natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The General Court has clarified that the existence of a national provision recognising what are known as ‘defensive' registrations (i.e. of signs not intended to be used in trade on account of their purely defensive function in relation to another sign that is being commercially exploited) cannot constitute a proper reason for non-use of an earlier trade mark invoked as a basis of an opposition (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46). 
Splošno sodišče je pojasnilo, da obstoj nacionalne določbe, ki priznava tako imenovane obrambne registracije (tj. znakov, ki zaradi svoje izključno obrambne naloge za druge znake, ki se bodo gospodarsko izkoriščali, niso namenjeni za uporabo v trgovini), ne more biti upravičen razlog za neuporabo prejšnje blagovne znamke, ki je bila navedena kot razlog za ugovor (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 46).
2.11.4 Force majeure 
Višja sila
Further justifiable reasons for non-use are cases of force majeure that hinder the normal functioning of the owner's enterprise. 
Drugi utemeljeni razlogi za neuporabo so primeri višje sile, ki ovirajo normalno poslovanje imetnikovega podjetja.
2.11.5 Consequences of justification of non-use 
Posledice utemeljitve neuporabe
The existence of justified reasons does not mean that non-use during the period concerned is treated as equivalent to actual use, which would result in a new grace period beginning after the end of the period of justified non-use. 
Obstoj upravičenih razlogov ne pomeni, da se neuporaba v zadevnem obdobju obravnava kot enakovredna dejanski uporabi, kar bi pomenilo nov odložni rok, ki se začne po koncu obdobja upravičene neuporabe.
Rather, non-use during such period merely stops the 5-year period from running. 
Namesto tega neuporaba v takšnem obdobju le prekine zadevno petletno obdobje.
This means that the period of justified non-use is not taken into account in calculating the grace period of 5 years. 
To pomeni, da se obdobje upravičene neuporabe ne upošteva pri izračunu petletnega odložnega roka.
In addition, the length of time during which justified reasons existed may be significant. 
Poleg tega je lahko obdobje, v katerem so obstajali upravičeni razlogi, zelo dolgo.
Reasons for non-use existing during only part of the relevant 5-year-period may not always be considered justification for setting the proof-of-use requirement aside. 
Če so razlogi za neuporabo obstajali le v delu zadevnega petletnega obdobja, ni mogoče vedno šteti, da upravičujejo neupoštevanje zahteve za dokaz o uporabi.
In this context, the period of time during which these reasons were pertinent and the elapse of time since they no longer applied are of particular importance (01/07/1999, B 2 255). 
V zvezi s tem sta še zlasti pomembna obdobje, v katerem so ti razlogi obstajali, in čas, ki je pretekel od trenutka, ko so prenehali obstajati (01/07/1999, B 2 255).
3 Procedure 
Postopek
3.1 Admissibility of the request for proof of use 
Dopustnost zahteve za dokaz o uporabi
According to Article 47(2) EUTMR, use of the earlier mark needs to be shown only if the applicant requests proof of use. 
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba uporabo prejšnje znamke dokazati le, če dokaz o uporabi zahteva prijavitelj.
The institution of proof of use is, therefore, designed in opposition proceedings as a defence plea of the applicant. 
Inštitut dokaza o uporabi je zato v postopku ugovora zasnovan kot sredstvo obrambe prijavitelja.
The Office may neither inform the applicant that it could request proof of use nor invite it to do so. 
Urad prijavitelja ne sme niti obvestiti, da lahko zahteva dokaz o uporabi, niti ga pozvati, naj to stori.
In view of the Office's impartial status in opposition proceedings, it is left to the parties to provide the factual basis and to argue and defend their respective positions (see second sentence of Article 95(1) EUTMR). 
Zaradi nepristranskega položaja Urada v postopku ugovora je strankam prepuščeno, da predložijo dejstva in argumente ter zagovarjajo svoja stališča (glej drugi stavek člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
Article 47(2) EUTMR is not applicable when the opponent, on its own motion, submits material relating to use of the earlier mark invoked (see paragraph 3.1.3 below for an exception to this rule). 
Člen 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne uporablja, če vložnik ugovora na svojo pobudo predloži gradivo v zvezi z uporabo prejšnje blagovne znamke, na katero se sklicuje (za izjemo od tega pravila glej odstavek 3.1.3 v nadaljevanju).
As long as the EUTM applicant does not request proof of use, the issue of genuine use will not be addressed by the Office ex officio. 
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU ne zahteva dokaza o uporabi, Urad ne bo obravnaval vprašanja resne in dejanske uporabe po uradni dolžnosti.
In such cases, in principle, it is even irrelevant that the evidence produced by the opponent might demonstrate only a particular type or manner of use, or use that is limited to only part of the goods or services for which the earlier mark is registered. 
V takšnih primerih je načeloma celo nepomembno, da bi lahko bili iz dokazov, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, razvidni le določena vrsta ali način uporabe ali uporaba, ki je omejene le na del blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka.
The request to submit proof of use is only valid if the earlier mark is under the use requirement at all, that is to say if it has been registered for not less than 5 years. 
Zahteva za predložitev dokaza o uporabi je veljavna le, če se v zvezi s prejšnjo znamko uporablja zahteva glede uporabe, tj. če je bila blagovna znamka registrirana najmanj pet let.
3.1.1 Time of request 
Čas zahteve
Pursuant to Article 10(1) EUTMDR, the request for proof of use pursuant to Article 47(2) or (3) EUTMR will be admissible only if the applicant submits such a request within the period specified by the Office. 
V skladu s členom 10(1) Delegirane uredbe je zahteva za dokaz o uporabi na podlagi člena 47(2) ali (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dopustna le, če jo prijavitelj predloži v roku, ki ga določi Urad.
The request for proof of use must be made within the first time limit for the applicant to reply to the opposition under Article 10(2) EUTMDR. 
Zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi je treba vložiti v prvem roku, ki ga ima prijavitelj na voljo za odgovor na ugovor v skladu s členom 10(2) Delegirane uredbe.
If the request for proof of use is submitted during the cooling-off period or during the 2-month period given to the opponent for filing or amending facts, evidence and arguments, it is forwarded to the opponent without delay. 
Če je zahteva za dokaz o uporabi predložena v obdobju za pobotanje ali dvomesečnem obdobju, ki ga ima vložnik ugovora na voljo za predložitev ali spremembo dejstev, dokazov in navedb, mu jo je treba nemudoma posredovati.
3.1.2 Earlier mark registered for not less than 5 years 
Prejšnja znamka, registrirana najmanj pet let
In accordance with Article 47(2) EUTMR, the obligation to provide proof of use requires that the earlier registered mark has, at the date of filing or the date of priority of the EUTM application, been registered for not less than 5 years. 
V skladu s členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se pri obveznosti predložitve dokaza o uporabi zahteva, da je bila prejšnja registrirana znamka na datum vložitve ali datum prijave za prednostno pravico blagovne znamke EU registrirana najmanj pet let.
[7: For oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is the date of publication.] 
[7: V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum datum objave.]
For oppositions filed against international registrations designating the EU, the opponent's mark is under use obligation if on the date of registration (INID code 151) or on the date of priority (INID code 300), or, as the case may be, the date of subsequent designation of the European Union (INID code 891), it has been registered for not less than 5 years. 
V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi zoper mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana EU, za znamko vložnika ugovora velja obveznost uporabe, če je bila na datum registracije (koda INID 151) ali datum prednostne pravice (koda INID 300) oziroma na datum naknadnega imenovanja Evropske unije (koda INID 891), registrirana najmanj pet let.
[8: For oppositions filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is 6 months after the date of the first re-publication by the Office.] 
[8: V zvezi z ugovori, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum šest mesecev po datumu, ko Urad prvič znova objavi mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je imenovana EU.]
3.1.2.1 Earlier EUTMs 
Prejšnje blagovne znamke EU
The decisive date for establishing whether a trade mark has been registered for not less than 5 years at the relevant date is, according to Article 18 and Article 47(2) EUTMR, the registration date of the earlier EUTM. 
V skladu s členom 18 in členom 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je odločilni datum za opredelitev, ali je bila blagovna znamka na upoštevni datum registrirana najmanj pet let, datum registracije prejšnje blagovne znamke EU.
If 5 years or more have elapsed between the registration date of the earlier EUTM and the relevant date, the applicant (or in the case of a contested IR, the holder) is entitled to request proof of use. 
Če je med datumom registracije prejšnje blagovne znamke EU in upoštevnim datumom minilo pet let ali več, lahko prijavitelj (ali imetnik v primeru izpodbijane mednarodne registracije) zahteva dokaz o uporabi.
3.1.2.2 Earlier national marks 
Prejšnje nacionalne znamke
For national marks, it is necessary to determine the date that is equivalent to the registration date for EUTMs. 
V zvezi z nacionalnimi znamkami je treba določiti datum, ki ustreza datumu registracije blagovnih znamk EU.
In interpreting this term, it should be taken into account that some national trade mark systems have an opposition procedure after registration. 
Pri razlagi tega izraza je treba upoštevati, da v nekaterih sistemih nacionalnih blagovnih znamk postopek ugovora poteka po registraciji.
In view of these differing national proceedings, Article 10(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/95 (which is the equivalent of Article 47 EUTMR) refers, as concerns the use requirement for national marks, to the period of ‘five years following the date of the completion of the registration procedure'. 
Zaradi teh različnih nacionalnih postopkov se člen 10(1) Direktive (ES) 2008/95 (ki je enakovreden členu 47 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) v zvezi z zahtevo glede uporabe za nacionalne blagovne znamke sklicuje na obdobje „petih let po zaključku postopka registracije“.
The date of completion of the registration procedure (Article 10(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/95) that serves for calculating the starting point of the 5-year period for the obligation of use for national and international registrations (Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR) is determined by each Member State according to its own procedural rules (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 2628). 
Datum zaključka postopka registracije (člen 10(1) Direktive (ES) 2008/95), ki se uporablja za izračun izhodiščne točke petletnega obdobja v zvezi z obveznostjo uporabe za nacionalne in mednarodne registracije (člen 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), določi vsaka država članica posebej v skladu s svojimi postopkovnimi pravili (14/06/2007, C246/05, Le Chef de Cuisine, EU:C:2007:340, § 2628).
The owner of a mark is not expected to make genuine use of the mark while examination or opposition proceedings are pending, before the 5-year grace period mentioned. 
Od imetnika znamke se ne pričakuje, da bo med potekajočim postopkom preizkušanja ali ugovora resno in dejansko uporabljal znamko pred iztekom navedenega petletnega odložnega roka.
This is in harmony with the approach towards earlier EUTMs, since the registration date of an EUTM, which is mentioned in Article 47(2) EUTMR as the decisive date for the beginning of the grace period, is always the date of completion of the registration procedure. 
To je skladno s pristopom, sprejetim za prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, saj je datum registracije blagovne znamke EU, ki je v členu 47(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU naveden kot odločilni datum za začetek odložnega roka, vedno datum zaključka postopka registracije.
Furthermore, this interpretation keeps the use requirement under the EUTMR in line with the relevant national laws (06/05/2004, R 463/20031, Wrap House (fig.) / HOUSE OF WRAPS, § 19; 18/06/2010, R 236/20084, RENO 911! 
Poleg tega ta razlaga ohranja zahtevo glede uporabe iz Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v skladu z zadevnimi nacionalnimi zakoni (06/05/2004, R 463/20031, Wrap House (fig.) / HOUSE OF WRAPS, § 19; 18/06/2010, R 236/20084, RENO 911!
/ RENO). 
R 236/20084).
The completion of the registration procedure occurs after a pre-registration opposition or in some Member States even after completion of a post-registration opposition. 
Postopek registracije se konča po ugovoru, ki poteka pred registracijo, v nekaterih državah članicah pa celo po zaključku ugovora, ki poteka po registraciji.
The exact relevant dates can be found in the table in the Annex. 
Točni upoštevni datumi so na voljo v preglednici v Prilogi.
The Office does not investigate on its own initiative the actual date of completion of the registration proceedings. 
Urad na svojo pobudo ne preverja dejanskega datuma zaključka postopka registracije.
Without evidence to the contrary, the Office assumes that the registration procedure was completed on the date that is indicated as the registration date in the evidence submitted. 
Brez dokazov o nasprotnem Urad domneva, da se je postopek registracije končal na datum, ki je naveden kot datum registracije v predloženih dokazih.
The opponent has to rebut this presumption by proving the exact date when the registration procedure was completed. 
Vložnik ugovora mora to domnevo ovreči s predložitvijo dokazov o točnem datumu zaključka postopka registracije.
3.1.2.3 Earlier international registrations designating a Member State 
Prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana država članica
Under Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Madrid Protocol, the Designated Offices have a period of 12 or 18 months from the date of notification of the designation to issue provisional refusals. 
Pristojni uradi imajo v skladu s členom 5(2)(a) in (b) Madridskega protokola za izdajo začasnih zavrnitev na voljo 12 ali 18 mesecev od datuma obvestila o imenovanju.
Where the Member State has not been designated in the international application but in a subsequent designation, the 12 or 18 months start from the date the subsequent designation was notified to the Designated Offices. 
Če država članica ni bila imenovana v mednarodni prijavi, temveč v naknadnem imenovanju, se 12- ali 18-mesečno obdobje začne z datumom, ko so pristojni uradi uradno obveščeni o naknadnem imenovanju.
Member States that use the 12-month deadline to issue a provisional refusal under the Protocol when acting as a designated party are: Benelux, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Latvia, Hungary, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia. 
Države članice, ki v skladu s Protokolom uporabljajo 12-mesečni rok za izdajo začasne zavrnitve, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, so: Beneluks, Češka, Nemčija, Španija, Francija, Hrvaška, Latvija, Madžarska, Avstrija, Portugalska, Romunija in Slovenija.
Member States that have opted for the 18-month deadline to issue a provisional refusal under the Protocol when acting as a designated party are: Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
Države članice, ki so se v skladu s Protokolom odločile za 18-mesečni rok za izdajo začasne zavrnitve, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, so: Danska, Estonija, Irska, Grčija, Litva, Finska, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo.
The applicable deadline (12 or 18 months) for Bulgaria, Italy, Cyprus, Poland and Slovakia when acting as a designated party depends on whether (i) such country was designated or subsequently designated before or after 01/09/2008 and (ii) the Office of origin is bound by both the Agreement and the Protocol (deadline: 12 months) or only the Protocol (deadline: 18 months). 
Veljavni rok (12 ali 18 mesecev) za Bolgarijo, Italijo, Ciper, Poljsko in Slovaško, kadar nastopajo v vlogi imenovane stranke, je odvisen od tega, ali (i) je bila takšna država imenovana ali naknadno imenovana pred 1. septembrom 2008 ali po njem in (ii) urad izvora zavezujeta Sporazum in Protokol (rok: 12 mesecev) ali samo Protokol (rok: 18 mesecev).
See overview table below: 
Glej zbirno preglednico:
The Office will, on its own motion, apply the 12-month or 18-month deadline according to the above rules. 
Urad bo v skladu z zgornjimi pravili na svojo pobudo uporabljal 12- ali 18-mesečni rok.
Deadlines are calculated by adding the relevant periods to the date of notification from which the time limit to notify the refusal starts, indicated by INID code 580 on the ROMARIN extract (i.e. not the date of international registration or subsequent designation) (Rule 18(1)(a)(iii) and Rule 18(2)(a) of the Common Regulations). 
Roki se izračunajo tako, da se upoštevna obdobja prištejejo k datumu obvestila, ko začne teči rok za izdajo obvestila o zavrnitvi in ki je na izpisku iz podatkovne zbirke ROMARIN označen s kodo INID 580 (to ni datum mednarodne registracije ali naknadne registracije) (pravilo 18(1)(a)(iii) in pravilo 18(2)(a) Skupnega pravilnika).
Only when it is decisive for determining whether the earlier mark is subject to the proof of use obligation is it for the opponent to claim a date that is later (e.g. when a provisional refusal has been lifted after these dates or if the designated country opted for a period even longer than 18 months for notifying a refusal based on an opposition pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of the Protocol) and for the applicant or holder to claim a date that is earlier than these dates (e.g. when a Statement of Grant of Protection has been issued before these dates) and to provide the Office with conclusive documentation thereof. 
Samo kadar je ključno za opredelitev, ali mora za prejšnjo znamko veljati obveznost predložitve dokaza o uporabi, mora vložnik ugovora uveljavljati poznejši datum (npr. kadar je bila začasna zavrnitev po teh datumih odpravljena ali če se je imenovana država za izdajo obvestila o zavrnitvi na podlagi ugovora v skladu s členom 5(2)(c) Protokola odločila za obdobje, ki je še daljše od 18 mesecev), prijavitelj ali imetnik pa mora uveljavljati datum, ki je zgodnejši od teh datumov (npr. kadar je bila pred temi datumi objavljena izjava o podelitvi varstva), in Uradu predložiti prepričljive dokaze.
In particular, the Court confirmed, in relation to an earlier international registration designating Germany, that the date on which an earlier international registration was deemed to have been ‘registered' had to be established in accordance with the German law giving effect to the earlier right, and not by reference to the date of registration with the International Bureau of WIPO. 
Sodišče je zlasti v zvezi s prejšnjo mednarodno registracijo, v kateri je bila imenovana Nemčija, potrdilo, da je treba datum, ki se upošteva kot datum registracije prejšnje mednarodne registracije, določiti v skladu z nemško zakonodajo, ki daje učinek prejšnji pravici, in ne s sklicevanjem na datum registracije pri Mednarodnem uradu organizacije WIPO.
Under German trade mark law, if protection for an internationally registered trade mark is provisionally refused but subsequently granted, the registration is regarded as having taken place on the date of receipt by the International Bureau of WIPO of the final notification that protection has been granted. 
Če se varstvo za mednarodno registrirano blagovno znamko v skladu z nemškim pravom o blagovnih znamkah začasno zavrne, vendar se ji podeli naknadno, se upošteva, da je bila registracija opravljena na datum, ko Mednarodni urad organizacije WIPO prejme končno obvestilo o podelitvi varstva.
Proper application of Article 47(2) and (3) EUTMR and of Article 4(1) of the Madrid Agreement cannot lead to a breach of the principle of non-discrimination (16/09/2010, C559/08 P, Atoz, EU:C:2010:529, § 44, 5356). 
Pravilna uporaba člena 47(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ter člena 4(1) Madridskega sporazuma ne sme povzročiti kršitve načela nediskriminacije (16/09/2010, C559/08 P, Atoz, EU:C:2010:529, § 44, 5356).
3.1.2.4 Earlier international registrations designating the European Union 
Prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v katerih je imenovana Evropska unija
For international registrations designating the European Union, Article 203 EUTMR provides that: 
V zvezi z mednarodnimi registracijami, v katerih je imenovana Evropska unija, člen 203 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa:
For the purposes of applying Article 18(1), Article 47(2), Article 58(1)(a) and Article 64(2), the date of publication pursuant to Article 190(2) shall take the place of the date of registration for the purpose of establishing the date as from which the mark which is the subject of an international registration designating the Union shall be put to genuine use in the Union. 
Za namene uporabe člena 18(1), člena 47(2), člena 58(1)(a) in člena 64(2) pri določitvi datuma, s katerim je v Uniji dana v resno in dejansko uporabo znamka, ki je predmet mednarodne registracije, v kateri je imenovana Unija, datum objave v skladu s členom 190(2) nadomesti datum registracije.
As from that publication, the international registration has the same effects as a registered EUTM pursuant to Article 189(2) EUTMR. 
Mednarodna registracija ima od te objave enake učinke kot blagovna znamka EU, registrirana v skladu s členom 189(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.2.5 Summary of calculation of the grace period 
Povzetek izračuna odložnega roka
3.1.3 Request must be unconditional, explicit and unambiguous 
Zahteva mora biti brezpogojna, izrecna in nedvoumna
The applicant's request is a formal declaration with important procedural consequences. 
Zahteva prijavitelja je formalna izjava, ki ima pomembne postopkovne posledice.
Pursuant to Article 10(1) EUTMDR, the request has to be unconditional. 
V skladu s členom 10(1) Delegirane uredbe mora biti zahteva brezpogojna.
Phrases such as ‘if the opponent does not limit its goods/services in Classes “X” or “Y”, we demand proof of use', ‘if the Office does not reject the opposition because of lack of likelihood of confusion, we request proof of use' or ‘if considered appropriate by the Office, the opponent is invited to file proof of use of its trade mark' contain conditional or auxiliary claims and, therefore, are not valid requests for proof of use (26/05/2010, R 1333/20084, RFID SOLUTIONS (fig.) / rfid (fig.)). 
Stavki, kot so „če vložnik ugovora ne omeji svoje blago/storitve iz razredov X ali Y, zahtevamo dokaz o uporabi“, „če Urad ne zavrne ugovora zaradi neobstoja verjetnosti zmede, zahtevamo dokaz o uporabi“ ali „če Urad to šteje za ustrezno, je vložnik ugovora pozvan k predložitvi dokaza o uporabi svoje blagovne znamke“, vključujejo pogojne ali nadomestne zahteve, ki zato niso veljavne zahteve za dokaz o uporabi (26/05/2010, R 1333/20084, RFID SOLUTIONS (fig.) / rfid (fig.)).
Moreover, the request has to be explicit and unambiguous. 
Poleg tega mora biti zahteva izrecna in nedvoumna.
In general, the request for proof of use must be expressed in positive wording. 
Na splošno je treba zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi izraziti s pozitivnimi besedami.
As use or non-use can be an issue in manifold constellations (for example, to invoke or deny a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark), mere observations or remarks by the applicant in respect of the (lack of) use of the opponent's mark are not sufficiently explicit and do not constitute a valid request for proof of genuine use (16/03/2005, T112/03, Flexi Air, EU:T:2005:102). 
Ker je lahko uporaba ali neuporaba problematična v več primerih (npr. pri sklicevanju na povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke ali pri njegovem izpodbijanju), le pripombe ali opombe prijavitelja v zvezi z (ne)uporabo znamke vložnika ugovora niso dovolj izrecne in ne pomenijo veljavne zahteve za dokaz o resni in dejanski uporabi (16/03/2005, T112/03, Flexi Air, EU:T:2005:102).