natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Once proved, this requirement is considered still to be fulfilled at the time the decision on invalidity is taken unless there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. a company name is invoked but the company has ceased to exist). 
Ko se ta zahteva dokaže, se šteje, da je še vedno izpolnjena ob sprejetju odločbe o ničnosti, razen če se dokaže nasprotno (npr. uporablja se sklicevanje na ime podjetja, ki je prenehalo obstajati).
There are further particularities regarding substantiation and admissibility, which are dealt with in the Guidelines, Part D, Cancellation, Section 1, Cancellation Proceedings. 
Poleg tega obstaja več posebnosti v zvezi z utemeljitvijo in dopustnostjo, ki se obravnavajo v Smernicah, del D: Izbris, razdelek 1: Postopek izbrisa.
4.3 Grounds under Article 60(2) EUTMR - other earlier rights 
Razlogi na podlagi člena 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - Druge prejšnje pravice
An EUTM is liable to be declared invalid on the basis of the rights below where use of the trade mark could be prohibited under the EU or national law governing their protection. 
Blagovno znamko EU je mogoče razglasiti za nično na podlagi spodaj navedenih pravic, če je mogoče uporabo blagovne znamke prepovedati v skladu s pravom EU ali nacionalnim pravom, ki ureja njihovo varstvo.
This is not an exhaustive list of such earlier rights. 
To ni izčrpen seznam takšnih prejšnjih pravic.
Article 60(2) EUTMR applies only where the rights invoked are of such a nature that they are not considered typical rights to be invoked in cancellation proceedings under Article 60(1) EUTMR (13/12/2011, 4 033 C, § 12). 
Člen 60(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja le, če so uveljavljane pravice takšne, da jih ni mogoče šteti za običajne pravice, ki se uveljavljajo v postopku izbrisa na podlagi člena 60(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (13/12/2011, 4 033 C, § 12).
4.3.1 A right to a name/right of personal portrayal 
Pravica do imena/pravica do osebne podobe
Not all Member States protect the right to a person's name or portrayal. 
Vse države članice ne ščitijo pravice osebe do imena ali podobe.
The exact scope of protection of the right will follow from the national law (e.g. whether the right is protected irrespective of the goods and services the contested mark covers). 
Natančen obseg varstva pravice izhaja iz nacionalnega prava (npr. če je pravica zaščitena ne glede na blago in storitve, zajete z izpodbijano znamko).
The invalidity applicant will have to provide the necessary national legislation in force and put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed in preventing the use of the contested mark under the specific national law. 
Vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti bo moral nujno navesti veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo in predložiti tehtno utemeljitev, zakaj bi mu v skladu z zadevnim nacionalnim pravom uspelo preprečiti uporabo izpodbijane znamke.
A mere reference to the national law will not be considered sufficient: it is not for the Office to make that argument on the applicant's behalf (05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452). 
Le sklicevanje na nacionalno pravo se ne bo štelo za zadostno: Uradu ni treba predložiti navedene trditve v imenu vložnika zahteve (05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452).
4.3.2 Copyright 
Avtorska pravica
According to Article 60(2)(c) EUTMR, a European Union trade mark will be declared invalid on application to the Office where the use of such trade mark may be prohibited pursuant to another earlier right under the EU legislation or national law governing its protection, and in particular copyright. 
V skladu s členom 60(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se blagovna znamka EU razglasi za nično na podlagi zahteve, vložene pri Uradu, če se lahko uporaba takšne blagovne znamke prepove na podlagi druge prejšnje pravice v skladu z zakonodajo EU ali nacionalnim pravom, ki ureja njeno varstvo in zlasti avtorsko pravico.
However, all the Member States are bound by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 
Vendar sta za vse države članice zavezujoča Bernska konvencija za varstvo književnih in umetniških del in Sporazum o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (TRIPS).
The invalidity applicant will have to provide the necessary national legislation in force and put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed under the specific national law in preventing the use of the contested mark. 
Vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti bo moral nujno navesti veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo in predložiti tehtno utemeljitev, zakaj bi mu v skladu s posebnim nacionalnim pravom uspelo preprečiti uporabo izpodbijane znamke.
A mere reference to the national law will not be considered sufficient: it is not for the Office to make that argument on the applicant's behalf (see, by analogy, 05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452). 
Le sklicevanje na nacionalno pravo se ne bo štelo za zadostno: Uradu ni treba predložiti navedene trditve v imenu vložnika zahteve (glej po analogiji 05/07/2011, C263/09 P, Elio Fiorucci, EU:C:2011:452).
The notion of copyright protection is applicable irrespective of the goods and services the contested mark covers. 
Pojem varstvo avtorskih pravic se uporablja ne glede na blago in storitve, zajete z izpodbijano znamko.
It merely requires an unauthorised reproduction or adaptation of the protected work or a part thereof in the contested mark. 
V skladu zadošča že nepooblaščena reprodukcija ali priredba zaščitenega dela ali njegovega elementa v izpodbijani znamki.
It follows, that similarity for the purposes of the assessment of likelihood of confusion is not the relevant test to be applied. 
Iz tega izhaja, da podobnost za namene presoje verjetnosti zmede ni ustrezno merilo, ki bi ga bilo treba uporabiti.
4.3.3 Other industrial property rights 
Druge pravice industrijske lastnine
Other industrial property rights and prior works at national or European Union level, such as a registered Community design (RCD), may be invoked. 
Sklicevati se je mogoče na druge pravice industrijske lastnine in prejšnja dela na nacionalni ravni ali ravni Evropske unije, kot je registrirani model Skupnosti.
The invalidity applicant will have to provide the necessary national legislation in force and put forward a cogent line of argument as to why it would succeed under the specific national law in preventing the use of the contested mark. 
Vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti bo moral nujno navesti veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo in predložiti tehtno utemeljitev, zakaj bi mu v skladu s posebno nacionalno zakonodajo uspelo preprečiti uporabo izpodbijane znamke.
In the case of an RCD there is no need to prove what protection is given under the law. 
V primeru registriranega modela Skupnosti ni treba dokazati varstva, zagotovljenega s pravom.
The Cancellation Division will apply the standards of the applicable design law of the European Union. 
Oddelek za izbris bo uporabljal standarde v zvezi z veljavnim pravom Evropske unije o modelih.
4.4 Non-use of the earlier mark 
Neuporaba prejšnje blagovne znamke
According to Article 64(2) and (3) EUTMR, where the earlier mark has been registered for 5 years or more when the application for a declaration of invalidity is filed, the proprietor of the EUTM may request that the proprietor of the earlier mark submit proof that the earlier mark has been put to genuine use in the EU in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered or that proper reasons for nonuse exist. 
V skladu s členom 64(2) in (3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko imetnik blagovne znamke EU, če je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka ob vložitvi zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti registrirana pet let ali več, od imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke zahteva, naj predloži dokaze, da je prejšnjo blagovno znamko resno in dejansko uporabljal v EU v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, za katere je registrirana, ali da obstajajo ustrezni razlogi za neuporabo.
According to Article 19(2) EUTMDR in conjunction with Article 10(3) EUTMDR, the indications and evidence of use must establish the place, time, extent and nature of use of the earlier trade mark for the goods and services for which it is registered and on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based. 
V skladu s členom 19(2) Delegirane uredbe in v povezavi s členom 10(3) Delegirane uredbe podatki in dokazi o uporabi morajo opredeljevati kraj, čas, obseg in naravo uporabe prejšnje blagovne znamke za blago in storitve, za katere je registrirana in na katerih temelji zahteva za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The practice rules applicable to the substantive assessment of proof of use of earlier rights in opposition proceedings are applicable to the assessment of proof of use in invalidity proceedings (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 dokazov o uporabi v postopku za ugotavljanje ničnosti (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 6: Dokaz o uporabi, odstavek 2).
In particular, when the EUTM proprietor requests proof of use of the earlier rights, the Office will examine whether, and to what extent, use has been proved for the earlier marks, provided this is relevant for the outcome of the decision. 
Zlasti kadar imetnik blagovne znamke EU zahteva dokaz o uporabi prejšnjih pravic, bo Urad proučil, ali je bila dokazana uporaba za prejšnje znamke in v kakšnem obsegu, če to vpliva na izid odločbe.
Finally, there is a particularity to be taken into account in the assessment of proof of use in the context of invalidity proceedings. 
Nazadnje je treba pri presoji dokazov o uporabi v okviru postopka za ugotavljanje ničnosti upoštevati posebnost, ki se nanaša na upoštevni čas uporabe.
The first relevant period applies in all cases where the earlier trade mark had been registered for more than 5 years prior to the application for invalidity: the period of 5 years preceding the date of filing of the application for a declaration of invalidity (first relevant period). 
prvo upoštevno obdobje se uporablja v vseh primerih, v katerih je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka registrirana več kot pet let pred zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti: v petih letih pred datumom vložitve zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti (prvo upoštevno obdobje),
Additionally, in cases where the earlier trade mark had been registered for at least 5 years, in the case of a contested EUTM, on the date of filing or, where applicable, priority , and, in the case of a contested international registration designating the European Union, on the date of international registration (INID code 151) or subsequent designation (INID code 891), or, as the case may be, the date of priority (INID code 300) of the contested international registration : the period of 5 years preceding that date (second relevant period). 
kadar pa je bila prejšnja blagovna znamka registrirana vsaj pet let - v primeru izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU - na datum vložitve njene prijave oziroma, če je ustrezno, na datum njene prednostne pravice in - v primeru izpodbijane mednarodne registracije, v kateri je imenovana Evropska unija - na datum mednarodne registracije (koda INID 151) ali poznejšega imenovanja (koda INID 891) oziroma datum prednostne pravice (koda INID 300) izpodbijane mednarodne registracije: v petih letih pred navedenim datumom (drugo upoštevno obdobje).
[2: For invalidity applications filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is the date of publication.][ 
[2: V zvezi z zahtevami za ugotovitev ničnosti, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum datum objave.][
3: For invalidity applications filed before 23/03/2016, the relevant date is 6 months after the date of the first republication of the contested international registration by the Office.] 
3: V zvezi z zahtevami za ugotovitev ničnosti, vloženimi pred 23. marcem 2016, je upoštevni datum šest mesecev po datumu, ko Urad prvič znova objavi izpodbijano mednarodno registracijo.]
These two relevant periods do not necessarily overlap: they may totally or partially overlap or follow on from each other (with or without a gap). 
Ti upoštevni obdobji se nujno ne prekrivata: lahko se prekrivata v celoti ali delno oziroma si sledita (s časovnimi presledki ali brez njih).
4.5 Defences against an invalidity application based on relative grounds 
Ugovori zoper zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi relativnih razlogov
4.5.1 Consent to registration 
Soglasje k registraciji
According to Article 60(3) EUTMR, the EUTM may not be declared invalid if the owner of the earlier right consents expressly to the registration of the EUTM before filing the application for a declaration of invalidity. 
Blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 60(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče razglasiti za nično, če je imetnik prejšnje pravice izrecno soglašal z registracijo blagovne znamke EU pred vložitvijo zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
Consent does not have to be given before the date of registration of the EUTM. 
Ni nujno, da je soglasje predloženo pred datumom registracije blagovne znamke EU.
It is sufficient if it is given before the application for invalidity is filed. 
Zadostuje že, če se zagotovi pred vložitvijo zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti.
For these purposes, the Office will take into account, for instance, a contract to this effect between the parties. 
Urad bo za te namene upošteval na primer pogodbo, ki sta jo v ta namen sklenili stranki.
The consent must be ‘express' (and not implicit or presumed) (23/07/2009, R 1099/20081, BRANDY MELVILLE (fig.) / MELVILLE (fig.) et al., § 46). 
Soglasje mora biti „izrecno“ (ne implicitno ali domnevno) (23/07/2009, R 1099/20081, BRANDY MELVILLE (fig.) / MELVILLE (fig.) et al., § 46).
The burden of proof for such consent lies with the EUTM proprietor. 
Dokazno breme za takšno soglasje nosi imetnik blagovne znamke EU.
The peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market cannot take the place of the ‘express consent' of the right holder for the purposes of Article 60(3) EUTMR. 
Miroljuben soobstoj znamk na trgu ne more nadomestiti izrecnega soglasja imetnika pravice v smislu člena 60(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Furthermore, the coexistence agreement cannot be interpreted in such a way as to extend beyond its scope without the express consent of the parties (03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA, EU:T:2015:355, § 40, 50). 
Poleg tega sporazuma o soobstoju ni mogoče razlagati tako, da se preseže njegovo področje uporabe, brez „izrecnega soglašanja“ strank (03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA, EU:T:2015:355, § 40, 50).
Merely withdrawing an opposition unilaterally does not imply that the opponent consents to the registration of the EUTM application (14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.), § 26). 
Le enostranski umik ugovora ne pomeni, da vložnik ugovora soglaša z registracijo prijave blagovne znamke EU (14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.), § 26).
Therefore, the Office will analyse the circumstances under which withdrawal of the opposition has been made (see examples below, namely 03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA; 14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.),). 
Urad bo zato analiziral okoliščine, v katerih je bil ugovor umaknjen (glej primera v nadaljevanju, in sicer 03/06/2015, T544/12 & T546/12, PENSA PHARMA; 14/10/2008, R 946/20072 & R 1151/20072, VISIONIC/Visonic LTD (fig.),).
4.5.1.1 Examples rejecting the claim of consent to registration 
Primeri zavrnitve trditve o soglasju k registraciji
4.5.1.2 Examples accepting the claim of consent to registration 
Primeri sprejetja trditve o soglasju k registraciji
4.5.2 Earlier applications for declaration of invalidity or counterclaims 
Prejšnje zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ali nasprotne tožbe
According to Article 60(4) EUTMR, where the proprietor of an earlier right has previously made an application for a declaration of invalidity of an EUTM or has made a counterclaim for invalidity in infringement proceedings on the basis of rights in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR before an EUTM court, it may not submit a new application for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of other rights referred to in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR that it could have invoked in the original proceedings. 
Če je v skladu s členom 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik prejšnje pravice na sodišču za blagovne znamke EU vložil zahtevo za ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU ali vložil nasprotno tožbo v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev na podlagi člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne more vložiti nove zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi drugih pravic iz člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, na katere bi se lahko skliceval v prvotnem postopku.
This means that in practice, the Office will reject as inadmissible, in its entirety, any new application filed by the proprietor of an earlier right referred to in Article 60(1) or (2) EUTMR or by its successor in title, where such an application is based on other rights provided for in the said Article(s), which could have been claimed in the original proceedings but were not. 
To pomeni, da bo Urad v praksi kot nedopustno in v celoti zavrgel vsako novo zahtevo, ki jo vloži imetnik prejšnje pravice iz člena 60(1) ali (2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ali njegov pravni naslednik, kadar taka zahteva temelji na drugih pravicah, določenih v navedenem(-ih) členu(-ih), ki bi jih bilo mogoče uveljavljati v prvotnem postopku, vendar to ni bilo storjeno.
This applies, irrespective of whether the new application is directed against the same and/or other goods or services than the ones initially contested. 
To velja, ne glede na to, ali je nova zahteva usmerjena zoper enako in/ali drugo blago ali storitve, ki niso prvotno izpodbijano blago ali storitve.
Such an approach follows from the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, which require that the application of the law to a specific situation be predictable and the interests of an EUTM proprietor protected against any subsequent ‘attacks' from the same applicant (or its successor in title), which should not be allowed to circumvent the prohibition established by Article 60(4) EUTMR by submitting new application(s) for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of rights that were available to it at the moment of the original proceedings. 
Takšen pristop izhaja iz splošnih načel pravne varnosti in legitimnih pričakovanj, v skladu s katerima mora biti uporaba prava za poseben položaj predvidljiva, interesi imetnika blagovne znamke EU pa zaščiteni pred poznejšimi „napadi“ istega vložnika zahteve (ali njegovega pravnega naslednika), kateremu je treba onemogočiti, da se izogne prepovedi, določeni s členom 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, z vložitvijo nove zahteve ali zahtev za ugotovitev ničnosti na podlagi pravic, ki so mu bile na voljo v času prvotnega postopka.
However, where an applicant requests the assignment of an EUTM pursuant to Article 21(2)(a) EUTMR in a procedure brought under Article 60(1)(b) EUTMR, and, in a later application, requests a declaration that the EUTM is invalid on other relative grounds, Article 60(4) EUTMR cannot be interpreted so as to bar the applicant from pursuing its claims under the other invalidity grounds should its primary request for assignment fail. 
Če pa vložnik zahteve zahteva prenos blagovne znamke EU v skladu s členom 21(2)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku, sproženem na podlagi člena 60(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in v poznejši zahtevi zahteva ugotovitev ničnosti blagovne znamke EU na podlagi drugih relativnih razlogov, člena 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče razlagati tako, da vložniku zahteve prepoveduje, da uveljavlja svoje zahteve na podlagi drugih razlogov za ničnost, če njegova prva zahteva za prenos ni bila uspešna.
As regards counterclaims, although Article 128 EUTMR imposes an obligation on EUTM courts or the interested party to notify the Office of the initiation of counterclaims for invalidity and their outcome, where this is not done, an EUTM proprietor wishing to rely on the defence provided for by Article 60(4) EUTMR must submit evidence from the EUTM court to support its claim. 
Kar zadeva nasprotne tožbe, čeprav morajo sodišča za blagovne znamke EU ali zainteresirana stranka v skladu s členom 128 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Urad obvestiti o vložitvi nasprotnih tožb za ugotovitev ničnosti in njihovem izidu, mora, če se to ne stori, imetnik blagovne znamke EU, ki se želi opirati na obrambo iz člena 60(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v podporo svoji zahtevi predložiti dokaze od zadevnega sodišča za blagovne znamke EU.
4.5.3 Acquiescence 
Privolitev
According to Article 61 EUTMR, where the proprietor of an earlier EUTM or national trade mark has acquiesced in the use of the contested EUTM for a period of five successive years, while being aware of the use, the contested EUTM is not liable to be declared invalid, unless registration of the later EUTM was applied for in bad faith. 
Če je v skladu s členom 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetnik prejšnje blagovne znamke EU ali nacionalne blagovne znamke pet zaporednih let privolil v uporabo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in se ob tem zavedal takšne uporabe, izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU ni mogoče razglasiti za nično, razen če je bila prijava za registracijo poznejše blagovne znamke EU vložena v slabi veri.
The aim of Article 61 EUTMR is to penalise the proprietors of earlier trade marks that have acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later EUTM while being aware of such use, by excluding them from seeking a declaration of invalidity of that trade mark, which will then therefore be able to coexist with the earlier trade mark (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 32). 
Namen člena 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je kaznovati imetnike prejšnjih blagovnih znamk, ki so pet zaporednih let privolili v uporabo poznejše blagovne znamke EU in se ob tem zavedali takšne uporabe, tako da se jim onemogoči vložitev zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti navedene blagovne znamke, ki bo zato lahko soobstajala s prejšnjo blagovno znamko (28/06/2012, T133/09, B. Antonio Basile 1952, EU:T:2012:327, § 32).
The burden of proof is on the proprietor of the contested EUTM to show that: 
Imetnik izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU mora dokazati, da:
the contested EUTM was used in the European Union (or in the Member State where the earlier trade mark is protected) during a period of at least five successive years; 
se je izpodbijana blagovna znamka EU v Evropski uniji (ali državi članici, v kateri je zaščitena prejšnja blagovna znamka) uporabljala vsaj pet let zapored,
the invalidity applicant was aware of this or could reasonably be presumed to be aware of it; 
se je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti zavedal te uporabe ali da je mogoče razumno domnevati, da se je tega zavedal,
although the invalidity applicant could have stopped the use, it nevertheless remained inactive (22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, § 44). 
vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ni ukrepal, čeprav bi lahko ustavil uporabo (22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, § 44).
This is not the case where there was a licence or distribution relationship between the parties, so that the invalidity applicant could not lawfully oppose use of the sign. 
To ne velja, kadar je med strankama obstajalo licenčno ali distribucijsko razmerje, kar pomeni, da vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti ni mogel zakonito ugovarjati uporabi znaka.
All three conditions must be fulfilled. 
Izpolnjeni morajo biti vsi trije pogoji.
If they are, the limitation on acquiescence will apply only to the contested goods or services for which the later EUTM has been used. 
Če so izpolnjeni, se bo omejitev zaradi privolitve uporabljala le za izpodbijano blago ali storitve, za katere se je uporabljala poznejša blagovna znamka EU.