natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The burden of proof regarding the existence of a cooperation relationship lies with the opponent (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64, 67). 
Dokazno breme glede obstoja sodelovalnega razmerja je na vložniku ugovora (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64, 67).
4.1.2 Form of the agreement 
Oblika sporazuma
It is not necessary for the agreement between the parties to assume the form of a written contract. 
Ni nujno, da ima sporazum med strankama obliko pisne pogodbe.
Of course, the existence of a formal agreement between the parties will be of great value in determining exactly what kind of relationship exists between them. 
Seveda bo obstoj formalnega sporazuma med strankama zelo močno pripomogel k natančni opredelitvi, katera vrsta razmerja obstaja med njima.
As mentioned above, the title of such an agreement and the terminology chosen by the parties should not be taken as conclusive. 
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, se ne sme šteti, da sta naslov takšnega sporazuma in terminologija, ko sta jo izbrali stranki, odločilna.
What counts is the kind of commercial cooperation established in substance and not its formal description. 
Pomembna je vrsta poslovnega sodelovanja, ki je bilo vzpostavljeno na podlagi vsebine, in ne njegov formalni opis.
Even in cases where a written contract does not exist, it may still be possible to infer the existence of a commercial agreement of the kind required by Article 8(3) EUTMR by reference to indirect indications and evidence, such as the commercial correspondence between the parties, invoices and purchase orders for goods sold to the agent, or credit notes and other banking instruments (always bearing in mind that a mere customer relationship is insufficient for Article 8(3) EUTMR). 
Tudi če pisna pogodba ne obstaja, je morda še vedno mogoče sklepati o obstoju takšne vrste poslovnega dogovora, kot jo zahteva člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer s sklicevanjem na posredne navedbe in dokazi, kot so poslovna korespondenca med strankama, računi in naročilnice za blago, ki je bilo prodano posredniku, ali dobropisi in drugi bančni instrumenti (pri čemer je treba vedno upoštevati, da za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni dovolj navadno razmerje s stranko).
Even dispute resolution agreements may be relevant to the extent that they give sufficient information about the past relationship between the parties. 
Pomembni so lahko celo dogovori o reševanju sporov, če vsebujejo dovolj informacij o preteklem razmerju med strankama.
Furthermore, circumstances such as sales targets imposed on the applicant, or payment of royalties, or production of the goods covered by the mark under licence or help in the setting up of a local distribution network, will be strong indications of a commercial relationship of the type covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Poleg tega so okoliščine, kot so prodajni cilji, ki so bili naloženi prijavitelju, plačilo licenčnin, proizvodnja blaga, ki ga označuje licenčna blagovna znamka, ali pomoč pri vzpostavitvi lokalne distribucijske mreže, trdni znaki obstoja takšne vrste poslovnega razmerja, kot je opredeljeno v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The Court also decided that active cooperation between an EUTM applicant and an opponent in the advertising of the product, in order to optimise the marketing thereof, could give rise to the fiduciary relationship required under Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Sodišče je odločilo tudi, da lahko aktivno sodelovanje med prijaviteljem blagovne znamke EU in vložnikom ugovora pri oglaševanju proizvoda za izboljšanje njegovega trženja ustvari zaupniško razmerje, ki se zahteva na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, the mere desire of the applicant to enter into a commercial relationship with the opponent cannot be considered as a concluded agreement between the parties. 
Vendar navadne želje prijavitelja po vzpostavitvi poslovnega razmerja z vložnikom ugovora ni mogoče šteti za sklenjen sporazum med strankama.
Prospective agents or representatives are not covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR (see B 26 759 cited above). 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zajema potencialnih posrednikov ali zastopnikov (glej zgoraj navedeno zadevo B 26 759).
4.1.3 Territorial scope of the agreement 
Ozemeljski obseg sporazuma
Even though the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR does not refer to the territorial scope of the agreement between the trade mark proprietor and its agent or representative, an inherent limitation to relationships covering the EU or a part thereof must be read in this provision. 
Čeprav v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanja na ozemeljski obseg sporazuma med imetnikom znamke in njegovim posrednikom ali zastopnikom, je treba to določbo brati, kot da vključuje implicitno omejitev razmerij v EU ali njenem delu.
This is more in line with the economic considerations underlying Article 8(3) EUTMR, which are to prevent agents or representatives from unduly exploiting a commercial relationship covering a given territory, by filing an unauthorised application for the principal's mark precisely in that territory, that is, in the territory where the applicant will be more able to benefit from the infrastructure and know-how it possesses as a result of its prior relationship with the proprietor. 
To je bolj v skladu z gospodarskimi vidiki, na katerih temelji člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, to je posrednikom ali zastopnikom preprečiti, da neupravičeno izkoriščajo poslovno razmerje na določenem ozemlju z vložitvijo nepooblaščene prijave za znamko naročnika na zadevnem ozemlju, to je na ozemlju, kjer lahko prijavitelj bolj izkorišča infrastrukturo ter strokovno znanje in izkušnje, ki jih ima zaradi svojega prejšnjega razmerja z imetnikom.
Therefore, as the filing prohibited by Article 8(3) EUTMR is an application for the acquisition of trade mark rights in the EU, the agreement must also concern the same territory. 
Ker je vložitev, ki jo člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prepoveduje, zahteva za pridobitev pravic iz znamke v EU, se mora zato tudi sporazum nanašati na isto ozemlje.
Conversely, agreements exclusively applying to third territories are not covered. 
Nasprotno pa niso zajeti sporazumi, ki se uporabljajo izključno za tretja ozemlja.
4.1.4 Relevant points in time 
Upoštevni datumi
The agent-representative relationship must have been established prior to the filing date of the EUTM application. 
Posredniško ali zastopniško razmerje je moralo biti vzpostavljeno pred datumom vložitve prijave za blagovno znamko EU.
Therefore, it is immaterial whether after that time the applicant entered negotiations with the opponent, or made unilateral proposals with the purpose of becoming a representative or agent of the latter. 
Zato ni pomembno, ali se je prijavitelj začel pogajati z vložnikom ugovora po zadevnem datumu oziroma ali mu je predložil enostranske predloge, da bi postal njegov zastopnik ali posrednik.
However, even if the agreement between the parties was formally concluded after the filing date of the application, it may still be possible to deduce from the evidence that the parties were already in some form of commercial cooperation before the signature of the relevant contract and that the applicant was already acting as the opponent's agent, representative, distributor or licensee. 
Tudi če je bil sporazum med strankama formalno sklenjen po datumu vložitve prijave, je morda iz dokazov še vedno mogoče sklepati, da sta stranki pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe že bili v nekakšnem razmerju poslovnega sodelovanja in da je prijavitelj že deloval kot posrednik, zastopnik, distributer ali pridobitelj licence vložnika ugovora.
However, the agreement between the parties does not have to be still in force technically when the application is filed. 
Vendar ni nujno, da je sporazum med strankama ob vložitvi prijave še vedno formalno veljaven.
The reference to a filing made by an ‘agent or representative' should not be understood as a formal requirement that must be present at the time the EUTM application is filed. 
Sklicevanja na vložitev, ki jo opravi posrednik ali zastopnik, ne gre razumeti kot formalne zahteve, ki mora biti izpolnjena ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU.
Article 8(3) EUTMR also applies to agreements that expired before the filing date of the EUTM application, provided that the time that has lapsed is of such duration that it can be reasonably assumed that the obligation of trust and confidentiality was still present when the EUTM application was filed (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 65). 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja tudi za dogovore, ki so prenehali veljati pred dnevom vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU, če je mogoče na podlagi preteklega časa upravičeno domnevati, da je obveznost zaupanja in zaupnosti še obstajala ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 65).
Article 8(3) EUTMR and Article 6septies PC do not protect a trade mark proprietor that is careless and makes no efforts to secure trade mark protection on its own. 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člen 6septies Pariške konvencije ne zagotavljata varstva imetnikom znamk, ki so nepazljivi in ne poskrbijo za varstvo svojih znamk na lastno pobudo.
Post-contractual fiduciary obligations mean that none of the parties may use the termination of an agreement as a pretext for getting rid of its obligations, for example, by terminating an agreement and immediately afterwards filing a trade mark. 
Popogodbene zaupniške obveznosti pomenijo, da nobena od strank ne sme uporabiti prenehanja sporazuma kot pretvezo, da se znebi svojih obveznosti, na primer z odpovedjo sporazuma in takoj zatem vložitvijo prijave za znamko.
However, this does not create absolute rights for the principal to obtain trade mark protection in other countries. 
Vendar to ne ustvari absolutnih pravic za naročnika, da pridobi varstvo blagovne znamke v drugih državah.
The mere fact that the principal holds a trade mark in country B does not give the principal an absolute right to obtain trade marks in all other countries; the trade marks registered in different countries are in principle independent from each other and may have different proprietors, in accordance with Article 6(3) PC. 
Dejstvo, da je naročnik imetnik blagovne znamke v državi B, mu ne daje absolutne pravice za pridobitev blagovnih znamk v vseh drugih državah; blagovne znamke, ki so registrirane v različnih državah, so načeloma medsebojno neodvisne in lahko imajo v skladu s členom 6(3) Pariške konvencije različne imetnike.
Article 6septies PC is an exception to this principle and only to the extent that the contractual or de facto obligations of the parties involved justify this. 
Člen 6septies Pariške konvencije je izjema od tega načela, in to samo, če to utemeljujejo pogodbene ali dejanske obveznosti zadevnih strank.
Only to that extent is it justified that the ensuing EUTM would ‘belong' to the principal under Article 21 EUTMR (19/11/2007, R 73/20064, PORTER (fig.) / PORTER (fig.) et al., § 26). 
Samo v tem okviru je utemeljeno, da bo prihodnja blagovna znamka EU v skladu s členom 21 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pripadala naročniku (19/11/2007, R 73/20064, PORTER (fig.) / PORTER (fig.) et al., § 26).
This should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the decisive factor should be whether it is still possible for the applicant to take commercial advantage of its expired relationship with the trade mark proprietor by exploiting the know-how and contacts it acquired because of its position. 
To je treba presoditi za vsak primer posebej, odločilni dejavnik pa mora biti to, ali lahko prijavitelj še vedno poslovno izkorišča svoje minulo razmerje z imetnikom znamke z izkoriščanjem strokovnega znanja in izkušenj ter stikov, ki jih je pridobil zaradi svojega položaja.
4.2 Application in the agent's name 
Prijava v imenu posrednika
According to Article 8(3) EUTMR, the trade mark applied for will not be registered where the agent or representative applies for registration thereof in its own name. 
V skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, ne registrira, če posrednik ali zastopnik vloži zahtevo za registracijo blagovne znamke v lastnem imenu.
It will usually be easy to assess whether this requirement has been fulfilled, by comparing the name of the applicant with that of the person appearing in the evidence as the agent or representative of the proprietor. 
Običajno se brez težav presodi, ali je ta zahteva izpolnjena, in sicer s primerjavo imena prijavitelja z imenom osebe, ki je v predloženih dokazov navedena kot imetnikov posrednik ali zastopnik.
However, there may be cases where the agent or representative will try to circumvent this provision by arranging for the application to be filed by a third person, whom it either controls, or with whom it has entered into some form of understanding to that effect. 
Vendar lahko obstajajo primeri, v katerih se posrednik ali zastopnik poskuša izogniti tej določbi in poskrbi, da prijavo vloži tretja oseba, ki jo nadzira ali s katero je v ta namen sklenil nekakšen dogovor.
In such cases adopting a more flexible approach is justified. 
V takšnih primerih je utemeljeno sprejeti prožnejši pristop.
Therefore, if it is clear that because of the nature of the relationship between the person filing the application and the agent, the situation is effectively the same as if the application had been filed by the agent personally, it is still possible to apply Article 8(3) EUTMR, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name of the proprietor's agent. 
Če je očitno, da je stanje zaradi vrste razmerja med osebo, ki vloži prijavo, in posrednikom v bistvu enako, kot če bi prijavo vložil sam posrednik, je zato še vedno mogoče uporabiti člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne glede na očitno neskladnost med imenom prijavitelja in imenom imetnikovega posrednika.
Such a case could arise if the application is filed not in the name of the agent's company, but in the name of a natural person that shares the same economic interests as the agent, as for example its president, vice-president or legal representative. 
Takšen primer lahko nastane, če prijava ni vložena v imenu posrednikove družbe, temveč v imenu fizične osebe, ki ima enake gospodarske interese kot posrednik, na primer njegov predsednik, podpredsednik ali pravni zastopnik.
Given that in this case the agent or representative could still benefit from such a filing, it should be considered that the natural person is bound by the same limitations as the company. 
Ker bi lahko v tem primeru posrednik ali zastopnik še vedno imel koristi od takšne vložitve, je treba šteti, da se za fizično osebo uporabljajo enake omejitve kot za družbo.
Moreover, if the person filing the contested application had also signed the agency agreement on behalf of the company, this would have to be considered a strong argument in favour of the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR, since in such a case the applicant cannot possibly deny direct knowledge of the relevant prohibitions. 
Če je poleg tega oseba, ki je vložila sporno prijavo, v imenu družbe podpisala tudi sporazum o zastopstvu, je treba to šteti za močan argument v prid uporabi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj v takšnem primeru prijavitelj nikakor ne more zanikati neposredne seznanjenosti z ustreznimi prepovedmi.
Similarly, if an agency agreement contained a clause holding the management of the company personally responsible for the observance of the contractual obligations undertaken by the agent, this would also have to be considered a further indication that the filing of the application is covered by the prohibition of Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Podobno velja, če je sporazum o zastopstvu vključeval klavzulo, v skladu s katero je za spoštovanje pogodbenih obveznosti, ki jih izvaja posrednik, osebno odgovorna uprava družbe, je treba tudi to šteti za nadaljnji znak, da se za vložitev prijave uporablja prepoved iz člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
A similar case arises where the agent or the representative and the applicant are distinct legal entities, but the evidence shows that they are controlled, managed or run by the same natural person. 
Podoben primer nastane, kadar sta posrednik ali zastopnik in prijavitelj različni pravni osebi, vendar je iz dokazov razvidno, da ju nadzira, upravlja ali vodi ista fizična oseba.
For the reasons given above it is appropriate to ‘lift the corporate veil' and apply Article 8(3) EUTMR also to these cases. 
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov je ustrezno razkriti korporativno pretvezo in člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabljati tudi v takšnih primerih.
4.3 Application without the proprietor's consent 
Prijava brez soglasja imetnika
Even though the absence of the proprietor's consent is a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR, the opponent does not have to submit evidence that shows that the agent was not permitted to file the EUTM application. 
Čeprav je odsotnost soglasja imetnika nujen pogoj za uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vložniku ugovora ni treba predložiti dokazov o tem, da posrednik ni imel dovoljenja za vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU.
A mere statement that the filing was made without its consent is generally sufficient. 
Na splošno zadostuje navadna izjava, da je bila vložitev opravljena brez njegovega soglasja.
This is because the opponent cannot be expected to prove a ‘negative' fact, such as the absence of consent. 
Razlog je, da od vložnika ugovora ni mogoče pričakovati, da dokaže negativno dejstvo, kot je odsotnost soglasja.
In these cases the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the applicant to prove that the filing was authorised, or to give some other justification for its acts. 
V teh primerih je dokazno breme na drugi strani in je prijavitelj tisti, ki mora dokazati, da je bila vložitev dovoljena, ali kako drugače utemeljiti svoja dejanja.
In view of the need to provide effective protection to the legitimate proprietor from unauthorised acts of its agents, the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR should be denied only where the proprietor's consent is sufficiently clear, specific and unconditional (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 40). 
Zaradi potrebe po zagotavljanju učinkovite zaščite zakonitemu imetniku pred nepooblaščenimi dejanji njegovih posrednikov je treba uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavrniti le, če je soglasje imetnika dovolj jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 40).
Therefore, even if the proprietor has expressly authorised the filing of the EUTM application, its consent cannot be considered sufficiently clear if it has not also explicitly specified that the application may be in the name of the agent. 
Tudi če je imetnik izrecno odobril vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU, njegovega soglasja ni mogoče šteti za dovolj jasnega, če ni tudi izrecno navedel, da je lahko prijava vložena v imenu posrednika.
Likewise, even if the proprietor has expressly authorised the filing of an EUTM application, its consent cannot be considered sufficiently specific for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR if there is no indication of the specific signs for which the applicant has permission to file as an EUTM. 
Podobno, tudi če je imetnik izrecno odobril vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU, njegovega soglasja ni mogoče šteti za dovolj jasnega za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če niso navedeni posebni znaki, za katere lahko prijavitelj vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
It will be generally easier to assess whether the filing was authorised by the proprietor where the conditions under which an agent or representative may apply for an EUTM application are adequately regulated by contract, or are given by other kinds of direct evidence (letters, written representations, etc.). 
Na splošno je lažje presoditi, ali je imetnik odobril vložitev, če so pogoji, na podlagi katerih lahko posrednik ali zastopnik vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU, ustrezno urejeni s pogodbo ali so razvidni iz drugih vrst neposrednih dokazov (dopisov, pisnih izjav itd.).
In most cases, such evidence will be sufficient to demonstrate whether the proprietor has given its express consent, or if the applicant has exceeded the limits of its authorisation. 
V večini primerov je iz takšnih dokazov dovolj jasno razvidno, ali je imetnik dal izrecno soglasje ali pa je prijavitelj presegel omejitve svojega pooblastila.
In other cases, a contract will either not exist or it will be inadequate on the subject. 
V drugih primerih pogodba ne obstaja ali je zadevna tema v njej obravnavana neustrezno.
Although the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR is in principle broad enough to include cases of tacit or implied consent, such consent should only be inferred if the evidence is sufficiently clear as to the intentions of the proprietor. 
Čeprav je besedilo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU načeloma dovolj široko, da vključuje primere tihega ali implicitnega soglasja, je treba o takšnem soglasju sklepati le, če so dokaz o namerah imetnika dovolj jasna.
If the evidence is completely silent as to the existence of an express or implied authorisation, lack of consent should be generally presumed. 
Če iz dokazov sploh ni razviden obstoj izrecnega ali implicitnega pooblastila, je treba na splošno sklepati o neobstoju soglasja.
Notwithstanding indirect indications and evidence pointing to implied consent, any ambiguity or doubt should be interpreted in favour of the opponent, as it will usually be quite difficult to assess whether such consent is sufficiently clear and unequivocal. 
Vsakršno dvoumnost ali dvom je treba ne glede na posredne navedbe in dokazi, ki kažejo na implicitno soglasje, razlagati v prid vložniku ugovora, saj je običajno zelo težko presoditi, ali je takšno soglasje dovolj jasno in nedvoumno.
For example, the mere fact that the proprietor tolerated unauthorised applications in the name of the agent in third jurisdictions cannot alone create legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that the proprietor will not object to the filing of an EUTM application either. 
Tako na primer prijavitelj le na podlagi dejstva, da je imetnik dopuščal nepooblaščene prijave v imenu posrednika v tretjih jurisdikcijah, ne more legitimno pričakovati, da imetnik ne bo nasprotoval tudi vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The fact that the proprietor tolerates conduct outside the boundaries of a contract (such as use of the sign) cannot lead to the conclusion that filing the EUTM did not breach the established fiduciary duty if consent is not clear, specific and unconditional. 
Na podlagi dejstva, da imetnik dopušča ravnanje zunaj omejitev pogodbe (kot je uporaba znaka), se ne sme šteti, da vložitev blagovne znamke EU ne krši vzpostavljene zaupniške obveznosti, če soglasje ni jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno.
Even where consent of the proprietor has been deemed to be clear, specific and unconditional, it will be a question of fact to determine if such consent survives a change of proprietor by way of an asset sale. 
Tudi če se šteje, da je soglasje imetnika jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno, je treba dejansko opredeliti, ali je takšno soglasje veljavno tudi po spremembi imetnika zaradi prodaje premoženja.
4.4 Absence of justification on the part of the applicant 
Neobstoj utemeljitve prijavitelja
As mentioned above, since it is not possible for the opponent to prove the absence of consent, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the applicant to show that the filing of the application was authorised by the proprietor. 
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je dokazno breme zato, ker vložnik ugovora ne more dokazati neobstoja soglasja, na drugi strani in je prijavitelj tisti, ki mora dokazati, da je imetnik odobril vložitev prijave.