natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See judgments of 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31; 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32. 
Glej sodbi z dne 04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 31 in z dne 29/09/2010, T378/07, Représentation d'un tracteur en rouge, noir et gris, EU:T:2010:413, § 32.
Article 97 EUTMR contains a non-exhaustive list of means of giving or obtaining evidence in proceedings before the Office, which may serve as guidance to applicants. 
Člen 97 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vsebuje neizčrpen seznam dajanja ali pridobivanja dokazov v postopkih Urada, ki je lahko v pomoč prijaviteljem.
Examples of evidence that may help to show acquired distinctiveness include, inter alia: 
Primeri dokazov, ki bi lahko pomagali dokazati pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek, med drugim vključujejo:
sales brochures 
prodajne brošure,
catalogues 
kataloge,
price lists 
cenike,
invoices 
račune,
annual reports 
letna poročila,
turnover figures 
podatke o prometu,
advertising investment figures and reports 
podatke in poročila o naložbah v oglaševanje,
advertisements (press cuttings, billboard posters, TV adverts), together with evidence of their intensity and reach 
oglase (izrezki iz tiska, plakati, televizijski oglasi), skupaj z dokazom o njihovi intenzivnosti in dosegu,
customer and/or market surveys 
ankete uporabnikov in/ali tržne raziskave,
affidavits. 
zaprisežene pisne izjave.
For further details on means of evidence, see by analogy the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4. 
Za dodatne podrobnosti o dokazih po analogiji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
The basic rules on the evaluation of evidence are also applicable here. 
Uporabljajo se tudi osnovna pravila o presoji dokazov.
The Office must make an overall assessment of all the evidence submitted (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49), weighing up each indication against the others. 
Urad mora opraviti celovito presojo vseh predloženih dokazov (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230, § 49) in vsako navedbo pretehtati glede na druge.
Applicants should take great care to make sure not only that the evidence shows use of the mark applied for but also that it is sufficient to identify the dates of such use and the specific geographical territory of use within the EU. 
Prijavitelji morajo poskrbeti, da dokazi izkazujejo uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, in tudi, da zadostujejo za opredelitev datumov te uporabe ter posebnega geografskega ozemlja uporabe v EU.
Evidence that cannot be related to a certain point in time will normally be insufficient to show that distinctiveness had been acquired before the filing date, and evidence of use outside the EU cannot show the required market recognition of the relevant public within the EU. 
Dokazi, ki jih ni mogoče povezati z nekim trenutkom, običajno ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje, da je bil razlikovalni učinek pridobljen pred datumom vložitve, dokazi o uporabi zunaj EU pa ne morejo dokazati potrebne tržne prepoznavnosti v upoštevni javnosti v EU.
Furthermore, evidence that mixes material relating to the EU with that relating to non-EU territories, and does not permit the Office to identify the specific extent of EU-only use, will be similarly devoid of probative value for the relevant EU public. 
Tudi dokazi, ki združujejo gradivo, ki se nanaša na EU, z gradivom, ki se nanaša na tretja ozemlja, in Uradu ne omogočajo ugotovitve glede ustreznega obsega uporabe samo v EU, so podobno brez dokazne vrednosti za upoštevno javnost v EU.
The Court has declared that direct evidence such as declarations by professional associations and market studies are usually the most relevant means for proving acquired distinctiveness through use. 
Sodišče je odločilo, da so neposredni dokazi, kot so izjave strokovnih združenj in tržne raziskave, najustreznejši dokazi za izkaz razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo.
Invoices, advertising expenditure, magazines and catalogues may help to corroborate such direct evidence (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74). 
Računi, izdatki za oglaševanje, revije in katalogi lahko pomagajo podpreti te neposredne dokaze (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 74).
In order to assess the evidential value of a document, regard should be had to its credibility. 
Pri presoji dokazne vrednosti dokumenta je treba upoštevati njegovo verjetnost.
It is also necessary to take into account the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, superficially, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.). 
Upoštevati je treba tudi izvor dokumenta, okoliščine njegove izdelave, njegovega naslovnika in ali se glede na njegovo vsebino zdi razumen in zanesljiv (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42; 16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46 et seq.).
8.1 Opinion polls and surveys 
Javnomnenjske in tržne raziskave
Opinion polls concerning the level of recognition of the trade mark by the relevant public on the market in question can, if conducted properly, constitute one of the most direct kinds of evidence, since they can show the actual perception of the relevant public. 
Javnomnenjske raziskave v zvezi s stopnjo prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke v upoštevni javnosti na zadevnem trgu so lahko najneposrednejši dokazi, če so ustrezno izvedene, saj lahko pokažejo dejansko zaznavanje upoštevne javnosti.
However, it is not an easy matter to correctly formulate and implement an opinion poll so that it can be seen to be truly neutral and representative. 
Ni pa tako lahko pravilno zasnovati in izvesti javnomnenjske raziskave, da bi bila dejansko nepristranska in reprezentativna.
Leading questions, unrepresentative samples of the public, and undue editing of responses should be avoided, as these can undermine the probative value of such surveys. 
Izogniti se je treba napeljujočim vprašanjem, nereprezentativnim vzorcem javnosti in neustreznemu urejanju odgovorov, saj lahko škodujejo dokazni vrednosti teh raziskav.
Accordingly, any opinion poll evidence must be assessed carefully. 
Glede na to je treba o vseh dokazih na podlagi javnomnenjskih raziskav presojati previdno.
It is important that the questions asked are not leading ones (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79). 
Pomembno je, da postavljena vprašanja niso napeljujoča (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 79).
The criteria for selecting the public interviewed must be assessed carefully. 
O merilih za izbiro javnosti, vključene v raziskavo, je treba skrbno presoditi.
The sample must be indicative of the entire relevant public and must be selected randomly (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88). 
Vzorec mora biti značilen za vso upoštevno javnost in izbran naključno (29/01/2013, T25/11, Cortadora de cerámica, EU:T:2013:40, § 88).
The Court does not exclude that a survey compiled some time before or after the filing date could contain useful indications, although it is clear that its evidential value is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date or priority date of the trade mark application at issue. 
Sodišče ne izključuje, da bi lahko raziskava, izvedena nekoliko pred datumom vložitve ali po njem, vsebovala koristne podatke, čeprav je jasno, da se bo njena dokazna vrednost verjetno razlikovala glede na to, ali je zajeto obdobje časovno blizu ali daleč od datuma vložitve ali datuma priznanja prednostne pravice zadevne prijave blagovne znamke.
Furthermore, its evidential value depends on the survey method used (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39). 
Poleg tega je njena dokazna vrednost odvisna od uporabljene raziskovalne metode (12/07/2006, T277/04, Vitacoat, EU:T:2006:202, § 38-39).
However, the Court of Justice has made it clear that the results of a consumer survey cannot be the only decisive criterion in support of the conclusion that distinctive character has been acquired through use (19/06/2014, C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48). 
Sodišče pa je pojasnilo, da rezultati javnomnenjske raziskave ne morejo biti edino odločilno merilo, ki podpira ugotovitev, da je bil razlikovalni učinek pridobljen z uporabo (19/06/2014, C217/13 in C218/13, Oberbank e.a., EU:C:2014:2012, § 48).
They must therefore be complemented by other means of evidence. 
Zato jih je treba dopolniti z drugimi dokazi.
For further details on the assessment of opinion polls, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4. 
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji javnomnenjskih raziskav glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.2 Market share, advertising and turnover 
Tržni delež, oglaševanje in promet
The market share held by the trade mark in relation to the goods and/or services applied for may be relevant for assessing whether that mark has acquired distinctive character through use, since such market penetration might enable the Office to infer that the relevant public would recognise the mark as identifying the goods or services as originating from a specific undertaking, and thus distinguish them from the goods and services of other undertakings. 
Tržni delež blagovne znamke glede na blago in/ali storitve, za katere je vložena prijava, je lahko pomemben pri presoji tega, ali je znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo, saj lahko ta uveljavitev na trgu Uradu omogoči sklepanje, da bi upoštevna javnost prepoznala znamko tako, da označuje blago ali storitve, kot da izhajajo iz zadevnega podjetja, in jih tako razlikuje od blaga in storitev drugih podjetij.
The investment in advertising or promoting the mark in the relevant market for the goods or services claimed may also be relevant for assessing whether the mark has acquired distinctive character through use (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.). 
Tudi naložbe v oglaševanje ali uveljavljanje znamke na zadevnem trgu za blago ali storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo, so lahko pomembne pri presoji tega, ali je znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo (22/06/2006, C25/05 P, Bonbonverpackung, EU:C:2006:422, § 76 et seq.).
However, many attempts to prove distinctiveness acquired through use fail because the evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to prove a link between the market share and advertising, on the one hand, and consumer perceptions on the other. 
Številni poskusi dokazovanja razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, pa niso uspešni, ker dokazi prijavitelja ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje povezave med tržnim deležem in oglaševanjem na eni strani in zaznavo potrošnikov na drugi strani.
Information concerning turnover and advertising expenses is one of the most readily available forms of evidence. 
Informacije o prometu in stroških oglaševanja so ena od oblik dokazov, ki so najprej na voljo.
These figures can have a significant impact on the assessment of the evidence, but in the great majority of cases are not sufficient alone to prove acquired distinctiveness of a trade mark through use. 
Ti podatki lahko pomembno vplivajo na presojo dokazov, vendar v veliki večini primerov sami ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka blagovne znamke, pridobljenega z uporabo.
This is because turnover/advertising costs alone, without additional corroborative details, are frequently too general to allow specific conclusions to be drawn about the use of one particular trade mark. 
To pa zato, ker so promet ali stroški oglaševanja brez dodatnih podpornih podatkov pogosto preveč splošni, da bi omogočali ustrezno sklepanje o uporabi določene blagovne znamke.
It is thus necessary to identify precisely the turnover/advertising figures and evidence relating to the mark applied for, as well as their link to the relevant goods and services. 
Zato je treba natančno opredeliti podatke o prometu ali oglaševanju in dokaze, ki se nanašajo na znamko, za katero je vložena prijava, ter njihovo povezavo z zadevnim blagom in storitvami.
Furthermore, it is desirable that the figures be segregated on an annual and market-by-market basis. 
Zaželeno je še, da so podatki navedeni ločeno na letni ravni in na ravni posameznega trga.
The evidence should show the specific period(s) of use (including details of when use commenced), so that the Office is able to establish whether the evidence proves that the trade mark acquired distinctiveness before the filing date. 
Dokazi morajo izkazovati zadevno(-a) obdobje(-a) uporabe (vključno s podatki, kdaj se je začela uporaba), da lahko Urad ugotovi, ali dokazi izkazujejo, da je blagovna znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek pred datumom vložitve.
Goods and services are often marketed under several trade marks, which makes it difficult to see the relevant customer's perception of the EUTM applied for on its own, that is to say, without such perception being affected by the other marks present. 
Blago in storitve se pogosto tržijo pod več blagovnimi znamkami, zaradi česar je težko razpoznati, kako upoštevni uporabnik zaznava samo blagovno znamko EU, za katero je vložena prijava, to je brez vpliva drugih obstoječih znamk na zaznavo.
Turnover and advertising figures can often include sales or promotion of other trade marks, or of significantly different forms of the trade mark at issue (for example, figurative trade marks rather than word marks, or differing word elements in a figurative mark), or are too general to allow identification of the specific markets under consideration. 
Podatki o prometu in oglaševanju lahko pogosto vključujejo prodajo ali uveljavljanje drugih blagovnih znamk ali zelo drugačnih oblik zadevne blagovne znamke (na primer, figurativne blagovne znamke namesto besednih znamk ali različni besedni elementi v figurativni znamki) ali pa so preveč splošni, da bi omogočali opredelitev obravnavanih posameznih trgov.
As a consequence, broadly consolidated turnover or advertising figures may not be sufficient to prove whether the relevant public perceives the trade mark at issue as a badge of origin or not. 
Zaradi tega splošni konsolidirani podatki o prometu ali oglaševanju lahko ne zadostujejo za dokaz, ali upoštevna javnost zaznava zadevno blagovno znamko kot označbo porekla ali ne.
For further details on the assessment of market share, advertising and turnover, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4. 
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji tržnega deleža, oglaševanja in prometa glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.3 Declarations, affidavits and written statements 
Izjave, zaprisežene pisne izjave in pisne izjave
Pursuant to Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR, ‘statements in writing, sworn or affirmed or having a similar effect under the law of the State in which [they are] drawn up' are valid means of evidence. 
V skladu s členom 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so „zaprisežene ali potrjene pisne izjave ali izjave, ki imajo podoben učinek po zakonu države, v kateri je izjava sestavljena“ veljavna dokazna sredstva.
With regard to admissibility, only in cases where the statements have not been sworn or affirmed is it necessary to consider the rules of law of the national jurisdiction as to the effects of a written statement (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40). 
V zvezi z dopustnostjo je treba zakonodajo zadevne države članice upoštevati le, če izjave niso bile zaprisežene ali potrjene (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40).
In case of doubt as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the applicant to submit evidence in this regard. 
Prijavitelj mora v primeru dvoma, ali je bila izjava zaprisežena ali potrjena, predložiti zadevne dokaze.
The weight and probative value of statutory declarations is determined by the general rules applied by the Office to the assessment of such evidence. 
Teža in dokazna vrednost uradnih izjav sta določeni s splošnimi pravili, ki jih Urad uporablja za presojo takih dokazov.
In particular, both the capacity of the person giving the evidence and the relevance of the contents of the statement to the particular case must be taken into account. 
Upoštevati je treba zlasti položaj osebe, ki zagotovi dokaze, in pomen vsebine izjave za posamezni primer.
Statements from independent trade associations, consumer organisations and competitors are an important means of evidence insofar as they come from independent sources. 
Izjave neodvisnih trgovinskih združenj, organizacij potrošnikov in konkurence so pomembni dokazi, če prihajajo iz neodvisnih virov.
However, they must be examined carefully, as they might not be enough to prove distinctiveness acquired through use if, for example, they refer to ‘the trade marks of the applicant' instead of to the specific mark in question (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84). 
Treba jih je skrbno proučiti, saj morda ne zadostujejo za dokazovanje razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo, če se na primer nanašajo na „blagovne znamke prijavitelja“, in ne na zadevno posebno znamko (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 83-84).
Evidence from suppliers or distributors should, generally, be given less weight, since it is less likely that their evidence will be from an independent perspective. 
Dokazom dobaviteljev ali distributerjev je treba na splošno pripisati manjši pomen, saj je manj verjetno, da bodo njihovi dokazi neodvisni.
In this regard, the degree of independence of the latter will influence the weight to be given to the evidence by the Office (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56). 
V zvezi s tem stopnja neodvisnosti takih dokazov vpliva na pomen, ki ga dokazom pripiše Urad (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 54-56).
Insofar as a declaration is not made by an independent third party, but by a person connected to the applicant through an employment relationship, it cannot in itself constitute sufficient evidence that the mark applied for has acquired distinctive character through use. 
Če izjave ne da neodvisna tretja oseba, ampak oseba, ki je s prijaviteljem povezana z delovnim razmerjem, ta izjava ne more biti zadosten dokaz za to, da je znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, razlikovalni učinek pridobila z uporabo.
In consequence, it must be treated as merely indicative and needs to be corroborated by other evidence (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS. 
Zato jo je treba obravnavati kot samo informativno in podpreti z drugimi dokazi (21/11/2012, T338/11, PHOTOS.
As regards statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations and certifications and awards, the Court has noted that such statements and certifications must identify precisely the trade mark applied for (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.). 
V zvezi z izjavami gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih trgovinskih in strokovnih združenj ter certifikati in priznanji je Sodišče menilo, da morajo te izjave in certifikati natančno opredeliti blagovno znamko, za katero je vložena prijava (13/09/2012, T72/11, Espetec, EU:T:2012:424, § 82 et seq.).
However, cease and desist letters against competitors or letters to newspapers complaining against the use of the sign in a generic sense have been considered evidence against acquired distinctiveness (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66) 
Vendar so se opomini konkurenci ali dopisi časopisom s pritožbami zoper uporabo znaka v splošnem smislu šteli za dokaz zoper pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 66).
For further details on the assessment of means of evidence, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.1.4.4. 
Za dodatne podrobnosti o presoji dokazov glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.1.4.4.
8.4 Prior registrations and acquired distinctiveness 
Prejšnje registracije in pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek
For evidence that consists of or includes Member State registrations obtained on the basis of acquired distinctiveness, the date to which the evidence submitted at national level refers will usually be different from the filing date of the EUTM application. 
Za dokaze, ki jih sestavljajo ali vključujejo registracije držav članic, pridobljene na podlagi pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka, se datum, na katerega se nanašajo dokazi, predloženi na nacionalni ravni, običajno razlikuje od datuma vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
These registrations are not binding, but may be taken into account, provided that the Office is able to assess the evidence submitted to the national IP office in question. 
Te registracije niso zavezujoče, vendar se lahko upoštevajo, če Urad lahko presodi o dokazih, predloženih zadevnemu nacionalnemu uradu za intelektualno lastnino.
The applicant may also refer to prior national registrations where no acquired distinctiveness is claimed. 
Prijavitelj se lahko sklicuje tudi na prejšnje nacionalne registracije, v katerih se ne zahteva pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek.
Nevertheless, it is established case-law that such registrations do not bind the Office. 
Ustaljena sodna praksa je, da te registracije Urada ne zavezujejo.
Moreover, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions and such cases must be assessed on their own merits (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73). 
Poleg tega Urada ne zavezujejo prejšnje odločbe, o teh primerih pa je treba presojati na podlagi njegovih značilnosti (21/05/2014, T553/12, BATEAUX MOUCHES, EU:T:2014:264, § 72-73).
Acquired distinctiveness must be demonstrated with respect to the sign applied for. 
Pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek je treba dokazati v zvezi z znakom, za katerega je vložena prijava.
The evidence should show examples of how the trade mark is actually used (brochures, packaging, samples of the goods, etc.). 
Dokazi morajo pokazati primere dejanske uporabe blagovne znamke (brošure, embalaža, vzorci blaga itd.).
Only insignificant variations may be acceptable. 
Sprejemljive so samo nepomembne razlike.
It is possible to prove acquired distinctiveness of a sign that has been used together with other trade marks (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), provided that the relevant consumer attributes to the sign in question the function of identification (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46). 
Mogoče je dokazati pridobljeni razlikovalni učinek znaka, ki se je uporabljal skupaj z drugimi blagovnimi znamkami (28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 27), če upoštevni potrošnik zadevnemu znaku pripisuje funkcijo identifikacije (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432; 30/09/2009, T75/08, !, EU:T:2009:374, § 43; 28/10/2009, T137/08, Green/Yellow, EU:T:2009:417, § 46).