je odločilo, da se za ugotovitev upravičenega razloga ne zahteva uporaba sporne znamke kot taka, ampak razlog, ki upravičuje uporabo znamke.
In this case, the applicant merely claimed to have ‘demonstrated how and for which product the contested trade mark has been used in the past' but, even assuming that that aspect is relevant, provided no additional indication or explanation. 
V tem primeru je prijavitelj trdil samo, da je predstavil, kako in za kateri izdelek se je sporna znamka uporabljala v preteklosti, vendar tudi ob domnevi, da je ta vidik pomemben, ni zagotovil dodatnih podatkov ali pojasnil.
Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had not established due cause for such use. 
Sodišče je v skladu s tem odločilo, da prijavitelj ni dokazal upravičenega razloga za tako uporabo.
25/03/2009, T21/07, Spaline, EU:T:2009:80 The General Court held that there was no due cause, since it had not been shown that the word ‘spa' had become so necessary to the marketing of cosmetic products that the applicant could not reasonably be required to refrain from use of the mark applied for. 
25/03/2009, T21/07, Spaline, EU:T:2009:80 Splošno sodišče je odločilo, da ni upravičenega razloga, saj ni bilo dokazano, da je beseda „spa“ postala tako nujna za trženje kozmetičnih proizvodov, da od prijavitelja ne bi bilo mogoče razumno zahtevati, da ne uporablja znamke, za katero je vložil prijavo.
The argument that ‘spa' was of descriptive and generic character for cosmetic products was rejected, since such character does not extend to cosmetic products ‘but only to one of their uses or destinations'. 
Trditev, da je beseda „spa“ opisna in obča za kozmetične proizvode, je bila zavrnjena, saj se ta lastnost ne nanaša tudi na kozmetične proizvode, ampak samo na eno od njihovih rab ali namenov.
16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi The General Court held that the use of the trade mark Citi in just one EU Member State (Spain) could not constitute due cause because, first, the extent of geographical protection of the national trade mark did not correspond to the territory covered by the trade mark applied for, and, second, the legal validity of that national registration was subject to dispute before the national courts. 
16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi Splošno sodišče je odločilo, da se uporaba znamke Citi v samo eni državi članici (Španiji), ne more šteti za upravičen razlog, ker, prvič, obseg geografskega varstva nacionalne znamke ne ustreza ozemlju, ki ga znamka, za katero je bila vložena prijava, pokriva, in, drugič, ker se pravna utemeljenost nacionalne registracije izpodbija pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
By the same token, the ownership of the domain ‘citi.es' was held to be irrelevant. 
Iz istih razlogov tudi ni bilo upoštevno lastništvo domene „citi.es“.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq; confirmed 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq The Court held that the only argument put forward before the Board of Appeal in respect of due cause (namely, that the word Nasdaq had been chosen because it is an acronym for ‘Nuovi Articoli Sportivi Di Alta Qualità') was not convincing, noting that prepositions are not generally included in acronyms. 
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq; potrjenao s sodbo12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq Sodišče je odločilo, da edina trditev, predstavljena odboru za pritožbe v zvezi z upravičenim razlogom (tj. da je bila beseda Nasdaq izbrana, ker je kratica izraza „Nuovi Articoli Sportivi Di Alta Qualità“), ni prepričljiva, saj predlogi navadno niso del kratic.
23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD Contrary to the applicant's arguments that there was due cause because the term WATERFORD was allegedly very common in names and trade marks, the Board held that the applicant had failed to give any evidence of market coexistence of WATERFORD marks or to submit any element from which it would be possible to infer that the relevant general public (in the UK) considers Waterford as a commonplace geographical name. 
23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD V nasprotju s prijaviteljevimi trditvami, da upravičen razlog obstaja, ker naj bi bil izraz WATERFORD zelo pogost v imenih in znamkah, je odbor odločil, da prijavitelj ni predložil nobenih dokazov o soobstoju znamk WATERFORD na trgu in nobenih elementov, iz katerih bi bilo mogoče povzeti, da je Waterford po mnenju upoštevne splošne javnosti (v Združenem kraljestvu) splošno zemljepisno ime.
To the extent that such arguments play a role in assessing the uniqueness of a sign in order to establish whether the necessary link exists in the mind of the relevant public between the signs at issue, the Board held that, nevertheless, once such uniqueness had been established, such arguments cannot serve as due cause. 
Čeprav se takšne trditve upoštevajo pri presoji edinstvenosti znaka za ugotovitev obstoja potrebne povezave med spornima znakoma v zavesti upoštevne javnosti, je odbor kljub temu odločil, da se takšne trditve, ko je takšna edinstvenost potrjena, ne morejo šteti za upravičen razlog.
Furthermore, the Board noted that the condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that (a) the sign is particularly suitable for identifying the products for which it is used, (b) the applicant has already used the sign for these products or similar products within and/or outside the relevant territory of the European Union, or (c) the applicant invokes a right ensuing from a filing over which the filing of the opponent's trade mark takes precedence. 
Odbor je poleg tega navedel, da pogoj upravičenega razloga ni izpolnjen samo zato, ker (a) je znak posebno primeren za označevanje izdelkov, za katere se uporablja, ker (b) prijavitelj že uporablja ta znak za te ali podobne izdelke na upoštevnem ozemlju Evropske unije in/ali zunaj tega ozemlja ali ker (c) prijavitelj uveljavlja pravico, ki izhaja iz vložitve, pred katero ima vložitev znamke vložnika ugovora prednost.
22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO According to the Court, the fact that the applicant's forename is Kenzo is not enough, for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR, to constitute due cause for use of the mark applied for. 
22/01/2015, T322/13, KENZO Sodišče je odločilo, da za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot upravičeni razlog za uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, ne zadostuje, da je ime prijavitelja Kenzo.
06/10/2006, R 428/20052, TISSOT / TISSOT The Board held that the applicant's claim (unsubstantiated by any evidence) that the sign TISSOT is derived from the name of a trading company associated with the applicant's company since the early 1970s, would, even if proven, not amount, on its own, to ‘due cause' within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
06/10/2006, R 428/20052, TISSOT / TISSOT Odbor je odločil, da prijaviteljeva trditev (ki ni bila podprta z dokazi), da je znak TISSOT izpeljan iz imena trgovinske družbe, povezane s prijaviteljevo družbo od začetka sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, tudi če bi bila dokazana, sama po sebi ne bi zadostovala za upravičen razlog v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
People who inherit a surname that happens to coincide with a famous trade mark should not assume that they are entitled to use it in business in a manner that would unfairly take advantage of the reputation that has been built up by the efforts of the brand owner. 
Osebe, ki podedujejo priimek, ki se slučajno ujema s slavno znamko, ne bi smele domnevati, da ga lahko uporabijo pri poslovanju, tako da bi neupravičeno izkoristile ugled, ki ga je imetnik znamke ustvaril s svojimi prizadevanji.
18/08/2005, R 1062/20004, GRAMMY / GRAMMY The applicant argued that GRAMMY is an internationally easy and nice-sounding abbreviation of the applicant's family name (Grammatikopoulos). 
18/08/2005, R 1062/20004, GRAMMY / GRAMMY Prijavitelj je trdil, da je GRAMMY mednarodna blagozvočna okrajšava prijaviteljevega priimka (Grammatikopoulos).
The Board rejected this argument as insufficient to establish the due cause that could prevent the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Odbor je to trditev zavrnil kot nezadostno za ugotovitev upravičenega razloga, ki bi lahko preprečil uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, MARIE CLAIRE (fig.) / MARIE CLAIRE et al. Due cause under Article 8(5) EUTMR means that, notwithstanding the detriment caused to, or unfair advantage taken of, the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade mark, registration and use by the applicant of the mark for the goods applied for may be justified if the applicant cannot be reasonably required to abstain from using the contested mark, or if the applicant has a specific right to use the mark for such goods that takes precedence over the earlier trade mark invoked in the opposition proceedings. 
15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, MARIE CLAIRE (fig.) / MARIE CLAIRE et al. Upravičen razlog v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pomeni, da sta lahko registracija in uporaba prijaviteljeve znamke za blago, za katero je vložil prijavo, ne glede na oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke upravičeni, če od prijavitelja ni mogoče razumno zahtevati, naj ne uporablja izpodbijane znamke, ali če ima prijavitelj posebno pravico do uporabe znamke za tako blago, ki ima prednost pred prejšnjo znamko, na katero se nanaša postopek ugovora.
In particular, the condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that (a) the sign is particularly suitable for identifying the products for which it is used, (b) the applicant has already used the sign for these products or similar products within and/or outside the relevant territory of the EU, or (c) the applicant invokes a trade mark with a filing date that is earlier than the opponent's trade mark (decision of 25/04/2001, R 283/19993, HOLLYWOOD). 
Zlasti pogoj upravičenega razloga ni izpolnjen samo zato, ker (a) je znak posebno primeren za označevanje izdelkov, za katere se uporablja, ker (b) prijavitelj že uporablja ta znak za te ali podobne izdelke na upoštevnem ozemlju EU in/ali zunaj tega ozemlja ali ker (c) prijavitelj uveljavlja znamko z datumom vložitve, ki je starejši od znamke (odločba 25/04/2001, R 283/19993, HOLLYWOOD).
As regards the tolerance of the proprietor of the earlier mark, the Board held that such tolerance was merely for magazines and not for goods closer to its market sector (i.e. textiles). 
V zvezi s toleranco imetnika prejšnje znamke je odbor odločil, da ta toleranca vključuje samo revije, ne pa tudi blaga, ki je bližje njegovemu tržnemu sektorju (tj. tekstil).
It noted that national case-law showed that while protection exists for each party within its own field of business, extension should be refused when they come closer to the other party's field of activities and could infringe upon their rights. 
Navedel je, da je iz nacionalne sodne prakse razvidno, da čeprav je vsaki stranki zagotovljeno varstvo na njenem poslovnem področju, je treba zavrniti razširitev tega področja, če se približa področju dejavnosti druge stranke in bi lahko kršila njene pravice.
In light of these factors, the Board held that the coexistence did not constitute due cause permitting registration of a EUTM. 
Glede na te dejavnike je odbor odločil, da soobstoj ne pomeni upravičenega razloga, ki bi omogočil registracijo blagovne znamke EU.
26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, § 116, 125 and 126 Regarding the applicant's argument that it has due cause to use the mark applied for (Citigate), because it has used a variety of marks consisting of or containing Citigate in relation to the goods and services for which registration is sought, the Court stated the following: it should be noted that the documents produced by the applicant simply show that there are various companies whose business name contains the word Citigate and a number of domain names that also contain that word. 
26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, § 116, 125 in 126 Glede prijaviteljeve trditve, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke, za katero je vložil prijavo (Citigate), ker uporablja več znamk, ki jih beseda Citigate označuje ali jo vsebujejo, v zvezi z blagom in storitvami, ki jih želi registrirati, je Sodišče navedlo: opozoriti je treba, da je iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil prijavitelj, razvidno samo, da obstaja več družb, katerih poslovno ime vsebuje besedo Citigate, in več imen domen, ki prav tako vsebujejo to besedo.
That evidence is not sufficient to establish due cause, because it does not demonstrate actual use of the Citigate mark. 
Ta dokaz ni zadosten na ugotovitev upravičenega razloga, ker ne dokazuje dejanske uporabe znamke Citigate.
As regards the applicant's argument that it has due cause to use the mark applied for since the interveners have acquiesced to the use of Citigate in relation to the goods and services covered by the application for registration, the Court stated that the possibility cannot be excluded that, in certain cases, the coexistence of earlier marks on the market could reduce (…) the likelihood of a connection being made between two marks in accordance with Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
V zvezi s prijaviteljevo trditvijo, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke, za katero je vložil prijavo, ker so intervenienti privolili v uporabo besede Citigate v zvezi z blagom in storitvami, vključenimi v prijavo za registracijo, je Sodišče navedlo, da v nekaterih primerih ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da bi se lahko zaradi soobstoja prejšnjih znamk na trgu zmanjšala [...] verjetnost vzpostavitve zveze med znamkama v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In the present case, coexistence was not proven. 
V tem primeru soobstoj ni bil dokazan.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 60 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 68
1 General Considerations 5 
1 Splošni premisleki 5
1.1 Function of proof of use 5 
1.1 Funkcija dokaza o uporabi 5
1.2 Legislative framework 5 
1.2 Zakonodajni okvir 5
1.2.1 EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR 5 
1.2.1 Uredba o blagovni znamki EU, Delegirana uredba in Izvedbena uredba 5
1.2.1.1 Article 18 EUTMR - obligation to use registered marks 5 
1.2.1.1 Člen 18 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - obveznost uporabe registriranih blagovnih znamk 5
1.2.1.2 Article 47 EUTMR - consequences of lack of use 6 
1.2.1.2 Člen 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - posledice neuporabe 6
1.2.1.3 Article 10 EUTMDR - procedural rules, evidence and language 7 
1.2.1.3 Člen 10 Delegirane uredbe - postopkovna pravila, dokazi in jezik 7
1.2.2 The Directive and national law implementing it 8 
1.2.2 Direktiva in nacionalno pravo, s katerim se izvaja 8
2 Substantive Law 8 
2 Materialno pravo 8
2.1 Genuine use: the principles of the Court of Justice 8 
2.1 Resna in dejanska uporaba: načela Sodišča 8
2.2 Genuine use: standard of proof applied by the Office 9 
2.2 Resna in dejanska uporaba: dokazni standard, ki ga uporablja Urad 9
2.3 Nature of use 11 
2.3 Narava uporabe 11
2.3.1 Use of a mark in accordance with its function 11 
2.3.1 Uporaba znamke v skladu z njeno funkcijo 11
2.3.1.1 Use of individual marks 11 
2.3.1.1 Uporaba posameznih znamk 11
2.3.1.2 Use of collective and certification marks 13 
2.3.1.2 Uporaba kolektivnih in certifikacijskih znamk 13
2.3.2 Public use in the course of trade 13 
2.3.2 Javna uporaba v gospodarskem prometu 13
2.3.2.1 Public use versus internal use 13 
2.3.2.1 Javna uporaba v primerjavi z notranjo uporabo 13
2.3.2.2 Commercial activity versus promotional activity 14 
2.3.2.2 Poslovna dejavnost v primerjavi s promocijsko dejavnostjo 14
2.3.3 Use in relation to goods or services 15 
2.3.3 Uporaba v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami 15
2.3.3.1 Use in relation to goods 15 
2.3.3.1 Uporaba v zvezi z blagom 15
2.3.3.2 Use in relation to services 16 
2.3.3.2 Uporaba v zvezi s storitvami 16
2.3.3.3 Use in advertising 16 
2.3.3.3 Uporaba v oglaševanju 16
2.3.3.4 Use on the internet 18 
2.3.3.4 Uporaba na spletu 18
2.4 Place of use 19 
2.4 Kraj uporabe 19
2.4.1 Use on the ‘domestic' market 19 
2.4.1 Uporaba na domačem trgu 19
2.4.2 EUTMs: use in the European Union 20 
2.4.2 Blagovne znamke EU: uporaba v Evropski uniji 20
2.4.3 National marks: use in the relevant Member State 21 
2.4.3 Nacionalne blagovne znamke: uporaba v upoštevni državi članici 21
2.4.4 Use in the import and export trade 21 
2.4.4 Uporaba pri uvozu in izvozu 21
2.5 Time of use 22 
2.5 Čas uporabe 22
2.5.1 Oppositions filed on or after 23/03/2016 22 
2.5.1 Ugovori, vloženi 23. marca 2016 ali po tem datumu 22
2.5.2 Oppositions filed before 23/03/2016 22 
2.5.2 Ugovori, vloženi pred 23. marcem 2016 22
2.6 Extent of use 23 
2.6 Obseg uporabe 23
2.6.1 Criteria 23 
2.6.1 Merila 23
2.6.2 Examples of insufficient use 25 
2.6.2 Primeri nezadostne uporabe 25
2.6.3 Examples of sufficient use 26 
2.6.3 Primeri zadostne uporabe 26
2.7 Use of the mark in forms different from that registered 28 
2.7 Uporaba blagovne znamke v oblikah, ki se razlikujejo od registrirane oblike 28