natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although Article 8(3) EUTMR treats the lack of the proprietor's consent and the absence of a valid justification on the part of the applicant as two separate conditions, these requirements largely overlap to the extent that if the applicant establishes that the filing of the application was based on some agreement or understanding to this effect, then it will also have provided a valid justification for its acts. 
Čeprav sta v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU neobstoj soglasja imetnika in neobstoj veljavne utemeljitve prijavitelja obravnavana kot ločena pogoja, se ti zahtevi pretežno prekrivata, saj če prijavitelj dokaže, da je vložitev prijave temeljila na nekem sporazumu ali dogovoru v tem smislu, s tem tudi predloži veljavno utemeljitev za svoje ravnanje.
In addition, the applicant may invoke any other kind of circumstance showing that it had a justification for filing the EUTM application in its own name. 
Poleg tega se lahko prijavitelj sklicuje na katere koli druge vrste okoliščin, ki kažejo, da je bila vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU v lastnem imenu utemeljena.
However, in the absence of evidence of direct consent, only exceptional reasons are accepted as valid justifications, in view of the need to avoid a violation of the proprietor's legitimate interests without sufficient indications that its intention was to allow the agent to file the application in its own name. 
Ker ni dokazov o neposrednem soglasju, se kot veljavne utemeljitve sprejmejo le izjemni razlogi, in sicer za preprečitev kršitve legitimnih interesov imetnika, kadar ni zadostnih znakov, da je bil njegov namen pooblastiti posrednika za vložitev prijave v lastnem imenu.
For example, it could be possible to infer that the proprietor has tacitly consented to the filing of the application if it does not react within a reasonable period of time after having been informed by the applicant that it intends to apply for an EUTM in its own name. 
Tako bi bilo na primer mogoče sklepati, da je imetnik tiho soglašal z vložitvijo prijave, če se po tem, ko ga prijavitelj seznani s svojo namero, da bo vložil prijavo blagovne znamke EU v svojem imenu, ne odzove v razumnem času.
However, even in such a case it will not be possible to assume that the application has been authorised by the proprietor if the agent had not made it sufficiently clear to the proprietor in advance in whose name it would file the application. 
Vendar tudi v takšnem primeru ni mogoče sklepati, da je imetnik odobril prijavo, če posrednik imetnika vnaprej ne obvesti dovolj jasno, v katerem imenu bo vložil prijavo.
Another case of valid justification could be if the proprietor causes its agent to believe that it has abandoned the mark, or that it is not interested in obtaining or maintaining any rights in the territory concerned, for example, by suspending the use of the mark over a relatively long period of time. 
Še en primer veljavne utemeljitve je, če imetnikov posrednik zaradi imetnikovih dejanj verjame, da je ta opustil znamko oziroma da ni zainteresiran za pridobitev ali ohranitev nobenih pravic na zadevnem ozemlju, če na primer preneha uporabljati znamke za razmeroma dolgo obdobje.
The fact that the proprietor does not want to spend money on registering its trade mark does not give the agent a right to act on its own initiative, as the proprietor might still have an interest in using its trade mark in the territory although it is not registered. 
Dejstvo, da imetnik ne želi porabiti denarja za registracijo svoje blagovne znamke, posredniku ne daje pravice, da ravna na svojo pobudo, saj je imetnik morda še vedno zainteresiran za uporabo svoje blagovne znamke na zadevnem ozemlju, čeprav ni registrirana.
Such a business decision cannot be taken in itself as a sign that the proprietor has given up the rights in its mark. 
Takšne poslovne odločitve same po sebi ni mogoče šteti za znak, da se je imetnik odpovedal pravicam iz svoje znamke.
Justifications exclusively linked to an applicant's economic interests, such as the need to protect its investment in setting up a local distribution network and promoting the mark in the relevant territory, cannot be considered valid for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
Utemeljitev, ki so izključno povezane z ekonomskimi interesi prijavitelja, kot je potreba po zaščiti naložbe pri vzpostavljanju lokalne distribucijske mreže in promociji znamke na zadevnem ozemlju, ni mogoče šteti za veljavne za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Nor can the applicant successfully argue in its defence that it is entitled to some financial remuneration for its efforts and expenditure in building up goodwill for the mark. 
Prijavitelj ne more v svojo obrambo utemeljeno trditi niti, da je upravičen do finančne nagrade za svoja prizadevanja in izdatke pri vzpostavljanju dobrega imena znamke.
Even if such remuneration were well deserved or is expressly stipulated in the agency agreement, the applicant cannot use the registration of the mark in its own name as a means of extracting money from the opponent or in lieu of financial compensation, but should try to settle its dispute with the proprietor either by way of agreement or by suing for damages. 
Tudi če bi bilo takšno plačilo zasluženo ali če je izrecno določeno v sporazumu o zastopstvu, prijavitelj registracije znamke v lastnem imenu ne sme uporabiti kot sredstva za pridobitev denarja od vložnika ugovora ali namesto finančnega nadomestila, temveč mora poskusiti spor z imetnikom rešiti sporazumno ali z vložitvijo odškodninske tožbe.
Finally, if the applicant does not provide any justification for its actions, it is not for the Office to make any speculations in that regard (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 73-74). 
Nazadnje, če prijavitelj ne predloži utemeljitve za svoja ravnanja, ni naloga Urada, da ugiba glede tega (09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip, EU:T:2014:621, § 73-74).
4.5 Applicability beyond identical signs - goods and services 
Uporaba, ki ni omejena na enake znake - blago in storitve
Article 8(3) EUTMR provides that an EUTM application will not be registered where ‘an agent or representative of the proprietor of the mark applies for registration thereof in his own name'. 
Člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se prijava blagovne znamke EU ne registrira, če „posrednik ali zastopnik imetnika blagovne znamke zahteva njeno registracijo v lastnem imenu“.
Such an explicit reference to the principal's trade mark gives the prima facie impression that the EUTM applied for must be the same as the earlier mark. 
Takšno izrecno sklicevanje na imetnikovo blagovno znamko daje na prvi pogled vtis, da mora biti blagovna znamka EU, za katero je vložena prijava, enaka prejšnji znamki.
Hence, a literal interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR would lead to the conclusion that its application is only possible where the agent or representative intends to register a mark identical to that of the proprietor. 
Zato bi dobesedna razlaga člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU privedla do sklepne ugotovitve, da je prijava mogoča le, če posrednik ali zastopnik namerava registrirati znamko, ki je enaka imetnikovi znamki.
Moreover, the text of Article 8(3) EUTMR does not refer to the goods and services for which the application has been filed and for which the earlier mark is protected and, thus, gives no guidance as to what the exact relationship between the respective goods and services should be for the Article to apply. 
Poleg tega se besedilo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne sklicuje na blago in storitve, za katere je bila vložena prijava in za katere je zaščitena prejšnja znamka, in zato ne zagotavlja nobenih smernic v zvezi s tem, kakšno naj bo torej razmerje med zadevnim blagom in storitvami, da se lahko uporablja zadevni člen.
However, applying Article 8(3) EUTMR exclusively to identical signs for identical goods or services would render this provision largely ineffective, as it would allow the applicant to escape its consequences by merely making slight modifications either to the earlier mark or to the specification of goods and services. 
Vendar bi izključna uporaba člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za enake znake za enako blago ali storitve povzročila, da bi ta določba postala pretežno neučinkovita, saj bi prijavitelju omogočila, da se izogne posledicam, tako da le nekoliko spremeni prejšnjo znamko ali specifikacijo blaga in storitev.
In such a case, the proprietor's interests would be seriously prejudiced, especially if the earlier mark were already in use and the variations made by the applicant were not significant enough to rule out confusion. 
V takšnem primeru bi to pomenilo resen poseg v imetnikove interese, zlasti če bi se prejšnja znamka že uporabljala, spremembe, ki jih je sprejel prijavitelj, pa ne bi bile dovolj izrazite, da bi bilo mogoče izključiti zmedo.
What is more, if the application were allowed to proceed to registration despite its similarity to the earlier mark, the applicant would be in a position to prevent any subsequent registration and/or use of the earlier mark by the original proprietor within the EU, by relying on Article 8(1) or 9(2) EUTMR, or the equivalent provisions of national law. 
Še več, če bi se prijava kljub podobnosti prejšnji znamki nadaljevala s fazo registracije, bi lahko prijavitelj prvotnemu imetniku preprečil vse naknadne registracije in/ali uporabo prejšnje znamke v EU s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) ali 9(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali enakovredne določbe nacionalne zakonodaje.
To sum up, in view of the need to effectively protect the legitimate proprietor against unfair practices by its representatives, a restrictive interpretation of Article 8(3) EUTMR must be avoided. 
Na kratko, zaradi potrebe po učinkoviti zaščiti zakonitega imetnika se je treba pred nepoštenim ravnanjem njegovih zastopnikov izogibati ozki razlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, Article 8(3) EUTMR must be applied where the respective marks are identical or where there is a relation between them comparable to the examples in the below table; and 
Zato je treba člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporabiti, če sta zadevni znamki enaki ali če med njima obstaja razmerje, primerljivo s primeri v preglednici v nadaljevanju, in
when the goods and services in conflict are closely related or equivalent in commercial terms. 
kadar so nasprotujoče si blago in storitve tesno povezani ali enakovredni v komercialnem smislu.
The requirement ‘equivalent in commercial terms' must be interpreted in a narrow sense and does not have the same meaning as ‘similar' pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (15/09/2015, R 2406/20145, STUDIOLINE / STUDIOLINE et al., § 17). 
Zahtevo enakovredni v komercialnem smislu je treba razlagati v ožjem smislu in nima enakega pomena kot podobni v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (15/09/2015, R 2406/20145, STUDIOLINE / STUDIOLINE et al., § 17).
In other words, what finally counts is that the goods or services of the applicant may be perceived by the public as ‘authorised' products, the quality of which is still somehow ‘guaranteed' by the opponent, and which it would have been reasonable for the opponent to market in view of the goods and services protected under the earlier mark. 
Povedano drugače, kar na koncu šteje, je, da bi lahko javnost prijaviteljevo blago ali storitve dojemala kot odobrene izdelke, za kakovost katerih še vedno v nekem smislu jamči vložnik ugovora in v zvezi s katerimi bi bilo razumno, da bi jih tržil vložnik ugovora glede na blago in storitve, zaščitene s prejšnjo znamko.
If the goods or services, however, are not identical or similar or equivalent, Article 8(3) EUTMR does not apply (17/02/2014, R 407/20134, WOUXUN / WOUXUN). 
Če pa blago ali storitve niso enaki ali podobni ali enaki, se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporablja (17/02/2014, R 407/20134, WOUXUN / WOUXUN).
The following are examples of conflicting signs where the Office considered that Article 8(3) EUTMR is applicable. 
V nadaljevanju so ponazorjeni primeri spornih znakov, v zvezi s katerimi je Urad menil, da se lahko uporablja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The following are examples of goods and services in conflict where the Office considered that Article 8(3) EUTMR is applicable. 
V nadaljevanju so ponazorjeni primeri spornega blaga in storitev, v zvezi s katerimi je Urad menil, da se lahko uporablja člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In the following example, the goods and services in conflict were not considered equivalent in commercial terms. 
V naslednjem primeru se nasprotujoče si blago in storitve ne štejejo za enakovredne v komercialnem smislu.
30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL (confirmed 16/11/2011, T484/09, Powerball) The Board confirmed the OD decision rejecting the opposition based on Article 8(3) EUTMR to the extent that the opponent was not the proprietor of the earlier right but merely claimed to be the licensee of the company Nanosecond Technology Co. Ltd. 
30/09/2009, R 1547/20064, POWERBALL / POWERBALL (potrjena 16/11/2011, T484/09, Powerball) Odbor je potrdil odločbo oddelka za ugovor, s katero je bil zavrnjen ugovor na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj vložnik ugovora ni bil imetnik prejšnje pravice, temveč je trdil le, da je pridobitelj licence družbe Nanosecond Technology Co. Ltd.
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK (on appeal, 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent failed to meet the requirement regarding ownership of the trade mark, namely of the ownership of the registered mark ZAPPER-CLICK. 
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK (tožba zavržena v pritožbenem postopku z dne 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Tožena stranka ni izpolnjevala zahteve glede lastništva blagovne znamke, in sicer lastništva registrirane znamke ZAPPER-CLICK.
On appeal, the Court did not address this point. 
Sodišče v pritožbenem postopku te točke ni obravnavalo.
As Article 8(3) EUTMR refers only to earlier trade marks, the evidence filed by the opponent with regard to rights in respect of copyright law in the territory of China was not relevant. 
Ker se člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU sklicuje le na prejšnje blagovne znamke, dokazi, ki jih je vložnik ugovora predložil glede pravic v zvezi z avtorskim pravom na ozemlju Kitajske, niso bila upoštevna.
This is another kind of intellectual property right that is excluded as a result of the express reference in the article to ‘trade marks'. 
To je druga vrsta pravice intelektualne lastnine, ki je izključena, saj se člen izrecno sklicuje na „blagovne znamke“.
21/12/2009, R 1621/20064, DRaintank The Board noted that the trade mark applications filed by the cancellation applicant in 2003 were all later than the filing date of the contested EUTM and even later than its date of registration, and could not serve to establish that the cancellation applicant owned a ‘mark' in the sense of a registered mark, be it anywhere in the world, for the sign at issue when the EUTM was filed. 
21/12/2009, R 1621/20064, DRaintank Odbor je ugotovil, da so bile vse prijave blagovne znamke, ki jih je vložnik zahteve za izbris vložil leta 2003, poznejše od datuma vložitve izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in celo poznejše od datuma njene registracije, zato jih ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za ugotovitev, da je bil vložnik zahteve za izbris ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU kjer koli na svetu imetnik znamke v smislu registrirane znamke za zadevni znak.
It went on to affirm that, ‘Obviously, nobody can base a claim on relative grounds for refusal or declaration of invalidity on rights which are younger than the contested EUTM' (para. 53). 
Nato je potrdil, da seveda nihče ne more utemeljiti zahteve na relativnih razlogih za zavrnitev ali zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti glede pravic, ki so poznejše od izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU (točka 53).
This was the priority date in Germany, claimed by the applicant, granted by the Office and subsequently published, and not the filing date of the EUTM application at the Office. 
To je bil datum prednostne pravice v Nemčiji, na katerega se je skliceval vložnik zahteve, ki ga je dodelil Urad in ki je bil nato objavljen, in ne datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU pri Uradu.
19/12/2006, B 715 146, Squirt ‘For the purpose of Article 8(3) EUTMR, it is immaterial where in the world the rights of proprietorship reside. 
19/12/2006, B 715 146, Squirt Za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, kje na svetu imajo učinek pravice iz lastništva.
Indeed, if in the Paris Convention the proprietorship in a Paris Union member country is required, in the absence of any reference in the EUTMR to any territory in which such proprietorship shall exist, one must conclude that it is sufficient that the opponent complies with the requirements of Article 5 EUTMR concerning “Persons who can be proprietors of European Union trade marks”. 
Dejansko velja, če se v Pariški konvenciji zahteva lastništvo v državi članici Pariške unije, je treba - ker v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanj na katero koli ozemlje, na katerem takšno lastništvo obstaja - sklepati, da je dovolj, če vložnik ugovora izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 5 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glede „[oseb], ki so lahko imetniki blagovnih znamk EU“.
In the present case, the opponent complied with such a requirement, as it was a company based in the United States of America.' 
V tem primeru je vložnik ugovora izpolnjeval takšno zahtevo, saj je bil družba s sedežem v Združenih državah Amerike.
The fact that the earlier registrations were from non-EU countries has no bearing on the invalidity ground at issue, since Article 8(2) EUTMR, imposing this territorial condition, does not apply to proceedings based on Article 8(3) EUTMR and cannot serve to define the territorial extent of protection granted by that article. 
Dejstvo, da so bile prejšnje registracije iz držav, ki niso članice EU, ne vpliva na sporni razlog za ničnost, saj se člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki nalaga to ozemeljsko zahtevo, ne uporablja za postopek na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ga ni mogoče uporabiti za opredelitev ozemeljskega obsega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja navedeni člen.
‘In the absence of any reference to a “relevant territory” in Article 8(3) EUTMR, the Cancellation Division must presume that earlier trade marks registered in countries outside the EU may constitute the basis for an invalidity request based on Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 33).' 
Ker v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni sklicevanja na upoštevno ozemlje, mora oddelek za izbris domnevati, da so lahko prejšnje blagovne znamke, registrirane v tretjih državah, podlaga za zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 33).
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (confirmed 09/07/2014, T184/12) The opposition was based on an unregistered mark protected, inter alia, in Australia. 
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (potrjena z dne 09/07/2014, T184/12) Ugovor je temeljil na neregistrirani znamki, ki je med drugim zaščitena v Avstraliji.
The Board considered that the evidence submitted by the opponent supports that it has been using the mark in Australia to a substantial extent (paras 3 and 34 respectively). 
Odbor je menil, da je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, razvidno, da znamko v precejšnjem obsegu uporablja v Avstraliji (točki 3 in 34).
The opposition was based on a registered mark protected in Malaysia. 
Ugovor je temeljil na registrirani znamki, ki je zaščitena v Maleziji.
By filing the Malaysian registration certificate, it was proven that the opponent is the owner of the Malaysian trade mark. 
S predložitvijo malezijskega potrdila o registraciji je bilo dokazano, da je vložnik ugovora imetnik malezijske blagovne znamke.
09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip The Court concluded that, although there was no written cooperation agreement between the parties, their relationship on the date of the application for the EUTM was, in view of the business correspondence between them, more than that of merely buyer and seller. 
09/07/2014, T184/12, Heatstrip Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bilo razmerje med strankama na datum prijave blagovne znamke EU glede na poslovne dopise med njima več kot samo razmerje med kupcem in prodajalcem, čeprav nista imeli pisnega dogovora o sodelovanju.
There was, rather, a tacit cooperation agreement that led to a fiduciary obligation on the part of the EUTM applicant (para. 67). 
Namesto njega je obstajal tihi dogovor o sodelovanju, ki je ustvaril zaupniško razmerje pri prijavitelju blagovne znamke EU (točka 67).
The Board found that the contents of the exchanged information lead to the conclusion that ‘the CTM proprietor was, in effect, acting as an agent or distributor of the invalidity applicant. 
Odbor je ugotovil, da je vsebina izmenjanih informacij privedla do sklepne ugotovitve, da je imetnik znamke Skupnosti dejansko deloval kot zastopnik ali distributer vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
Even if the relationship was not explicitly defined as such, the parties appeared to be business partners, which would require a certain level of trust. 
Čeprav razmerje ni bilo izrecno opredeljeno kot tako, se zdi, da sta bili stranki poslovna partnerja, za kar bi bila potrebna določena stopnja zaupanja.
The CTM proprietor was regularly reporting and consulting the marketing strategy with the invalidity applicant, which on its part, allowed a certain level of control, to the CTM proprietor (para. 46).' 
Imetnik znamke Skupnosti je redno poročal vložniku zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in se z njim posvetoval o strategiji trženja, s tem pa je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti imetniku znamke Skupnosti dovoljeval določeno raven nadzora (točka 46).
The Opposition Division found that the evidence submitted by the opponent showed that the relationship and its ultimate purpose constituted an example of commercial cooperation, through which a general duty of trust and loyalty was imposed on the applicant and was the type of relationship envisioned under Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 5). 
Oddelek za ugovore je ugotovil, da je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, razvidno, da razmerje in njegov končni cilj pomenita primer poslovnega sodelovanja, v okviru katerega je bila prijavitelju naložena splošna obveznost zaupanja in lojalnosti, in da je bila to vrsta razmerja, predvidena v členu 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 5).
17/03/2000, B 26 759, EAST SIDE MARIO'S A mere desire to establish a commercial relationship with the opponent cannot be considered as a concluded agreement between the parties regarding the use of the contested trade mark. 
17/03/2000, B 26 759, EAST SIDE MARIO'S Navadne želje po vzpostavitvi poslovnega razmerja z vložnikom ugovora ni mogoče šteti za sklenjen sporazum med strankama o uporabi izpodbijane blagovne znamke.
13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The opponent did not submit any evidence showing the existence of an agent-principal relationship with the applicant. 
13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenega dokaza, ki bi dokazovalo obstoj zastopniškega razmerja s prijaviteljem.
The opponent provided invoices and order forms addressed to itself, on the basis of which the existence of a business agreement between the parties could, in other circumstances, be assumed. 
Vložnik ugovora je predložil račune in naročilnice, ki so bili naslovljeni nanj, na podlagi katerih bi se lahko v drugačnih okoliščinah sklepalo o obstoju poslovnega dogovora med strankama.
However, in the present case, the General Court concluded that the evidence does not show that the applicant acted on behalf of the opponent, but merely that there was a seller-customer relationship that could have been established without a prior agreement between them. 
Vendar je Splošno sodišče v tem primeru sklenilo, da iz teh dokazov ni razvidno, da je prijavitelj ravnal v imenu vložnika ugovora, temveč potrjujejo le obstoj razmerja prodajalca in stranke, ki je lahko nastalo brez predhodnega dogovora med njima.