natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to determine which of the conflicting rights is earlier, the relevant dates on which the rights were obtained must be compared. 
Za določitev, katera od spornih pravic je starejša, je treba primerjati ustrezne datume, ko so bile pravice pridobljene.
For the EUTM application, this is the filing date or any priority date validly claimed (EUTM date). 
V zvezi s prijavo blagovne znamke EU je to datum vložitve ali kateri koli datum prednostne pravice, ki se upravičeno zahteva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: datum blagovne znamke EU).
Seniority claims, even if they relate to the Member State where the other earlier right is claimed to exist, are not relevant. 
Zahteve za prednost starejše znamke, tudi če se nanašajo na državo članico, v kateri naj bi obstajala druga prejšnja pravica, niso pomembne.
As regards the right falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the relevant date of acquisition of exclusive rights under the national law is decisive (07/05/2013, T579/10, makro, EU:T:2013:232, where the Court confirmed the Board's rejection of evidence submitted by the invalidity applicant, which related to periods subsequent to the owner's application for the EUTM (§ 70). 
Glede pravice, ki spada v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je odločilen upoštevni datum pridobitve izključnih pravic v okviru nacionalne zakonodaje (07/05/2013, T579/10, makro, EU:T:2013:232, v kateri je Sodišče potrdilo zavrnitev dokazov, ki jih je odboru predložil vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in ki so se nanašala na obdobje po lastnikovi prijavi blagovne znamke EU (točka 70)).
Where mere use is sufficient under the national law, this must have begun before the EUTM date. 
Kadar v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo zadostuje le uporaba, se je ta morala začeti pred datumom blagovne znamke EU.
Where recognition in the trade or reputation is required, this must have been acquired before the EUTM date. 
Če se zahteva prepoznavnost blagovne znamke v gospodarskem prometu ali ugled, je pomembno, da sta se obe lastnosti pridobili pred datumom blagovne znamke EU.
Where these conditions are fulfilled only after the EUTM date, the opposition will have to be rejected. 
Če so ti pogoji izpolnjeni šele po datumu blagovne znamke EU, je treba ugovor zavrniti.
3.5 Right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark under the applicable law 
Pravica do prepovedi uporabe poznejše znamke na podlagi veljavnega prava
Earlier rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR are protected if they confer on their proprietors under the applicable law the right to prohibit use of a later trade mark. 
Prejšnje pravice, ki spadajo v člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, so zaščitene, če njihovim imetnikom v okviru veljavne zakonodaje podeljujejo pravico, da prepovejo uporabo poznejše blagovne znamke.
This requires, firstly, a finding that under the applicable law, rights of the type involved, in the abstract, are exclusive rights enforceable by means of an injunction vis-à-vis later marks and, secondly, a finding that in the actual case under consideration the conditions for obtaining such injunctive relief, if the mark that is the subject of the opposed EUTM application were used in the territory in question, are present (scope of protection) (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 190). 
Na podlagi tega je treba najprej dokazati, da so v okviru veljavne zakonodaje zadevne pravice v abstraktnem pomenu izključne pravice, ki se lahko uveljavljajo na podlagi sodne odredbe, usmerjene zoper poznejše znamke, ter nato, da so v obravnavanem primeru prisotni pogoji za pridobitev takšne sodne prepovedi (obsega varstva), če se je znamka, ki je predmet prijave blagovne znamke EU, zoper katero je vložen ugovor, uporabljala na zadevnem ozemlju (29/03/2011, C96/09 P, Bud, EU:C:2011:189, § 190).
Both questions have to be answered in accordance with the applicable law. 
Na obe vprašanji je treba odgovoriti v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo.
3.5.1 The right of prohibiting use 
Pravica do prepovedi uporabe
Article 8(4) EUTMR explicitly requires a right that confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark. 
V členu 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se izrecno zahteva pravica, ki imetniku podeljuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke.
The Office, however, applies the provision broadly, based on an interpretation oriented by its purpose, meaning that an opposition based on provisions of national law on the prohibition of a later registration would not be rejected automatically. 
Urad pa določbo uporablja široko na podlagi razlage njenega namena, kar pomeni, da ugovor na podlagi določb nacionalnega prava o prepovedi poznejše registracije ne bi bil samodejno zavrnjen.
In several cases the General Court and the Boards of Appeal accepted that a provision prohibiting registration of a subsequent trade mark can be validly invoked within the opposition pursuant to Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Splošno sodišče in odbor za pritožbe sta v več primerih potrdila, da se lahko določba o prepovedi registracije poznejše blagovne znamke veljavno uporabi za ugovor na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Several considerations support this approach: it can be argued that the right to prohibit registration of a later sign implies a fortiori the prohibition to use of that sign in the market. 
Tak pristop podpira več ugotovitev: trdi se lahko, da pravica do prepovedi registracije poznejšega znaka a fortiori pomeni prepoved uporabe tega znaka na trgu.
Registration may be seen as the first form or at least an indication of will to use a mark (the purpose of a distinctive sign is to identify goods or services and not to remain in the Register). 
Registracija se lahko šteje za prvo obliko ali vsaj pokazatelj želje po uporabi znamke (namen znaka z razlikovalnim učinkom je označevanje blaga ali storitev, in ne samo vpis v register).
The right to prohibit registration encompasses, therefore, the right to prohibit use. 
Pravica do prepovedi registracije tako vključuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe.
What is important is the fact that national law contains provisions that protect unregistered marks. 
Pomembno je dejstvo, da nacionalno pravo zajema določbe, ki ščitijo neregistrirane znamke.
3.5.2 Scope of protection 
Obseg varstva
For many, if not most of the rights falling under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the prerequisites of national regulations are quite similar to those applied in conflicts between trade marks that Office examiners are familiar with, namely, likelihood of confusion, or damage to reputation or distinctiveness. 
Za številne ali celo za večino pravic iz člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so pogoji iz nacionalnih predpisov zelo podobni tistim, ki se uporabljajo v sporih med blagovnimi znamkami, s katerimi so seznanjeni preizkuševalci v Uradu, in sicer verjetnost zmede ali oškodovanje ugleda ali razlikovalnega učinka.
Where the applicable national law provides protection for unregistered trade marks that is different from that found in Article 8(1) EUTMR, the scope of protection of the earlier right invoked follows from national law. 
Če veljavna nacionalna zakonodaja zagotavlja varstvo neregistriranih blagovnih znamk, ki je drugačno od varstva iz člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, obseg varstva prejšnje pravice, ki je predmet sklicevanja, temelji na nacionalni zakonodaji.
If, for example, the applicable national law also grants protection to unregistered marks for dissimilar goods and services under certain conditions, the same protection will be granted under Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Če na primer veljavna nacionalna zakonodaja pod določenimi pogoji zagotavlja tudi varstvo neregistriranih znamk tudi za različno blago in storitve, bo enako varstvo podeljeno tudi na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4 Proof of the Applicable Law Governing the Sign 
Dokaz veljavnega prava, ki ureja znak
4.1 The burden of proof 
Dokazno breme
According to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in all inter partes cases, the burden is on the party making a particular claim or allegation to provide the Office with the necessary facts and arguments in order to substantiate the claim. 
V skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora stranka, ki je vložila zadevno zahtevo ali obtožbo, v vseh zadevah inter partes Uradu predložiti potrebna dejstva in trditve za utemeljitev zahteve.
Unlike other grounds in Article 8 EUTMR, Article 8(4) EUTMR does not specify the conditions governing the acquisition and scope of protection of the earlier right invoked. 
V nasprotju z drugimi razlogi iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne določa pogojev, ki urejajo pridobitev in obseg zaščite prejšnje pravice, ki je predmet sklicevanja.
It is a framework provision where the particulars of the applicable law must be provided by the opponent. 
Gre za okvirno določbo, v skladu s katero mora podatke o veljavnem pravu zagotoviti vložnik ugovora.
Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR provides that if an opposition is based on an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opponent must provide, inter alia, evidence of its acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection, including where the earlier right is invoked pursuant to the law of a Member State, a clear identification of the contents of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence. 
Člen 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe določa, da če ugovor temelji na prejšnji pravici v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, mora vložnik ugovora med drugim predložiti dokazilo o njeni pridobitvi, nadaljnjem obstoju in obsegu zaščite, v primerih sklicevanja na prejšnjo pravico v skladu s pravom države članice pa tudi jasno navedbo vsebine zadevnega nacionalnega prava, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb.
It follows from the law and it has been interpreted by the Court that the opponent must provide the content of the relevant national law and show that it would succeed under that national law in preventing the use of a subsequent trade mark. 
Iz prava izhaja, enako pa je razlagalo tudi Sodišče, da mora vložnik ugovora predložiti vsebino zadevnega nacionalnega prava in dokazati, da bi bila preprečitev uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke na podlagi nacionalnega prava uspešna.
In that context and in relation to the earlier rights relied on … regard must be had, in particular, to the national rules advanced in support of the opposition and to the judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned and that, on that basis, the opponent must establish that the sign concerned falls within the scope of the law of the Member State relied on and that it allows use of a subsequent mark to be prohibited. 
V zvezi s tem je treba v povezavi s prejšnjimi pravicami, za katere je navedeno sklicevanje, […] upoštevati zlasti nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se navaja v utemeljitev ugovora, in sodne odločbe, izdane v zadevni državi članici, poleg tega pa mora vložnik ugovora na podlagi tega dokazati, da zadevni znak spada na področje uporabe prava navedene države članice in da omogoča prepoved uporabe poznejše znamke
(05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452, § 50; 27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 34.) 
Čeprav se ti sodbi nanašata na postopek za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 52(2) Uredbe št.
Although these judgments referred to invalidity proceedings under Article 52(2) of Regulation No 40/94 [now Article 60(2) EUTMR], since Article 8(4) EUTMR also concerns the application of earlier rights protected under European Union legislation or under the law of the Member State governing the sign at issue, the cited case-law also applies to oppositions brought under Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
40/94 [zdaj člen 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU], ker člen 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadeva uporabo prejšnjih pravic, zaščitenih na podlagi zakonodaje Evropske unije ali prava držav članic, ki ureja zadevni znak, se navedena sodna praksa uporablja tudi za ugovore na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The information on the applicable law must allow the Office to understand and apply the content of that law, the conditions for obtaining protection and the scope of this protection, and allow the applicant to exercise the right of defence. 
Informacije o pravu, ki se uporablja, morajo Uradu omogočati, da razume in uporabi vsebino tega prava, pogoje za pridobitev zaščite in obseg te zaščite, prijavitelju pa morajo omogočiti uveljavljanje pravice do zagovora.
It may also be particularly useful to submit evidence of relevant case-law and/or jurisprudence interpreting the law invoked. 
Poleg tega je lahko zelo koristno, da se predložijo dokazi o zadevni sodni praksi in/ali pravu, ki razlagajo pravo, na katero se sklicuje.
The Office must effectively assess the applicability of the ground for refusal invoked. 
Urad mora učinkovito presoditi o uporabi razloga za zavrnitev, na katerega se sklicuje.
In order to ensure the correct application of the law invoked, the Office has the power to verify, by whatever means it deems appropriate, the content, the conditions governing the application and the scope of the provisions of the applicable law relied upon by the opponent (27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 44-46), while respecting the parties' right to be heard. 
Urad je za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe prava pristojen za preverjanje vsebine, pogojev, ki urejajo uporabo, in obsega določb prava, ki se uporablja in na katerega se sklicuje vložnik ugovora (27/03/2014, C530/12 P, Mano, EU:C:2014:186, § 44-46), na kateri koli ustrezen način, pri tem pa upošteva pravico strank do izjave.
If, after verifying the evidence submitted, the Office is of the opinion that the parties' proposed interpretation or application of the law invoked was inaccurate, it can introduce new and/or additional elements. 
Če Urad po preverjanju predloženih dokazov meni, da je bila razlaga ali uporaba prava, ki so ga predložile stranke, nepravilna, lahko uvede nove in/ali dodatne elemente.
In order to respect the parties' rights to be heard, the Office will invite the parties to comment on these elements, where appropriate. 
Urad stranke pozove, naj predložijo pripombe o teh elementih, kadar je to ustrezno, da bi upošteval pravico strank do izjave.
This power of verification is limited to ensuring the accurate application of the law relied upon by the opponent. 
Ta pristojnost za preverjanje je omejena na zagotavljanje pravilne uporabe prava, na katero se sklicuje vložnik ugovora.
It does not therefore discharge the opponent from the burden of proof and it cannot serve to substitute the opponent in adducing the appropriate law for the purposes of its case (02/06/2014, R 1587/20134, GROUP, § 26; 30/06/2014, R 2256/20132, (+) ENERGY / ENERGETIX, § 26). 
Vložnika ugovora torej ne razreši dokaznega bremena in ne more nadomestiti predložitve ustreznega prava za namene primera vložnika ugovora (02/06/2014, R 1587/20134, GROUP, § 26; 30/06/2014, R 2256/20132, (+) ENERGY / ENERGETIX, § 26).
4.2 Means of evidence and standard of proof 
Dokazi in dokazni standard
Pursuant to Article 8(4) EUTMR, the applicable law may be the law of a Member State or European Union law. 
Pravo, ki se uporablja, je lahko v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravo države članice ali pravo Evropske unije.
As regards national law, the opponent must provide: 
Vložnik ugovora mora v zvezi z nacionalnim pravom zagotoviti:
the provisions of the applicable law: 
določbe prava, ki se uporablja:
on the conditions governing acquisition of rights (whether there is a requirement of use and, if so, the standard of use required; whether there is a registration requirement, etc.); and 
o pogojih, ki urejajo pridobitev pravic (ali obstaja zahteva za uporabo in, če je tako, zahtevani standard uporabe, ali se zahteva registracija itd.), in
on the scope of protection of the right (whether it confers the right of prohibition of use; the injury against which protection is provided, e.g. likelihood of confusion, misrepresentation, unfair advantage, evocation). 
o obsegu zaščite pravice (ali podeljuje pravico do prepovedi uporabe; kršitve, v zvezi s katerimi je zagotovljena zaščita, npr. verjetnost zmede, zavajanje, neupravičeno izkoriščanje, navajanje);
particulars proving fulfilment of the conditions: 
podatke, ki dokazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev:
of acquisition (entitlement; earlier acquisition; whether it is in force; evidence of use if use-based; evidence of registration if registration-based, etc.); and 
za pridobitev pravic (upravičenost, prejšnja pridobitev, ali se uporablja, dokazi o uporabi, če temelji na uporabi, dokaz o registraciji, če temelji na registraciji itd.) in
of the scope of protection (facts, evidence and/or arguments that the requirements laid down by the applicable law for a prohibition of use are met, e.g. the nature of the goods, services or business activity protected by the earlier right and their relation with the contested goods or services; a cogent argument showing that there is a risk of injury). 
za obseg zaščite pravice (dejstva, dokazi in/ali trditve, da so izpolnjene zahteve, ki jih glede prepovedi uporabe določa pravo, ki se uporablja, npr. vrsta blaga, storitev ali poslovnih dejavnosti, ki jih ščiti prejšnja pravica, in njihova povezava z izpodbijanim blagom ali storitvami; utemeljena trditev, ki kaže tveganje kršitve).
First, as regards the provisions of the applicable law (see paragraph 4.2.1 a) above), the opponent must provide a clear identification of the contents of the national law relied upon by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (Article 7(2)(d) EUTMDR). 
Prvič, v zvezi z določbami prava, ki se uporablja (glej odstavek 4.2.1(a) zgoraj), mora vložnik ugovora predložiti jasno navedbo vsebine nacionalnega prava, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb (člen 7(2)(d) Delegirane uredbe).
The opponent must provide the reference to the relevant legal provision (article number and the number and title of the law) and the content (text) of the legal provision by adducing publications of the relevant provisions or jurisprudence (e.g. excerpts from an official journal, a legal commentary, legal encyclopaedias or court decisions). 
Vložnik ugovora mora predložiti sklicevanje na zadevno pravno določbo (številka člena ter številka in naslov zakona) in vsebino (besedilo) pravne določbe, in sicer s predložitvijo objav zadevnih pravnih določb (npr. izvlečki iz uradnega lista, pravne razlage, pravne enciklopedije ali sodne odločbe).
If the relevant provision refers to a further provision of law, this must also be provided to enable the applicant and the Office to understand the full meaning of the provision invoked and to determine the possible relevance of this further provision. 
Če se zadevna določba nanaša na nadaljnjo določbo zakona, je treba predložiti tudi to, da se prijavitelju in Uradu omogoči polno razumevanje določbe ter ugotovi morebitna pomembnost te nadaljnje določbe.
Where the evidence concerning the content of the relevant national law is accessible online from a source recognised by the Office, the opponent may provide such evidence by making a reference to that source (Article 7(3) EUTMDR) (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2.4.3). 
Če so dokazi glede vsebine zadevne nacionalne zakonodaje dostopni prek spletnega vira, ki ga priznava Urad, lahko vložnik ugovora navede take dokaze s sklicevanjem na ta vir (člen 7(3) Delegirane uredbe) (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2.4.3).
As the opponent is required to prove the content of the applicable law, it must provide the applicable law in the original language. 
Ker se od vložnika ugovora zahteva, da dokaže vsebino prava, ki se uporablja, ga mora predložiti v jeziku izvirnika.
If that language is not the language of the proceedings, the opponent must also provide a complete translation of the legal provisions invoked in accordance with the standard rules of substantiation (Article 7(4) EUTMDR, first sentence). 
Če ta jezik ni jezik postopka, mora vložnik ugovora predložiti tudi popoln prevod pravnih določb v skladu s standardnimi pravili utemeljitve (prvi stavek člena 7(4) Delegirane uredbe).
However, a mere translation of the applicable law does not itself constitute proof and cannot substitute the original; therefore, the translation alone is not considered sufficient to prove the law invoked. 
Prevod prava, ki se uporablja, ni dokaz in ne more nadomestiti izvirnika, zato se le prevod ne šteje za zadosten dokaz glede prava, na katero se sklicuje.
Article 7(4) EUTMDR requires any provisions of the applicable national law governing the acquisition of the rights and their scope of protection, including evidence accessible online to be submitted in the language of the proceedings or accompanied by a translation into that language, which must be submitted within the time limit specified for submitting the original document. 
Člen 7(4) Delegirane uredbe zahteva, da se vse določbe nacionalnega prava, ki se uporablja in ki ureja pridobitev pravic in obseg njihove zaščite, tudi dokazi, ki so na voljo na spletu, predložijo v jeziku postopka ali jim je priložen prevod v zadevni jezik, ki ga je treba predložiti v roku, določenem za predložitev izvirnika.
The same rules apply where the opponent provides the content of the relevant national law by making reference to a relevant online source recognised by the Office. 
Enaka pravila se uporabljajo, če vložnik ugovora predloži vsebino zadevnega nacionalnega prava s sklicevanjem na ustrezni spletni vir, ki ga priznava Urad.
Where the opponent seeks to rely on national case-law or jurisprudence interpreting the law invoked, it must provide the relevant information in sufficient detail (e.g. a copy of the decision invoked or excerpts from the legal literature). 
Če se vložnik ugovora opira na nacionalno sodno prakso, ki razlaga pravo, na katero se sklicuje, mora predložiti dovolj podrobne informacije (npr. kopijo odločbe ali izvlečke iz pravne literature).
The translation rules apply equally to that evidence, including cases when the opponent provides such evidence by making reference to a relevant online source recognised by the Office. 
Pravila glede prevoda se enako uporabljajo za te dokaze, tudi če vložnik ugovora predloži tak dokaz s sklicevanjem na ustrezni spletni vir, ki ga priznava Urad.
Second, as regards the particulars proving fulfilment of the conditions of the applicable law (see paragraph 4.2.1 b) above), apart from providing appropriate evidence of acquisition of the right invoked, the opponent must submit evidence that the conditions of protection vis-à-vis the contested mark are actually met and, in particular, put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed in preventing the use of the contested mark under the applicable law. 
Drugič, v zvezi s podatki, ki dokazujejo izpolnjevanje pogojev prava, ki se uporablja (glej odstavek 4.2.1(b) zgoraj), mora vložnik razen ustreznih dokazov o pridobitvi pravice predložiti tudi dokaze, da so pogoji za zaščito v odnosu do izpodbijane znamke dejansko izpolnjeni, in predstaviti utemeljene trditve glede tega, zakaj bi bila preprečitev uporabe izpodbijane znamke na podlagi prava, ki se uporablja, uspešna.
Merely providing the applicable law itself is not considered sufficient, as it is not up to the Office to make the relevant argument on behalf of the opponent. 
Le predložitev prava, ki se uporablja, se ne šteje za zadostno, saj ni naloga Urada, da predstavi ustrezne trditve v imenu vložnika ugovora.
Furthermore, in an opposition under Article 8(4) EUTMR, what matters is whether the relevant provisions of the law conferring on the opponent the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark would apply to the contested mark in the abstract, and not whether the use of the contested mark could actually be prevented. 
Poleg tega je v ugovoru na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pomembno, ali bi se zadevne določbe prava, ki vložniku ugovora dajejo pravico do preprečitve uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke, uporabljale za izpodbijano znamko v abstraktnem pomenu, in ne, ali bi se uporaba izpodbijane znamke lahko dejansko preprečila.