natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 8(3) EUTMR implements this provision only to the extent it gives the rightful proprietor the right to oppose applications filed without its authorisation. 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izvaja to določbo le v tolikšnem obsegu, da zakonitemu imetniku daje pravico do ugovora zoper prijave, ki so bile vložene brez njegovega soglasja.
The other elements of Article 6septies PC are implemented by Articles 13, 21 and Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Drugi elementi člena 6septies Pariške konvencije se izvajajo s členoma 13 in 21 ter členom 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR gives the proprietor the right to cancel unauthorised registrations, whereas Articles 13 and 21 EUTMR enable the proprietor to prohibit the use thereof and/or to request the transfer of the registration to its own name. 
Člen 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU daje imetniku pravico, da vloži zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti nepooblaščene registracije, člena 13 in 21 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa mu omogočata, da prepove njeno uporabo in/ali zahteva prenos registracije na svoje ime.
Since Article 46 EUTMR provides that an opposition may only be based on the grounds provided for in Article 8 EUTMR, the additional rights conferred on the proprietor by the above provisions may not be invoked in opposition proceedings. 
Ker člen 46 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da lahko ugovor temelji le na razlogih iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, se v postopku ugovora ni mogoče sklicevati na dodatne pravice, ki jih imetniku podeljujejo zgornje določbe.
Hence, any request by the opponent, either for the prohibition of use of the agent's mark, or for an assignment of the application to itself, will be dismissed as inadmissible. 
Zato bo vsaka zahteva vložnika ugovora za prepoved uporabe posrednikove znamke oziroma prenos prijave na lastno ime zavrnjena kot nedopustna.
In view of the specific subject matter for protection under Article 8(3) EUTMR, while the use or lack of use made of the earlier rights may have a bearing on arguments regarding the justification for applying for the EUTM, the opponent cannot be obliged to provide proof of use under Article 47(3) EUTMR for any earlier rights thereby relied upon (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 1.2.1.2). 
Zaradi posebnega predmeta varstva na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU od vložnika ugovora ni mogoče zahtevati, naj predloži dokaz o uporabi na podlagi člena 47(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za vse tako uveljavljene prejšnje pravice, čeprav lahko uporaba ali neuporaba prejšnjih pravic vpliva na trditve glede utemeljenosti prijave za blagovno znamko EU (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 1.2.1.2).
This practice of the Office is also justified by the fact that Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR refer to the ‘earlier mark' in the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, which does not apply to Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
To prakso Urada utemeljuje tudi dejstvo, da se člen 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša na „prejšnjo znamko“ v smislu člena 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kar ne velja za člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
1.2 Purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR 
Namen člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
The unauthorised filing of the proprietor's trade mark by its agent or representative is contrary to the general obligation of trust underlying commercial cooperation agreements of this type. 
Nepooblaščena vložitev blagovne znamke imetnika, ki jo opravi njegov posrednik ali zastopnik, je v nasprotju s splošno obveznostjo zaupanja, ki je podlaga za tovrstne sporazume o poslovnem sodelovanju.
Such a misappropriation of the proprietor's mark is particularly harmful to its commercial interests, as the applicant may exploit the knowledge and experience acquired during its business relationship with the proprietor and, thus, improperly benefit from the proprietor's effort and investment (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 38; 19/05/2011, R 85/20104, LINGHAMS'S (fig.) / LINGHAMS'S (fig.), § 14; 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al., § 24; 30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL, § 17). 
Taka neupravičena prisvojitev znamke imetnika je posebno škodljiva za njegove poslovne interese, saj lahko prijavitelj izkorišča znanje in izkušnje, ki jih je pridobil v poslovnem razmerju z imetnikom, in ima tako neupravičeno koristi od prizadevanj in naložb imetnika (06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2006:241, § 38; 19/05/2011, R 85/20104, LINGHAMS'S (fig.) / LINGHAMS'S (fig.), § 14; 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al., § 24; 30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL, § 17).
Therefore, the purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR is to safeguard the legitimate interests of trade mark proprietors against the arbitrary appropriation of their trade marks, by granting them the right to prohibit registrations by agents or representatives that are applied for without their consent. 
Zato je namen člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zaščititi legitimne interese imetnikov blagovnih znamk pred arbitrarno prilastitvijo njihovih blagovnih znamk, tako da jim je dodeljena pravica do prepovedi registracij, ki so jih brez njihovega soglasja vložili posredniki ali zastopniki.
Article 8(3) EUTMR is a manifestation of the principle that commercial transactions must be conducted in good faith. 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU izraža načelo, da mora trgovanje potekati v dobri veri.
Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, which allows for the declaration of invalidity of an EUTM on the ground that the applicant was acting in bad faith, is the general expression of this principle. 
Člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki omogoča vložitev zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU, ker je prijavitelj ravnal v slabi veri, pa je splošen izraz tega načela.
However, the protection granted by Article 8(3) EUTMR is narrower than that afforded by Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR, because the applicability of Article 8(3) EUTMR is subject to the fulfilment of a number of additional conditions laid down in this provision. 
Vendar je varstvo, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ožje od varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj je uporaba člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU odvisna od izpolnitve več dodatnih pogojev iz te določbe.
2 Entitlement of the Opponent 
Upravičenost vložnika ugovora
According to Article 46(1)(b) EUTMR, the right to file an opposition on the grounds of Article 8(3) EUTMR is reserved only for the proprietors of earlier trade marks. 
V skladu s členom 46(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko le imetniki prejšnjih blagovnih znamk vložijo ugovor na podlagi razlogov iz člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
This is in contrast both to Article 46(1)(a) EUTMR, which stipulates that oppositions based on Articles 8(1) or (5) EUTMR may also be filed by authorised licensees, and to Article 46(1)(c) EUTMR, which stipulates that for oppositions based on Article 8(4) EUTMR, the right to file an opposition is also extended to persons authorised by national law to exercise the relevant rights. 
To je v nasprotju s členom 46(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da lahko ugovore na podlagi člena 8(1) ali (5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU vložijo tudi pooblaščeni pridobitelji licence, in členom 46(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki določa, da se v zvezi z ugovori na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pravica do vložitve ugovora razširi tudi na osebe, ki so po nacionalni zakonodaji pooblaščene za uveljavljanje zadevnih pravic.
It follows that since the right to oppose an EUTM application on the grounds of Article 8(3) EUTMR belongs exclusively to the proprietors of earlier trade marks, oppositions filed in the name of third persons, be they licensees or otherwise authorised by the relevant national laws, will be dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of entitlement. 
Iz tega sledi, da bodo ugovori, ki se vložijo v imenu tretjih oseb, ne glede na to, ali so to pridobitelji licenc ali osebe, ki so kako drugače pooblaščene po ustrezni nacionalni zakonodaji, zavrnjeni kot nedopustni zaradi neupravičenosti, saj pravica do vložitve ugovora zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pripada izključno imetnikom prejšnjih blagovnih znamk.
Likewise, if the opponent fails to prove that it was the rightful proprietor of the mark when the opposition was filed, the opposition will be dismissed without any examination of its merits due to lack of substantiation. 
Podobno velja, če vložnik ugovora ne more dokazati, da je bil ob vložitvi ugovora zakoniti imetnik znamke, saj bo ugovor tako zavrnjen brez vsakršne proučitve njegovih vsebinskih razlogov zaradi pomanjkljive utemeljitve.
The evidence required in each case will depend on the kind of right relied upon. 
Dokazi, ki se zahtevajo v posameznem primeru, bodo odvisni od vrste pravice, na kateri temelji ugovor.
The current proprietor may also invoke the rights of its predecessor in title if the agency/representation agreement was concluded between the previous proprietor and the applicant, but this needs to be duly substantiated by evidence. 
Sedanji imetnik se lahko sklicuje tudi na pravice svojega pravnega predhodnika, če sta prejšnji imetnik in prijavitelj sklenila pogodbo o zastopstvu, vendar je to treba ustrezno podpreti z dokazi.
3 Scope of Application 
Področje uporabe
3.1 Kinds of mark covered 
Vrste upoštevnih znamk
Article 8(3) EUTMR applies to earlier ‘trade marks' that have been applied for as EUTMs without their proprietor's consent. 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja za prejšnje „blagovne znamke“, za katere je bila vložena prijava za blagovne znamke EU brez soglasja njihovega imetnika.
However, Article 8(2) EUTMR does not apply to oppositions based on this ground, as it only enumerates the kinds of earlier rights on which an opposition may be entered under paragraphs (1) and (5) of the same article. 
Vendar se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja za ugovore na podlagi tega razloga, saj le navaja vrste prejšnjih pravic, na podlagi katerih je mogoče v skladu z odstavkoma 1 in 5 istega člena vložiti ugovor.
Therefore, the kinds of rights on which an opposition based on Article 8(3) EUTMR may be entered needs to be determined in more detail, both as regards their nature and their geographical origin. 
Zato je treba podrobneje opredeliti vrste pravic, na podlagi katerih je mogoče vložiti ugovor v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in sicer v zvezi z njihovo naravo in geografskim poreklom.
In the absence of any restriction in Article 8(3) EUTMR and in view of the need to provide the legitimate interests of the real proprietor with effective protection, the term ‘trade marks' should be interpreted broadly and must be understood as including pending applications, since there is nothing in this provision restricting its scope exclusively to registered trade marks. 
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni nobenih omejitev in ker obstaja potreba po zagotavljanju učinkovite zaščite legitimnih interesov dejanskega imetnika, je treba izraz blagovne znamke razlagati široko in ga razumeti, kot da vključuje nerešene prijave, saj področje uporabe te določbe ni omejeno izključno na registrirane blagovne znamke.
For the same reasons, unregistered marks or well-known marks within the meaning of Article 6bis PC also fall within the term ‘trade marks' within the sense of Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Iz istih razlogov tudi neregistrirane znamke ali dobro znane znamke v smislu člena 6bis Pariške konvencije spadajo pod izraz „blagovne znamke“ v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Consequently, both registered and unregistered trade marks are covered by this provision, to the extent that the law of the country of origin recognises rights of the latter kind. 
Zato ta določba zajema registrirane in neregistrirane blagovne znamke, če država izvora priznava zadnje navedene pravice.
In contrast, the express reference to ‘trade marks' means that Article 8(3) EUTMR does not apply to mere signs used in the course of trade, other than unregistered trade marks. 
Nasprotno pa izrecno sklicevanje na „blagovne znamke“ pomeni, da se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja le za znake, ki se uporabljajo v gospodarskem prometu in ki niso neregistrirane blagovne znamke.
Likewise, other kinds of intellectual property rights that could be used as a basis for an invalidity action cannot be invoked in the context of Article 8(3) EUTMR either. 
Podobno se v okviru člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče sklicevati na druge vrste pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti kot podlago za zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti.
It is clear from the wording of Article 8(3) EUTMR that the trade mark on which the opposition is based must be earlier than the EUTM application. 
Iz besedila člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je jasno razvidno, da mora biti blagovna znamka, na kateri temelji ugovor, starejša od prijave za blagovno znamko EU.
Hence, the relevant point in time that should be taken into account is the filing or priority date of the contested application. 
Zato je upoštevni datum, ki ga je treba upoštevati, datum vložitve ali datum prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave.
The rules according to which the priority should be determined depend on the kind of trade mark relied upon. 
Pravila, v skladu s katerimi je treba opredeliti prednostno pravico, so odvisna od vrste blagovne znamke, ki se uveljavlja.
If the earlier mark has been acquired by registration, it is its filing or priority date that should be taken into account for assessing whether it precedes the contested EUTM application, whereas if it is a use-based right, the relevant conditions for protection through use must have been fulfilled before the filing date (or if appropriate, the priority date) of the contested EUTM application. 
Če je bila prejšnja znamka pridobljena z registracijo, je treba za presojo, ali je bil datum prejšnje pravice starejši od datuma izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU, upoštevati njen datum vložitve ali datum prednostne pravice, če pa gre za pravico, ki temelji na uporabi, so morali biti ustrezni pogoji za varstvo na podlagi uporabe izpolnjeni že pred datumom vložitve (ali, če je ustrezno, datumom prednostne pravice) izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
In the case of earlier well-known marks, the mark must have become well known before the filing or priority date of the contested EUTM application. 
V primeru prejšnjih dobro znanih znamk je morala znamka postati znana pred datumom vložitve ali prednostne pravice izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU.
3.2 Origin of the earlier mark 
Izvor prejšnje znamke
As Article 8(2) EUTMR does not apply to oppositions based on Article 8(3) EUTMR, it cannot serve to define the territorial extent of protection granted by Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Ker se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja za ugovore na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ga ni mogoče uporabiti za opredelitev ozemeljskega obsega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In the absence of any other reference in Article 8(3) EUTMR to a ‘relevant territory', it is immaterial whether the earlier trade mark rights reside in the European Union or not. 
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni drugega sklicevanja na „upoštevno ozemlje“, ni pomembno, ali se pravice iz prejšnje znamke uporabljajo v Evropski uniji ali ne.
The practical importance of this provision lies precisely in the legal capacity it confers on holders of trade mark rights outside the European Union to defend these rights against fraudulent filings, since proprietors of trade mark rights within the European Union may rely on the other grounds provided for in Article 8 EUTMR to defend their earlier rights from such acts. 
Praktični pomen te določbe je prav v pravni sposobnosti, ki jo podeljuje imetnikom pravic iz blagovnih znamk zunaj Evropske unije, da te pravice branijo pred goljufivimi vložitvami, saj se lahko imetniki pravic iz blagovnih znamk v Evropski uniji pri zaščiti svojih prejšnjih pravic pred takšnimi dejanji sklicujejo na druge razloge iz člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Of course, EUTMs or national marks, which provide a basis for opposition pursuant to Article 8 EUTMR, also qualify as earlier marks that can be invoked as a basis for an Article 8(3) EUTMR opposition. 
Seveda se tudi blagovne znamke EU ali nacionalne znamke, ki so podlaga za ugovor na podlagi člena 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, štejejo za prejšnje znamke, na katere se je mogoče sklicevati pri vložitvi ugovora na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
4 Conditions of Application 
Pogoji za uporabo
Article 8(3) EUTMR entitles trade mark proprietors to oppose the registration of their marks as EUTMs, provided the following substantive cumulative requirements are met (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 61). 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnikom blagovnih znamk omogoča, da ugovarjajo registraciji svojih znamk kot blagovnih znamk EU, če so izpolnjene naslednje kumulativne vsebinske zahteve (13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 61):
1. The applicant is or was an agent or representative of the proprietor of the mark. 
prijavitelj je ali je bil posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika znamke;
2. The application is in the name of the agent or representative. 
prijava je vložena v imenu posrednika ali zastopnika;
3. The application was filed without the proprietor's consent. 
prijava je bila vložena brez soglasja imetnika;
4. The agent or representative fails to justify its acts. 
posrednik ali zastopnik ne more utemeljiti svojih dejanj;
5. The signs and the goods and services are identical or closely related. 
znaki ter blago in storitve so enaki ali podobni.
4.1 Agent or representative relationship 
Posredniško ali zastopniško razmerje
4.1.1 Nature of the relationship 
Vrsta razmerja
In view of the purpose of this provision, which is to safeguard the legal interests of trade mark proprietors against the misappropriation of their trade marks by their commercial associates, the terms ‘agent' and ‘representative' should be interpreted broadly to cover all kinds of relationships based on any business arrangement (governed by a written or oral contract) where one party is representing the interests of another, regardless of the nomen juris of the contractual relationship between the principal-proprietor and the EUTM applicant (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64). 
Ob upoštevanju namena te določbe, to je zaščititi pravne interese imetnikov blagovnih znamk pred protipravno prilastitvijo njihovih blagovnih znamk, ki jo zakrivijo njihovi poslovni partnerji, je treba pojma posrednik in zastopnik razlagati široko, da se z njima zajamejo vse oblike razmerij, ki temeljijo na katerem koli poslovnem dogovoru (ki ga ureja pisni ali ustni sporazum), na podlagi katerega ena od strank zastopa interese druge, in to ne glede na nomen juris pogodbenega razmerja med imetnikom ali naročnikom in prijaviteljem blagovne znamke EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Therefore, it is sufficient for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR that there is some agreement of commercial cooperation between the parties of a kind that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship by imposing on the applicant, whether expressly or implicitly, a general duty of trust and loyalty as regards the interests of the trade mark proprietor. 
Zato za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zadostuje, da med strankama obstaja nekakšen dogovor o poslovnem sodelovanju, na podlagi katerega se ustvari zaupniško razmerje, ki prijavitelju izrecno ali implicitno nalaga splošno obveznost zaupanja in lojalnosti v zvezi z interesi imetnika znamke.
It follows that Article 8(3) EUTMR may also extend, for example, to licensees of the proprietor, or to authorised distributors of the goods for which the mark in question is used. 
Iz tega izhaja, da je mogoče člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razširiti na primer tudi na pridobitelje licence imetnika znamke ali pooblaščene distributerje blaga, za katero se uporablja zadevna znamka.
Given the variety of forms that commercial relationships may acquire in practice, a case-by-case approach is applied, focusing on whether the contractual link between the proprietor-opponent and the applicant is only limited to a series of occasional transactions, or if, conversely, it is of such a duration and content to justify the application of Article 8(3) EUTMR (as regards the points in time that are crucial for the relationship, see, paragraph 4.1.4 below). 
Glede na raznolikost oblik, ki jih lahko ima poslovno razmerje v praksi, se obravnava vsak primer posebej, pri čemer je glavna pozornost namenjena opredelitvi, ali je pogodbeno razmerje med imetnikom ali vložnikom ugovora in prijaviteljem omejeno le na vrsto priložnostnih poslov ali pa, nasprotno, njegovo trajanje in vsebina upravičujeta uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (v zvezi s časovnimi vidiki, ki so ključni za razmerje, glej odstavek 4.1.4 v nadaljevanju).
The material question should be whether it was the cooperation with the proprietor that gave the applicant the possibility to get to know and appreciate the value of the mark and incited the applicant to subsequently try to register the mark in its own name. 
Bistveno vprašanje mora biti, ali je bilo sodelovanje z imetnikom tisto, ki je prijavitelju omogočilo, da se je seznanil z vrednostjo znamke in jo ocenil, in ga napeljalo, da je nato znamko poskusil registrirati v svojem imenu.
Nevertheless, some kind of cooperation agreement has to exist between the parties. 
Vendar mora med strankama obstajati neka vrsta sporazuma o sodelovanju.
If the applicant acts completely independently, without having entered into any kind of fiduciary relationship with the proprietor, it cannot be considered an agent within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR (confirmed 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64). 
Če prijavitelj ravna povsem neodvisno, ne da bi bil z imetnikom v kakršnem koli zaupniškem razmerju, ga ni mogoče šteti za posrednika v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (potrjeno z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector, EU:T:2011:171, § 64).
Therefore, a mere customer or a client of the proprietor cannot amount to an ‘agent or representative' for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR, since such persons are under no special obligation of trust to the trade mark proprietor. 
Zato navadnega odjemalca ali stranke imetnika ni mogoče šteti za posrednika ali zastopnika za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj te osebe nimajo nobene posebne obveznosti zaupanja v razmerju do imetnika blagovne znamke.
It is irrelevant for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR whether an exclusive agreement exists between the parties, or just a simple, non-exclusive commercial relationship. 
Za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, ali med strankama obstaja izključni sporazum ali le navadno neizključno poslovno razmerje.
Indeed, a commercial cooperation agreement entailing an obligation of loyalty can exist even in the absence of an exclusivity clause (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 69). 
Sporazum o poslovnem sodelovanju, ki vključuje obveznost lojalnosti, lahko obstaja tudi brez klavzule o izključnosti (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 69).
The purpose of this provision is not to protect the proprietor from infringing acts coming from within its company. 
Namen te določbe ni zaščititi imetnika pred kršitvami, ki jih storijo člani njegove družbe.
It may well be that such acts can be sanctioned under the general bad faith provision in Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Takšna dejanja je mogoče kaznovati na podlagi splošne določbe o slabi veri iz člena 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.