natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(a) that is sufficiently broad to cover a number of subcategories other than in an arbitrary manner; 
ki je dovolj široka, da zajema več podkategorij, in sicer ne samovoljno;
(b) that are capable of being perceived as being independent from each other; 
ki jih je mogoče dojemati za medsebojne neodvisne;
2. it can be shown that the mark has been genuinely used in relation to only part of the initial broad specification. 
je mogoče dokazati, da se je blagovna znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala le za del široke prvotne opredelitve.
Appropriate reasoning should be given for defining the subcategories and, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the opponent, it must be explained whether use has been shown in relation to only part of the initial broad specification or subcategory/subcategories. 
Zagotoviti je treba ustrezno obrazložitev za določitev podkategorij in na podlagi dokazov, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, pojasniti, ali je bila uporaba dokazana le za del široke prvotne opredelitve ali podkategorije/podkategorij.
See examples in paragraph 2.8.4.3 below. 
Glej primere v odstavku 2.8.4.3 v nadaljevanju.
This is especially important in the case of trade marks registered for pharmaceutical preparations, which are usually used only for one kind of medicine for treating a certain disease (see the examples of pharmaceutical preparations in paragraph 2.8.4.3 below). 
To je še zlasti pomembno v primeru blagovnih znamk, registriranih za farmacevtske pripravke, ki se običajno uporabljajo le za eno vrsto zdravil za zdravljenje določene bolezni (glej primere v zvezi s farmacevtskimi pripravki v odstavku 2.8.4.3 v nadaljevanju).
On the other hand, the use for a whole category has to be accepted if there are examples of different kinds of products belonging to this category and there is no other subcategory that covers the different products. 
Po drugi strani je treba uporabo za celotno kategorijo sprejeti, če obstajajo primeri različnih vrst proizvodov, ki spadajo v to kategorijo, in če ni nobene druge podkategorije, ki zajema različne proizvode.
2.8.4.2 Earlier mark registered for precisely specified goods/services 
Prejšnja znamka, registrirana za natančno opredeljeno blago/storitve
In contrast, proof of genuine use of the mark for some of the specified goods or services necessarily covers the entire category if: 
Nasprotno pa dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi znamke za nekatero navedeno blago ali storitev nujno zajema celotno kategorijo, če:
(1) a trade mark has been registered for goods or services specified in a relatively precise manner; so that 
je bila blagovna znamka registrirana za blago ali storitve, opredeljene razmeroma natančno, tako da
(2) it is not possible, without any artificiality, to make any significant subdivisions within the category concerned (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45). 
brez izumetničenosti ni mogoče določiti pomembnih podrazdelkov v zadevni kategoriji (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 45).
The decision should duly indicate in which cases it is considered impossible to make subdivisions and, if necessary, why. 
V odločbi je treba ustrezno navesti, v katerih primerih se šteje, da ni mogoče določiti pomembnih podrazdelkov, in po potrebi navesti tudi, zakaj to ni mogoče.
2.8.4.3 Examples 
Primeri
In order to define adequate subcategories of general indications, the criterion of the purpose or intended use of the product or service in question is of fundamental importance, as consumers do employ this criterion before making a purchase (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37). 
Za opredelitev ustreznih podkategorij splošnih označb je bistvenega pomena merilo namena ali namembnosti zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve, saj potrošniki upoštevajo to merilo pred nakupom (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 2930; 23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin, EU:T:2009:355, § 37).
Other applicable criteria for defining adequate subcategories could be the characteristics of the product or service, for instance the nature of the product or service or the target consumer of the product or service. 
Druga merila za opredelitev ustreznih podkategorij bi se lahko nanašala na značilnosti proizvoda ali storitve, na primer vrsto proizvoda ali storitve ali ciljnega potrošnika proizvoda ali storitve.
The geographical origin of the goods is not relevant. 
Geografsko poreklo blaga ni pomembno.
Even if the geographical origin of wines is an important factor when they are being chosen, such a factor is not so important that wines with different appellations of origin could constitute subcategories of goods that could be viewed autonomously (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37). 
Čeprav je geografsko poreklo vin pomemben dejavnik pri njihovi izbiri, takšen dejavnik ni tako pomemben, da bi lahko vina z različno označbo porekla sestavljala podkategorije blaga, ki bi jih bilo mogoče obravnavati neodvisno (30/06/2015, T489/13, VIÑA ALBERDI / VILLA ALBERTI, EU:T:2015:446, § 37).
Pharmaceutical preparations 
Farmacevtski pripravki
In a number of cases, the Court had to define adequate subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations in Class 5. 
Sodišče je moralo v več zadevah opredeliti ustrezne podkategorije za farmacevtske pripravke iz razreda 5.
It held that the purpose and intended use of a therapeutic preparation are expressed in its therapeutic indication. 
Odločilo je, da sta namen in namembnost terapevtskega pripravka izražena v njegovi terapevtski indikaciji.
Thus, the therapeutic indication is the key for defining the relevant subcategory of pharmaceutical products. 
Terapevtska indikacija je zato ključna za opredelitev ustrezne podkategorije farmacevtskih proizvodov.
Other criteria (such as dosage form, active ingredients, whether it is sold on prescription or over the counter) are irrelevant in this regard. 
Druga merila (kot so farmacevtska oblika, učinkovine, ali se prodaja na recept ali v prosti prodaji) so v zvezi s tem nepomembna.
The following subcategories for pharmaceutical preparations were assumed to be adequate by the Court: 
Sodišče je za ustrezne upoštevalo naslednje podkategorije za farmacevtske pripravke:
2.8.5 Use of the mark as regards integral parts and after-sales services of the registered goods 
Uporaba znamke v zvezi s sestavnimi deli in poprodajnimi storitvami registriranega blaga
In the Minimax judgment, the Court held that, in certain circumstances, use of the mark may be considered genuine also for ‘registered' goods that had been sold at one time and were no longer available (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.). 
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Minimax odločilo, da je mogoče uporabo znamke v nekaterih okoliščinah šteti za resno in dejansko tudi za predhodno prodano registrirano blago, ki ni več na voljo (11/03/2003, C40/01, Minimax, EU:C:2003:145, § 40 et seq.).
This may apply where the proprietor of the trade mark under which such goods had been put on the market sells parts that are integral to the make-up or structure of the goods previously sold. 
To lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke, pod katero je bilo takšno blago dano na trg, prodaja dele, ki so sestavni deli strukture predhodno prodanega blaga.
The same may apply where the trade mark proprietor makes actual use of the mark for after-sales services, such as the sale of accessories or related parts, or the supply of maintenance and repair services. 
Enako lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke dejansko uporablja znamko za poprodajne storitve, kot so prodaja dodatkov ali povezanih delov ali zagotavljanje storitev vzdrževanja in popravil.
However, this finding of the Court should be interpreted strictly and applied only in very exceptional cases. 
Vendar je treba to ugotovitev Sodišča razlagati strogo in jo uporabljati v zelo izjemnih primerih.
In Minimax, the Court accepted use for goods other than those registered, which runs counter to the general rule laid down in Article 47(2) EUTMR. 
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Minimax sprejelo uporabo za blago, ki ni bilo registrirano blago, kar je v nasprotju s splošnim pravilom iz člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.9 Use by the proprietor or on its behalf 
Uporaba s strani imetnika ali v njegovem imenu
2.9.1 Use by the proprietor 
Uporaba s strani imetnika
According to Articles 18(1) and 47(2) EUTMR, it is in general the owner who has to put the earlier registered mark to genuine use. 
V skladu s členom 18(1) in členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je na splošno imetnik tisti, ki mora resno in dejansko uporabljati prejšnjo registrirano znamko.
These provisions also cover use of the mark by the previous owner during its ownership (10/12/1999, B 74 494). 
Te določbe pokrivajo tudi uporabo znamke s strani prejšnjega imetnika med njegovim lastništvom (10/12/1999, B 74 494).
2.9.2 Use by authorised third parties 
Uporaba s strani pooblaščenih tretjih oseb
According to Article 18(2) EUTMR, use of the mark with the consent of the proprietor is deemed to constitute use by the proprietor. 
V skladu s členom 18(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se šteje, da uporaba znamke s soglasjem imetnika pomeni uporabo s strani imetnika.
A typical case of use by third parties is use made by licensees. 
Značilen primer uporabe s strani tretjih oseb je uporaba s strani pridobiteljev licenc.
Use by companies economically related to the trade mark proprietor, such as members of the same group of companies (affiliates, subsidiaries, etc.) is similarly to be considered as authorised use (30/01/2015, T278/13, now, EU:T:2015:57, § 38). 
Uporabo s strani podjetij, ki so gospodarsko povezana z imetnikom blagovne znamke, kot so člani iste skupine podjetij (odvisna podjetja, hčerinske družbe itd.), je treba podobno šteti za dovoljeno uporabo (30/01/2015, T278/13, now, EU:T:2015:57, § 38).
Where goods are produced by the trade mark proprietor (or with its consent), but subsequently placed on the market by distributors at wholesale or retail level, this is to be considered as use of the mark (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73). 
Če blago proizvaja imetnik blagovne znamke (ali če se proizvaja z njegovim soglasjem), vendar ga pozneje dajejo na trg distributerji na veleprodajni ravni ali ravni prodaje na drobno, je treba to šteti za uporabo znamke (17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47, § 32; 16/11/2011, T308/06, Buffalo Milke, EU:T:2011:675, § 73).
At the evidence stage it is prima facie sufficient that the opponent only submits evidence that a third party has used the mark. 
V fazi dokazovanja na prvi pogled zadostuje, da vložnik ugovora predloži le dokaze, da je znamko uporabljala tretja oseba.
The Office infers from such use, combined with the opponent's ability to present evidence of it, that the opponent has given prior consent. 
Urad na podlagi takšne uporabe, skupaj s sposobnostjo vložnika ugovora, da predloži dokaze o njej, sklepa, da je vložnik ugovora dal predhodno soglasje.
This position of the Office was confirmed by judgment of 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (further confirmed 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310). 
To stališče Urada je bilo potrjeno s sodbo 08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 25 (potrjeno tudi s sodbo 11/05/2006, C416/04 P, Vitafruit, EU:C:2006:310).
The Court pointed out that it was unlikely that the proprietor of a trade mark would be in a position to submit evidence if the mark had been used against its wishes. 
Po opozorilih Sodišča ni verjetno, da bi lahko imetnik blagovne znamke predložil dokaze, če bi bila znamka uporabljena proti njegovi volji.
There was all the more reason to rely on that presumption, given that the applicant did not dispute the opponent's consent. 
Ker prijavitelj ni izpodbijal soglasja vložnika ugovora, je bil razlog za zanašanje na to domnevo še toliko večji.
However, if the Office has doubts or, in general, in cases where the applicant explicitly contests the opponent's consent, the burden is on the opponent to submit further evidence that it gave its consent prior to use of the mark. 
Če pa ima Urad dvome ali, na splošno, če prijavitelj izrecno izpodbija soglasje vložnika ugovora, mora vložnik ugovora predložiti dodatne dokaze, da je dal soglasje pred uporabo znamke.
In such cases, the Office gives the opponent a further period of 2 months for the submission of such evidence. 
Urad v takšnih primerih da vložniku ugovora na voljo dodatna dva meseca za predložitev takšnih dokazov.
2.9.3 Use of collective and certification marks by authorised users 
Uporaba kolektivnih in certifikacijskih znamk s strani pooblaščenih uporabnikov
Collective marks are generally used not by the proprietor but by members of an association. 
Kolektivne znamke na splošno uporabljajo člani združenja, in ne imetnik.
As far as EU collective marks are concerned, this is reflected in Article 78 EUTMR, which provides that use by any authorised person satisfies the user requirement. 
Kar zadeva kolektivne znamke EU, je to upoštevano v členu 78 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da uporaba navedene znamke s strani katere koli osebe, upravičene do njene uporabe, ustreza zahtevi glede uporabnika.
Certification marks are not used by their proprietors but by authorised users, for the purpose of guaranteeing to consumers that the goods or services possess a particular characteristic. 
Certifikacijske znamke ne uporabljajo njihovi imetniki, temveč pooblaščeni uporabniki, da potrošnikom zagotovijo, da imajo blago ali storitve posebne značilnosti.
As far as EU certification marks are concerned, this is reflected in Article 87 EUTMR, which provides that use by the authorised person in accordance with the regulations governing the use of the certification mark satisfies the user requirement. 
Kar zadeva certifikacijske znamke EU, je to upoštevano v členu 87 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da uporaba navedene znamke s strani pooblaščene osebe v skladu s pravilnikom o uporabi certifikacijske znamke, ustreza zahtevi glede uporabnika.
Whether a mark has been used in a way that satisfies the use requirements of Articles 18 and 47 EUTMR requires a factual finding of genuine use. 
Da uporaba znamke izpolnjuje zahteve glede uporabe iz členov 18 in 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora biti v zvezi z njo dejansko ugotovljeno, da je resna in dejanska.
Use will be ‘genuine' in this context even if the user violates legal provisions. 
V zvezi s tem bo uporaba resna in dejanska tudi, če uporabnik krši zakonske določbe.
Use that is deceptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(g) or Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR or under provisions of national law remains ‘genuine' for the purpose of asserting earlier marks in opposition proceedings. 
Uporaba, ki je zavajajoča v smislu člena 7(1)(g) ali člena 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali v skladu z določbami nacionalnega prava, ostaja resna in dejanska za zaščito prejšnjih znamk v postopku ugovora.
The sanctions for deceptive use are invalidation or revocation, as the case may be, or a prohibition of use (provided for pursuant to Article 137(2) EUTMR). 
Kazni za zavajajočo uporabo so razglasitev ničnosti oziroma razveljavitev ali prepoved uporabe (v skladu s členom 137(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The same principle applies where use is made under an illegal licensing arrangement (for example arrangements violating the competition rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or national rules). 
Enako načelo se uporablja, če uporaba poteka na podlagi nezakonitih licenčnih dogovorov (na primer dogovorov, ki kršijo pravila o konkurenci iz Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ali nacionalna pravila).
Similarly, the fact that use may infringe third-party rights is also irrelevant. 
Podobno je nepomembno tudi dejstvo, da lahko uporaba krši pravice tretjih oseb.
2.11 Justification of non-use 
Utemeljitev neuporabe
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, the opponent may alternatively prove that there are justifiable reasons for non-use of its earlier registered mark. 
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko vložnik ugovora tudi dokaže, da obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi za neuporabo prejšnje registrirane znamke.
These reasons cover, as mentioned in the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the TRIPS agreement, circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trade mark that constitute an obstacle to the use of the trade mark. 
Kot je navedeno v drugem stavku člena 19(1) sporazuma o TRIPS, ti razlogi zajemajo okoliščine, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke in so ovira za uporabo te blagovne znamke.
As an exception to the obligation of use, the concept of proper reasons for non-use is to be interpreted rather narrowly. 
Kot izjemo od obveznosti uporabe je treba pojem upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo razlagati zelo ozko.
‘Bureaucratic obstacles' as such, that arise independently of the will of the trade mark proprietor, are not sufficient, unless they have a direct relationship with the mark, so much so that use of the trade mark depends on successful completion of the administrative action concerned. 
Birokratske ovire kot take, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke, ne zadostujejo, razen če so neposredno povezane z znamko, in sicer v tolikšnem obsegu, da je uporaba blagovne znamke odvisna od uspešnega zaključka zadevnega upravnega ukrepa.
However, the criterion of a direct relationship does not necessarily imply that use of the trade mark is impossible; it might suffice that use is unreasonable. 
Vendar merilo neposrednega odnosa ne pomeni nujno, da je uporaba blagovne znamke nemogoča; morda zadostuje, da je uporaba nerazumna.
It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether a change in the undertaking's strategy to circumvent the obstacle under consideration would make use of the mark unreasonable. 
Za vsak primer posebej je treba presoditi, ali bi bila uporaba znamke zaradi spremembe strategije podjetja za premostitev zadevne ovire nerazumna.
Thus, for example, the proprietor of a mark cannot reasonably be required to change its corporate strategy and sell its goods in its competitors' sales outlets (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52). 
Tako na primer od imetnika znamke ni mogoče razumno zahtevati, da spremeni strategijo podjetja in prodaja svoje blago na prodajnih mestih konkurentov (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 52).
2.11.1 Business risks 
Poslovna tveganja
The concept of proper reasons must be considered to refer to circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner that make use of the mark impossible or unreasonable, rather than to circumstances associated with commercial difficulties it is experiencing (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69). 
V zvezi s pojmom upravičeni razlogi je treba šteti, da se nanaša na okoliščine, ki se pojavijo neodvisno od volje imetnika blagovne znamke, zaradi katerih je uporaba znamke nemogoča ali nerazumna, in ne na tiste, ki so povezane s poslovnimi težavami, s katerimi se srečuje imetnik (14/05/0008, R 855/20074, PAN AM, § 27; 09/07/2003, T162/01, Giorgio Beverly Hills, EU:T:2003:199, § 41, (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160, § 67-69).
Thus, financial difficulties encountered by a company as a result of an economic recession or due to its own financial problems are not considered to constitute proper reasons for non-use within the meaning of Article 47(2) EUTMR, as these kinds of difficulties constitute a natural part of running a business. 
Zato se šteje, da finančne težave, s katerimi se podjetje srečuje zaradi gospodarske recesije ali lastnih finančnih težav, niso upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo v smislu člena 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj so tovrstne težave običajen del vodenja podjetja.
2.11.2 Government or court intervention 
Vladni poseg ali poseg sodišča
Import restrictions or other government requirements are two examples of proper reasons for non-use that are explicitly mentioned in the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the TRIPS agreement. 
Uvozne omejitve ali druge vladne zahteve so primer upravičenih razlogov za neuporabo, ki so izrecno navedeni v drugem stavku člena 19(1) sporazuma o TRIPS.
Import restrictions include a trade embargo affecting the goods protected by the mark. 
Uvozne omejitve vključujejo trgovinski embargo, ki vpliva na blago, zaščiteno z znamko.
Other government requirements can be a state monopoly, which impedes any kind of use, or a state prohibition of the sale of goods for reasons of health or national defence. 
Druge vladne zahteve so lahko državni monopol, ki preprečuje vsakršno uporabo, ali državna prepoved prodaje blaga iz zdravstvenih razlogov ali razlogov v zvezi z nacionalno obrambo.
Typical cases in this respect are regulatory procedures such as: 
Značilni primeri v zvezi s tem so regulativni postopki, kot so:
clinical trials and authorisation for new medicines (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA); or 
klinična preskušanja in dovoljenje za promet za nova zdravila (18/04/2007, R 155/20061, LEVENIA / LEVELINA) ali
the authorisation of a food safety authority, which the owner has to obtain before offering the relevant goods and services on the market. 
odobritev pristojnega organa za varnost hrane, ki jo mora imetnik pridobiti, preden da zadevno blago ali storitve na trg.
With regard to Court proceedings or interim injunctions the following must be differentiated: 
V zvezi s sodnimi postopki ali začasnimi prepovedmi je treba razlikovati med naslednjim:
On the one hand, the mere threat of litigation or a pending cancellation action against the earlier mark should, in general, not exempt the opponent from the obligation to use its trade mark in the course of trade. 
Po eni strani le grožnja sodnega postopka ali še nerešena zahteva za izbris zoper prejšnjo znamko vložnika ugovora na splošno ne bi smela izvzeti iz obveznosti uporabe njegove blagovne znamke v gospodarskem prometu.
It is up to the opponent, being the attacking party in opposition proceedings, to conduct an adequate risk assessment of its chances to prevail in the litigation proceedings and to draw the appropriate conclusions from this evaluation as to whether or not to continue with use of its mark (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160). 
Vložnik ugovora, ki je tožeča stranka v postopku ugovora, mora opraviti ustrezno oceno tveganja glede svojih možnosti, da bo uspešen v sodnem postopku, in na podlagi te presoje sprejeti ustrezne sklepe, ali naj še naprej uporablja to znamko ali ne (18/02/2013, R 1101/20112, SMART WATER, § 40 (18/03/2015, T250/13, SMART WATER, EU:T:2015:160).
On the other hand, for example, an interim injunction or a restraining court order in insolvency proceedings, imposing a general prohibition of transfers or disposals on the trade mark owner, can be a proper reason for non-use because it obliges the opponent to refrain from using its mark in the course of trade. 
Po drugi strani je lahko na primer začasna prepoved ali sodna prepoved razpolaganja v postopku insolventnosti, ki imetniku blagovne znamke nalaga splošno prepoved prenosov ali odtujitev, upravičen razlog za neuporabo, saj vložnika ugovora zavezuje k neuporabi znamke v gospodarskem prometu.
Use of the mark contrary to such a court order would make the trade mark owner liable to damage claims (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51). 
Zaradi uporabe znamke, ki je v nasprotju s takšno sodno odločbo, se lahko zoper imetnika blagovne znamke vloži odškodninski zahtevek (11/12/2007, R 77/20061, MISS INTERCONTINENTAL (fig.), § 51).
2.11.3 Defensive registrations 
Obrambne registracije