natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Board, moreover, found it almost impossible and certainly unduly onerous to impose on the proprietor of a registered EUTM for clothing the obligation to demonstrate use in all possible subcategories that could be endlessly subdivided by the applicant (para. 25). 
Poleg tega je ugotovil, da je skoraj nemogoče in prav gotovo zelo neprimerno, če se imetniku registrirane blagovne znamke EU za oblačila naloži obveznost, naj dokaže uporabo v vseh mogočih podkategorijah, ki bi jih lahko vložnik ugovora nenehno nadalje delil na podrazdelke (točka 25).
19/01/2009, R 1088/20082, EPCOS (fig.) / E epco SISTEMAS (fig.); confirmed 15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos 
19/01/2009, R 1088/20082, EPCOS (fig.) / E epco SISTEMAS (fig.); potrjena 15/12/2010, T132/09, Epcos
The contested decision considered that the original specification of the earlier mark for measuring apparatus and instruments was a ‘very wide' one, and determined, applying the criteria established in the Aladin judgment, that use had in fact only been shown for a subcategory of goods, namely: measuring apparatus, all being for the measurement of temperature, pressure and level; parts for the aforesaid apparatus. 
V izpodbijani odločbi je bilo navedeno, da je prvotna opredelitev prejšnje znamke za merilne aparate in instrumente zelo široka, in na podlagi meril iz sodbe v zadevi Aladin opredeljeno, da je bila uporaba dejansko dokazana za podkategorijo blaga, in sicer za: merilne aparate, vse za merjenje temperature, tlaka in nivoja ter dele navedenih aparatov.
The Board found that approach to be a reasonable one in the circumstances of the case and endorsed the reasoning and findings of the contested decision in this regard (para. 29). 
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da je ta pristop glede na okoliščine zadeve razumen, ter potrdil zadevno obrazložitev in ugotovitve iz izpodbijane odločbe (točka 29).
ICEBERG 23/07/2009, R 1166/20081, ICEBERG Revocation 
ICEBERG 23/07/2009, R 1166/20081, ICEBERG Razveljavitev
G&S: apparatus for heating, steam generating, refrigerating, drying, ventilating and water supply purposes in Class 11. 
Blago in storitve: aparati za ogrevanje, aparati za proizvodnjo pare, aparati za hlajenje, sušenje, prezračevanje in distribucijo vode iz razreda 11.
Assessment of PoU: the Board concluded that the trade mark use was only proven for fridges, freezers and air-conditioning modules for yachts and boats (para. 26). 
Presoja dokaza o uporabi: Odbor za pritožbe je sklenil, da je bila uporaba blagovne znamke dokazana le za hladilnike, zamrzovalnike in klimatske module za jahte in čolne (točka 26).
These goods were included in the subcategories apparatus for heating (insofar as an air-conditioning machine can also perform as a heater), apparatus for refrigerating (insofar as an air-conditioning machine, a fridge and a freezer can keep air/things cold), and apparatus for ventilating (insofar as an air-conditioning machine, a fridge and a freezer all include ventilation circuits), for which the mark was registered. 
To blago je bilo vključeno v podkategorije aparati za ogrevanje (ker lahko klimatska naprava deluje tudi kot naprava za ogrevanje), aparati za hlajenje (ker lahko klimatska naprava, hladilnik in zamrzovalnik ohranjajo zrak/stvari hladne) in aparati za prezračevanje (ker klimatska naprava, hladilnik in zamrzovalnik vključujejo ventilacijska vezja), za katere je bila znamka registrirana.
This would have further split the ‘subcategories' and would amount to unjustified limitation (para. 28). 
To bi dodatno razdelilo podkategorije in pomenilo neupravičeno omejitev (točka 28).
Conclusion: use was considered proven for apparatus for heating, refrigerating and ventilating. 
Sklepna ugotovitev: Štelo se je, da je bila uporaba dokazana za aparate za ogrevanje, hlajenje in prezračevanje.
LOTUS 02/12/2008, R 1295/20074, LOTUS Revocation 
LOTUS 02/12/2008, R 1295/20074, LOTUS Razveljavitev
G&S: outerwear and underwear, hosiery, corsets, neckties, braces, gloves, underclothes in Class 25. 
Blago in storitve: vrhnja in spodnja oblačila, nogavice, stezniki, kravate, naramnice, rokavice in spodnje perilo iz razreda 25.
Assessment of PoU: no evidence was submitted in respect of the goods corsets, neckties, braces. 
Presoja dokaza o uporabi: Predloženi niso bili nobeni dokazi v zvezi s stezniki, kravatami in naramnicami.
None of the pieces of evidence submitted mentions these goods or refers to them. 
Noben od predloženih dokazov ne vključuje navedbe tega blaga ali se nanj sklicuje.
Use must be demonstrated for all goods or services for which the trade mark is registered. 
Uporabo je treba dokazati za vse blago ali storitve, za katere je blagovna znamka registrirana.
The trade mark is registered for outerwear and underwear, but also for specific products within this category - inter alia corsets, neckties, braces. 
Blagovna znamka je registrirana za vrhnja in spodnja oblačila, vendar tudi za posebne proizvode iz te kategorije - med drugim steznike, kravate in naramnice.
Use for other goods is not sufficient to maintain protection under trade mark law for these goods, even if these other goods also fall under the category outerwear and underwear. 
Uporaba za drugo blago ne zadostuje za ohranitev varstva na podlagi prava o blagovnih znamkah za to blago, čeprav to drugo blago prav tako spada v kategorijo vrhnjih in spodnjih oblačil.
The Invalidity Division, however, considered use to be sufficient because, according to the principles of the Aladin judgment (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288) the corsets, neckties, braces fall under the generic term of outerwear and underwear. 
Vendar je oddelek za ničnost menil, da je uporaba zadostna, saj stezniki, kravate in naramnice v skladu z načeli iz sodbe v zadevi Aladin (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288) spadajo pod splošni izraz vrhnja in spodnja oblačila.
While this is indeed true, this question is subordinate to examining whether the goods used can be subsumed under the claimed term at all. 
Čeprav je to res, je ta vidik predmet proučitve, ali je sploh mogoče uporabljeno blago vključiti v zahtevani izraz.
This is not the case for corsets, neckties, braces. 
Vendar to ne velja za steznike, kravate in naramnice.
If, alongside the broad generic term, the trade mark also explicitly claims specific goods covered by the generic term, it must also have been used for these specific goods in order to remain registered for them (para. 25). 
Če blagovna znamka poleg širokega splošnega izraza tudi izrecno zahteva posebno blago, označeno s splošnim izrazom, se je morala uporabljati za to posebno blago, da ostane registrirana zanj (točka 25).
G&S: electric instruments (included in Class 9); optical, weighing, measuring, signalling and checking (supervision) instruments; data processing equipment and computers, in particular for operating, monitoring and checking machines, installations, vehicles and buildings; recorded computer programs; electronic counters in Class 9, repair services in Class 37 and computer programming in Class 42. 
Blago in storitve: električni instrumenti (vključeni v razred 9); optični, tehtalni, merilni in signalni instrumenti ter instrumenti za preverjanje (nadziranje); oprema za obdelavo podatkov in računalnikov, zlasti za delovanje, spremljanje in nadzor naprav, inštalacij, vozil in stavb; posneti računalniški programi; elektronski števci iz razreda 9, storitve popravil iz razreda 37 in računalniško programiranje iz razreda 42.
Assessment of PoU: the devices that the opponent has proven to have placed on the market fall under the wording of hardware as specified in Class 9. 
Presoja dokaza o uporabi: Naprave, v zvezi s katerimi je vložnik ugovora dokazal, da jih je dal na trg, spadajo pod besedilo strojna oprema iz razreda 9.
This is, however, a vast category, especially considering the massive development and high specialisation taking place in this field, which can be divided into subcategories according to the actual goods produced. 
Vendar je to obsežna kategorija, zlasti če se upoštevata precejšen razvoj in visoka specializacija na tem področju, ki ga je mogoče razdeliti v podkategorije glede na dejansko proizvedeno blago.
In the present case, the goods must be limited to the automotive industry. 
V tem primeru je treba blago omejiti na avtomobilsko industrijo.
As the opponent is obliged to provide a legal guarantee to clients, it can be considered that it has also proven use of the service relating to repair of the hardware in question (Class 37). 
Ker mora vložnik ugovora strankam zagotoviti zakonito jamstvo, je mogoče šteti, da je tudi dokazal uporabo storitve v zvezi s popravili zadevne strojne opreme (razred 37).
The Board also found that recorded computer programs in Class 9 were a very broad category and had to be limited to the actual field of activity of the opponent (paras 3031). 
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil tudi, da so posneti računalniški programi iz razreda 9 zelo široka kategorija in da jih je treba omejiti na dejansko področje dejavnosti vložnika ugovora (točki 30 in 31).
No evidence was submitted for Class 42. 
Za razred 42 niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi.
G&S: foodstuffs for animals in Class 31, and animal foodstuffs, animal feed and non-medicated additives for animal feed; all included in Class 31. 
Blago in storitve: živila in krma za živali iz razreda 31 ter živila in krma za živali, krmila in dodatki brez zdravilnih učinkovin za živalska krmila, vsi iz razreda 31.
Assessment of PoU: the contested decision erred in considering that the earlier mark had been put to genuine use for foodstuffs for animals in Class 31, and animal foodstuffs, animal feed and non-medicated additives for animal feed; all included in Class 31, since this finding is contrary to the findings of the Court in Aladin. 
Presoja dokaza o uporabi: V izpodbijani odločbi se je zmotno štelo, da se je prejšnja znamka resno in dejansko uporabljala za živila in krmo za živali iz razreda 31 ter živila in krmo za živali, krmila in dodatke brez zdravilnih učinkovin za živalska krmila, vse iz razreda 31, saj je ta ugotovitev v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Sodišča v zadevi Aladin.
The reason given by the contested decision is not acceptable because it should have been tested whether or not the category of goods covered by the earlier mark was susceptible of being divided into independent subcategories and whether the goods for which use of the earlier mark had been proven could be classified in one of those. 
Razlog iz izpodbijane odločbe ni sprejemljiv, saj bi moralo biti preizkušeno, ali je mogoče kategorijo blaga, označeno s prejšnjo znamko, razdeliti v neodvisne kategorije in ali bi bilo mogoče blago, za katero je bila dokazana uporaba prejšnje znamke, razvrstiti v eno od teh podkategorij.
Therefore, the Board considers that the earlier EUTM is, for the purposes of examination of the opposition, deemed to be registered in respect of additives for animal feed only in Class 31. 
Odbor zato meni, da je mogoče prejšnjo blagovno znamko EU za preizkus ugovora šteti za registrirano samo za dodatke za živalska krmila iz razreda 31.
G&S: all kinds of brushes and brush goods, for cleaning and hygiene purposes in Class 21. 
Blago in storitve: vse vrste krtač za čiščenje in higienske namene iz razreda 21.
The proven use of a trade mark for brooms, brushes and sponges, among other goods, was considered sufficient proof of use for ‘all kinds of brushes and brush goods, for cleaning and hygiene purposes', for which the mark was registered. 
Dokazana uporaba blagovne znamke za med drugim metle, krtače in gobe se je štela za zadosten dokaz za vse vrste krtač za čiščenje in higienske namene, za katere je bila znamka registrirana.
The Court stated that these household and kitchen products do not constitute a category that is broad enough for it to be necessary to identify them within subcategories in which actual use had specifically to be proven. 
Sodišče je navedlo, da ti izdelki za gospodinjstvo in kuhinjo ne sestavljajo kategorije, ki bi bila tako široka, da bi jih bilo treba opredeliti v podkategorijah, v katerih bi bilo treba natančno dokazati njihovo uporabo.
Rather, it must be held that it is not possible to make significant subdivisions within that category of goods. 
Nasprotno je treba ugotoviti, da v navedeni kategoriji blaga ni mogoče določiti pomembnih podrazdelkov.
Case No Adequate Non-adequate 
Št. zadeve Ustrezna podkategorija Neustrezna podkategorija
13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur Pharmaceutical preparations for respiratory illnesses. 
13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur Farmacevtski pripravki za bolezni dihal.
Multi-dose dry powder inhalers containing corticoids, available only on prescription. 
Odmerki v pršilih, ki vsebujejo kortikoide in se izdajo samo na recept.
23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin Pharmaceutical preparations for cardiovascular illnesses. 
23/09/2009, T493/07, Famoxin Farmacevtski pripravki za bolezni srca in ožilja.
Pharmaceutical preparations with digoxin for human use for cardiovascular illnesses. 
Farmacevtski pripravki z digoksinom za uporabo v humani medicini za bolezni srca in ožilja.
16/06/2010, T487/08, Kremezin, EU:T:2010:237 Pharmaceutical preparations for heart treatment. 
16/06/2010, T487/08, Kremezin, EU:T:2010:237 Farmacevtski pripravki za zdravljenje bolezni srca.
Sterile solution of adenosine for use in the treatment of specific heart condition, for intravenous administration in hospitals. 
Sterilna raztopina iz adenozina za uporabo pri zdravljenju posebne bolezni srca, za intravenozno uporabo v bolnišnicah.
17/10/2006, T483/04, Galzin, EU:T:2006:323 Calcium-based preparations. 
17/10/2006, T483/04, Galzin, EU:T:2006:323 Pripravki na osnovi kalcija.
Pharmaceutical preparations. 
Farmacevtski pripravki.
G&S: fire extinguishers and associated products v components and after-sales services. 
Blago in storitve: gasilni aparati in povezani proizvodi v primerjavi z deli in poprodajnimi storitvami.
Assessment of PoU: the authorisation for the fire extinguishers sold by Ansul under the Minimax trade mark expired in the 1980s. 
Presoja dokaza o uporabi: dovoljenje za gasilne aparate, ki jih je podjetje Ansul prodajalo pod blagovno znamko Minimax, je poteklo v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja.
During the same period, it also maintained, checked and repaired equipment bearing the Minimax mark itself, used the mark on invoices relating to those services and affixed stickers bearing the mark and strips bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax' (Ready for use Minimax) to the equipment. 
V istem obdobju je tudi vzdrževalo, preverjalo in popravljalo opremo, označeno z znamko Minimax, to znamko uporabljalo na računih v zvezi z zadevnimi storitvami ter na opremo namestilo nalepke z znamko in trakove z napisom „Gebruiksklaar Minimax“ (pripravljeno za uporabo Minimax).
Ansul also sold these stickers and strips to undertakings that maintain fire extinguishers. 
Poleg tega je te nalepke in trakove prodajalo podjetjem, ki vzdržujejo gasilne aparate.
The evidence submitted by the opponent duly shows that use of the earlier marks for a food additive, namely, zootechnical digestibility enhancer (feed enzyme) was conditional upon prior authorisation, to be issued by the European Food Safety Authority following an application filed before that body. 
Dokazi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, ustrezno kažejo, da je bila uporaba prejšnjih blagovnih znamk za aditiv za živilo, in sicer zootehnični pospeševalec prebavljivosti (krmni encim), odvisna od predhodne odobritve, ki jo Evropska agencija za varnost hrane izda po prijavi, ki ji je predložena.
Such a requirement is to be deemed a government requirement in the sense of Article 19(1) TRIPS. 
Takšno zahtevo je treba šteti za vladno zahtevo v smislu člena 19(1) sporazuma o TRIPS.
The national [French cancellation] proceedings brought against the opposing trade mark cannot be acknowledged as a proper reason for non-use (para. 19). 
Nacionalnega postopka (francoskega postopka izbrisa), ki je bil sprožen zoper blagovno znamko, na kateri temelji ugovor, ni mogoče šteti za upravičen razlog za neuporabo (točka 19).
The fact remains that proper reasons for non-use are only those outside the sphere and influence of the trade mark proprietor, for instance national authorisation requirements or import restrictions. 
Dejstvo je, da so upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo samo tisti, ki so zunaj nadzora in vpliva imetnika blagovne znamke, na primer nacionalne zahteve glede odobritve ali uvozne omejitve.
These are neutral with regard to the trade mark to be used; they concern not the trade mark but the goods and services that the proprietor wishes to use. 
Z vidika blagovne znamke, ki se bo uporabljala, so nevtralni; ne nanašajo se na blagovno znamko, temveč na blago in storitve, ki jih imetnik želi uporabljati.
Such national authorisation requirements or import restrictions apply to the type or properties of the product to which the trade mark is affixed, and cannot be circumvented by choosing a different trade mark. 
Takšne nacionalne zahteve glede odobritve ali uvozne omejitve se nanašajo na vrsto ali lastnosti proizvoda, ki je opremljen z blagovno znamko, in se jim ni mogoče izogniti z izbiro druge blagovne znamke.
In the present case, conversely, the trade mark proprietor could have readily manufactured cigarettes in France or imported them into France if it had chosen a different trade mark (para. 25). 
Nasprotno pa bi lahko imetnik blagovne znamke v tem primeru zlahka proizvajal cigarete v Franciji ali jih vanjo uvažal, če bi izbral drugačno blagovno znamko (točka 25).
According to Article 9 EUTMR and Article 5 of the Trade Marks Directive, the trade marks of third parties must not be infringed. 
V skladu s členom 9 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in členom 5 Direktive o blagovnih znamkah se ne smejo kršiti blagovne znamke tretjih oseb.
The requirement not to infringe trade marks applies to any person using a name in the course of trade, regardless of whether it has itself applied for or been granted trade mark protection for that name. 
Zahteva o nekršitvi blagovnih znamk se uporablja za vsako osebo, ki uporablja ime v gospodarskem prometu, ne glede na to, ali je sama zaprosila za varstvo blagovne znamke za navedeno ime ali ji je bilo to odobreno.
A person refraining from such infringements is acting not for ‘proper reasons' but as ordered by law. 
Oseba, ki se vzdrži takšnih kršitev, ne deluje v skladu z upravičenimi razlogi, temveč v skladu s pravom.
Hence, even refraining from use that would otherwise infringe a right is not a proper reason (09/03/2010, R 764/20094, HUGO BOSS / BOSS, § 22) (para. 27). 
Zato ni upravičen razlog niti opustitev uporabe, ki bi sicer kršila pravico (09/03/2010, R 764/20094, HUGO BOSS / BOSS, § 22) (točka 27).
Nor is use in such instances ‘unreasonable'. 
Poleg tega uporaba v takšnih primerih ni nerazumna.
Persons who, as trade mark proprietors, are threatened with proceedings or an interim injunction if they start using the trade mark concerned, must consider the prospects of the action against them succeeding and can either capitulate (not start using the trade mark) or defend themselves against the complaint. 
Osebe, ki jim kot imetnikom blagovne znamke grozi sodni postopek ali začasna prepoved, če začnejo uporabljati zadevno blagovno znamko, morajo razmisliti o možnosti, da bo postopek zoper njih uspešen, in se lahko bodisi vdajo (ne začnejo uporabljati blagovne znamke) bodisi branijo pred pritožbo.
In any event, they have to accept the decision of the independent courts, which may be in expedited proceedings. 
Vsekakor morajo sprejeti odločbo neodvisnih sodišč, ki se lahko sprejme po hitrem postopku.
Nor, pending a decision at final instance, can they object that they must be protected by the fact that, until that decision becomes final, uncertainty is to be recognised as a proper reason for non-use. 
Poleg tega pred sprejetjem odločbe na zadnji stopnji ne morejo ugovarjati, da morajo biti zaščiteni že na podlagi dejstva, da je treba negotovost priznati za upravičen razlog za neuporabo, dokler zadevna odločba ne postane pravnomočna.
In fact, the issue of what should happen in the period between the filing of an action or the application for an interim injunction and the conclusive final decision is again to be left to the courts, in that they take decisions that are not yet final on provisional enforceability. 
Dejansko je treba vprašanje, kaj naj se dogaja v obdobju med sprožitvijo postopka ali vložitvijo zahteve za začasno sodno prepoved in dokončno pravnomočno odločbo, spet prepustiti sodiščem, saj sprejemajo odločitve, ki še niso dokončne glede začasne izvršljivosti.
The defendant is not entitled to ignore those decisions and be put in a position as if there were no courts (para. 28). 
Tožena stranka mora upoštevati te odločbe in se ne more vesti, kot da sodišča ne obstajajo (točka 28).
Designated country [9: Malta is not part of the Madrid System.] 
Imenovana država [9: Malta ni del Madridskega sistema.]
Country of origin Deadline to issue a refusal 
Država izvora Rok za izdajo zavrnitve
EUTM Date of registration. 
Blagovna znamka EU Datum registracije
National mark By default, date of registration or of completion of registration proceedings if proven by opponent. 
Nacionalna znamka Privzeto datum registracije ali datum zaključka registracijskega postopka, če ga vložnik ugovora dokaže.
IR designating Member States By default, 12 or 18 months after the date of notification from which the time limit to notify the refusal starts (INID code 580). 
Mednarodne registracije, v katerih so imenovane države članice Privzeto 12 ali 18 mesecev po datumu obvestila, ko začne teči rok za obvestilo o zavrnitvi (koda INID 580).
Can be earlier or later if proven by parties. 
Lahko je zgodnejši ali poznejši, če ga stranki dokažeta.
IR designating the EU Date of the second republication of the EU designation in part M.3. of the Bulletin. 
Mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana EU Datum druge ponovne objave imenovanja EU v delu M.3 Biltena.
17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47 The opponent (Fribo Foods Ltd.) submitted several invoices relating to large quantities of goods, addressed to its distribution company (Plusfood Ltd.), which belongs to the same group (Plusfood Group). 
17/02/2011, T324/09, Friboi, EU:T:2011:47 Vložnik ugovora (Fribo Foods Ltd.) je predložil več računov za velike količine blaga, naslovljenih na svoje distribucijsko podjetje (Plusfood Ltd.), ki je del iste skupine (Plusfood Group).
It is not disputed that the distribution company put the products on the market later. 
Ni sporno, da je distribucijsko podjetje pozneje dalo proizvode na trg.
Furthermore, the opponent presented undated brochures, a press clip and three price lists. 
Vložnik ugovora je poleg tega predložil nedatirane brošure, časopisni izrezek in tri cenike.
With regard to the ‘internal' invoices, the Court held that the producer-distributor-market chain was a common method of business organisation, which could not be regarded as purely internal use. 
Sodišče je v zvezi z notranjimi računi odločilo, da je veriga proizvajalec-distributer-trg običajen način poslovne organizacije, ki je ni mogoče šteti za uporabo za povsem notranje namene.
The undated brochures had to be seen in conjunction with other dated evidence such as invoices and price lists and, therefore, might still be taken into consideration. 
Nedatirane brošure je bilo treba obravnavati v povezavi z drugimi datiranimi dokazi, kot so računi in ceniki, zato jih je bilo mogoče kljub temu upoštevati.
The Court accepted genuine use and stressed that an overall assessment implied that all the relevant factors be viewed as a whole and not in isolation. 
Sodišče je sprejelo resno in dejansko uporabo ter poudarilo, da je treba v okviru celovite presoje vse upoštevne dejavnike obravnavati kot celoto in ne ločeno.
02/05/2011, R 872/20104, CERASIL / CERATOSIL The opponent submitted inter alia about 50 invoices, not in the language of proceedings. 
02/05/2011, R 872/20104, CERASIL / CERATOSIL Vložnik ugovora je med drugim predložil približno 50 računov, ki niso bili v jeziku postopka.
The names of the addressees as well as the quantities sold were blacked out. 
Podatki o imenih naslovnikov in prodanih količinah so bili zatemnjeni.