natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Cancellation Division held, at the outset, that the applicants have established that both logos were created by their authors at a time prior to the filing of the EUTM. 
Oddelek za izbris je na začetku menil, da sta vložnika zahteve dokazala, da sta oba logotipa ustvarila njuna avtorja pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU.
The designs at issue can be considered to meet also the substantive standards of the protection in the UK. 
V zvezi s spornima modeloma je mogoče šteti, da izpolnjujeta tudi vsebinske standarde varstva v Združenem kraljestvu.
The similarities are ‘original and so marked as to warrant a finding that the one has been copied from the other', or expressed in other words, similarities are ‘sufficiently numerous or extensive to justify an inference of copying'. 
Podobnosti so prvotne in tako izrazite, da upravičujejo ugotovitev, da je bil eden kopiran od drugega ali, z drugimi besedami, dovolj številčne ali obsežne, da utemeljujejo sklep o kopiranju.
Accordingly, the similarities between the copyrights and the contested EUTM are such that they are sufficiently close, numerous and extensive to be rather the result of copying than of coincidence. 
V skladu s tem so podobnosti med avtorskima pravicama in izpodbijano blagovno znamko EU dovolj nadrobne, številne in obsežne, da so posledica kopiranja, ne pa naključja.
(earlier RCD) (shape of a teabag) 14/02/2012, R 2492/20102 
(prejšnji registrirani model Skupnosti) (oblika čajne vrečke) 14/02/2012, R 2492/20102
‘Article 19(1) Council Regulation CDR states that a registered Community design confers on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any third party not having his consent from using it. 
Člen 19(1) Uredbe Sveta o modelih Skupnosti določa, da registrirani model Skupnosti imetniku podeljuje izključno pravico do njegove uporabe in do tega, da prepreči njegovo uporabo vsaki tretji osebi, ki nima njegovega soglasja.
The aforementioned use covers, in particular, the making, offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or using of a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product for those purposes. 
Navedena uporaba zajema zlasti izdelovanje, ponujanje, dajanje na trg, uvažanje, izvažanje ali uporabljanje izdelka, v katerega je videz izdelka vgrajen ali na katerega je pritrjen, ali skladiščenje takšnega izdelka v te namene.
According to Article 10(1) CDR the scope of the protection conferred by a Community design includes any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. 
V skladu s členom 10(1) Uredbe o modelih Skupnosti obseg varstva iz modela Skupnosti zajema vsak videz izdelka, ki na seznanjenega uporabnika ne naredi drugačnega celotnega vtisa.
The earlier RCD and the contested EUTM provoke a different overall impression. 
Prejšnji model Skupnosti in izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU dajeta drugačen celoten vtis.
… Furthermore, it is observed that the earlier RCD introduces additional differences, such as the presence of a remarked base that does not form part of the contested EUTM. 
[…] Poleg tega se ugotavlja, da ima prejšnji model Skupnosti dodatne razlike, kot je dobro vidna osnovna ploskev, ki je izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU nima.
In the letters sent to the Office and to the applicant, the interveners expressly stated that the withdrawal of the oppositions would be followed up with applications for a declaration of invalidity once those marks were registered. 
Intervenienta sta v dopisih, poslanih Uradu in prijavitelju, izrecno navedla, da bosta po umiku ugovorov vložila zahtevi za ugotovitev ničnosti, ko bosta zadevni znamki registrirani.
That withdrawal does not, in law, have any effect on the lawfulness of the filing of a future application for a declaration of invalidity. 
Umik pravno ne učinkuje na zakonitost vložitve prihodnje zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
There is no provision in the EUTMR that provides, at least expressly, that the withdrawal of an opposition entails the renunciation of the right to file an application for a declaration of invalidity (paras 43-45). 
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU ne vsebuje določbe, ki bi, vsaj izrecno, določala, da umik ugovora pomeni odpoved pravici do vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (točke od 43 do 45).
The Court also stated that there is no consent to the extension of the coexistence agreement to the contested mark and goods (para. 51). 
Sodišče je navedlo še, da ni soglasja k razširitvi sporazuma o soobstoju na izpodbijano znamko in blago (točka 51).
The mark to which the coexistence agreement relates and the contested figurative mark are different, with the result that coexistence agreement cannot apply to the latter mark, to which it does not relate, and which is not, in any event, identical to the mark covered by the agreement (para. 53). 
Znamka, na katero se nanaša sporazum o soglasju, in izpodbijana figurativna znamka sta različni, zato se sporazum o soglasju ne more uporabljati za zadnjenavedeno znamko, na katero se ne nanaša in ki ni nikakor enaka znamki, zajeti s sporazumom (točka 53).
The cancellation applicant made the express offer ‘to withdraw the opposition' in exchange for the limitation of the list of goods applied for on the part of the proprietor. 
Vložnik zahteve za izbris je predložil izrecno ponudbo, da bo „umaknil ugovo“r, če bo imetnik omejil seznam blaga, za katero je vložil prijavo.
The Board of Appeal noted that the unequivocal offer, corresponding to the subsequent limitation of the list of goods, became legally binding as soon as it was accepted by the proprietor. 
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da je nedvoumna ponudba, ki je ustrezala poznejši omejitvi seznama blaga, postala pravno zavezujoča takoj, ko jo je imetnik sprejel.
It was conclusively executed by the express, unconditional (once the condition of the limitation had been fulfilled) and unequivocal withdrawal of the opposition filed by the cancellation applicant. 
Dokončno je bila izvršena z izrecnim, brezpogojnim (ko je bil izpolnjen pogoj glede omejitve) in nedvoumnim umikom ugovora, ki ga je vložil vložnik zahteve za izbris.
Taking into account the foregoing, the Board concluded that the cancellation applicant consented expressly and unequivocally to the registration of the contested EUTM, which therefore should not have been declared invalid by the contested decision … (paras 27, 30 and 31). 
Odbor je ob upoštevanju navedenega ugotovil, da je vložnik zahteve za izbris izrecno in nedvoumno privolil v registracijo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, ki zato z izpodbijano odločbo ne bi smela biti razglašena za nično […] (točke 27, 30 in 31).
The Board of Appeal examined the coexistence agreement and the interpretation thereof by the French courts. 
Odbor za pritožbe je proučil sporazum o soobstoju in njegovo razlago, kot so jo navedla francoska sodišča.
It concluded that the French courts construed the coexistence agreement as conferring a right on the part of the EUTM proprietor to register marks, other than ‘SKYROCK' and ‘SKYZIN', that contain the prefix ‘SKY'. 
Sklenil je, da so francoska sodišča sporazum o soobstoju razlagala tako, da imetniku blagovne znamke EU podeljuje pravico do registracije blagovnih znamk, razen blagovnih znamk „SKYROCK“ in „SKYZIN“, ki vsebujeta predpono „SKY“.
‘That agreement has a worldwide scope of application and therefore applies to European Union trade mark applications or registrations, such as the one in dispute in the present case' (para. 32). 
„Ta sporazum se uporablja po vsem svetu in zato velja tudi za prijavo ali registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije, kot je ta, ki je predmet spora v zadevnem primeru“ (točka 32).
BASILE T133/09 (C381/12 P appeal dismissed) 
BASILE T133/09 (C381/12 P, pritožba zavrnjena)
The appeal applicant did not adduce ‘any evidence capable of establishing when the intervener became aware of the use of the contested trade mark after its registration. 
Pritožnik ni predložil nobenih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče opredeliti, kdaj se je začel intervenient zavedati uporabe izpodbijane blagovne znamke po njeni registraciji.
It merely stated that the contested trade mark had been used for more than five years in Italy and that the intervener must have been aware of that use. 
Navedel je le, da se je izpodbijana blagovna znamka v Italiji uporabljala več kot pet let in da se je intervenient gotovo zavedal te uporabe.
Nevertheless, … less than five years had elapsed between the date of registration of the contested trade mark and the date when the application for a declaration of invalidity was filed, as use of that mark prior to its registration is not relevant since it had not yet been registered' (para. 34). 
Vendar je od datuma registracije izpodbijane blagovne znamke do datuma vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti minilo manj kot pet let, saj uporaba navedene znamke pred njeno registracijo ni upoštevna, ker takrat še ni bila registrirana (točka 34).
20/07/2012, R 2230/20104 (confirmed by T417/12) 
20/07/2012, R 2230/20104 (potrjena s sodbo z dne T417/12)
‘The late evidence [submitted] by the EUTM proprietor shows that in 2005 “AQUA FLOW” branded products were being distributed by various companies in Spain including Hydro Sud. 
Dokazi, ki jih je imetnik blagovne znamke EU predložil prepozno, kažejo, da so izdelke blagovne znamke „AQUA FLOW“ leta 2005 distribuirale različne španske družbe, vključno s Hydro Sud.
It is claimed that the cancellation applicant was aware of that use. 
Glede na trditve je vložnik zahteve za izbris vedel za to uporabo.
The EUTM proprietor furnished three invoices to third companies located in Spain: “Hydro Sud”, “Tonocolor SL Hydro Sud” and “H2O Problematica del Agua”. 
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU je predložil tri fakture, izdane tretjim podjetjem s sedežem v Španiji: „Hydro Sud“, „Tonocolor SL Hydro Sud“ in „H2O Problematica del Agua“.
These invoices are dated 18 June 2004, 31 May 2005 and 31 July 2006 and contain headings with a representation of the mark “AQUA FLOW”. 
Računi so z dne 18. junija 2004, 31. maja 2005 in 31. julija 2006 ter vsebujejo glave s prikazom znamke „AQUA FLOW“.
However, all these invoices postdate May 2004 (five years before the date of the cancellation request (May 2009). 
Vendar je na vseh teh računih naveden datum po maju 2004 (pet let pred datumom zahteve za izbris (maj 2009)).
Under the assumption that the cancellation applicant had knowledge of them, or of the underlying commercial transactions, this would not be enough for the finding that there was an uninterrupted period of five years preceding the cancellation request …' (paras 21-22). 
Če se domneva, da je vložnik zahteve za izbris vedel zanje ali za osnovne trgovinske posle, to ne zadošča za ugotovitev, da je privolitev trajala neprekinjeno pet let pred zahtevo za izbris […] (točki 21 in 22).
Therefore, the EUTM proprietor's claim of acquiescence was dismissed. 
Zato je bila zahteva imetnika blagovne znamke EU za omejitev zaradi privolitve zavrnjena.
In the present case, the arguments and materials submitted by the parties do not allow for the conclusion that the contested mark was used in Germany and that the cancellation applicants could reasonably be presumed to be aware of that use and to have acquiesced, for five successive years, in that use ... the sole elements that would suggest some connection with Germany and on which the EUTM proprietor relies primarily on appeal (i.e. the figures related to the unique local distributor and the internet excerpts examined in light of the correspondence of 2001 between the parties) are insufficient to hold that the cancellation applicants have acquiesced in the long and well-established honest use of the contested mark in Germany' (para. 47). 
V obravnavanem primeru trditve in gradivo, ki so jih predložile stranke, ne omogočajo sprejetja sklepne ugotovitve, da se je izpodbijana znamka uporabljala v Nemčiji in da je mogoče razumno domnevati, da so bili vložniki zahteve za izbris seznanjeni z navedeno uporabo in so vanjo privolili pet let zapored […], edini elementi, ki kažejo na nekakšno povezavo z Nemčijo in na katere se imetnik blagovne znamke EU v glavnem sklicuje v pritožbi (npr. podatki v zvezi z edinim lokalnim distributerjem in izvlečki s spleta, proučeni glede na korespondenco med strankami iz leta 2001), pa ne zadoščajo za ugotovitev, da so vložniki zahteve za izbris privolili v dolgotrajno in uveljavljeno pošteno uporabo izpodbijane znamke v Nemčiji (točka 47).
The request for invalidity is based on the earlier UK trade mark registration. 
Zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti temelji na prejšnji registraciji blagovne znamke v Združenem kraljestvu.
There was no dispute as to the fact that there was a verbal coexistence agreement in force concerning the United Kingdom from 2004 onwards (although there was no agreement as to its exact content). 
Dejstvo, da je od leta 2004 v zvezi z Združenim kraljestvom veljal ustni sporazum o soglasju, ni bilo sporno (čeprav njegova natančna vsebina ni bila dogovorjena).
The Board indicates that as long as there existed coexistence agreement between the parties, the cancellation applicant had no reason to prohibit this use of the latter EUTM. 
Odbor je navedel, da vložnik zahteve za izbris ni imel razloga za prepoved te uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke EU, če je med strankama obstajal sporazum o soglasju.
In the present case the moment in time when the proprietor of the earlier trade had the option of not acquiescing in the use of the contested EUTM could be 16/02/2010, when, according to the cancellation applicant, the verbal agreement between the parties was breached and ceased. 
V obravnavani zadevi bi lahko bil trenutek, ko je imel imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke možnost, da ne privoli v uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, 16. februar 2010, ko je bil po navedbah vložnika zahteve za izbris kršen ustni sporazum, ki se je prenehal uporabljati.
There is no evidence that the cancellation applicant had this option earlier. 
Ni dokazov, da je imel vložnik zahteve za izbris to možnost na voljo pred tem.
The application for a declaration of invalidity was filed on 11/07/2012 and, therefore, less than five successive years had passed between the end of the verbal agreement, in other words, from the moment when the cancellation applicant gained the option of not acquiescing in the use of the contested EUTM, and the application for a declaration of invalidity (paras 31-33). 
Zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti je bila vložena 11. julija 2012, kar pomeni, da je od konca ustnega sporazuma, ali, z drugimi besedami, od trenutka, ko je vložnik zahteve za izbris pridobil možnost, da ne privoli v uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, do zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti preteklo manj kot pet zaporednih let (točke od 31 do 33).
CITYBOND CITIBOND 3971 C 26/03/2012, R 1918/20115 (appeal withdrawn; the Cancellation Division decision has become final) 
CITYBOND CITIBOND 3971 C 26/03/2012, R 1918/20115 (pritožba umaknjena, odločba oddelka za izbris je postala dokončna)
Taking the evidence as a whole, it showed that all the conditions for acquiescence were met for some of the contested services. 
Upoštevanje dokazov kot celote je pokazalo, da so bili za nekatere izpodbijane storitve izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za omejitev zaradi privolitve.
In particular, the exchange of letters between the parties showed that the applicant was aware of the existence of the EUTM ‘CITIBOND' for some of the services. 
Zlasti izmenjava dopisov med strankama je pokazala, da je bil vložnik zahteve v zvezi z nekaterimi storitvami seznanjen z obstojem blagovne znamke EU „CITIBOND“.
Moreover, the extracts and the statutory declaration (2003) included in proceedings in the UK, and the rest of the financial information, demonstrated that the applicant was conscious of the use of the EUTM ‘CITIBOND' in the UK, bearing in mind that the financial market is very specific and highly specialised. 
Poleg tega so izpiski in zaprisežena izjava (2003), vključeni v postopek v Združenem kraljestvu, ter preostali finančni podatki pokazali, da je bil vložnik zahteve seznanjen z uporabo blagovne znamke EU „CITIBOND“ v Združenem kraljestvu, če upoštevamo, da je finančni trg zelo specifičen in visoko specializiran.
Ghibli et al. 21/10/2008, R 1299/20072 
Ghibli in drugi 21/10/2008, R 1299/20072
The cancellation applicant acknowledged that he was aware of the use of this sign, in Italy. 
Vložnik zahteve za izbris je priznal, da je bil seznanjen z uporabo tega znaka v Italiji.
In the Board's view, Article 53(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 60(2) EUTMR] cannot be interpreted to require the EUTM proprietor to prove - in addition to the 5 years' concurrent use, knowingly tolerated by the proprietor of the earlier right - that the cancellation applicant also knew, for at least 5 years, that the later mark was protected as an EUTM. 
207/2009 [zdaj člen 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU] ni mogoče razlagati tako, da mora imetnik blagovne znamke EU - poleg petih let sočasne uporabe, ki jo je vede dopuščal imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke - dokazati, da je tudi vložnik zahteve za izbris vsaj pet let vedel za to, da je poznejša blagovna znamka zaščitena kot blagovna znamka EU.
What matters in this context is the objective circumstance that the sign (the use of which has been knowingly tolerated by the cancellation applicant), must have existed, for at least 5 years, as an EUTM. 
V tem okviru je pomembna objektivna okoliščina, da je moral znak (katerega uporabo je vložnik zahteve za izbris vede dopuščal) kot blagovna znamka EU obstajati vsaj pet let.
In view of the evidence in the file, it was proven that when the request for a declaration of invalidity was filed, the cancellation applicant had been aware and tolerated the use of the contested EUTM in Italy for more than 5 years, irrespective of whether or not he was aware of the fact of registration (para. 35 et seq.). 
Glede na dokaze v spisu je bilo dokazano, da se je vložnik zahteve za izbris ob vložitvi zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti več kot pet let zavedal uporabe izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU v Italiji in jo tudi dopuščal, in to ne glede na to, ali je bil seznanjen z njeno registracijo ali ne (točka 35 in naslednje).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part D, Cancellation Page 2 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del D, Izbris stran 1
Changes in a Registration 
Spremembe registracije
REGISTER OPERATIONS 
REGISTRI
CHANGES IN A REGISTRATION 
SPREMEMBE REGISTRACIJE
1 Surrender 4 
1 Odpoved 4
1.1 General principles 4 
1.1 Splošna načela 4
1.2 Legal effect 4 
1.2 Pravni učinek 4
1.3 Formal requirements 5 
1.3 Formalne zahteve 5
1.3.1 Form and language 5 
1.3.1 Oblika in jezik 5
1.3.2 Fees 5 
1.3.2 Pristojbine 5
1.3.3 Necessary particulars 5 
1.3.3 Potrebni podatki 5
1.3.4 Partial surrender 6 
1.3.4 Delna odpoved 6
1.3.6 Representation 6 
1.3.6 Zastopanje 6
1.3.7 Requirements where a licence or other right in the EUTM has been registered 6 
1.3.7 Zahteve v primerih registracije licence ali druge pravice v zvezi z blagovno znamko EU 6
1.4 Examination 7 
1.4 Preizkušanje 7
2 Alteration of a Trade Mark 8 
2 Sprememba blagovne znamke 8
2.1 General principles 8 
2.1 Splošna načela 8
2.2 Formal requirements 8 
2.2 Formalne zahteve 8
2.2.1 Form and language 8 
2.2.1 Oblika in jezik 8
2.2.2 Fees 9 
2.2.2 Pristojbine 9
2.2.3 Mandatory indications 9 
2.2.3 Obvezne navedbe 9
2.3 Substantive conditions for alteration 9 
2.3 Vsebinski pogoji za spremembo 9
2.3.1 Examples of acceptable alterations 10 
2.3.1 Primeri sprejemljivih sprememb 10
2.3.2 Examples of unacceptable alterations 10 
2.3.2 Primeri nesprejemljivih sprememb 10
3 Changes of Name or Address 12 
3 Spremembe imena ali naslova 12
4 Changes in Collective and Certification Trade Mark Regulations 13 
4 Spremembe pravilnika o kolektivni in certifikacijski blagovni znamki 13
4.1 Registration of the amended regulations 13 
4.1 Registracija sprememb pravilnika 13
5 Division 14 
5 Delitev 14
5.1 General provisions 14 
5.1 Splošne določbe 14
5.2 Formal requirements 15 
5.2 Formalne zahteve 14
5.2.1 Form and language 15 
5.2.1 Oblika in jezik 14
5.2.2 Fees 15 
5.2.2 Pristojbine 15
5.2.3 Mandatory indications 15 
5.2.3 Obvezne navedbe 15
5.4 New file, publication 17 
5.4 Nov spis, objava 17
6 Post-Registration Seniority Claims 17 
6 Zahteve po prednosti starejše blagovne znamke po registraciji 17
6.1 General principles 17 
6.1 Splošna načela 17
6.2 Legal effect 18 
6.2 Pravni učinek 17
6.3 Formal requirements 18 
6.3 Formalne zahteve 18
6.3.1 Form and language 18 
6.3.1 Oblika in jezik 18
6.3.2 Fees 18 
6.3.2 Pristojbine 18
6.3.3 Mandatory indications 18 
6.3.3 Obvezne navedbe 18
6.4 Examination 18 
6.4 Preizkušanje 18
6.5 Registration and publication 19 
6.5 Registracija in objava 19
6.6 Cancellation of seniority claims 19 
6.6 Izbris zahtev po prednosti starejše blagovne znamke 19
7 Replacement of an EUTM Registration by an IR 19 
7 Zamenjava registracije blagovne znamke EU z mednarodno registracijo 19
1 Surrender 
Odpoved
Article 57 EUTMR 
Člen 57 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 15 EUTMIR 
Člen 15 Izvedbene uredbe
1.1 General principles 
Splošna načela
At any time after registration, a European Union trade mark (EUTM) may be surrendered by its proprietor in respect of some or all of the goods and services. 
Imetnik se lahko blagovni znamki Evropske unije kadar koli po registraciji odpove za vse ali le nekatere vrste blaga ali storitev.
1.2 Legal effect 
Pravni učinek
Surrenders only become legally effective on the date of entry in the EUTM Register. 
Odpovedi postanejo pravnomočne šele na dan vpisa v register.
The registration procedure for the surrender may be suspended during ongoing proceedings (see paragraph 1.4 below). 
Postopek registracije odpovedi se lahko v času postopka začasno ustavi (glej odstavek 1.4 v nadaljevanju).
The proprietor's rights in the registered EUTM, as well as those of its licensees and any other holders of rights in the mark, lapse with an ex nunc effect on the date of the registration of the surrender in the EUTM Register. 
Pravice imetnika registrirane blagovne znamke EU, pridobiteljev licence za znamko in vseh drugih imetnikov pravic v zvezi z znamko potečejo z učinkom ex nunc na dan registracije odpovedi v register.
Therefore, the surrender has no retroactive effect. 
Zato odpoved nima učinka za nazaj.
The surrender has procedural and substantive effects. 
Odpoved ima postopkovne in materialne učinke.
In procedural terms, when the surrender is entered in the EUTM Register, the EUTM ceases to exist and any proceedings (with the exception of invalidity or revocation proceedings) involving the mark before the Office terminate. 
Ko se odpoved vnese v register, blagovna znamka EU v postopkovnem smislu preneha obstajati, vsak postopek pred Uradom v zvezi z znamko (razen postopka za ugotovitev ničnosti ali za razveljavitev) pa se konča.
The substantive effects of surrender vis-à-vis third parties comprise the EUTM proprietor renouncing any rights arising from its mark in the future. 
Materialni učinki odpovedi v odnosu do tretjih oseb pomenijo, da se imetnik blagovne znamke EU odpove vsem pravicam, ki bodo v prihodnosti izhajale iz njegove znamke.
The EUTM proprietor is bound by the declaration of surrender during its registration procedure, provided that the following circumstances are present. 
Izjava o odpovedi je med postopkom registracije za imetnika blagovne znamke EU zavezujoča, če sta izpolnjena naslednja pogoja:
a) No revocation of the declaration reaches the Office on the same day as the receipt of the declaration of surrender. 
Urad na dan prejema izjave o odpovedi ni prejel nobene razveljavitve te izjave.
That means that if a declaration of surrender and a communication revoking that declaration reach the Office on the same day (regardless of the hour and minute of their receipt), they cancel each other out. 
To pomeni, da se izjava o odpovedi in sporočilo, ki navedeno izjavo razveljavlja, medsebojno izničita, če na Urad prispeta isti dan (ne glede na uro in minuto njunega prejema).
Once it becomes effective, the declaration may not be revoked. 
Ko izjava začne veljati, je ni več mogoče razveljaviti;