natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Board found that the Spanish law giving effect to the bilateral agreement between Spain and Cuba for the protection of the appellation of origin ‘Cuba' was not sufficient to grant such a subjective right (paras 2327). 
Odbor je ugotovil, da španska zakonodaja, ki izvaja dvostranski sporazum med Španijo in Kubo za zaščito označbe porekla „Kuba“, ni zadostna za odobritev takšne osebne pravice (točke od 23 do 27).
JOSE PADILLA (copyright) 22/06/2010, T255/08, EU:T:2010:249 
JOSE PADILLA (avtorska pravica) 22/06/2010, T255/08, EU:T:2010:249
The Court found that copyright cannot constitute a ‘sign used in the course of trade' within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da avtorska pravica ni „znak, ki se uporablja v gospodarskem prometu“ v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
It follows that copyright is not one of the earlier rights referred to in Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Avtorska pravica torej ni prejšnja pravica iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Dr. No (copyright) T435/05 
Dr. No (avtorska pravica) T435/05
[…] the protection provided for by copyright cannot be relied on in opposition proceedings, but only in proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the European Union trade mark in question (para. 41). 
[…] se na varstvo, ki ga daje avtorsko pravo, ni mogoče sklicevati v okviru postopka z ugovorom, ampak le v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti zadevne blagovne znamke Evropske unije (točka 41).
Earlier rights Case No 
Prejšnje pravice Št. zadeve
and (Community designs) B 1 530 875 
in (modela Skupnosti) B 1 530 875
Designs are a form of intellectual property dealing with the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of an article's appearance. 
Modeli so oblika intelektualne lastnine, ki obravnavajo okrasne ali estetske vidike podobe izdelka.
Designs are deemed to be the result of a creative work that needs to be protected against unauthorised copying or imitation by third parties in order to ensure a fair return on investment. 
Modeli naj bi bili rezultat ustvarjalnega dela, ki ga je treba zaščititi pred nepooblaščenim kopiranjem ali posnemanjem tretjih oseb, da se zagotovi pravična donosnost naložbe.
They are protected as intellectual property, but they are not business identifiers or trade signs. 
Zaščiteni so kot intelektualna lastnina, vendar niso podjetniški identifikatorji ali trgovski znaki.
Therefore, designs do not qualify as signs used in the course of trade for the purpose of Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Zato se modeli ne štejejo za znake, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu za namene člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Earlier sign Case No 
Prejšnji znak Št. zadeve
The Court discussed whether use that takes place exclusively or to a large extent between the filing of an application for registration and its publication was sufficient to meet the use requirement. 
Sodišče je razpravljalo, ali je bila uporaba, ki je potekala izključno ali večinoma v obdobju med vložitvijo prijave za registracijo in njeno objavo, dovolj za izpolnitev zahteve glede uporabe.
One of the parties had argued that only the acquisition of the right had to take place before filing of the EUTM application but not its use. 
Ena od strank je trdila, da je pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU potrebna le pridobitev pravice, in ne njena uporaba.
The Court applied the same temporal condition as to the acquisition of the right and concluded that use had to take place before the filing of the application. 
Sodišče je uporabilo isto časovno merilo kot za pridobitev pravice in sklenilo, da se je morala uporaba izvajati pred vložitvijo prijave.
The Court of Justice considered that in view of the considerable period of time which may elapse between the filing of an application for registration and its publication, the obligation of use in the course of trade of the sign before the filing of the application guarantees that the use claimed for the sign concerned is real and not an exercise whose sole aim has been to prevent registration of a new trade mark (paras 166-168). 
Sodišče je menilo, da obveznost uporabe znaka v gospodarskem prometu pred vložitvijo prijave glede na dolgo obdobje, ki lahko preteče med vložitvijo prijave za registracijo in njeno objavo, zagotavlja, da je uporaba zadevnega znaka dejanska uporaba, in ne praksa, namenjena le preprečitvi registracije nove blagovne znamke (točke od 166 do 168).
BAMBOLINA (non-registered mark in a number of MS) 30/07/2010, 3 728 C (confirmed 03/08/2011, R 1822/20102; 23/10/2013, T581/11, EU:T:2013:553) 
BAMBOLINA (neregistrirana znamka v številnih državah članicah) 30/07/2010, 3 728 C (potrjeno z dne 03/08/2011, R 1822/20102; 23/10/2013, T581/11, EU:T:2013:553)
The evidence showed use in the course of trade of the non-registered trade mark for 3 years, not covering the last 2 years before the date of filing of the invalidity request. 
Iz dokazov je razvidno, da se je neregistrirana blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu uporabljala tri leta, niso pa vključevala zadnjih dveh let pred vložitvijo zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The Cancellation Division held that an earlier non-registered sign relied on in an invalidity action must be in use at the time of filing the request. 
Oddelek za izbris je odločil, da mora biti prejšnji neregistrirani znak, na katerega se sklicuje v zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti, v uporabi v času vložitve zahteve.
Since for these signs use constitutes the factual premise justifying the existence of the right, the same factual premise must still exist, and be proven, on the date of filing of the invalidity request (30/07/2010, 3 728 C, paras 25-28). 
Ker uporaba za te znake pomeni dejansko predpostavko, ki upravičuje obstoj pravice, mora ista dejanska predpostavka še vedno obstajati in biti dokazana na datum vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (odločba 30/07/2010, 3 728 C, točke od 25 do 28).
Failure to prove the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark or right within that period will lead to the opposition being rejected as unfounded. 
Če se obstoj, utemeljenost in obseg varstva prejšnje znamke ali pravice ne dokažejo v navedenem roku, bo ugovor zavrnjen kot neutemeljen.
In the Board's opinion, these provisions applied mutatis mutandis to cancellation proceedings (03/08/2011, R 1822/20102, para. 15). 
Po mnenju odbora so se te določbe smiselno uporabljale za postopek izbrisa (03/08/2011, R 1822/20102, točka 15).
NACIONAL (Portuguese name of establishment) 07/02/2010, R 693/20112 
NACIONAL (portugalsko ime obrata) 07/02/2010, R 693/20112
Under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the fact that the opponent may, in accordance with the law of Portugal, have acquired exclusive rights plainly enforceable against subsequent trade marks on the basis of the registration of a ‘name of establishment', does not exempt it from the burden of proving that the sign in question has been used in the course of trade of more than local significance. 
Na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dejstvo, da je lahko vložnik ugovora v skladu s portugalsko zakonodajo pridobil izključne pravice, ki se lahko očitno uveljavljajo zoper poznejše blagovne znamke na podlagi registracije imena obrata, ne pomeni, da mu ni treba dokazati, da se je zadevni znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu in je več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The mere fact that the sign is registered in accordance with the requirements of the respective Portuguese law is not in itself sufficient for the application of Article 8(4) EUTMR (paras 20-26). 
Le dejstvo, da je znak registriran v skladu z zahtevami zadevne portugalske zakonodaje, samo po sebi ni dovolj za uporabo člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točke od 20 do 26).
Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (German company name) T430/08 
Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (nemško ime podjetja) T430/08
The opponent invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR the company name ‘Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG' used in the course of trade in Germany for ‘flour, in particular wheat flour and rye flour'. 
Vložnik ugovora se je na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU skliceval na ime podjetja „Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG“, ki se je v gospodarskem prometu v Nemčiji uporabljalo za „moko, predvsem pšenično moko in rženo moko“.
Therefore, the opponent claimed the name of a GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, ‘limited liability company' in English). 
Vložnik ugovora je torej zahteval ime GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, ki v slovenščini pomeni „družba z omejeno odgovornostjo“).
The applicant argued that, according to Article 11(1) German Limited Companies Act (GmbH Gesetz), a GmbH does not exist before its registration and that the opponent was therefore not entitled, in support of its opposition, to rely on its business name, because the company was registered only after the filing of the contested EUTM application. 
Prijavitelj je trdil, da v skladu s členom 11(1) nemškega zakona o gospodarskih družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo (GmbH Gesetz) GmbH pred njeno registracijo ne obstaja in da zato vložnik ugovora v podporo svojemu ugovoru ni upravičen do sklicevanja na svoje poslovno ime, saj je bilo podjetje registrirano šele po vložitvi izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The Court took a different view and held that, according to the case-law of the German courts, the right to a business name exists pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of the Markengesetz from the first use in the course of trade, without the obligation to register (para. 36). 
Sodišče je sprejelo drugačno stališče in odločilo, da na podlagi sodne prakse nemških sodišč pravica v zvezi s poslovnim imenom v skladu z odstavkom 5(2) Markengesetz (nemški zakon o znamkah) obstaja od prve uporabe v gospodarskem prometu, brez obveznosti do registracije (točka 36).
Octopussy (film title, claimed to have been used in the course of trade in, inter alia, Germany) 20/04/2010, R 526/20084 
Octopussy (naslov filma, za katerega se trdi, da se je uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu, med drugim v Nemčiji) 20/04/2010, R 526/20084
The opponent merely submitted general information explaining the content of the film, its characters, gross figures, video offers on the internet and advertisements without any details as regards the relevant market. 
Vložnik ugovora je predložil le splošne informacije glede vsebine filma, njegovih likov, bruto zneskov, video ponudbe na spletu in oglaševanja, brez kakršnih koli podrobnosti v zvezi z upoštevnim trgom.
The information as regards turnover is also insufficient since it is too broad a general reference to the activities carried out by the opponent and does not specify either the type of activity or the territories concerned. 
Tudi informacije v zvezi s prihodki ne zadostujejo, saj je splošno sklicevanje na dejavnosti vložnika ugovora preveč široko in ne opredeljuje niti vrste dejavnosti niti zadevnih ozemelj.
For the same reason, the figures from a periodical, relating to the box office receipts generated by the film, have no bearing on the use of the sign in Germany. 
Iz istega razloga podatki iz revije o filmskem blagajniškem prejemku nimajo vpliva na uporabo znaka v Nemčiji.
The remaining press articles furnished by the opponent concern subjects which cannot corroborate the use of the sign in the Member States indicated. 
Drugi časopisni članki, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, se nanašajo na teme, na podlagi katerih ni mogoče ugotoviti, da se je znak uporabljal v navedenih državah članicah.
The licence agreements for merchandising do not constitute any evidence with regard to the use of the sign as a film title. 
Licenčni sporazumi o trženju ne pomenijo nobenega dokaza v zvezi z uporabo znaka kot naslova filma.
Lastly, the mere fact that the film was a worldwide success cannot substitute the obligation of the opponent to file concrete evidence with regard to the Member States in which it claims protection under Article 8(4) EUTMR (para. 26). 
Nazadnje pa le dejstvo, da je bil film svetovna uspešnica, ne more nadomestiti obveznosti vložnika ugovora, da predloži konkretne dokaze v zvezi z državami članicami, v katerih zahteva varstvo na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 26).
‘lucky-pet.de' (German domain name) R 275/20111 
lucky-pet.de (nemško domensko ime) R 275/20111
The opponent invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR the domain name ‘lucky-pet.de' used in the course of trade in Germany for ‘mats for animals; retail services with respect to pet supplies'. 
Vložnik ugovora se je na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU skliceval na domensko ime „lucky-pet.de“, ki se je v Nemčiji v gospodarskem prometu uporabljalo za preproge za živali; maloprodajne storitve v zvezi s „podlogami za hišne živali“.
It has not been proven that the domain has been used with more than local significance for the claimed goods and services. 
Ni bilo dokazano, da je bila uporaba domene za zahtevano blago in storitve več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The invoices provided and the catalogue only show the internet address www.lucky-pet.de. 
Predloženi računi in katalog prikazujejo le spletni naslov www.lucky-pet.de.
However, they do not prove that the website www.lucky-pet.de has been visited and, if so, to what extent. 
Vendar ne dokazujejo, če in kolikokrat je bilo spletno mesto obiskano.
It has neither been stated nor proven by any document how many people visited the website and ordered products via email (para. 31). 
Niti ni bilo navedeno niti z nobenim dokumentom dokazano, koliko oseb je obiskalo spletno mesto in po elektronski pošti naročilo proizvode (točka 31).
GLADIATOR (non-registered trade mark in the Czech Republic) R 1529/20101 
GLADIATOR (neregistrirana znamka na Češkem) R 1529/20101
The around 230 invoices are sufficient to conclude that the sign ‘GLADIATOR' has been used in the course of trade for ‘all terrain vehicles'. 
Približno 230 računov zadostuje za ugotovitev, da se znak „GLADIATOR“ uporablja v gospodarskem prometu za „terenska vozila“.
They are issued to the opponent's clients in Czech cities such as ‘Praha', ‘Kraslice', ‘Dolnì Lánov', ‘Pelhrimov', ‘Opava', ‘Bozkov', ‘Plzen' and many other Czech cities which cover many different areas of the Czech Republic. 
Izdajajo se strankam vložnika ugovora v čeških mestih, kot so „Praha“, „Kraslice“, „Dolnì Lánov“, „Pelhrimov“, „Opava“, „Bozkov“, „Plzen“ in številna druga češka mesta, ki obsegajo številna območja Češke.
Furthermore, the catalogues and the magazines ‘4X4 Style' from 2007 are written in Czech and it is very likely that they are distributed in different venues within the Czech Republic. 
Poleg tega so katalogi in revije „4X4 Style“ iz leta 2007 napisani v češčini ter je zelo verjetno, da se distribuirajo na raznih dogodkih na Češkem.
The documents such as the list of distributors, catalogues and magazines support the findings that the sign has been used in the course of trade (paras 22-33). 
Dokumenti, kot so seznam distributerjev, katalogi in revije, podpirajo ugotovitve, da se je znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu (točke od 22 do 33).
PORTO (Portuguese appellation of origin) B 998 510, (confirmed 12/03/2010, R 1101/20092) 
PORTO (portugalska označba porekla) Ugovor B 998 510, (potrjen 12/03/2010, R 1101/20092)
The evidence filed, and the amount and content of the legislation, regulation and registration certificates indicate that Port wine has been and is being used as an appellation of origin for wine. 
Iz predloženih dokazov ter obsega in vsebine zakonodaje, predpisov ter potrdil o registraciji je razvidno, da se je portovec uporabljal in se uporablja kot označba porekla za vino.
It is clear from the evidence in its totality that the significance of the appellation of origin is not merely local, but rather has an international impact, as reflected in its history and its use as a tool to attract tourists. 
Iz celotnih dokazov je razvidno, da označba porekla nima le lokalnega pomena, temveč ima mednarodni vpliv, kot se kaže v njeni zgodovini in uporabi kot sredstva za privabljanje turistov.
The promotion of the appellation of origin has taken place, among others, through the establishments ‘SOLAR DO VINHO DO PORTO' in Lisbon and Oporto, as well as through the ‘PORT WINE ROUTE', in the Douro region. 
Promocija označbe porekla je med drugim potekala v okviru obratov „SOLAR DO VINHO DO PORTO“ v Lizboni in Portu ter prek „VINSKE POTI PORTOVCA“ v regiji Douro.
Taking this into consideration, the Office finds that the opponent has proved that it has used its appellations of origin in the course of trade and that the use is of more than mere local significance. 
Urad ob upoštevanju tega ugotavlja, da je vložnik ugovora dokazal, da je svoje označbe porekla uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu in da je uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
Generalóptica (Portuguese establishment name) T318/06 - T321/06 
Generalóptica (portugalsko ime podjetja) T318/06 - T321/06
It is not apparent from the evidence provided by the opponent that the significance of the sign relied on in the present case is more than merely local within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Iz dokazov, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, ni razvidno, da je znak, ki se uveljavlja v tem primeru, več kot le lokalnega pomena v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
As the Board of Appeal stated in paragraph 33 of the contested decisions, it is apparent from the documents submitted by the opponent that at the time when registration of the first two European Union trade marks was applied for, the sign in question had been used for almost 10 years merely to designate a business establishment open to the public in the Portuguese town of Vila Nova de Famalicão, which has 120 000 inhabitants. 
Kot je odbor za pritožbe ugotovil v točki 33 izpodbijanih odločb, iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, ni razvidno, da se je obravnavani znak ob vložitvi zahtev za registracijo prvih dveh blagovnih znamk Evropske unije deset let uporabljal le za označevanje podjetja v portugalskem kraju Vila Nova de Famalicão, ki ima 120 000 prebivalcev.
In spite of its explanations at the hearing, the applicant did not provide any evidence of recognition of the sign by consumers or of its business relationships outside the abovementioned town. 
Tožeča stranka kljub pojasnilom med obravnavo ni predložila nobenega dokaza, ki bi potrdil njeno prepoznavnost med potrošniki ali njena poslovna razmerja zunaj zgoraj navedenega kraja.
Likewise, the applicant has not shown that it had developed any advertising activity in order to ensure that its business establishment was promoted outside that town. 
Tožeča stranka ni niti dokazala, da je za svoje podjetje razvila kakršno koli oglaševalsko dejavnost zunaj navedenega mesta.
It must therefore be held that the business establishment name Generalóptica is of mere local significance within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR (para. 44). 
Torej je treba šteti, da je ime podjetja Generalóptica le lokalnega pomena v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 44).
FORTRESS FORTRESS INVESTMENTS FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP (non-registered trade marks in the UK) 01/04/2011, R 354/20092 08/03/2011, R 355/20092 
FORTRESS FORTRESS INVESTMENTS FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP (neregistrirane blagovne znamke v Združenem kraljestvu) 01/04/2011, R 354/20092 08/03/2011, R 355/20092
The fact that the invalidity applicant was involved in the acquisition, lease-back and management of nationwide property portfolios of major UK institutions and companies proves that the use was of more than mere local significance. 
Dejstvo, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti sodeloval pri nakupu, povratnem zakupu in upravljanju lastniških portfeljev institucij in podjetij Združenega kraljestva po vsej državi, dokazuje, da je uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The fact that use is limited to London is relevant in the sense that London is the seat of nearly all governmental institutions and bodies and home to the City of London, one of the leading financial centres of the world. 
Dejstvo, da je uporaba omejena na London, je pomembno z vidika, da imajo v Londonu sedež skoraj vse vladne institucije in organi ter da je tam tako imenovani City of London (ožje mestno središče), ki je eno od vodilnih finančnih središč na svetu.
The economic dimension of the sign's significance was important since by mid 2000, the invalidity applicant had already an equity capital under management in excess of USD 1 billion. 
Gospodarska razsežnost pomena znaka je bila pomembna, saj je do sredine leta 2000 vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti že upravljal lastniški kapital v vrednosti nad 1 milijardo USD.
Furthermore, the group of addressees among which the sign was known is significant since it included major players in the financial field and UK public institutions. 
Poleg tega je skupina naslovnikov, ki ji je znak poznan, pomembna, saj vključuje glavne akterje na finančnem področju in javne institucije Združenega kraljestva.
The exposure given to the sign was also significant, cf. the national and specialised press coverage. 
Pomembno je bilo tudi širjenje prepoznavnosti znaka; glej poročanje nacionalnih in specializiranih medijev.
Therefore, use in the course of trade was of more than mere local significance (paras 49-51). 
Zato je bila uporaba v gospodarskem prometu več kot le lokalnega pomena (točke od 49 do 51).
GRAIN MILLERS (German business name) T430/08 
GRAIN MILLERS (nemško poslovno ime) T430/08
The use of a business name in the context of the importation of goods from another State (in this case, documents of the transaction concluded by opponent concerning the import of wheat from Romania to Germany) is indeed use in the context of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage, since import-export constitutes a normal, everyday activity of an undertaking, necessarily involving at least two States (para. 41). 
Uporaba poslovnega imena pri uvozu blaga iz druge države (v tem primeru dokumenti o poslu, ki ga je sklenil vložnik ugovora v zvezi z uvozom pšenice iz Romunije v Nemčijo) je dejansko uporaba v smislu poslovne dejavnosti, katere cilj je gospodarska korist, saj dejavnost uvoza in izvoza pomeni običajno, vsakodnevno dejavnost podjetja, ki nujno vključuje vsaj dve državi (točka 41).
BUD (appellation of origin protected in France and Austria) 22/01/2013, T225/06 RENV, T255/06 RENV, T257/06 RENV & T309/06 RENV, EU:T:2013:31 
BUD (označba porekla, zaščitena v Franciji in Avstriji) 22/01/2013, T225/06 RENV, T255/06 RENV, T257/06 RENV in T309/06 RENV, EU:T:2013:31
Four very small invoices for only three cities, without any advertisements, did not meet the requirement for use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance (para. 56). 
Štirje zelo majhni računi za samo tri mesta brez kakršnega koli oglaševanja ne izpolnjujejo zahteve za uporabo znaka v gospodarskem prometu več kot le lokalnega pomena (točka 56).
The same conclusion applied to Austria since the GC found that use was limited to deliveries of 12-25 hectolitres per year, for a marginal turnover (around EUR 1 200), almost exclusively in Vienna (paras 59-61). 
Enaka ugotovitev je veljala za Avstrijo, saj je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da je bila uporaba omejena na dobavo 1225 hektolitrov letno za majhen promet (približno 1 200 EUR) skoraj izključno na Dunaju (točke od 59 do 61).
BRIGHTON (non-registered mark in several MS) 30/06/2010, R 408/20094 
BRIGHTON (neregistrirana znamka v več državah članicah) 30/06/2010, R 408/20094
The sales chart provided by the opponent shows that the sale activities in the Member States concerned were not consistent over time to the extent that for certain years no sales at all appear to have taken place and that for others the sales revenue was very low indeed. 
Podatki z grafikona prodaje, ki ga je predložil vložnik ugovora, kažejo, da prodaja v zadevnih državah članicah v obdobju ni bila enakomerna, saj v nekaterih letih prodaje sploh ni bilo, v drugih pa je bil prihodek od prodaje dejansko zelo majhen.
Therefore, the sales figures show that the opponent was not able to maintain an intensity of use of the signs over three consecutive years. 
Podatki o prodaji torej kažejo, da vložnik ugovora v treh zaporednih letih ni mogel ohraniti intenzivnosti uporabe znakov.