natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The relevant point in time for determining whether there was bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner is the time of filing of the application for registration. 
Upoštevni trenutek za presojo, ali je imetnik blagovne znamke EU ravnal v slabi veri, je čas vložitve zahteve za registracijo.
However, the following must be noted. 
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da:
Facts and evidence dated prior to filing can be taken into account for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM. 
je mogoče pri razlagi namena imetnika v času vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU upoštevati dejstva in dokaze iz obdobja pred vložitvijo.
Such facts include, in particular, whether there is already a registration of the mark in a Member State, the circumstances under which that mark was created and the use made of it since its creation (see paragraph 3.3.2.1 below, third paragraph). 
Takšna dejstva vključujejo zlasti možnost, da je bila znamka že registrirana v neki državi članici, okoliščine, v katerih je bila navedena znamka ustvarjena, in uporabo blagovne znamke od njenega nastanka (glej tretji pododstavek odstavka 3.3.2.1 v nadaljevanju);
Facts and evidence dated subsequent to filing can sometimes be used for interpreting the owner's intention at the time of filing the EUTM, in particular whether the owner has used the mark since registration (see paragraph 3.3.2.1 below, third paragraph). 
je mogoče dejstva in dokaze iz obdobja po vložitvi včasih uporabiti za razlago namena imetnika v času vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU, zlasti tega, ali je imetnik znamko uporabljal od njene registracije (glej tretji pododstavek odstavka 3.3.2.1 v nadaljevanju).
3.3.2 Concept of bad faith 
Pojem slaba vera
As observed by Advocate General Sharpston (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), the concept of bad faith referred to in Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR is not defined, delimited or even described in any way in the legislation. 
Kot je ugotovila generalna pravobranilka Eleanor Sharpston (sklepni predlogi v 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 36), pojem slaba vera iz člena 59(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zakonodaji ni opredeljen, zamejen ali kakor koli opisan.
However, the Court of Justice provided some guidance on how to interpret this concept in its judgment in the same case, as did the General Court in several cases (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689). 
Vendar je Sodišče zagotovilo nekaj smernic o razlagi tega pojma v sodbi v isti zadevi, kot je storilo tudi Splošno sodišče v več zadevah (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39; 14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77; 13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689).
In its preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, the Court of Justice declared that the concept of bad faith is an autonomous concept of European Union law, which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union. 
Sodišče je v predhodni odločbi 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, navedlo, da je pojem slaba vera samostojen pojem prava Evropske unije, ki ga je treba v Evropski uniji razlagati enotno.
One way to describe bad faith is ‘conduct which departs from accepted principles of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices' (opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, and similarly, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14). 
Eden od načinov za opis slabe vere je, da je „ravnanje, ki odstopa od sprejetih načel etičnega vedenja ali dobrih poslovnih običajev“ (sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke Eleanor Sharpston 11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 60, in podobno, 01/04/2009, R 529/20084, FS (fig.), § 14).
A non-exhaustive list of such factors is given below. 
Dejavniki, ki verjetno kažejo obstoj slabe vere
3.3.2.1 Factors likely to indicate the existence of bad faith 
Iz sodne prakse je razvidno, da so zlasti upoštevni trije kumulativni dejavniki:
Although the fact that marks are identical or confusingly similar is not in itself sufficient to show bad faith (regarding identity, 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), a dissimilar or not confusingly similar mark will not support a finding of bad faith. 
Ker dejstvo, da sta blagovni znamki enaki ali da sta si tako podobni, da bi lahko povzročili zmedo, samo po sebi ne zadošča za dokaz obstoja slabe vere (v zvezi z enakostjo glej sodbi 01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 90; 28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 59-60), različna znamka ali znamka, ki ni tako podobna, da bi lahko povzročila zmedo, ne podpira ugotovitve obstoja slabe vere.
2. Knowledge of the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign: the EUTM owner knew or must have known about the use of an identical or confusingly similar sign by a third party for identical or similar products or services. 
Seznanjenost z uporabo enakega znaka ali tako podobnega znaka, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo: imetnik blagovne znamke EU je vedel ali je moral vedeti, da tretja oseba za enake ali podobne proizvode ali storitve uporablja enak znak ali tako podoben znak, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo.
There is knowledge, for example, where the parties have been in a business relationship with each other and, as a result thereof, ‘could not ignore, and was probably aware that the invalidity applicant had been using the sign for a long time' (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), when the reputation of the sign, even as a ‘historical' trade mark, is a well-known fact (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50), or when the identity or quasi-identity between the contested mark and the earlier signs ‘manifestly cannot be fortuitous' (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60). 
Seznanjenost na primer obstaja, kadar stranki poslovno sodelujeta, zaradi česar tožeča stranka ni mogla prezreti in je verjetno vedela, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti znak uporabljal dolgo časa (11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25), kadar je ugled znaka, tudi kot „zgodovinske“ blagovne znamke, splošno dobro znan (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 50) ali kadar enakost ali skorajšnja enakost med izpodbijano znamko in prejšnjimi znaki „očitno ne more biti naključna“ (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 60).
Knowledge may be presumed to exist (‘must have known') on the basis, inter alia, of general knowledge in the economic sector concerned or duration of use. 
Domnevati je mogoče, da seznanjenost obstaja (po načelu kar je treba vedeti) med drugim tudi na podlagi splošne vednosti o takšni uporabi v zadevnem gospodarskem sektorju ali trajanja te uporabe.
The longer the use of a sign, the more likely it is that the EUTM owner had knowledge of it (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39). 
Čim dolgotrajnejša je uporaba znaka, tem verjetneje je, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU zanjo vedel (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 39).
Depending on the circumstances of the case, this presumption may apply even if the sign was registered in a non-EU country (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71). 
Odvisno od okoliščin zadeve lahko ta domneva velja, tudi če je bil znak registriran v tretji državi (28/01/2016, T335/14, Doggis, EU:T:2016:39, § 64-71).
However, knowledge of an identical or similar earlier sign for identical or similar goods or services is not sufficient in itself to support a finding of bad faith (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49). 
Vendar seznanjenost z enakim oziroma podobnim prejšnjim znakom za enako oziroma podobno blago ali storitve sama po sebi ne zadošča za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 40, 48-49).
It always depends on the circumstances of the case. 
Ta je vedno odvisna od okoliščin zadeve.
For example, it cannot be excluded that, where a number of producers use, on the market, for identical or similar goods, identical or similar signs that could give rise to confusion with the sign for which registration is sought, the EUTM owner's registration of the sign may be in pursuit of a legitimate objective. 
Tako na primer ni mogoče izključiti, da imetnik blagovne znamke EU z registracijo znaka morda sledi legitimnemu cilju, če več proizvajalcev na trgu za enako ali podobno blago uporablja enake ali podobne znake, ki bi jih potrošnik lahko zamenjal z znakom, za katerega se zahteva registracija.
This could be the case where the EUTM owner knows, at the time of filing the EUTM application, that a third undertaking is making use of the mark covered by that application by giving its clients the impression that it officially distributes the goods sold under that mark, even though it has not received authorisation to do so (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27). 
To lahko velja, kadar imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamko EU ve, da tretje podjetje uporablja blagovno znamko, za katero se zahteva registracija, in pri svojih strankah ustvarja vtis, da uradno prodaja proizvode, ki se tržijo pod navedeno znamko, čeprav za to ni dobilo dovoljenja (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 27).
Similarly, the fact that the applicant knows or should know that, at the time of filing of its application, a third party is using a mark abroad that is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision (preliminary ruling of 27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37). 
Podobno, okoliščina, da je prijavitelj vedel ali bi moral vedeti, da tretja oseba ob vložitvi zahteve za registracijo v tujini uporablja znamko, ki jo je mogoče zamenjati z znamko, katere registracija se zahteva, sama po sebi ne zadošča za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere prijavitelja v smislu navedene določbe (27/06/2013, C320/12, Malaysia Dairy, EU:C:2013:435, § 37).
Knowledge or presumption of knowledge of an existing sign is not required where the EUTM owner misuses the system with the intention of preventing any similar sign from entering the market (see, for example, the artificial extension of the grace period for non-use in paragraph 3(d) below). 
Seznanjenost ali domneva o seznanjenosti z obstoječim znakom ni potrebna, če imetnik blagovne znamke EU zlorabi sistem, da bi preprečil vstop na trg vsem podobnim znakom (glej na primer umetno podaljšanje odložnega roka za neuporabo v odstavku 3(d) v nadaljevanju).
3. Dishonest intention on the part of the EUTM owner: this is a subjective factor that has to be determined by reference to objective circumstances (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42). 
Nepošten namen imetnika blagovne znamke EU: to je subjektiven dejavnik, ki ga je treba določiti glede na objektivne okoliščine (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 42).
Again, several factors can be relevant. 
Tudi v tem primeru je lahko pomembnih več dejavnikov.
See, for example, the following case scenarios. 
Glej na primer naslednje obravnavane primere.
(a) Bad faith exists where applications for trade marks are diverted from their initial purpose and filed speculatively or solely with a view to obtaining financial compensation (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145). 
Za slabo vero gre, kadar je prvotni namen prijav blagovnih znamk izkrivljen in se z njimi špekulira oziroma je njihov namen izkrivljen zaradi pridobitve finančnih nadomestil (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 145).
(b) Bad faith is found when it can be inferred that the purpose of the EUTM applicant is to ‘free-ride' on the reputation of the invalidity applicant's registered marks and to take advantage of that reputation (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), even if those marks have lapsed (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25). 
Slaba vera obstaja, kadar je mogoče sklepati, da je prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU poskušal „parazitsko“ izkoriščati ugled znamk, ki jih je registriral vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti, in od tega imeti koristi (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 56), tudi če registracija teh blagovnih znamk poteče (21/12/2015, R 3028/20145, PM PEDRO MORAGO (fig.), § 25).
(c) While it is not a requirement of the EUTM system that an EUTM owner must at the time of applying for an EUTM also have the intention of using it, it could be seen as an indication of dishonest intention if it subsequently becomes apparent that the owner's sole objective was to prevent a third party from entering the market (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) and/or to obtain economic advantages (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126). 
Čeprav sistem blagovne znamke EU ne zahteva, da mora imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi njene prijave izraziti tudi namero, da jo bo uporabljal, bi se to lahko štelo za nepošten namen, če bi se pozneje izkazalo, da je bil njegov edini cilj preprečiti vstop na trg tretji osebi (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 44) in/ali pridobiti gospodarsko korist (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 126).
However, if there is commercial logic to the filing of the EUTM and it can be assumed that the EUTM owner intended to use the sign as a trade mark, this would tend to indicate that there was no dishonest intention. 
Če pa vložitev prijave blagovne znamke EU temelji na poslovni logiki in je mogoče domnevati, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU nameraval uporabljati znak kot blagovno znamko, bi to verjetno pomenilo, da ni bilo nepoštenega namena.
For example, this could be the case if there is a ‘commercial trajectory', such as the registration of an EUTM after registration of the mark in a Member State (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), if there is evidence of the EUTM owner's intention to develop its commercial activities, for example by means of a licensing agreement (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), or if the EUTM owner had a commercial incentive to protect the mark more widely, for example an increase in the number of Member States in which the owner generates turnover from goods marketed under the mark (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23). 
To lahko na primer velja, če obstaja „poslovna usmeritev“, kot je registracija blagovne znamke EU po registraciji blagovne znamke v državi članici (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 58), če obstajajo dokazi o nameri imetnika blagovne znamke EU, da razvije svojo poslovno dejavnost, na primer z licenčno pogodbo (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 67), ali če je imel imetnik blagovne znamke EU tržno motivacijo za širše varstvo znamke, na primer povečanje števila držav članic, v katerih imetnik ustvarja promet z blagom, ki se trži pod zadevno znamko (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 20, 23).
The existence of a direct or indirect relationship between the parties prior to the filing of the EUTM, for example a pre-contractual, contractual or post-contractual (residual) relationship, can also be an indicator of bad faith on the part of the EUTM owner (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32). 
Tudi obstoj neposredne ali posredne povezave med strankama pred vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU, na primer razmerje pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, pogodbeno razmerje ali (preostalo) razmerje po sklenitvi pogodbe, je lahko znak slabe vere imetnika blagovne znamke EU (01/02/2012, T291/09, Pollo Tropical chicken on the grill, EU:T:2012:39, § 85-87; 11/07/2013, T321/10, Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372, § 25-32).
The EUTM owner's registration of the sign in its own name in such cases can, depending on the circumstances, be considered a breach of honest commercial and business practices. 
Registracija znaka, ki jo imetnik blagovne znamke EU opravi v svojem imenu, se lahko v takšnih primerih, odvisno od okoliščin, šteje za kršitev poštenih poslovnih praks.
(d) Bad faith has been found where an EUTM owner tries to artificially extend the grace period for non-use, for example by filing a repeat application of an earlier EUTM in order to avoid the loss of a right as a result of non-use (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27). 
Ravnanje v slabi veri je bilo ugotovljeno, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke EU poskušal umetno podaljšati odložni rok za neuporabo, na primer z vložitvijo ponovne prijave prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, da bi se izognil izgubi pravice zaradi neuporabe (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 27).
This case needs to be distinguished from the situation in which the EUTM owner, in accordance with normal business practice, seeks to protect variations of its sign, for example, where a logo has evolved (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.). 
Ta primer je treba razlikovati od položaja, v katerem poskuša imetnik blagovne znamke EU v skladu z običajno poslovno prakso zavarovati spremembe svojega znaka, na primer v primeru razvoja logotipa (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 36 et seq.).
(e) Bad faith has also been found where the EUTM owner makes a successive chain of applications for registration of national trade marks, designed to grant him a blocking position for a period exceeding the 6month period of reflection provided for by Article 34(1) EUTMR and even the 5year grace period provided for by Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 51). 
Ravnanje v slabi veri je bilo ugotovljeno tudi, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke EU vložil verigo zahtev za registracijo nacionalnih blagovnih znamk, da bi si zagotovil položaj blokiranja v obdobju, ki je daljše od šestmesečnega roka za razmislek iz člena 34(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in celo daljše od petletnega odložnega roka iz člena 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (07/07/2016, T82/14, LUCEO, EU:T:2016:396, § 51).
(f) A request for financial compensation made by the EUTM owner to the invalidity applicant may lead to a finding of bad faith if there is evidence that the EUTM owner knew of the existence of the earlier identical or confusingly similar sign and expected to receive a proposal for financial compensation from the invalidity applicant (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72). 
Zahteva za finančno nadomestilo, ki jo vložniku zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti predloži imetnik blagovne znamke EU, lahko privede do ugotovitve o ravnanju v slabi veri, če so na voljo dokaze, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU vedel za obstoj prejšnjega enakega ali tako podobnega znaka, da bi lahko povzročil zmedo, in da je pričakoval, da bo od vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti prejel predlog za finančno nadomestilo (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 72).
In addition to the abovementioned factors, other potentially relevant factors identified in case-law and/or Office practice to assess the existence of bad faith include those listed here. 
Poleg zgoraj navedenih dejavnikov drugi morebitno upoštevni dejavniki, opredeljeni v sodni praksi in/ali praksi Urada za presojo obstoja slabe vere, vključujejo tiste, ki so našteti tukaj:
(i) The circumstances under which the contested sign was created, the use made of it since its creation, the commercial logic underlying the filing of the application for registration of that sign as an EUTM and the chronology of events leading up to that filing (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 21 et seq.; 08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, § 39; 26/02/2015, T257/11, COLOURBLIND, EU:T:2015:115, § 68). 
okoliščine, v katerih je bil oblikovan izpodbijani znak, njegovo uporabo od nastanka, poslovno logiko, ki je podlaga za vložitev prijave za registracijo navedenega znaka kot blagovne znamke EU, in časovno zaporedje dogodkov, ki so privedli do navedene vložitve (14/02/2012, T33/11, Bigab, EU:T:2012:77, § 21 et seq.; 08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, § 39; 26/02/2015, T257/11, COLOURBLIND, EU:T:2015:115, § 68);
(ii) The nature of the mark applied for. 
naravo blagovne znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava.
Where the sign for which registration is sought consists of the entire shape and presentation of a product, the fact that the EUTM owner was acting in bad faith at the time of filing might more readily be established where the competitor's freedom to choose the shape of a product and its presentation is restricted by technical or commercial factors, with the result that the EUTM owner is able to prevent its competitors not merely from using an identical or similar sign, but also from marketing comparable products (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 50). 
Če znak, za katerega se zahteva registracija, ponazarja celostno obliko in podobo proizvoda, bi bilo mogoče lažje dokazati, da je imetnik blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave ravnal v slabi veri, če je svobodna izbira konkurenta glede oblike in podobe proizvoda omejena zaradi tehničnih ali trgovinskih dejavnikov, tako da lahko imetnik blagovne znamke EU konkurentom prepreči ne le uporabo enakega ali podobnega znaka, ampak tudi trženje primerljivih proizvodov (11/06/2009, C529/07, Lindt Goldhase, EU:C:2009:361, § 50);
(iii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness enjoyed by the invalidity applicant's sign and the EUTM owner's sign, as well as its degree of reputation, even if this is only residual (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 40, 46 and 49). 
stopnjo svojstvenega ali pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka, ki ga imata znak vložnika zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti in znak imetnika blagovne znamke EU, ter stopnja ugleda, tudi če je ta z leti zmanjšal (08/05/2014, T327/12, Simca, EU:T:2014:289, § 40, 46 in 49);
(iv) The fact that the national mark on which the EUTM owner has based a priority claim has been declared invalid due to bad faith (30/07/2009, R 1203/20051, BRUTT). 
dejstvo, da je bila nacionalna znamka, na podlagi katere je imetnik blagovne znamke EU utemeljil zahtevo za priznanje prednostne pravice, razglašena za nično zaradi slabe vere (30/07/2009, R 1203/20051, BRUTT).
Finally, the case-law and/or the Office have identified a number of factors that, considered in isolation, are not enough to find bad faith but that, in combination with other relevant factors (to be identified on a case-by-case basis), might indicate the existence of bad faith. 
Nazadnje, v sodni praksi in/ali praksi Urada je bilo opredeljenih več dejavnikov, ki, če se obravnavajo ločeno, ne zadostujejo za ugotovitev obstoja slabe vere, vendar lahko v kombinaciji z drugimi zadevnimi dejavniki (ki se opredelijo za vsaj primer posebej) kažejo na njen obstoj:
The fact that an earlier, very similar, EUTM was revoked for goods or services in a number of classes is not, in itself, sufficient to allow any conclusions to be drawn as to the EUTM owner's intentions at the time of filing the EUTM application for the same goods or services (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 45). 
dejstvo, da je bila prejšnja zelo podobna blagovna znamka EU razveljavljena za blago ali storitve v več razredih, samo po sebi ne zadošča za sprejetje ugotovitev o namenih imetnika blagovne znamke EU ob vložitvi prijave blagovne znamke EU za enako blago ali storitve (13/12/2012, T136/11, Pelikan, EU:T:2012:689, § 45),