natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The EUTMDR in Articles 12 to 19, lays down the relevant provisions concerning applications for revocation and for a declaration of invalidity, including the languages of such proceedings, admissibility, substantiation and examination of the merits, etc. 
V členih od 12 do 19 Delegirane uredbe so določene ustrezne določbe glede zahtev za razveljavitev in ugotovitev ničnosti, vključno z jeziki takih postopkov, dopustnostjo, utemeljitvijo in proučitvijo vsebinskih razlogov.
1.2 Inter partes proceedings 
Postopek inter partes
Cancellation proceedings are never initiated by the Office itself. 
Postopka izbrisa nikoli ne začne Urad.
The initiative lies with the applicant for cancellation, even in cases based on absolute grounds for invalidity. 
Pobudo zanj da vložnik zahteve za izbris tudi v primerih, ki temeljijo na absolutnih razlogih za ničnost.
Article 63(1) EUTMR establishes the conditions that the applicant must fulfil in order to have locus standi for filing an application for revocation or for a declaration of invalidity. 
Člen 63(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa pogoje, ki jih mora izpolnjevati vložnik zahteve, da ima procesno upravičenje (locus standi) za vložitev zahteve za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti.
For further details, please see the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 1, Cancellation Proceedings, paragraphs 2.1 and 4.1. 
Za dodatne podrobnosti glej Smernice, del D: Izbris, razdelek 1: Postopek izbrisa, odstavka 2.1 in 4.1.
1.3 The consequences of revocation and invalidity 
Posledice razveljavitve in ničnosti
1.3.1 The legal effect of revocation 
Pravni učinki razveljavitve
According to Article 62(1) EUTMR, in the event of revocation, and to the extent that the rights of the proprietor have been revoked, the EUTM will be deemed not to have the effects specified in the EUTMR as from the date of the application for revocation. 
V skladu s členom 62(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se bo v primeru razveljavitve in razveljavljenih pravic imetnika štelo, da blagovna znamka EU od dne vložitve zahteve za razveljavitev ni imela učinkov, določenih v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU.
An earlier date on which one of the grounds for revocation occurred may be fixed by the Office if this is requested by one of the parties, provided that the requesting party shows a legitimate legal interest in this respect. 
Urad lahko na zahtevo ene od strank določi zgodnejši datum, ko je nastopil eden od razlogov za razveljavitev, če stranka, ki vloži zahtevo, v zvezi s tem dokaže legitimni pravni interes.
On the basis of information available in the relevant case file, it must be possible to determine the earlier date accurately. 
Na podlagi informacij, ki so na voljo v ustreznem spisu o zadevi, mora biti mogoče določiti zgodnejši datum.
The earlier date should, in any event, be set after the 5year ‘grace period' that the EUTM proprietor has after the registration of an EUTM pursuant to Article 18 EUTMR (28/07/2010, 3 349 C, Alphatrad, confirmed by 08/10/2012, R 444/20111, ALPHATRAD (fig.), § 48-50; 16/01/2014, T538/12, Alphatrad, EU:T:2014:9). 
V vsakem primeru ga je treba določiti po preteku petletnega odložnega roka, ki ga ima na voljo imetnik blagovne znamke EU po njeni registraciji v skladu s členom 18 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (8/07/2010, 3 349 C, Alphatrad, potrjena 08/10/2012, R 444/20111, ALPHATRAD (fig.), § 48-50; 16/01/2014, T538/12, Alphatrad, EU:T:2014:9).
For Office practice regarding surrenders when there is a revocation case pending, see the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 1, Cancellation Proceedings, paragraph 4.3. 
V zvezi s prakso Urada glede odpovedi v primeru nerešene zadeve v zvezi z razveljavitvijo glej Smernice, del D: Izbris, razdelek 1: Postopek izbrisa, odstavek 4.3.
1.3.2 The legal effect of invalidity 
Pravni učinki ničnosti
According to Article 62(2) EUTMR, in the event of a declaration of invalidity, the EUTM will be deemed not to have had, as from the outset, the effects specified in the EUTMR. 
V skladu s členom 62(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se bo v primeru ugotovitve ničnosti štelo, da blagovna znamka EU od začetka ni imela učinkov, opredeljenih v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU.
For Office practice regarding surrenders when there is an invalidity case pending, see the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 1, Cancellation Proceedings, paragraph 4.3. 
V zvezi s prakso Urada glede odpovedi v primeru nerešene zadeve v zvezi z ničnostjo glej Smernice, del D: Izbris, razdelek 1: Postopek izbrisa, odstavek 4.3.
1.3.3 The legal effect of a request for assignment of an EUTM 
Pravni učinki zahteve za prenos blagovne znamke EU
Pursuant to Articles 21(2)(a) and 163(1)(b) EUTMR, where the EUTM proprietor seeks a declaration of invalidity under Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(3) EUTMR, the proprietor may request, as an alternative to invalidating the mark, its assignment in his or her favour if it was registered in the name of its agent or representative without its authorisation. 
Če v skladu s členom 21(2)(a) in členom 163(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik blagovne znamke EU zahteva ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, lahko imetnik namesto razglasitve ničnosti znamke zahteva, da se blagovna znamka prenese nanj, če je bila registrirana v imenu njegovega posrednika ali zastopnika brez njegovega pooblastila.
Such a request for assignment is not a separate ground for action, but merely alternative relief. 
Takšna zahteva za prenos ni ločen razlog za ukrepanje, temveč le alternativni ukrep.
If the claim is successful, the applicant will become the proprietor of the EUTM with retroactive effect to the date of filing, or where applicable, priority, of the contested EUTM. 
Če je zahteva uspešna, bo vložnik zahteve postal imetnik blagovne znamke EU z retroaktivnim učinkom do datuma vložitve ali, če je ustrezno, prednostne pravice izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU.
Such an alternative remedy is not available in other grounds for invalidity. 
Takšno alternativno pravno sredstvo ni na voljo pri drugih razlogih za ničnost.
2 Revocation 
Razveljavitev
According to Article 58(1) EUTMR, there are three grounds for revocation. 
V skladu s členom 58(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU obstajajo trije razlogi za razveljavitev.
The EUTM has not been put to genuine use during a continuous period of 5 years. 
Blagovna znamka EU se ni resno in dejansko uporabljala v neprekinjenem petletnem obdobju.
The EUTM has become generic due to acts/inactivity of its proprietor. 
Blagovna znamka EU je zaradi dejanj ali opustitev imetnika postala obča.
The EUTM has become misleading due to the use made by its proprietor or with its consent. 
Blagovna znamka EU prispeva k zmedi zaradi uporabe s strani imetnika ali z njegovim soglasjem.
These grounds are examined in further detail in the paragraphs below. 
Ti razlogi so podrobneje proučeni v odstavkih v nadaljevanju.
According to Article 58(2) EUTMR, where the grounds for revocation exist for only some of the registered goods and services, the EUTM proprietor's rights will be revoked only for those goods and services. 
Če v skladu s členom 58(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlogi za razveljavitev obstajajo le za nekatere vrste registriranega blaga ali storitev, se pravice imetnika blagovne znamke EU razveljavijo le za te vrste blaga in storitev.
In addition to these grounds, Article 81 EUTMR lists three further specific grounds on which the rights of the proprietor of an EU collective mark may be revoked. 
Poleg teh razlogov so v členu 81 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU navedeni še trije specifični razlogi, na podlagi katerih se lahko razveljavijo pravice imetnika kolektivne znamke EU.
Specific, additional grounds for revocation of EU certification marks are listed in Article 91 EUTMR. 
Specifični dodatni razlogi za razveljavitev certifikacijskih znamk EU so navedeni v členu 91 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.2 Non-use of the EUTM - Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR 
Neuporaba blagovne znamke EU - člen 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
According to Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, if within a continuous period of 5 years after the EUTM has been registered and before the filing of the application for cancellation the EUTM has not been put to genuine use, within the meaning of Article 18 EUTMR, then the EUTM must be revoked unless there are proper reasons for non-use. 
V skladu s členom 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba blagovno znamko EU, če se v neprekinjenem petletnem obdobju po registraciji in pred vložitvijo zahteve za izbris ni resno in dejansko uporabljala v smislu člena 18 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, razveljaviti, razen če obstajajo upravičeni razlogi za njeno neuporabo.
Pursuant to Article 58(2) EUTMR, if the EUTM has been used for only some of the goods and services for which it is registered, the revocation will be limited to the goods and services not used. 
Če se blagovna znamka EU v skladu s členom 58(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporablja le za nekatere vrste blaga in storitev, za katere je registrirana, bo razveljavitev omejena na tisto blago in storitve, ki se ne uporabljajo.
As regards procedural aspects of the submission of the evidence (time limits for submitting evidence, additional rounds for observations and submission of additional relevant evidence, translation of evidence, etc.), see the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 1, Cancellation Proceedings. 
V zvezi s postopkovnimi vidiki predložitve dokazov (roki za predložitev dokazov, dodatni krogi za pripombe in predložitev dodatnih zadevnih dokazov, prevod dokazov itd.) glej Smernice, del D: Izbris, razdelek 1: Postopek izbrisa.
The practice rules applicable to the substantive assessment of proof of use of earlier rights in opposition proceedings are applicable to the assessment of requests for revocation based on non-use (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 2). 
Pravila glede prakse, ki se uporabljajo za vsebinsko presojo dokaza o uporabi prejšnjih pravic v postopku ugovora, se uporabljajo za presojo zahtev za razveljavitev na podlagi neuporabe (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 2).
However, there are a number of particularities to be taken into account in the context of revocation proceedings, which will be examined below. 
Vendar je treba v okviru postopka za razveljavitev upoštevati več posebnosti, ki bodo proučene v nadaljevanju.
2.2.1 Burden of proof 
Dokazno breme
Pursuant to Article 19(1) EUTMDR, the burden of proof lies with the EUTM proprietor. 
V skladu s členom 19(1) Delegirane uredbe nosi dokazno breme imetnik blagovne znamke EU.
The role of the Office is to assess the evidence put before it in the light of the parties' submissions. 
Naloga Urada je presoditi dokaze, ki so mu bila predložena, ob upoštevanju trditev strank.
Even proprietors of purportedly well-known marks must submit evidence to prove genuine use of their marks. 
Tudi imetniki domnevno dobro znanih znamk morajo predložiti dokaze o resni in dejanski uporabi svojih znamk.
2.2.2 Genuine use 
Resna in dejanska uporaba
According to Article 19(1) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the indications and evidence for submitting proof of use must consist of indications concerning the place, time, extent and nature of use of the contested trade mark for the goods and services for which it is registered. 
V skladu s členom 19(1) Delegirane uredbe in v povezavi s členom 10(3) Delegirane uredbe morajo podatki in dokazila za dokaz o uporabi zajemati podatke o kraju, času, obsegu in naravi uporabe izpodbijane blagovne znamke za blago in storitve, za katere je registrirana.
As indicated above, the assessment of genuine use (including place, time, extent and nature of use) is the same in cancellation proceedings and in opposition proceedings. 
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je presoja resne in dejanske uporabe (vključno s krajem, časom, obsegom in naravo uporabe) enaka v postopku izbrisa in ugovora.
The detailed considerations in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 2 should be followed. 
Upoštevati je treba podrobne premisleke iz Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 2.
Lack of genuine use for some of the contested goods or services in a revocation case implies the revocation of the registered EUTM for those goods or services. 
Neobstoj resne in dejanske uporabe za nekatero izpodbijano blago ali storitve v primeru razveljavitve pomeni razveljavitev registrirane blagovne znamke EU za to blago ali storitve.
Consequently, great care must be taken when assessing the evidence of use in revocation proceedings regarding the use for the registered (and contested) goods or services. 
Zato je treba zelo paziti pri presoji dokazov o uporabi v postopku za razveljavitev, ki se nanaša na uporabo registriranega (in izpodbijanega) blaga ali storitev.
2.2.3 Period of time to be considered 
Upoštevno obdobje
The relevant date is the date on which the application for revocation was filed. 
Upoštevni datum je datum vložitve zahteve za razveljavitev.
The EUTM is subject to revocation only if it has been registered for more than 5 years on that date. 
Blagovno znamko EU je mogoče razveljaviti le, če je bila na navedeni datum registrirana več kot pet let.
If this condition is fulfilled, the EUTM must have been genuinely used within the 5 years preceding that date (i.e. the 5year period is always counted backwards from the relevant date). 
Če je ta pogoj izpolnjen, se je morala blagovna znamka EU resno in dejansko uporabljati pet let pred tem datumom (petletno obdobje se vedno šteje nazaj od upoštevnega datuma).
For example, if the EUTM was registered on 01/01/2011, it became subject to revocation on 02/01/2016. 
Če je bila na primer blagovna znamka EU registrirana 1. januarja 2011, jo je mogoče razveljaviti od 2. januarja 2016.
If the application for revocation was filed on 15/09/2016, the EUTM proprietor would have to prove genuine use of its mark within the period from 15/09/2011 to 14/09/2016. 
Če je bila zahteva za razveljavitev vložena 15. septembra 2016, bi moral imetnik blagovne znamke EU dokazati resno in dejansko uporabo svoje blagovne znamke od 15. septembra 2011 do 14. septembra 2016.
There is one exception: where genuine use of the EUTM started or was resumed within the 3 months preceding the date on which the application for revocation was filed, such use will be disregarded where preparations for the commencement or resumption of use only began after the EUTM proprietor became aware that the request for revocation might be filed (Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR). 
Obstaja izjema: če se je resna in dejanska uporaba blagovne znamke EU začela ali znova začela v treh mesecih pred datumom vložitve zahteve za razveljavitev, takšna uporaba ne bo upoštevana, če so se priprave na začetek ali ponovni začetek uporabe začele šele po tem, ko je imetnik blagovne znamke EU izvedel, da bi lahko bila vložena zahteva za razveljavitev (člen 58(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
The burden of proof for this exception is on the applicant for revocation, who must submit evidence that it made the EUTM proprietor aware of its intention to file an application for revocation. 
Dokazno breme za to izjemo nosi vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev, ki mora predložiti dokaze, da je imetnika blagovne znamke EU seznanil s svojo namero o vložitvi zahteve za razveljavitev.
2.2.4 Proper reasons for non-use 
Upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo
The detailed considerations in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 6, Proof of Use, paragraph 2 and in particular paragraph 2.11 should be followed. 
Upoštevati je treba podrobne premisleke iz Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 2, in zlasti odstavek 2.11.
2.3 EUTM becoming a common name (generic term) - Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR 
Blagovna znamka EU, ki postane obča oznaka (splošni izraz) - člen 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
An EUTM will be revoked if, as a result of action or inaction on the part of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service for which it was registered. 
Blagovna znamka EU se razveljavi, če zaradi dejanj ali opustitev imetnika v gospodarskem prometu postane obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katero je registrirana.
2.3.1 Burden of proof 
Dokazno breme
The burden is on the applicant for revocation to prove that the term has become the common name in the trade as a result of either: 
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je izraz v gospodarskem prometu postal obča oznaka zaradi:
action, or 
dejanj ali
inaction 
opustitev
on the part of the proprietor. 
imetnika.
The Office will examine the facts in accordance with Article 95(1) EUTMR within the scope of factual submissions made by the revocation applicant (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28). 
Urad bo proučil dejstva v skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v okviru dejstev, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev (13/09/2013, T320/10, Castel, EU:T:2013:424, § 28).
In doing so, it may take into consideration obvious and well-known facts. 
Pri tem lahko upošteva očitna in dobro znana dejstva.
However, it will not go beyond the legal arguments presented by the revocation applicant. 
Vendar ne sme preseči pravnih argumentov, ki jih predloži vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev.
If a request for revocation is based only on Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR, the trade mark could not then be revoked due to being, for example, against public order and morality. 
Če zahteva za razveljavitev temelji le na členu 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, blagovne znamke ni mogoče razveljaviti, ker je na primer v nasprotju z javnim redom in moralo.
2.3.2 Point in time to be considered 
Upoštevni trenutek
The applicant for revocation must prove that the trade mark has become the common name in the trade for the product or service in question after the date of registration of the EUTM, although facts or circumstances that took place between application and registration can be taken into account. 
Vložnik zahteve za razveljavitev mora dokazati, da je blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu postala obča oznaka za zadevni proizvod ali storitev po datumu registracije blagovne znamke EU, čeprav se lahko upoštevajo dejstva ali okoliščine, ki so se zgodile med prijavo in registracijo.
The fact that the sign was, at the date of application, the common name used in the trade for the goods or services in respect of which registration was sought would only be relevant in the context of an invalidity action. 
Dejstvo, da je bil znak na datum vložitve zahteve v gospodarskem prometu obča oznaka, ki se uporablja za blago ali storitve, za katere se je zahtevala registracija, bi bilo pomembno le v postopku za ugotovitev ničnosti.
2.3.3 Relevant public 
Upoštevna javnost
An EUTM is liable to be revoked in accordance with Article 58(1)(b) EUTMR if it has become the common name for the product or service not just among some but among the vast majority of the relevant public, including those involved in the trade for the product or service in question (29/04/2004, C371/02, Bostongurka, EU:C:2004:275, § 23, 26). 
V skladu s členom 58(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka EU lahko razveljavi, če je postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev ne le za del, temveč za veliko večino upoštevne javnosti, vključno s tisto, ki je vključena v gospodarskem prometu z zadevnim proizvodom ali storitvijo (29/04/2004, C371/02, Bostongurka, EU:C:2004:275, § 23, 26).
Whether a trade mark has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered must be assessed not only in the light of the perception of consumers or end users but also, depending on the features of the market concerned, in the light of the perception of those in the trade, such as sellers (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 28). 
Ali je blagovna znamka v gospodarskem prometu postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katero je registrirana, je treba presojati ne le ob upoštevanju zaznavanja potrošnikov ali končnih uporabnikov, temveč tudi glede na značilnosti zadevnega trga, ob upoštevanju zaznavanja tistih, ki so vključeni v gospodarski promet, kot so prodajalci (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 28).
However, in some specific circumstances, it might be sufficient that the sellers of the finished product do not inform their customers that the sign has been registered as a trade mark and do not offer their customers assistance at the time of sale, which includes an indication of the origin of the goods for sale (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 23-25, 30). 
Vendar v nekaterih posebnih okoliščinah lahko zadostuje, da prodajalci končnega proizvoda svojih strank ob prodaji ne obvestijo, da je bil znak registriran kot blagovna znamka, in jim ne ponudijo pomoči, kar vključuje navedbo porekla različnih izdelkov, ki so na prodaj (06/03/2014, C409/12, Kornspitz, EU:C:2014:130, § 23-25, 30).
2.3.4 Common name 
Obča oznaka
A sign is regarded as the ‘common name in the trade' if it is established practice in the trade to use the term in question to designate the goods or services for which it is registered (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 5, Customary Signs or Indications (Article 7(1)(d) EUTMR)). 
Znak se šteje za „občo oznako v gospodarskem prometu“, če se zadevni izraz v ustaljeni praksi v gospodarskem prometu uporablja za označevanje blaga ali storitev, za katere je registriran (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 5: Običajni znaki ali označbe (člen 7(1)(d) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU)).
It is not necessary to prove that the term directly describes a quality or characteristic of the goods or services, but merely that it is actually used in the trade to refer to those goods or services. 
Ni treba dokazati, da izraz neposredno označuje kakovost ali značilnost blaga ali storitev, temveč le, da se v gospodarskem prometu dejansko uporablja za navedeno blago ali storitve.
The distinctive force of a trade mark is always more likely to degenerate when a sign is suggestive or apt in some way, especially if it has positive connotations that lead others to latch on to its suitability for designating not just a particular producer's product or service but a particular type of product or service (30/01/2007, 1 020 C, Stimulation, § 22, 32 et seq.). 
Najverjetneje je, da se bo razlikovalni učinek blagovne znamke zmanjšal, kadar je znak nekako sugestiven ali ustrezen, zlasti če ima pozitivne konotacije, zaradi česar so ljudje prepričani, da ni primeren le za označevanje določenega proizvoda ali storitve proizvajalca, temveč tudi posebne vrste proizvoda ali storitve (30/01/2007, 1 020 C, Stimulation, § 22, 32 et seq.).
The fact that a trade mark is being used as the common name to refer to a specific product or service is an indication that it has lost its ability to differentiate the goods or services in question from those of other undertakings. 
Dejstvo, da se blagovna znamka uporablja kot obča oznaka za neki proizvod ali storitev, je znak, da je izgubila sposobnost za razlikovanje zadevnega blaga ali storitev od blaga ali storitev drugih podjetij.
One indication that a trade mark has become generic is when it is commonly used verbally to refer to a particular type or characteristic of the goods or services. 
Eden od znakov, da je blagovna znamka postala splošna, je, kadar se v besedni komunikaciji pogosto uporablja za posebno vrsto ali značilnost blaga ali storitev.
However, this is not in itself decisive: it must be established whether the trade mark is still capable of differentiating the goods or services in question from those of other undertakings. 
Vendar to samo po sebi ni odločilno: ugotoviti je treba, ali je blagovna znamka še vedno sposobna razlikovati zadevno blago ali storitve od blaga ali storitev drugih podjetij.