natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The absence of any alternative term or the existence of only one long, complicated term may also be an indication that a sign has become the common name in the trade for a specific product or service. 
Neobstoj kakršnega koli drugega izraza ali obstoj le enega dolgega in zapletenega izraza lahko kaže tudi na to, da je znak v gospodarskem prometu postal obča oznaka za poseben proizvod ali storitev.
2.3.5 Defence for the proprietor 
Obramba imetnika
Where the proprietor of the EUTM has done what could reasonably have been expected in the particular case (e.g. organised a TV campaign or placed advertisements in newspapers and relevant magazines), the EUTM cannot be revoked. 
Če je imetnik blagovne znamke EU storil to, kar bi se lahko v posameznem primeru utemeljeno pričakovalo (npr. organiziral televizijsko kampanjo ali oglaševal v časopisih in ustreznih revijah), blagovne znamke EU ni mogoče razveljaviti.
The proprietor must then check whether its trade mark appears in dictionaries as a generic term; if it does, the proprietor can request from the publisher that in future editions the trade mark will be accompanied by an indication that it is a registered trade mark (Article 12 EUTMR). 
Imetnik mora nato preveriti, ali se njegova blagovna znamka v slovarjih pojavlja kot splošni izraz; če se, lahko imetnik od založnika zahteva, da se v naslednjih izdajah blagovni znamki doda navedba, da gre za registrirano blagovno znamko (člen 12 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
2.4 EUTM becoming misleading - Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR 
Blagovna znamka EU, ki postane zavajajoča - člen 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
If, as a result of use made of the mark by the proprietor or with its consent, the mark is liable to mislead the public, particularly concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, the EUTM can be revoked. 
Če zaradi uporabe znamke s strani imetnika ali z njegovim soglasjem obstaja verjetnost, da bo blagovna znamka zavajala javnost, zlasti glede vrste, kakovosti ali geografskega porekla blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana, je mogoče to blagovno znamko EU razveljaviti.
In this context, quality refers to a characteristic or attribute rather than a degree or standard of excellence. 
V tem okviru kakovost pomeni značilnost ali lastnost, in ne stopnje ali standarda odličnosti.
2.4.1 Burden of proof 
Dokazno breme
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the applicant for revocation. 
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev.
The burden of proof that the mark has become misleading rests on the applicant for revocation, who must further prove that it is the use made by the proprietor that causes the misleading effect. 
Dokazno breme, da je blagovna znamka postala zavajajoča, nosi vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev, ki mora prav tako dokazati, da je razlog za zavajajoči učinek imetnikova uporaba.
If the use is made by a third party, the burden is on the applicant for revocation to prove that the proprietor has consented to that use, unless the third party is a licensee of the proprietor. 
Če znamko uporablja tretja oseba, mora vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev dokazati, da je imetnik soglašal z navedeno uporabo, razen če je tretja oseba pridobitelj licence za blagovno znamko imetnika.
2.4.2 Point in time to be considered 
Upoštevni trenutek
The applicant for revocation must prove that the trade mark has become liable to mislead the public, particularly concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services in question, after the date of registration of the EUTM. 
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je blagovna znamka EU po datumu registracije verjetno zavajala javnost, zlasti glede vrste, kakovosti ali geografskega porekla zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
If the sign was already deceptive or liable to deceive the public at the date of application, this would be relevant in the context of an invalidity action. 
Če je bil znak na datum prijave že zavajajoč ali pa je zanj obstajala verjetnost zavajanja javnosti, bi bilo to pomembno v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti.
2.4.3 Standards to be applied 
Standardi, ki jih je treba uporabljati
The Guidelines contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM application complies with Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 8, Deceptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR). 
Smernice vsebujejo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presojanju, ali je prijava blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 8: Zavajajoče blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
The criteria are comparable to those applied in revocation proceedings under Article 58(1)(c) EUTMR. 
Merila so primerljiva s tistimi, ki se uporabljajo v postopku za razveljavitev na podlagi člena 58(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.4.4 Examples 
Primeri
A trade mark composed of, or containing, a geographical indication will, as a rule, be perceived by the relevant public as a reference to the place from where the goods originate. 
Blagovno znamko, ki je sestavljena iz geografske označbe ali jo vsebuje, bo upoštevna javnost praviloma zaznala kot sklicevanje na kraj, iz katerega blago izvira.
The only exception to this rule is where the relationship between the geographical name and the products is manifestly so fanciful (e.g. because the place is not known, and unlikely to become known, to the public as the place of origin of the goods in question) that consumers will not make such a connection. 
Edina izjema od tega pravila je, če je odnos med geografskim imenom in proizvodi očitno tako domišljijski (ker na primer javnosti kraj ni znan in bo verjetno ostal neznan kot kraj porekla zadevnega blaga), da potrošniki te povezave ne bodo zaznali.
In this regard, the trade mark MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND was revoked because the goods in question were produced (according to the facts) solely in Germany, not in Switzerland (12/02/2009, R 697/20081, MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND). 
S tega vidika je bila blagovna znamka MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND razveljavljena, ker se je zadevno blago proizvajalo (na podlagi dejstev) le v Nemčiji, ne pa tudi v Švici (12/02/2009, R 697/20081, MÖVENPICK OF SWITZERLAND).
Moreover, where a trade mark containing the word elements ‘goats' and ‘cheese' and a figurative element clearly depicting a goat is registered for ‘goats' cheese', and use is proven for cheese not made from goats' milk, the EUTM will be revoked. 
Če se poleg tega blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedna elementa „koze“ in „sir“ ter figurativni element, ki jasno prikazuje kozo, registrira za „kozji sir“ ter se glede na dokaze uporablja za sir, ki ni proizveden iz kozjega mleka, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
Where a trade mark containing the word elements ‘pure new wool' is registered for ‘clothing' and use is proven for clothing manufactured from artificial fibres, the EUTM will be revoked. 
Če je blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedne elemente „čista runska volna“, registrirana za „oblačila“ in se glede na dokaze uporablja za oblačila, proizvedena iz umetnih vlaken, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
Where a trade mark containing the words ‘genuine leather' or the corresponding pictogram is registered for ‘shoe wear' and use is proven for shoes not made of leather, the EUTM will be revoked. 
Če je blagovna znamka, ki vsebuje besedi „pravo usnje“ ali ustrezen piktogram, registrirana za obutev in se glede na dokaze uporablja za „obutev“, ki ni proizvedena iz usnja, se blagovna znamka EU razveljavi.
2.5 Additional grounds for revocation of EU collective marks (Article 81 EUTMR) 
Dodatni razlogi za razveljavitev kolektivnih znamk EU (člen 81 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
According to Article 81 EUTMR, in addition to the grounds for revocation provided for in Article 58 EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of an EU collective mark will be revoked on application to the Office or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings, if: 
V skladu s členom 81 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bodo poleg razlogov za razveljavitev iz člena 58 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravice nosilca kolektivne znamke EU razveljavljene ob pritožbi Uradu ali na podlagi nasprotne tožbe v postopku zaradi kršitev pravic, če:
the proprietor does not take reasonable steps to prevent the mark being used in a manner incompatible with the conditions of use, where these exist, laid down in the regulations governing use, amendments to which have, where appropriate, been mentioned in the Register; 
imetnik ne izvede razumnih ukrepov, da bi preprečil uporabo blagovne znamke na način, ki ni združljiv s pogoji uporabe, če ti obstajajo, zapisanimi v pravilniku o uporabi ali v spremembah le-tega, ki so bile, če je bilo to primerno, vpisane v registru;
the proprietor of the EU collective mark uses it in such a way that it becomes liable to mislead the public as regards the character or significance of the mark, in particular, if it is likely to be taken to be something other than a collective mark, as stated in Article 76 EUTMR; 
bi zaradi načina, kako je nosilec kolektivno znamko EU uporabljal, ta lahko začela povzročati zmedo v javnosti glede svojega značaja ali pomena, zlasti če je verjetno, da bi bila sprejeta kot nekaj drugega kot kolektivna znamka, kot je navedeno v členu 76 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
the amended regulations do not satisfy the requirements of Article 75 EUTMR or involve one of the grounds for refusal referred to in Article 76 EUTMR, but the amendment has been mentioned in the Register in breach of the provisions of Article 79(2) EUTMR, unless the proprietor of the mark, by further amending the regulations governing use in order to comply with the requirements of those provisions. 
spremenjeni pravilnik ne izpolnjuje zahtev člena 75 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali vsebuje enega od razlogov za zavrnitev iz člena 76 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar je bila sprememba vpisana v register zaradi kršitve določb iz člena 79(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razen če nosilec blagovne znamke z nadaljnjo spremembo pravilnika o uporabi uspe ugoditi zahtevam teh določb.
2.6 Additional grounds for revocation of EU certification marks (Article 91 EUTMR) 
Dodatni razlogi za razveljavitev certifikacijskih znamk EU (člen 91 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
According to Article 91 EUTMR, in addition to the grounds for revocation provided for in Article 58 EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of an EU certification mark will be revoked on application to the Office or on the basis of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings, where any of the following conditions is fulfilled: 
V skladu s členom 91 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bodo poleg razlogov za razveljavitev iz člena 58 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravice imetnik certifikacijske znamke EU razveljavljene ob pritožbi Uradu ali na podlagi nasprotne tožbe v postopku zaradi kršitev pravic, če je izpolnjen kateri koli od naslednjih pogojev:
the proprietor carries on a business involving the supply of goods or services of the kind certified, in breach of Article 83(2) EUTMR; 
imetnik opravlja dejavnosti, ki vključujejo dobavo iste vrste blaga ali storitev, kot so certificirane, v nasprotju s členom 83(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
the proprietor does not take reasonable steps to prevent the mark being used in a manner that is incompatible with the conditions of use laid down in the regulations governing use, amendments to which have, where appropriate, been mentioned in the Register; 
imetnik ne sprejme razumnih ukrepov, da bi preprečil uporabo znamke na način, ki ni združljiv s pogoji uporabe iz pravilnika o uporabi znamke, v zvezi s katerim so morebitne spremembe vpisane v register;
the manner in which the mark has been used by the proprietor has caused it to become liable to mislead the public in the manner referred to in Article 85(2) EUTMR; 
zaradi načina, kako imetnik uporablja blagovno znamko, bi bila javnost lahko zavedena, kot je navedeno v členu 85(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU;
an amendment to the regulations governing use of the mark has been mentioned in the Register in breach of Article 88(2) EUTMR, unless the proprietor of the mark, by further amending the regulations governing use, complies with the requirements of that Article. 
sprememba pravilnika o uporabi blagovne znamke je navedena v registru v nasprotju s členom 88(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razen če imetnik znamke z dodatno spremembo pravilnika o uporabi izpolni zahteve iz navedenega člena.
3 Absolute Grounds for Invalidity 
Absolutni razlogi za ničnost
3.1 EUTM registered contrary to Article 7 EUTMR - Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR 
Blagovna znamka EU, registrirana v nasprotju s členom 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - člen 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
An EUTM can be declared invalid if, at the time of its application, an objection could have been raised under any of the grounds listed in Article 7 EUTMR. 
Blagovno znamko EU je mogoče razglasiti za nično, če bi se ob njeni prijavi lahko vložil ugovor na podlagi katerega koli razloga iz člena 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.1 Burden of proof 
Dokazno breme
The purpose of invalidity proceedings is, inter alia, to enable the Office to review the validity of the registration of a trade mark and to adopt, where necessary, a position that it should have adopted of its own motion in the registration process in accordance with Article 42(1) EUTMR (30/05/2013, T396/11, Ultrafilter International, EU:T:2013:284, § 20). 
Namen postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti je med drugim Uradu omogočiti, da znova prouči veljavnost registracije blagovne znamke in po potrebi sprejme stališče, ki bi ga moral v okoliščinah primera med postopkom registracije sprejeti po uradni dolžnosti v skladu s členom 42(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (30/05/2013, T396/11, Ultrafilter International, EU:T:2013:284, § 20).
Article 95(1) EUTMR, second sentence, explicitly states that in invalidity proceedings pursuant to Article 59 EUTMR, the Office will limit its examination to the grounds and arguments submitted by the parties. 
V drugem stavku člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je izrecno navedeno, da Urad v postopkih za ugotavljanje ničnosti v skladu s členom 59 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU preverjanje omeji na razloge in argumente, ki so jih navedle stranke.
The EUTM enjoys a presumption of validity and it is for the invalidity applicant to invoke before the Office the specific facts that call the validity of a trade mark into question (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 27-29). 
Za blagovno znamko EU velja domneva veljavnosti in vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti se mora pred Uradom sklicevati na specifična dejstva, ki vzbujajo dvom glede veljavnosti blagovne znamke (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 2729).
Consequently, the Office will examine the facts in accordance with Article 95(1) EUTMR, second sentence, within the scope of factual submissions made by the applicant for the declaration of invalidity (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28). 
Urad bo zato proučil dejstva v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v okviru dejstev, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the applicant for the declaration of invalidity. 
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
One of the arguments that the EUTM proprietor may put forward against the invalidity applicant's claim is evidence that the EUTM has acquired distinctive character following use. 
Med argumenti, ki jih lahko zoper zahtevo vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti predloži imetnik blagovne znamke EU, so dokazi, da je blagovna znamka EU z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni značaj.
See paragraph 3.2 below. 
Glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju.
3.1.2 Points in time to be considered 
Upoštevni trenutki
The General Court has held that whether a trade mark should be registered or should be declared invalid must be assessed on the basis of the situation at the date of its application, not of its registration (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; confirmed by 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225). 
Splošno sodišče je razsodilo, da je treba vprašanje, ali je treba blagovno znamko registrirati ali ugotoviti za nično, presoditi na podlagi položaja na datum njene prijave, ne pa na datum njene registracije (03/06/2009, T189/07, Flugbörse, EU:T:2009:172; potrjena 23/04/2010, C332/09 P, Flugbörse, EU:C:2010:225).
Generally speaking, any developments or events after the date of application or priority date will not be taken into consideration. 
Na splošno se kakršen koli razvoj dogodkov ali dogajanja po datumu vložitve prijave ali datumu prednostne pravice ne bodo upoštevali.
For example, the fact that a sign has, after the date of application, become the common term used in the trade for the goods or services for which registration was sought is in principle irrelevant for the purposes of examining an invalidity action (it would only be relevant in the context of a revocation action). 
Na primer, dejstvo, da je znak po datumu vložitve prijave v gospodarskem prometu postal splošen izraz za blago ali storitve, za katere se je zahtevala registracija, je za preizkus zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti načeloma nepomembno (pomembno bi bilo le v okviru zahteve za razveljavitev).
However, such facts subsequent to the date of application can nevertheless be taken into account where and to the extent that they allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the situation at the date of application for the EUTM. 
Vendar se lahko takšna dejstva iz obdobja po datumu vložitve vseeno upoštevajo, kadar in če omogočajo ugotavljanje položaja na datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
This might be the case, for example, with dictionary extracts that post-date the application date. 
To bi lahko na primer veljalo za izpiske iz slovarjev iz obdobja po datumu vložitve.
Unless rapid development of linguistic usage or living conditions (in the sense of social or technical ‘trends') has taken place after the date of application, words will usually only be listed in dictionaries if their actual use and meaning has been established over a considerable period of time (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39). 
Razen če je po datumu prijave prišlo do hitrega razvoja jezikovne uporabe ali življenjskih razmer (v smislu družbenih ali tehničnih „trendov“), so besede običajno v slovarjih navedene le, če sta njihova uporaba in pomen postala uveljavljena prek daljšega obdobja (25/11/2015, T223/14, VENT ROLL, EU:T:2015:879, § 39).
3.1.3 Standards to be applied 
Standardi, ki jih je treba uporabljati
The Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM application complies with Article 7 EUTMR. 
V Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, so na voljo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presoji, ali je prijava blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 7 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The criteria are identical to those applied in invalidity proceedings under Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR. 
Merila so enaka kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.2 Defence against a claim of lack of distinctiveness 
Ugovor zoper trditev o neobstoju razlikovalnega učinka
A trade mark that falls foul of Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) EUTMR will not be declared invalid where it has acquired distinctiveness through use (Articles 7(3) or 59(2) EUTMR. 
Blagovna znamka, ki je v nasprotju s členom 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 7(1)(b), (c) ali (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne bo razglašena za nično, če je z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni učinek (člen 7(3) ali člen 59(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The distinctive character acquired following use is, in the context of invalidity proceedings, an exception to the grounds for invalidity of Article 59(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) EUTMR. 
Razlikovalni značaj, pridobljen z uporabo, je v okviru postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti izjema od razlogov za ničnost iz člena 59(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 7(1)(b), (c) in (d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Since it is an exception, the onus of proof is on the party seeking to rely on it, namely the proprietor of the contested mark. 
Ker je izjema, dokazno breme nosi stranka, ki se želi nanj sklicevati, in sicer imetnik izpodbijane znamke.
The proprietor of the contested mark is best placed to adduce evidence in support of the assertion that its mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it (e.g. concerning the intensity, geographical extent, duration of use, promotional investment). 
Imetnik izpodbijane znamke je najprimernejši za predložitev dokazov v podporo trditvi, da je njegova znamka z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni značaj (npr. glede intenzivnosti, geografskega obsega, trajanja uporabe, naložb v promocijo).
Consequently, where the proprietor of the contested mark is requested to adduce evidence of distinctive character acquired through use, but fails to do so, the mark must be declared invalid (19/06/2014, joined cases C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e. 
Zato je treba, kadar mora imetnik izpodbijane znamke predložiti dokaze o razlikovalnem značaju, pridobljenem z uporabo, vendar tega ne stori, znamko razglasiti za nično (19/06/2014, združeni zadevi C217/13 & C218/13, Oberbank e.
The Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 14, Acquired Distinctiveness Through Use (Article 7(3) EUTMR), contain details of the criteria to be applied when assessing whether an EUTM has acquired distinctiveness through use. 
V Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 14: Razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), so na voljo podrobnosti glede meril, ki se uporabljajo pri presoji, ali je blagovna znamka EU z uporabo pridobila razlikovalni učinek.
The proprietor must demonstrate that either: 
Imetnik mora dokazati, da:
the trade mark acquired distinctive character on or before the date of application, or the priority date (Article 7(3) EUTMR); or 
je blagovna znamka pridobila razlikovalni značaj na datum prijave oziroma prednostne pravice ali pred njim (člen 7(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) ali
distinctive character was acquired after registration (Article 59(2) EUTMR). 
je bil razlikovalni značaj pridobljen po registraciji (člen 59(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Evidence of use during the period between the date of application and the date of registration can serve to support a finding of acquired distinctiveness after registration. 
Ugotovitev o pridobljenem razlikovalnem učinku po registraciji lahko potrdijo dokaze o uporabi v obdobju od datuma prijave do datuma registracije.
3.3 Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR 
Slaba vera - člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
The EUTMR considers bad faith only as an absolute ground for the invalidity of an EUTM, to be relied on either before the Office or by means of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings. 
Slaba vera je v skladu z Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU le absolutni razlog za ničnost blagovne znamke EU, na katerega se je mogoče sklicevati bodisi pred Uradom bodisi z nasprotno tožbo v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev.
Therefore, bad faith is not relevant in examination or opposition proceedings (for opposition proceedings, 17/12/2010, T192/09, Seve Trophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50). 
Zato slaba vera ni pomembna v postopku preizkušanja ali ugovora (v zvezi s postopkom ugovora glej sodbo 17/12/2010, T192/09, Seve Trophy, EU:T:2010:553, § 50).
3.3.1 Relevant point in time 
Upoštevni trenutek