natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, the Court has held that, despite the fact that acquired distinctiveness must be shown throughout the European Union, it would be unreasonable to require proof of acquired distinctiveness for each individual Member State (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62). 
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče menilo, da bi bilo kljub dejstvu, da je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek dokazati v vsej Evropski uniji, pretirano zahtevati, da se taka pridobitev dokaže za vsako posamično državo članico (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
In this context the question arises whether the Office can extrapolate from selective evidence to draw broader conclusions. 
V zvezi s tem se zastavlja vprašanje, ali lahko Urad na podlagi selektivnih dokazov sklepa širše.
This concerns the extent to which evidence showing distinctiveness acquired through use in certain Member States can be used to make inferences with regard to the market situation in other Member States not covered by the evidence (see paragraph 6.3 below). 
To zadeva obseg, v katerem se lahko dokazi, ki kažejo razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo v določenih državah članicah, uporabijo za sklepanje o tržnih razmerah v drugih državah članicah, ki jih dokazi ne zajemajo (glej odstavek 6.3 v nadaljevanju).
Evidence of acquired distinctiveness must be examined as a whole, taking into account, in particular, the market share held by the trade mark, and the intensity, frequency and duration of use of the mark (see paragraph 8 below). 
Dokaze o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku je treba preizkusiti kot celoto, pri tem pa je treba upoštevati predvsem tržni delež, ki ga ima blagovna znamka, ter intenzivnost, pogostost in trajanje uporabe znamke (glej odstavek 8 v nadaljevanju).
The evidence must establish that a significant proportion of the relevant public is able, by virtue of that mark, to identify the goods or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking. 
Dokazi morajo dokazati, da lahko precejšen delež upoštevne javnosti na podlagi te znamke prepozna zadevno blago ali storitve kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
Evidence from non-EU states is irrelevant, except insofar as it might enable conclusions to be drawn about use within the EU (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 45). 
Dokazi iz tretjih držav niso pomembni, razen če bi lahko omogočili sklepanje o uporabi v EU (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 45).
6.1 Special provisions with respect to the accession of new Member States 
Posebne določbe v zvezi s pristopom novih držav članic
In accordance with the provisions of the EU accession treaties, an EUTM applied for before the date of accession of a given Member State may only be rejected for reasons that already existed before the date of accession. 
Blagovna znamka EU, prijavljena pred datumom pristopa zadevne države članice, se lahko v skladu z določbami pristopnih pogodb EU zavrne samo zaradi razlogov, ki so že obstajali pred datumom pristopa.
Hence, in the Office's examination proceedings, acquired distinctiveness must be demonstrated only with respect to Member States of the EU at the time of the EUTM application, and not those that have joined the EU subsequently. 
Zato je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek v postopku preizkušanja, ki ga opravi Urad, dokazati samo za države članice EU v trenutku prijave blagovne znamke EU, in ne tiste, ki so k EU pristopile zatem.
6.2 Language area 
Jezikovno območje
Without prejudice to the possibility of extrapolating the evidence (see paragraph 6.3 below), acquired distinctiveness through use must be shown, in principle, with respect to all those Member States/territories in which the EUTM applied for is objected to because: 
Brez poseganja v možnost izpeljave na podlagi dokazov (glej odstavek 6.3 v nadaljevanju) je treba razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, načeloma dokazati za vse tiste države članice/ozemlja, v katerih se vloži ugovor zoper prijavljeno blagovno znamko EU zaradi:
it is in a Member State language understood by the relevant public of another Member State(s) in which that language is not an official one (e.g. basic English words); and/or 
ker je v jeziku države članice, ki ga razume upoštevna javnost druge(-ih) države (držav) članice (članic), v katerih ta jezik ni uradni jezik (npr. osnovne angleške besede), in/ali
it is in a language understood by a significant section of the relevant public in at least part of the European Union, for example the Turkish word ‘hellim' in Cyprus (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292). 
ker je v jeziku, ki ga razume precejšnji del upoštevne javnosti vsaj v delu Evropske unije, na primer turško besedo hellim na Cipru (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292).
For further explanations about the different scenarios listed above, please see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 4, Descriptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR), paragraph 1.1.2. 
Nadaljnje razlage različnih scenarijev, naštetih zgoraj, so na voljo v Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 4: Opisne blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 1.1.2.
Particular care should be taken when a language is an official language in more than one EU Member State. 
Posebna previdnost je potrebna, če je jezik uradni jezik v več kot eni državi članici EU.
In such cases, when dealing with an absolute grounds objection based on the meaning of wording in a certain language, acquired distinctiveness through use must be proven for each of the Member States in which that language is official (as well as any other Member States or markets where it will be understood). 
V teh primerih je treba razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, kadar gre za ugovor na podlagi absolutnih razlogov zaradi pomena besedila v zadevnem jeziku, dokazati za vsako posamezno državo članico, v kateri je ta jezik uradni jezik (in tudi v kateri koli državi članici ali na trgih, kjer se razume).
Examples of languages that are official languages in more than one EU Member State: 
Primeri jezikov, ki so uradni jeziki v več kot eni državi članici EU:
It should also be taken into account that in some regions there are substantial minorities who have as their native language a language (or languages), other than the official language(s) of the Member State concerned, that is/are often also protected as minority language(s). 
Upoštevati je treba tudi, da so v nekaterih regijah številne manjšine, katerih materni jezik je (so) jezik(-i), ki ni(-so) uradni jezik(-i) zadevnih držav članic in je (so) pogosto tudi zaščiten(-i) kot manjšinski jezik(-i).
By way of example, German is on a par with Italian in the Italian Autonomous Region Trentino-Alto Adige (10/10/2014, R 574/2013G, SUEDTIROL, § 17) as is French with Italian in the Italian region of Valle d'Aosta, while Denmark has a substantial German-speaking minority (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 44). 
V ponazoritev, nemščina je enakovredna italijanščini v italijanski avtonomni regiji Trentino - Zgornje Poadižje (10/10/2014, R 574/2013G, SUEDTIROL, § 17), enako kot francoščina italijanščini v italijanski regiji Dolina Aoste, Danska pa ima precejšnjo nemško govorečo manjšino (24/06/2014, T273/12, Ab in den Urlaub, EU:T:2014:568, § 44).
6.3 Extrapolation 
Izpeljava
As indicated above, the acquisition of distinctive character through use must be proven for the part of the European Union in which the trade mark concerned did not initially have such character. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je treba pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka z uporabo dokazati za del Evropske unije, v katerem zadevna blagovna znamka razlikovalnega učinka ni imela že od začetka.
This may prove difficult and burdensome for the applicant, particularly when the objection exists throughout the European Union. 
To se lahko izkaže za zahtevno in obremenjujoče za prijavitelja, zlasti če je vložen ugovor za vso Evropsko unijo.
This is normally the case for 3D marks, colours per se and figurative trade marks consisting exclusively of the depiction of the goods in question, as it may be assumed that the assessment of their distinctiveness will be the same throughout the European Union, unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 68). 
Tako je običajno v primeru tridimenzionalnih znamk, barv in figurativnih blagovnih znamk, ki jih sestavlja izključno podoba zadevnega blaga, saj se lahko domneva, da je presoja njihovega razlikovalnega učinka enaka v vsej Evropski uniji, razen če obstajajo konkretni indici, ki kažejo nasprotno (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 68).
However, the Court has held that, despite the fact that acquired distinctiveness must be shown throughout the European Union, it would be unreasonable to require proof of acquired distinctiveness for each individual Member State (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62). 
Vendar je Sodišče menilo, da bi bilo kljub dejstvu, da je treba pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek dokazati v vsej Evropski uniji, pretirano zahtevati, da se taka pridobitev dokaže za vsako posamično državo članico (24/05/2012, C98/11 P, Hase, EU:C:2012:307, § 62).
This principle implies that, if one considers the European territory as a puzzle, failure to prove acquired distinctiveness for one or more specific national markets may not be decisive, provided that the ‘missing piece' of the puzzle does not affect the general picture that a significant proportion of the relevant European public perceives the sign as a trade mark in the various parts or regions of the European Union. 
To načelo pomeni, da če se evropsko ozemlje obravnava kot sestavljanka, neuspešno dokazovanje pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka za enega ali več posebnih nacionalnih trgov morda ni odločilno, če „manjkajoči del“ sestavljanke ne vpliva na splošni vtis, da precejšnji delež upoštevne evropske javnosti v različnih delih ali regijah Evropske unije znak zaznava kot blagovno znamko.
In light of the above, the Office considers that, in certain cases, it is possible to extrapolate from selective evidence to draw broader conclusions. 
Urad glede na navedeno meni, da je v nekaterih primerih na podlagi selektivnih dokazov mogoče sklepati širše.
As a result, evidence showing distinctiveness acquired through use in certain Member States can be used to make inferences with regard to the market situation in other Member States not covered by the evidence. 
Zato se lahko dokazi, ki kažejo razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo v nekaterih državah članicah, uporabijo za sklepanje o tržnih razmerah v drugih državah članicah, ki jih dokazi ne zajemajo.
Extrapolating in this way to make broader inferences is of particular relevance to an enlarged European Union comprising many Member States, since it is highly likely that a party will not be able to provide comprehensive evidence with respect to the whole European Union, but will rather tend to concentrate on some areas. 
Tovrstna razširitev za širše sklepanje je posebno pomembna za razširjeno Evropsko unijo, ki jo sestavljajo številne države članice, saj je zelo verjetno, da oseba ne bo mogla zagotoviti celovitih dokazov za vso Evropsko unijo, ampak se bo raje osredotočila na nekatera območja.
Extrapolation is possible where the following two conditions are met. 
Razširitev je mogoča, če sta izpolnjena naslednja pogoja.
The market is homogeneous (i.e. the area where acquired distinctiveness is proven and the area where evidence is extrapolated): market conditions and consumer habits have to be comparable. 
Trg je enovit (tj. območje, za katero je dokazan pridobljen razlikovalni učinek, in območje, na katero se razširijo dokazi): tržni pogoji in navade potrošnikov morajo biti primerljivi.
Consequently, it is particularly important that the applicant submits data concerning the size of the market, its own market share and, if possible, that of its main competitors, as well as its marketing expenses. 
Zato je pomembno predvsem, da prijavitelj predloži podatke o velikosti trga, svojem tržnem deležu in, če je mogoče, tržnem deležu svoje glavne konkurence ter stroških trženja.
The Office can only extrapolate the results from one territory to another if all the data is comparable. 
Urad lahko rezultate enega ozemlja razširi na drugo ozemlje samo, če so podatki primerljivi.
For instance, in the case of surveys covering only some Member States, the applicant will have to demonstrate that the Member States' markets covered by the surveys are comparable to those of the other Member States and that the results of the surveys can be extrapolated (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 80). 
V primeru anket, ki so zajemale samo nekatere države članice, bo moral prijavitelj dokazati, da so trgi držav članic, zajetih v anketah, primerljivi s trgi drugih držav članic in se lahko rezultati anket razširijo (24/02/2016, T411/14, Shape of a bottle (3D), EU:T:2016:94, § 80).
At least some evidence of use is submitted for the area where the evidence is extrapolated. 
Za območje, na katero se razširijo dokazi, se predložijo vsaj nekateri dokazi o uporabi.
Therefore, where the EUTM is used in the entire relevant territory but most of the evidence only refers to part of it, inference is possible if the circumstances are comparable and some evidence of use in another part/other parts of the relevant territory is submitted. 
Če se blagovna znamka EU uporablja na celotnem zadevnem ozemlju, večina dokazov pa se nanaša samo na njegov del, je sklepanje mogoče, če so razmere primerljive in se predložijo nekateri dokazi o uporabi v drugem delu/drugih delih zadevnega ozemlja.
Evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the ‘combination of the colours green and yellow' throughout the European Union was accepted despite a lack of evidence with regard to current turnover figures and no official statements on the relevant public's perception for two Member States (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 38 et seq.) 
Dokazi o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku „kombinacije zelene in rumene barve“ v vsej Evropski uniji so bili sprejeti kljub pomanjkanju dokazov glede podatkov o prometu in neobstoju uradne izjave o tem, kako to zaznava upoštevna javnost, za dve državi članici (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 38 et seq.).
On the other hand, the Court rejected the claim of acquired distinctiveness for a ‘chequerboard pattern' because the applicant had not provided any relevant evidence in 4 out of the then 15 relevant Member States, without examining the evidence filed for the other 11 Member States (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 101 et seq., under appeal). 
Po drugi strani je Sodišče zavrnilo zahtevo za pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek za motiv šahovnice, ker prijavitelj ni predložil ustreznih dokazov za štiri od takratnih 15 držav članic, ne da bi preizkusilo dokaze za preostalih 11 držav članic (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 101 et seq., predmet pritožbe).
7 Standard of Proof 
Dokazni standard
The requirements to prove acquired distinctiveness through use pursuant to Article 7(3) EUTMR are not the same as those to prove genuine use pursuant to Article 47(2) EUTMR. 
Zahteve za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, v skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niso enake kot zahteve za dokazovanje resne in dejanske uporabe v skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Whilst under Article 7(3) EUTMR it is necessary to prove qualified use, such that the relevant public perceives as distinctive a sign that per se is devoid of distinctive character, the reason behind the proof of genuine use is completely different, namely to restrict the number of trade marks registered and protected, and consequently the number of conflicts between them. 
V skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba dokazati kvalificirano uporabo, kot je, da upoštevna javnost zaznava kot razlikovalen znak, ki sam po sebi nima razlikovalnega učinka, razlog za dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe pa je povsem drugačen, namreč omejiti število registriranih in zaščitenih blagovnih znamk ter s tem število njihovega sovpadanja.
Furthermore, the Court has held that the case-law relating to Article 7(3) EUTMR must not be confused with the case-law relating to the acquisition of reputation (which must be proven in a substantial part of the European Union but not in every Member State). 
Sodišče je menilo še, da se sodna praksa v zvezi s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme zamenjevati s sodno prakso o pridobitvi ugleda (ki jo je treba dokazati v pomembnem delu Evropske unije, vendar ne v vseh državah članicah).
The applicant must prove the acquisition of distinctive character through use in the part of the European Union in which the contested mark was devoid of any distinctive character. 
Prijavitelj mora dokazati pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka z uporabo v delu Evropske unije, v katerem izpodbijana znamka ni imela razlikovalnega učinka.
The case-law related to Article 7(3) EUTMR, therefore, must not be confused with the test on acquisition of reputation (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 119-120 and case-law quoted therein). 
Zato se sodna praksa v zvezi s členom 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sme zamenjevati s preizkusom pridobitve ugleda (21/04/2015, T359/12, Device of a checked pattern (maroon & beige), EU:T:2015:215, § 119-120 ter tam navedena sodna praksa).
Therefore, the EUTM applicant must submit evidence that enables the Office to find that at least a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public identifies the products or services concerned as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark (15/12/2015, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 61 and the case-law cited therein). 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora tako predložiti dokaze, ki Uradu omogočajo ugotovitev, da vsaj precejšnji delež upoštevnega dela javnosti proizvode ali storitve zaradi blagovne znamke prepozna, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja (15/12/2015, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 61 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
The evidence must be clear and convincing. 
Dokazi morajo biti jasni in prepričljivi.
The EUTM applicant must clearly establish all the facts necessary to safely conclude that the mark has been used as a badge of origin, that is to say, that it has created a link in the mind of the relevant public with the goods or services provided by a specific company, despite the fact that, in the absence of such use, the sign at issue would lack the necessary distinctiveness to create such a link. 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora jasno navesti vsa dejstva, ki so potrebna, da se nedvomno ugotovi, da se je znamka uporabljala kot označba porekla, da torej upoštevna javnost pomisli na blago ali storitve zadevnega podjetja, čeprav znak brez te uporabe ne bi imel potrebnega razlikovalnega učinka in ne bi ustvaril take povezave.
For example, the combination of the colours green and yellow was found to have acquired distinctiveness through use because it referred to the machines manufactured by a certain company. 
Na primer, za kombinacijo zelene in rumene barve je bilo ugotovljeno, da ima razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, ker se je nanašala na stroje, ki jih proizvaja zadevno podjetje.
The means of evidence were a number of statements from professional associations according to which such combination referred to agricultural machines manufactured by that company and the fact that the company had been using the same combination of colours on its machines consistently in the European Union for a considerable time prior to 1996 (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 36-37). 
Dokazi so bile izjave strokovnih združenj, v skladu s katerimi se je ta kombinacija nanašala na kmetijske stroje, ki jih proizvaja navedeno podjetje, in dejstvo, da je podjetje enako kombinacijo barv na svojih strojih dosledno uporabljalo v Evropski uniji dolgo časa pred letom 1996 (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 36-37).
Therefore, acquired distinctiveness must be the result of the use of the mark as a trade mark, not as purely functional packaging (25/09/2014, T474/12, Shape of goblets (3D), EU:T:2014:813, § 56-58 and the case-law cited therein) or as a descriptive indication on packaging. 
Zato mora biti pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek rezultat uporabe znamke kot blagovne znamke, in ne le kot funkcionalne embalaže (25/09/2014, T474/12, Shape of goblets (3D), EU:T:2014:813, § 56-58 in tam navedena sodna praksa) ali opisne označbe na embalaži.
For example, use of the sign ‘Gifflar' (which indicates a kind of bread in Swedish) on the packaging of pastries, together with descriptive indications of flavours, is made in a descriptive context, not as a badge of origin (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45). 
Na primer, uporaba znaka Gifflar (ki v švedščini označuje vrsto kruha) na embalaži peciva skupaj z opisnimi navedbami okusov je opisna in ni označba porekla (09/07/2014, T520/12, Gifflar, EU:T:2014:620, § 44-45).
For a finding of acquired distinctiveness through use, the case-law does not prescribe fixed percentages of market penetration or of recognition by the relevant public (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48). 
Za ugotovitev obstoja razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, sodna praksa ne določa fiksnih odstotkov uveljavitve na trgu ali prepoznavnosti v upoštevni javnosti (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
Rather than using a fixed percentage of the relevant public in a given market, the evidence should show that a significant proportion of the public perceives the mark as identifying specific goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking. 
Namesto fiksnega odstotka upoštevne javnosti na zadevnem trgu bi morali dokazi pokazati, da precejšnji delež javnosti znamko zaznava tako, da ustrezno blago ali storitve označuje, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja.
The evidence must relate to each of the goods and services claimed in the EUTM application. 
Dokazi se morajo nanašati na posamezno blago in storitve, za katere je vložena prijava blagovne znamke EU.
After an initial absolute grounds objection under Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR, only the goods and services claimed for which acquired distinctiveness through use has been proven may proceed to registration. 
Po prvotnem ugovoru na podlagi absolutnih razlogov v skladu s členom 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se postopek registracije nadaljuje samo za blago in storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo in je bil zanje dokazan razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo.
8 Assessment of the Evidence 
Presoja dokazov
In establishing acquired distinctiveness, account may be taken of, inter alia, the following factors: 
Pri ugotavljanju pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka se lahko med drugim upoštevajo naslednji dejavniki:
the market share held by the mark with regard to the relevant goods or services; 
tržni delež znamke v zvezi z upoštevnim blagom ali storitvami,
how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; 
kako intenzivna, geografsko razširjena in dolgotrajna je bila uporaba znamke,
the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark for the relevant goods or services; 
znesek, ki ga je podjetje vložilo v oglaševanje znamke za upoštevno blago ali storitve,
the proportion of the relevant public who, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking. 
delež upoštevne javnosti, ki na podlagi te znamke prepozna blago ali storitve kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz zadevnega podjetja.