natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is unlikely in those cases that the public was able to memorise the mark as an indication of origin. 
Zato ni verjetno, da bi si lahko javnost v navedenih primerih zapomnila znamko kot označbo porekla.
The opponent did not submit any evidence relating to the advertising and promotion of the marks invested in the concerned Member States, or other material showing that the signs in question had established themselves in the marketplace to such an extent as to justify the acquisition of exclusive rights in non-registered trade marks (paras 12-21). 
Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenih dokazov v zvezi z oglaševanjem in promocijo znamk, ki sta potekala v zadevnih državah članicah, niti nobenega drugega gradiva, ki bi potrjevalo, da so se zadevni znaki tako uveljavili na trgu, da bi upravičili pridobitev izključnih pravic v zvezi z neregistriranimi blagovnimi znamkami (točke od 12 do 21).
(Greek non-registered mark) 01/06/2011, R 242/20101 
(neregistrirana grška znamka) 01/06/2011, R 242/20101
Although the documents confirm the geographical extent of the trade mark to Greece, the evidence regarding the extent of time of the alleged use is clearly insufficient. 
Čeprav dokumenti potrjujejo geografsko razsežnost blagovne znamke v Grčiji, so dokazi o trajanju domnevne uporabe očitno nezadostna.
The last dated document is from 1997, i.e. seven years before the contested application was submitted. 
Zadnji dokument je iz leta 1997, tj. sedem let pred predložitvijo izpodbijane prijave.
Moreover, the most recent documents in which the trade mark ‘ESKIMO' can be seen are the invoices dating from 1991 to 1994. 
Poleg tega so najnovejši dokumenti, na katerih je mogoče opaziti znamko „ESKIMO“, računi iz obdobja 1991-1994.
They only reflect the sales of a little less than 100 units throughout these four years, which cannot be deemed sufficient to prove the use of the mark as a business identifier by the opponent (paras 27-28). 
Razvidna je le prodaja nekaj manj kot 100 enot v teh štirih letih, kar se ne more šteti kot zadosten dokaz, da je vložnik ugovora znamko uporabljal kot podjetniški identifikator (točki 27 in 28).
Up Way Systems - Representaçoes Unipessoal LDA (Portuguese company name) 25/01/2013, R 274/20125 
Up Way Systems - Representaçoes Unipessoal LDA (portugalsko ime podjetja) 25/01/2013, R 274/20125
Three invoices, addressed to companies in the Porto region of Portugal, for a total sales amount of EUR 16 314, are not sufficient to show that the sign was used in the course of trade, considering the price level of building materials and building services in general (paras 20-23). 
Trije računi, naslovljeni na podjetja v regiji Porto na Portugalskem v celotnem znesku prodaje v višini 16 314 EUR, ne zadostujejo kot dokaz, da se je znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu, če se upošteva raven cen gradbenega materiala in gradbenih storitev na splošno (točke od 20 do 23).
JAMON DE HUELVA (Spanish trade name) R 1714/20104 
JAMON DE HUELVA (špansko trgovsko ime) R 1714/20104
The proof furnished in order to substantiate the use of ‘Jamón de Huelva' almost exclusively relates to the designation of origin ‘Jamón de Huelva'. 
Dokaz, predložen za utemeljitev uporabe imena „Jamón de Huelva“, se skoraj izključno nanaša na označbo porekla „Jamón de Huelva“.
Designations of origin are very different legal concepts from trade names, as, instead of identifying a particular commercial origin, they are geographical indications relating to an agricultural or food product of which the quality or characteristics are fundamentally or exclusively due to the geographical environment in which they are produced, processed or prepared. 
Označbe porekla se kot pravni pojmi močno razlikujejo od trgovskih imen, saj namesto označevanja posameznega trgovskega porekla pomenijo geografske označbe, ki se nanašajo na kmetijske ali živilske proizvode, katerih kakovost ali značilnosti so načeloma ali izključno posledica geografskega okolja, v katerem se proizvajajo, predelujejo ali pripravljajo.
The opposition based on the use in Spain of the trade name ‘Jamón de Huelva' must be dismissed in view of the fact that the proof furnished does not relate to this legal concept and does not identify a specific commercial activity, but instead the activities relating to a designation of origin and the Supervisory Council thereof (paras 34-37). 
Ugovor na podlagi uporabe trgovskega imena „Jamón de Huelva“ v Španiji je treba zavrniti z vidika dejstva, da se predloženi dokaz ne nanaša na ta pravni pojem in ne označuje posamezne poslovne dejavnosti, temveč dejavnosti, ki se nanašajo na označbo porekla in s tem povezan nadzorni svet (točke od 34 do 37).
Case No Provision involved Reasoning 
Št. zadeve Zadevna določba Utemeljitev
21/10/2014, T453/11, LAGUIOLE, EU:T:2014:901 (01/06/2011, R 181/20071) Articles L 714-3 and L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code According to the Court ‘it is not disputed that the right to obtain the annulment of a subsequent trade mark based on a business name encompasses a fortiori the right to oppose the use of that trade mark' (para. 37). 
21/10/2014, LAGUIOLE, T453/11, EU:T:2014:901 (01/06/2011, R 181/20071) člena L 714-3 in L 711-4 francoskega zakona o intelektualni lastnini Sodišče je odločilo, da ni sporno, da pravica do razglasitve ničnosti poznejše znamke, ki izhaja iz firme, a fortiori zajema pravico do nasprotovanja uporabi te znamke (točka 37).
07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato EU:T:2010:290 Article 12(1)(b) of the Italian Industrial Property Code The Court based its judgment on the national provision that allows ‘to oppose the registration of a sign as a trade mark' (para. 21). 
07/07/2010, Carlo Roncato, T124/09, EU:T:2010:290 člen 12(1)(b) italijanskega zakona o industrijski lastnini Podlaga za sodbo Sodišča je bila nacionalna določba, ki omogoča ugovor zoper znak kot blagovno znamko (točka 21).
24/03/2015, R 619/20142, DOHRE (fig.) / DOHE, S.A. Article 9(1)(d) of the Spanish trade mark law The Board decided, that ‘although Articles 90 and 9(1)(d) of Spanish trade mark law do not perhaps expressly provide the right to prohibit use of a later mark, they do provide it implicitly'. 
24/03/2015, DOHRE (fig.)/DOHE, S.A., R 619/20142, člen 9(1)(d) španskega zakona o blagovnih znamkah Odbor je odločil, da čeprav člena 90 in 9(1)(d) španskega zakona o blagovnih znamkah morda ne določata pravice do prepovedi uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke izrecno, jo določata implicitno.
It would be absurd, in the presence of the conditions required by the articles in question, that the holder of a previous trade name has the right to oppose registration of a later mark but could not prohibit its use, taking into account that confusion occurs not with the register but in the market (para. 24). 
Glede na obstoj pogojev iz zadevnih členov ne bi bilo smiselno, da ima imetnik prejšnjega trgovskega imena pravico vložiti ugovor zoper registracijo poznejše znamke, vendar ne bi mogel prepovedati njene uporabe, če se upošteva, da zmeda ne nastane v registru, ampak na trgu (točka 24).
03/06/2015, R 2216/20142, Sonicell (fig.) / SONICEL et al. Article 239(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Industrial Property Code The Board based its decision on a national provision prohibiting registration of the subsequent mark. 
03/06/2015, Sonicell (fig.)/SONICEL in drugi, R 2216/20142 člen 239(1) in (2) portugalskega zakona o industrijski lastnini Podlaga za odločitev odbora je bila nacionalna določba, ki prepoveduje registracijo poznejše znamke.
It stated that Portuguese law confers a right in relation to conflicting signs based on ‘a business or corporate name and other distinctive signs', and the scope of protection of this earlier right is the same as for registered trade marks. 
Navedel je, da portugalski zakon podeljuje pravico glede spornih znakov na podlagi poslovnega imena ali firme in drugih znakov z razlikovalnim učinkom, obseg zaščite te prejšnje pravice pa je enak kot za registrirane blagovne znamke.
In other words, it is a ground for refusal when cited in an opposition if it concerns a reproduction, imitation or merely a characteristic part thereof, and is likely to mislead or confuse the consumer. 
Z drugimi besedami, je razlog za zavrnitev, kadar se navaja v ugovoru, če zadeva reprodukcijo, imitacijo ali le značilen del in bi lahko zavajal ali zmedel potrošnike.
A confusingly similar Community trade mark application therefore falls within this definition (paras 34-35). 
Prijava blagovne znamke Skupnosti, ki bi lahko povzročila zmedo, zato spada v to opredelitev (točki 34 in 35).
Trade Marks with Reputation, Article 8(5) EUTMR 
Blagovne znamke z ugledom, člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
TRADE MARKS WITH REPUTATION 
BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE Z UGLEDOM
(ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR) 
(ČLEN 8(5) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU)
1 Introduction 3 
1 Uvod 4
1.1 Purpose of Article 8(5) EUTMR 3 
1.1 Namen člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 4
1.2 Legal framework 3 
1.2 Pravni okvir 4
2 Scope of Applicability 4 
2 Obseg uporabe 5
2.1 Applicability to registered marks 4 
2.1 Uporaba za registrirane znamke 5
2.1.1 The requirement of registration 4 
2.1.1 Zahteva za registracijo 5
2.1.2 Relationship between marks with reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR) and well-known marks (Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR) 5 
2.1.2 Povezava med znamkami z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) in dobro znanimi znamkami (člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) 6
2.2 Applicability to similar and identical goods and services 6 
2.2 Uporaba za podobno in enako blago in storitve 8
3 Conditions of Application 7 
3 Pogoji uporabe 8
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation 7 
3.1 Prejšnja znamka z ugledom 8
3.1.1 Nature of reputation 7 
3.1.1 Vrsta ugleda 8
3.1.2 Scope of reputation 8 
3.1.2 Obseg ugleda 9
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition 8 
3.1.2.1 Stopnja prepoznavnosti 9
3.1.2.2 Relevant public 9 
3.1.2.2 Upoštevna javnost 10
3.1.2.3 Goods and services covered 11 
3.1.2.3 Vključeno blago in storitve 12
3.1.2.4 Relevant territory 12 
3.1.2.4 Upoštevno ozemlje 13
3.1.2.5 Relevant point in time 13 
3.1.2.5 Upoštevni trenutek 14
3.1.2.6 Reputation acquired as part of another mark 15 
3.1.2.6 Ugled, pridobljen kot del druge znamke 16
3.1.3 Assessment of reputation - relevant factors 16 
3.1.3 Presoja ugleda - upoštevni dejavniki 17
3.1.3.1 Trade mark awareness 17 
3.1.3.1 Poznanost znamke 18
3.1.3.2 Market share 18 
3.1.3.2 Tržni delež 19
3.1.3.3 Intensity of use 20 
3.1.3.3 Intenzivnost uporabe 21
3.1.3.4 Geographical extent of use 22 
3.1.3.4 Geografski obseg uporabe 22
3.1.3.6 Promotional activities 23 
3.1.3.6 Promocijske dejavnosti 24
3.1.3.7 Other factors 25 
3.1.3.7 Drugi dejavniki 25
3.1.4 Proof of reputation 26 
3.1.4 Dokaz o ugledu 27
3.1.4.1 Standard of proof 26 
3.1.4.1 Dokazni standard 27
3.1.4.2 Burden of proof 27 
3.1.4.2 Dokazno breme 27
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of the evidence 28 
3.1.4.3 Ovrednotenje dokazov 28
3.1.4.4 Means of evidence 29 
3.1.4.4 Dokazi 29
3.2 The similarity of the signs 36 
3.2 Podobnost znakov 36
3.3 The link between the signs 38 
3.4.1 Predmet varstva 43
3.4 The risk of injury 44 
3.4.2 Ocena tveganja kršitve 44
3.4.1 Protected subject matter 44 
3.4.3 Vrste kršitev 45
3.4.2 Assessment of the risk of injury 45 
3.4.3.1 Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda 46
3.4.3 Types of injury 46 
3.4.3.2 Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka 52
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness 53 
3.4.4.1 Dokazni standard in dokazno breme 62
3.4.3.3 Detriment to repute 59 
3.4.4.2 Dokazi 64
3.4.4 Proving the risk of injury 64 
3.5 Uporaba brez upravičenega razloga 65
3.4.4.1 Standard and burden of proof 64 
3.5.1 Primeri upravičenega razloga 66
3.4.4.2 Means of evidence 66 
3.5.1.1 Upravičen razlog je bil potrjen 66
3.5 Use without due cause 67 
3.5.1.2 Upravičen razlog ni bil potrjen 67
1.1 Purpose of Article 8(5) EUTMR 
Namen člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Whereas, under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR, double identity of signs and goods/services and, under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, a likelihood of confusion are the necessary preconditions for the protection of a registered trade mark, Article 8(5) EUTMR requires neither identity/similarity of goods/services nor a likelihood of confusion. 
Dvojna enakost blaga ali storitev v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in verjetnost zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU sta potrebna temeljna pogoja za varstvo registrirane blagovne znamke, v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa se ne zahteva niti enakost ali podobnost blaga ali storitev niti verjetnost zmede.
Article 8(5) EUTMR grants protection for registered trade marks not only as regards identical/similar goods/services but also in relation to dissimilar goods/services without requiring any likelihood of confusion, provided the signs are identical or similar, the earlier mark enjoys a reputation, and the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zagotavlja varstvo registriranih blagovnih znamk ne samo v zvezi z enakim ali podobnim blagom ali storitvami, ampak tudi v zvezi z različnim blagom ali storitvami, ne da bi bila potrebna verjetnost zmede, če so znaki enaki ali podobni, če prejšnja blagovna znamka uživa ugled in če bi se z neupravičeno uporabo blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, na nepošten način izkoriščal ali oškodoval razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
The rationale behind the extended protection under Article 8(5) EUTMR is the consideration that the function and value of a trade mark are not confined to its being an indicator of origin. 
Razširjeno varstvo v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU temelji na premisleku, da funkcija in vrednost blagovne znamke nista omejeni na to, da je blagovna znamka označba izvora.
Trade mark owners frequently invest large sums of money and effort in creating a certain brand image associated with their trade mark. 
Imetniki blagovnih znamk pogosto vložijo veliko denarja in truda v ustvarjanje ustrezne podobe, povezane z njihovo blagovno znamko.
This image associated with a trade mark confers on it an - often significant - economic value, which is independent of that of the goods and services for which it is registered. 
Ta podoba, povezana z blagovno znamko, ji pogosto daje pomembno tržno vrednost, ki je neodvisna od tržne vrednosti blaga in storitev, za katere je registrirana.
Article 8(5) EUTMR aims at protecting this advertising function and the investment made in creating a certain brand image by granting protection to reputed trade marks, irrespective of the similarity of the goods or services or of a likelihood of confusion, provided it can be demonstrated that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. 
Cilj člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je zaščititi to funkcijo oglaševanja in naložbe v ustvarjanje ustrezne podobe blagovne znamke, tako da zagotavlja varstvo uglednim blagovnim znamkam ne glede na podobnost blaga ali storitev ali verjetnost zmede, če se lahko dokaže, da bi uporaba izpodbijane prijave brez upravičenega razloga izkoriščala ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje znamke.
Consequently, the main focus of Article 8(5) EUTMR is not the protection of the general public against confusion as to origin, but rather the protection of the trade mark proprietor against use that takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of a mark for which it has made significant investments. 
Posledično glavni namen člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni varstvo splošne javnosti pred zmedo glede izvora, ampak varstvo imetnika blagovne znamke pred uporabo, ki izkorišča ali oškoduje razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke, v katerega je vložil veliko sredstev.
According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark, within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for will not be registered: 
V skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, ob ugovoru imetnika prejšnje registrirane blagovne znamke v smislu odstavka 2 ne registrira:
where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier EU trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned, and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. 
če je enaka ali podobna prejšnji blagovni znamki, ne glede na to, ali so blago ali storitve, za katere se uporablja, enake, podobne ali niso podobne tistim, za katere je registrirana prejšnja blagovna znamka, če prejšnja blagovna znamka EU uživa ugled v Uniji ali ima prejšnja nacionalna blagovna znamka ugled v zadevni državi članici, in če bi uporaba blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
The same wording is used in the parallel provision of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘TMD'), namely Article 5(3)(a) TMD. 
Enako besedilo se uporablja v vzporedni določbi Direktive (EU) 2015/2436 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami, namreč členu 5(3)(a) navedene direktive.
The wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR is also very similar to that used in Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR and Article 10(2)(c) TMD, that is, the provisions determining the exclusive rights of a trade mark proprietor, with only a slight difference in the way these refer to the condition of detriment. 
Ubeseditev člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je zelo podobna tudi ubeseditvi iz člena 9(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člena 10(2)(c) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami, torej iz določb, v katerih so opredeljene izključne pravice imetnika blagovne znamke, manjša razlika je le v načinu sklicevanja na morebitno škodovanje.
Unlike the conditional form in Article 8(5) EUTMR, which applies where use of the trade mark applied for ‘would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark', Article 9(2)(c) EUTMR and Article 10(2)(c) TMD read ‘takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to'. 
V nasprotju s pogojnikom v členu 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki se uporablja, če bi se z neupravičeno uporabo blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, „na nepošten način izkoriščal ali oškodoval razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke“, se člen 9(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člen 10(2)(c) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami glasita „če [...] izkorišča ali škoduje“.
The reason for this difference is that in the first case - Article 8(5) EUTMR - registrability is at stake, which may have to be decided upon without any use of the later mark having been made, while in the second case the prohibition of use is at issue. 
Razlog za to razliko je, da se prvi primer - člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - nanaša na možnost registracije, o kateri bo morda treba odločati brez predhodne uporabe poznejše znamke, medtem ko se drugi primer nanaša na prepoved uporabe.
The impact of this difference on the kind of evidence required for proving detriment in either case is discussed in paragraph 3.4 below. 
Učinek te razlike na vrsto dokazov, ki so potrebni za utemeljitev škode v obeh primerih, je obravnavan v odstavku 3.4 v nadaljevanju.
2 Scope of Applicability 
Obseg uporabe
The previous wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR, which was applicable until 23/03/2016, gave rise to some controversy as regards its applicability exclusively to (a) earlier registered marks and (b) dissimilar goods and services. 
Prejšnja ubeseditev člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki se je uporabljala do 23. marca 2016, je povzročila nekaj nesoglasij v zvezi z uporabo tega člena izključno za (a) prejšnje registrirane znamke in (b) različno blago in storitve.
As these issues directly affected the scope of its application, it was necessary to clarify whether it was possible to also apply Article 8(5) EUTMR to (a) unregistered/well-known marks and (b) similar or identical goods and services. 
Ker so ta vprašanja neposredno vplivala na obseg uporabe tega člena, je bilo treba pojasniti, ali je mogoče člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabljati tudi za (a) neregistrirane ali dobro znane znamke in (b) podobno ali enako blago in storitve.
2.1 Applicability to registered marks 
Uporaba za registrirane znamke
2.1.1 The requirement of registration 
Zahteva za registracijo
According to the clear wording of the current version of Article 8(5) EUTMR, as introduced by Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, this norm protects a ‘registered earlier trade mark'. 
V skladu z jasno ubeseditvijo sedanje različice člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kot jo je uvedla Uredba (EU) 2015/2424 o spremembi, ta določba ščiti „prejšnjo registrirano blagovno znamko“.
Even if the requirement of registration was not expressly mentioned in the previous version of this provision, the Office interpreted it in this way, since according to its wording the applicability of the provision was restricted, indirectly but clearly, to earlier registered trade marks by prohibiting registration where [the application] was identical or similar to the earlier trade mark and was to be registered for goods and services that were not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark was registered. 
Tudi če zahteva za registracijo ni bila izrecno navedena v prejšnji različici te določbe, jo je Urad razlagal tako, saj je bila v skladu z njeno ubeseditvijo uporaba določbe posredno, vendar jasno, omejena na prejšnje registrirane blagovne znamke, ker je prepovedovala registracijo, če je bila [prijava] enaka ali podobna prejšnji blagovni znamki in bi se registrirala za blago in storitve, ki niso bile podobne tistim, za katere je bila registrirana prejšnja blagovna znamka.
It follows that the existence of an earlier registration has always been a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and that, as a consequence, the reference to Article 8(2) EUTMR should be limited to earlier registrations and earlier applications subject to their registration (11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 55). 
Iz tega sledi, da je bila prejšnja registracija vedno nujen pogoj za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ter da je treba zato sklicevanje na člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU omejiti na prejšnje registracije in prejšnje prijave, ki so v postopku registracije (11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 55).
2.1.2 Relationship between marks with reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR) and well-known marks (Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR) 
Povezava med znamkami z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) in dobro znanimi znamkami (člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)
The requirement of registration serves to mark the border between Article 8(5) EUTMR and Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR. 
Zahteva glede registracije je namenjena določitvi meje med členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, neither Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR nor Article 6bis of the Paris Convention stipulate expressly that the well-known mark has to be a non-registered mark. 
Vendar niti člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU niti člen 6bis Pariške konvencije ne določata izrecno, da mora biti dobro znana znamka neregistrirana znamka.