natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 10(6) EUTMDR, where the evidence submitted pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 is not in the language of the opposition proceedings, the Office may require the opponent to submit a translation of that evidence in that language, within a period specified by the Office. 
Če v skladu s členom 10(6) Delegirane uredbe dokazi, predloženi na podlagi odstavkov 1, 2 in 3, niso v jeziku postopka ugovora, lahko Urad od vložnika ugovora zahteva, naj predloži prevod teh dokazov v navedeni jezik v roku, ki mu ga določi Urad.
It is left to the discretion of the Office whether the opponent has to submit a translation of the evidence of use into the language of the proceedings. 
Uradu je prepuščena presoja, ali mora vložnik ugovora predložiti prevod dokazov o uporabi v jezik postopka.
In exercising its discretion, the Office balances the interests of both parties. 
Urad pri uresničevanju svoje diskrecijske pravice upošteva interese obeh strank.
It has to be borne in mind that it might be extremely costly and burdensome for the opponent to translate the evidence of use submitted into the language of the proceedings. 
Upoštevati je treba, da bi lahko bilo za vložnika ugovora izjemno drago in obremenjujoče, če bi moral zagotoviti prevod predloženih dokazov o uporabi v jezik postopka.
On the other hand, the applicant has the right to be informed about the content of the evidence submitted in order to be capable of defending its interests. 
Po drugi strani ima prijavitelj pravico seznaniti se z vsebino predloženih dokazov, da lahko brani svoje interese.
It is absolutely necessary that the applicant is able to assess the content of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent. 
Zato je nujno, da lahko prijavitelj oceni vsebino dokazov o uporabi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora.
In this regard, the nature of the documents submitted has to be taken into account. 
V zvezi s tem je treba upoštevati naravo predloženih dokumentov.
For example, it might be considered that ‘standard' invoices and samples of packaging do not require a translation in order to be understood by the applicant (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (appealed 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.). 
Tako bi se lahko na primer štelo, da standardnih računov in vzorcev embalaže ni treba prevajati, zato da bi jih prijavitelj razumel (15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos, EU:T:2010:518, § 51 et seq.; 30/04/2008, R 1630/20062, DIACOR / DIACOL PORTUGAL, § 46 et seq. (pritožba na odločbo, vložena dne 24/01/2017, T258/08, DIACOR / DIACOL, EU:T:2017:22); 15/09/2008, R 1404/20072 & R 1463/2007-2, FAY (fig) / FAY & CO, § 26 et seq.).
Where the Office requires translation of the evidence, it gives the opponent a period of 2 months to submit it. 
Če Urad zahteva prevod dokazov, da vložniku ugovora na voljo dva meseca za predložitev prevoda.
Where the evidence of use submitted by the opponent is voluminous, the Office may explicitly invite the opponent to translate only the parts of the submitted material that the opponent regards as sufficient for establishing genuine use of the mark within the relevant period. 
Če so dokazi o uporabi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, obsežni, ga lahko Urad izrecno pozove, naj prevede le dele predloženega gradiva, v zvezi s katerimi sam šteje, da zadostujejo za dokaz resne in dejanske uporabe blagovne znamke v upoštevnem obdobju.
It is in general up to the opponent to evaluate whether a complete translation of all the evidence submitted is necessary. 
Vložnik ugovora na splošno presodi, ali je potreben prevod vseh predloženih dokazov.
The means of evidence will only be taken into account insofar as a translation has been produced or insofar as the means of evidence are self-explanatory regardless of their textual components. 
Dokazi se bodo upoštevali le, če je bil zagotovljen prevod ali če ne potrebujejo nobene dodatne pojasnitve, ne glede na njihove besedne elemente.
3.7 Decision 
Odločba
3.7.1 Competence of the Office 
Pristojnost Urada
The Office makes its own evaluation of the evidence of use submitted. 
Urad opravi lastno presojo predloženih dokazov o uporabi.
This means that the probative value of the evidence submitted is evaluated independently of the observations submitted by the applicant in this respect. 
To pomeni, da se dokazna vrednost predloženih dokazov presoja neodvisno od pripomb, ki jih v zvezi s tem predloži prijavitelj.
Assessment of the relevance, pertinence, conclusiveness and efficacy of evidence lies within the discretion and power of judgment of the Office, not the parties, and falls outside the adversarial principle that governs inter partes proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN). 
Presoja pomembnosti, ustreznosti, prepričljivosti in učinkovitosti dokazov je prepuščena diskreciji in pristojnosti za presojanje Urada, ne strank, in ne spada na področje uporabe načela kontradiktornosti, ki ureja postopke inter partes (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN).
A declaration by the applicant concluding that use has been proved does not, therefore, have any effect on the Office's findings. 
Izjava prijavitelja, v kateri je ugotovljeno, da je bila uporaba dokazana, zato nima nikakršnega vpliva na ugotovitve Urada.
The request for proof of use is a defence plea by the applicant. 
Zahteva za dokaz o uporabi je sredstvo obrambe prijavitelja.
However, once the defence plea has been raised by the applicant, it is solely up to the Office to carry out the subsequent procedure and evaluate whether the evidence submitted by the opponent is to be regarded as of sufficient probative value. 
Vendar kadar prijavitelj izkoristi zadevno sredstvo obrambe, je za izvajanje naknadnega postopa in presojo, ali je treba šteti, da imajo dokazi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, zadostno dokazno vrednost, pristojen izključno Urad.
However, the applicant does have the possibility of formally withdrawing the request for proof of use (see paragraph 3.4.4 above). 
Prijavitelj ima kljub temu možnost, da formalno umakne zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi (glej odstavek 3.4.4 zgoraj).
This is not contrary to Article 95(1) EUTMR, which stipulates that in inter partes proceedings the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. 
To ni v nasprotju s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da je Urad v postopku inter partes pri preizkusu omejen na zahtevani ukrep ter na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih podale stranke.
However, although the Office is bound by the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties, it is not bound by the legal value that the parties may give thereto. 
Čeprav je Urad zavezan dejstvom, dokazom in navedbam, ki jih podajo stranke, pa ni zavezan pravni veljavnosti, ki jo stranke morda pripišejo zadevnim dejstvom, dokazom in navedbam.
Hence, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proved or not, but may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish genuine use (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA). 
Zato se lahko stranke sporazumejo, katera dejstva so bila dokazana in katera ne, ne morejo pa opredeliti, ali ta dejstva zadostujejo za ugotovitev resne in dejanske uporabe (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.), § 19; 14/11/2000, R 823/19993, SIDOL / SIDOLIN, § 20; 13/03/2001, R 68/20002, MOBEC / NOVEX PHARMA).
3.7.2 Need for assessing proof of use 
Potreba po presoji dokaza o uporabi
A decision on whether the obligation of having genuinely used the registered mark has been fulfilled is not always necessary. 
Odločba, ali so izpolnjene obveznosti glede resne in dejanske uporabe registrirane znamke, ni vedno nujna.
When proof of use of the earlier rights has been requested by the applicant, the Office will also examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision in question. 
Kadar prijavitelj zahteva dokaz o uporabi prejšnjih pravic, bo Urad proučil tudi, ali je bila dokazana uporaba za prejšnje znamke in v kakšnem obsegu, če to vpliva na izid zadevne odločbe.
The examination of proof of use is always necessary and obligatory in cases where the opposition is fully or partially successful on the basis of the earlier mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation. 
Proučitev dokaza o uporabi je vedno nujna in obvezna v primerih, v katerih je ugovor v celoti ali delno uspešen na podlagi prejšnje znamke, za katero je veljala obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi.
The Office may decide not to assess the submitted proof of use where the question whether the earlier mark concerned was genuinely used for the relevant registered goods and/or services is irrelevant for the outcome of the opposition, for example: 
Urad se lahko odloči, da predloženega dokaza o uporabi ne bo presojal, če vprašanje, ali se je zadevna prejšnja znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala za zadevno registrirano blago in/ali storitve, ni pomembno za izid ugovora, na primer:
under the ground of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, if there is no likelihood of confusion between the contested mark and the earlier mark that is subject to the proof of use obligation (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43); 
na podlagi razloga iz člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer če ne obstaja verjetnost zmede med izpodbijano znamko in prejšnjo znamko, za katero velja obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi (15/02/2005, T296/02, Lindenhof, EU:T:2005:49, § 43),
if the opposition is fully successful on the basis of another earlier mark, which is not subject to the proof of use obligation; 
če je ugovor v celoti uspešen na podlagi druge prejšnje znamke, za katero ne velja obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi,
if the opposition is fully successful on the grounds of Article 8(3) and/or Article 8(4) EUTMR; 
če je ugovor v celoti uspešen na podlagi razlogov iz člena 8(3) in/ali člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU,
under the ground of Article 8(5) EUTMR, if one of the necessary conditions for application of this ground is not fulfilled. 
na podlagi razloga iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer če ni izpolnjen eden od nujnih pogojev za uporabo tega razloga.
However, in the event that the earlier trade mark that was subject to the proof of use obligation was examined in the decision but the assessment of the proof of use has been omitted, this will be expressly stated in the decision with a brief justification. 
Če pa je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka, za katero je veljala obveznost glede dokaza o uporabi, preizkušena v odločbi, vendar je bila presoja dokaza o uporabi opuščena, bo to v odločbi izrecno navedeno skupaj s kratko utemeljitvijo.
3.7.3 Overall assessment of the evidence presented 
Celovita presoja predloženih dokazov
As stated in more detail above (see paragraph 2.2 above), the Office has to evaluate the evidence submitted with regard to place, time, extent and nature of use in an overall assessment. 
Kot je bilo podrobneje navedeno zgoraj (glej odstavek 2.2 zgoraj), mora Urad predložene dokaze v zvezi s krajem, časom, obsegom in naravo uporabe presojati v okviru celovite presoje.
The principle of interdependence applies, meaning that weak evidence with regard to one relevant factor (e.g. low sales volume) might be compensated by solid evidence with regard to another factor (e.g. continuous use over a long period of time). 
Uporablja se načelo soodvisnosti, kar pomeni, da se lahko šibki dokazi v zvezi z enim upoštevnim dejavnikom (npr. majhen obseg prodaje) izravnajo s trdimi dokazi v zvezi z drugim dejavnikom (npr. stalna uporaba v daljšem obdobju).
All the circumstances of the specific case have to be taken into account in conjunction with each other in order to determine whether the mark in question has been genuinely used. 
Vse okoliščine nekega primera je treba upoštevati v medsebojni povezavi z drugimi, da se lahko opredeli, ali se je zadevna znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala.
The particular circumstances can include, for example, the specific features of the goods/services in question (e.g. low- or high-priced; mass products versus special products) or the particular market or business area. 
Posamezne okoliščine lahko na primer vključujejo specifične značilnosti zadevnega blaga/storitev (npr. nizka ali visoka cena, množični proizvodi v primerjavi s posebnimi proizvodi) ali zadevnega tržnega ali poslovnega področja.
Indirect/circumstantial evidence, under certain conditions even on its own, can also be suitable for proving genuine use. 
Za dokazovanje resne in dejanske uporabe so lahko primerna tudi posredni dokazi, pod nekaterimi pogoji celo samo ti dokazi.
As the Office does not assess commercial success, even minimal use (but not mere token or internal use) can be sufficient to be deemed ‘genuine', as long as it is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or acquire a share in the market. 
Ker Urad ne presoja poslovnega uspeha, lahko celo minimalna uporaba (vendar ne le simbolična ali notranja uporaba) zadostuje, da jo je mogoče obravnavati kot resno in dejansko, če se v zadevnem gospodarskem sektorju šteje kot utemeljeno za ohranjanje ali pridobitev deleža na trgu.
The decision indicates what evidence was submitted. 
V odločbi je navedeno, kateri dokazi so bili predloženi.
However, in general, only the evidence relevant for the conclusion is mentioned. 
Vendar so na splošno navedeni le dokazi, ki so pomembni za sklepno ugotovitev.
If the evidence is found convincing, it suffices for the Office to indicate those documents that were used to come to this conclusion and why. 
Če se ugotovi, da so dokazi prepričljivi, zadostuje, da Urad navede, kateri dokumenti so se uporabili za sprejetje te sklepne ugotovitve in zakaj.
If an opposition is rejected because the proof of use was not sufficient, neither likelihood of confusion nor Article 8(5) EUTMR, if claimed, is to be addressed. 
Če je ugovor zavrnjen, ker dokazi o uporabi niso bili zadostni, ni treba obravnavati ne vprašanja verjetnosti zmede ne člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če se uveljavlja.
3.7.4 Treatment of confidential information 
Obravnavanje zaupnih informacij
Pursuant to Article 113(1) EUTMR, the Office must publish its decisions. 
V skladu s členom 113(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora Urad svoje odločbe objaviti.
On the other hand, pursuant to Article 114(4) EUTMR, upon the prior request of a party with a special interest in keeping parts of the file confidential, the data concerned must be kept confidential vis-à-vis the public. 
Po drugi strani je treba v skladu s členom 114(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU na predhodno zahtevo stranke, ki je izkazala poseben interes za ohranitev zaupnosti delov spisa, ohranjati zaupnost zadevnih podatkov v razmerju do javnosti.
However, the need to keep certain data confidential does not exempt the Office from the obligation to state the reasons for its decisions. 
Vendar potreba po ohranjanju zaupnosti nekaterih podatkov Urad ne oprošča obveznosti, da navede razloge za svoje odločbe.
[13: Note, however, that no parts of the file can be kept confidential vis-à-vis the other party to the proceedings due to the right of defence (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.4.4).] 
[13: Upoštevati je treba, da zaradi pravice do obrambe nobenega dela spisa ni mogoče obravnavati zaupno v razmerju do druge stranke v postopku (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.4.4).]
Given the public nature of decisions, the justified interest of a party in keeping certain information confidential vis-à-vis the public has to be reconciled with the Office's duty to state reasons. 
Zaradi javne narave odločb je treba upravičeni interes stranke za ohranitev zaupnosti nekaterih informacij v razmerju do javnosti uskladiti z obveznostjo Urada glede navedbe razlogov.
It may be problematic to reason without divulging confidential business data, but this can be done by referring to those data in a general manner and without disclosing concrete data. 
Obrazložitev brez razkritja zaupnih poslovnih podatkov je lahko problematična, vendar je mogoča s splošnim sklicevanjem na te podatke brez razkritja konkretnih podatkov.
For example, the decision may refer to the invoices submitted, indicate the time span, frequency and territory of sales, the significance of the sales volumes they represent and whether they are sufficient to support the finding of genuine use. 
V odločbi se je na primer mogoče sklicevati na predložene račune, navesti časovno obdobje in pogostnost prodaje ter ozemlje, na katerem je ta potekala, pomen obsega prodaje, ki je razviden iz računov, in to, ali obseg prodaje podpira ugotovitev glede resne in dejanske uporabe.
What is important is that the decision reflects that the relevant business data were considered and assessed in relation to the kind of goods and services at issue and the characteristics of the relevant market. 
Pomembno je, da so v odločbi upoštevani ustrezni poslovni podatki in da se je o njih presojalo glede na vrsto spornega blaga in storitev ter značilnosti zadevnega trga.
Simply stating whether the relevant factors (time, place, nature and extent of use) have been fulfilled or not is not sufficient to support the final conclusion on the issue of genuine use. 
Le navedba, ali so bili izpolnjeni ustrezni dejavniki (čas, kraj, narava in obseg uporabe), ne podpira končne ugotovitve glede vprašanja resne in dejanske uporabe.
Finally, it must be clarified that, notwithstanding the confidentiality of an entire submission or annex, data contained therein that are clearly within the public domain (e.g. in the form of press extracts) can be referred to in the decision. 
Nazadnje je treba pojasniti, da se je ne glede na zaupnost celotne vloge ali priloge v odločbi mogoče sklicevati na podatke iz vloge in priloge, ki so očitno javni (npr. ker so predloženi v obliki izvlečkov iz tiskanih medijev).
3.7.5 Examples 
Primeri
The following cases present some of the decisions of the Office and the Court (with different outcomes) where the overall assessment of the submitted evidence was important. 
Naslednji primeri ponazarjajo nekatere odločbe Urada in Sodišča (z različnimi izidi), v katerih je bila pomembna celovita presoja predloženih dokazov.
3.7.5.1 Genuine use accepted 
Sprejeta resna in dejanska uporaba
3.7.5.2 Genuine use not accepted 
Zavrnjena resna in dejanska uporaba
Annex: 5year period for assessing use of national trade marks 
Priloga: Petletno obdobje za presojo uporabe nacionalnih blagovnih znamk
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, the proprietor of an earlier EUTM who has given notice of opposition against the registration of an EUTM application must, where the EUTM applicant so requests, submit proof that its earlier EUTM has been put to genuine use in the European Union in connection with the goods or services for which it was registered during the 5 years preceding the filing or priority date of the EUTM application, provided the earlier EUTM has at that date been registered for more than 5 years (‘5-year grace period'). 
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, ki je vložil ugovor zoper registracijo prijave blagovne znamke EU, na zahtevo prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU priskrbeti dokaz o tem, da se je v obdobju petih let pred datumom vložitve ali datumom prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU prejšnja blagovna znamka EU resno in dejansko uporabljala v Evropski uniji za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana, če je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka EU na ta dan registrirana najmanj pet let (v nadaljnjem besedilu: petletni odložni rok).
[14: Date of publication of the contested EUTM application in the case of oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, see paragraph 2.5.2.] 
[14: V primeru ugovorov, vloženih pred 23. marcem 2016, datum, ko je bila objavljena izpodbijana prijava blagovne znamke EU, glej odstavek 2.5.2.]
Equally, the proprietor of an earlier national mark that has given notice of opposition against the registration of a European Union trade mark must, according to Article 47(3) EUTMR and where the EUTM applicant so requests, submit proof that its earlier national trade mark has been put to genuine use in the Member State in connection with the goods and services for which it was registered during a period of 5 years preceding the filing or priority date of the EUTM application, provided the earlier national mark has at that date been registered for more than 5 years. 
Podobno mora v skladu s členom 47(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik prejšnje nacionalne znamke, ki je vložil ugovor zoper registracijo blagovne znamke EU, na zahtevo prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU priskrbeti dokaz, da se je v petletnem obdobju pred datumom vložitve ali datumom prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU njegova prejšnja nacionalna blagovna znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala v državi članici za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana, če je bila prejšnja nacionalna znamka na ta dan registrirana najmanj pet let.
[15: Date of publication of the contested EUTM application in the case of oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, see paragraph 2.5.2.] 
[15: V primeru ugovorov, vloženih pred 23. marcem 2016, datum, ko je bila objavljena izpodbijana prijava blagovne znamke EU, glej odstavek 2.5.2.]
The date of registration of an EUTM is the date on which it is entered in the Register of European Union trade marks. 
Datum registracije blagovne znamke EU je datum, ko je blagovna znamka EU vpisana v register blagovnih znamk Evropske unije.
Consequently, the 5-year grace period of an EUTM commences from its entry in the Register of European Union trade marks. 
Petletni odložni rok za blagovno znamko EU zato začne teči od njenega vpisa v navedeni register.
In order to determine the date of commencement of the 5-year grace period in respect of a national mark, national law is relevant. 
Za opredelitev datuma začetka petletnega odložnega roka v zvezi z nacionalno blagovno je treba upoštevati nacionalno pravo.
The commencement of this period depends on the registration procedure of the Member States and, in particular, whether a Member State applies a post-registration opposition procedure (this being the case for DK, DE, FI and SE). 
Začetek tega obdobja je odvisen od postopka registracije v državi članici in zlasti od tega, ali država članica uporablja postopek ugovora po registraciji (ta se uporablja na Danskem, v Nemčiji, na Finskem in Švedskem).
The following table makes reference to the relevant national provisions on non-use of a national trade mark and specifies the relevant point in time when the 5-year grace period for a national trade mark commences. 
V naslednji preglednici so navedene ustrezne nacionalne določbe o neuporabi nacionalne blagovne znamke in opredeljen je upoštevni trenutek, ko začne teči petletni odložni rok za nacionalno blagovno znamko.
[16: References are to the national provisions valid on 01/06/2015.] 
[16: Sklicevanja se nanašajo na nacionalne določbe, ki so veljale 1. junija 2015.]
WELLNESS 15/01/2009, C495/07,EU:C:2009:10 (preliminary ruling) 
WELLNESS 15/01/2009, C495/07,EU:C:2009:10 (predhodna odločba)
The opponent owned the mark ‘WELLNESS' in Classes 25 and 32. 
Vložnik ugovora je bil imetnik znamke „WELLNESS“ v razredih 25 in 32.
In the context of selling its ‘WELLNESS' clothing, it also used the mark to designate an alcohol-free drink, which was handed out in small bottles as a gift along with the clothing sold. 
V okviru prodaje oblačil „WELLNESS“ je znamko uporabljal tudi za označevanje brezalkoholne pijače, ki jo je kot darilo delil v stekleničkah ob nakupu oblačil.
No drinks were sold separately under the ‘WELLNESS' mark. 
Pod znamko „WELLNESS“ ni ločeno prodajal nobenih pijač.