natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR, signs that consist exclusively of the shape or another characteristic that gives substantial value to the goods cannot be registered or, if registered, they are liable to be declared invalid. 
Člen 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se znaki, sestavljeni izključno iz oblike ali druge značilnosti, ki blagu da bistveno vrednost, ne morejo registrirati, če pa so registrirani, se lahko razglasijo za nične.
Whereas the same shape or another characteristic can, in principle, be protected both as a design and as a trade mark, Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR only refuses trade mark protection for shapes or other characteristics in certain specific cases, namely, when the sign consists exclusively of a shape or another characteristic that gives substantial value to the product. 
Čeprav je mogoče isto obliko ali drugo značilnost načeloma zaščititi kot model in blagovno znamko, člen 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU preprečuje samo varstvo blagovnih znamk za oblike ali druge značilnosti v nekaterih posebnih primerih, kot je na primer znak, sestavljen izključno iz oblike ali druge značilnosti, ki blagu da bistveno vrednost.
The concept of ‘value' should be interpreted not only in commercial (economic) terms, but also in terms of ‘attractiveness', that is to say, the likelihood that the goods will be purchased primarily because of their particular shape or another particular characteristic. 
Pojem „vrednost“ je treba razlagati ne samo v komercialnem (ekonomskem) smislu, temveč tudi v smislu „privlačnosti“, tj. verjetnosti, da bo blago kupljeno predvsem zaradi svoje izrecne oblike ali druge izrecne značilnosti.
When other characteristics may give the product significant value in addition to this aesthetic value, such as functional value (for instance safety, comfort and reliability), Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR cannot be ruled out automatically. 
Kadar druge značilnosti lahko dajo proizvodu poleg te estetske vrednosti tudi bistveno vrednost, kot je funkcionalna vrednost (na primer varnost, udobje in zanesljivost), člena 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče samodejno izključiti.
Indeed, the concept of ‘value' cannot be limited purely to the shape or another characteristic of goods having only artistic or ornamental value (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 29-32). 
Pojma vrednosti dejansko ni mogoče omejiti le na obliko ali drugo značilnost blaga, ki ima le umetniško ali okrasno vrednost (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 29-32).
The concept of ‘value' should not be interpreted as meaning ‘reputation', since application of this absolute ground for refusal is justified exclusively by the effect on the value added to the goods by the shape or other characteristic and not by other factors, such as the reputation of the word mark that is also used to identify the goods in question (16/01/2013, R 2520/20115, SHAPE OF GUITAR BODY (3D), § 19). 
Pojem vrednost se ne bi smel razlagati kot ugled, saj je uporaba tega absolutnega razloga za zavrnitev utemeljena izključno z učinkom oblike ali druge značilnosti na vrednost blaga, ne z učinkom drugih dejavnikov, kot je ugled besedne znamke, ki se prav tako uporablja za označevanje zadevnega blaga (16/01/2013, R 2520/20115, SHAPE OF GUITAR BODY (3D), § 19).
Furthermore, that the shape or other characteristic may be pleasing or attractive is not sufficient to exclude it from registration. 
Poleg tega dejstvo, da je lahko oblika ali druga značilnost prijetna ali privlačna, ne zadostuje za izključitev iz registracije.
If that were the case, it would be virtually impossible to imagine any trade mark of a shape or another characteristic, given that in modern business there is no product of industrial utility that has not been the subject of study, research and industrial design before its eventual launch on the market (03/05/2000, R 395/19993, SINGLE SQUARE CLASP, § 1-2, 22-36). 
Če bi zadostovala, bi si bilo dejansko nemogoče zamisliti katero koli blagovno znamko z obliko ali drugo značilnostjo, saj v sodobnem poslovanju ne obstaja noben industrijski proizvod, za katerega študija, raziskava in industrijsko oblikovanje niso bili izvedeni pred morebitnim dajanjem na trg (03/05/2000, R 395/19993, SINGLE SQUARE CLASP, § 1-2, 22-36).
In assessing the value of the goods, account may be taken of criteria such as the nature of the category of goods concerned, the artistic value of the shape or other characteristic in question, its dissimilarity from other shapes in common use on the market concerned, a substantial price difference compared with similar goods, and the development of a promotion strategy that focuses on accentuating the aesthetic characteristics of the product in question (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 35). 
Pri presoji vrednosti blaga se lahko upoštevajo merila, kot so narava zadevne kategorije blaga, umetniška vrednost zadevne oblike ali druge značilnosti, posebnost te oblike v primerjavi z drugimi oblikami, ki so v uporabi na zadevnem trgu, precejšnja razlika v ceni glede na podobne proizvode in razvoj promocijske strategije, v kateri so poudarjene predvsem estetske značilnosti zadevnega proizvoda (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 35).
The fact that the shape also performs other functions in addition to its aesthetic function (e.g. functional functions) does not exclude the application of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 31). 
Uporaba člena 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne izključi zato, ker oblika poleg estetske funkcije zagotavlja tudi druge funkcije (npr. funkcionalne) (18/09/2014, C205/13, Hauck, EU:C:2014:2233, § 31).
An example of a sign that consists exclusively of ‘other characteristics' that give substantial value to the goods could be a sound mark, representing a specific sound of a motorbike that may be appealing to a significant part of the relevant public to the extent that it may indeed affect the consumer's choice of purchase. 
Primer znaka, ki ga sestavljajo izključno druge značilnosti, ki dajo blagu bistveno vrednost, bi lahko bil zvočni znak, ki ponazarja poseben zvok motornega kolesa, ki lahko tako močno pritegne velik del upoštevne javnosti, da lahko dejansko vpliva na potrošnikovo izbiro pri nakupu.
For the examination of these trade marks, a case-by-case approach is necessary. 
Preizkušanje teh blagovnih znamk je treba opraviti za vsak primer posebej.
In most of these cases a proper examination will only be possible where there is evidence that the aesthetic value of the shape or other characteristic can, in its own right, determine the commercial value of the product and the consumer's choice to a large extent. 
V večini primerov je mogoče primerno preizkušanje opraviti le, če se lahko dokaže, da estetska vrednost oblike ali druge značilnosti same po sebi pomembno določijo komercialno vrednost proizvoda in potrošnikovo izbiro.
If a shape or other characteristic derives its appeal from the fame of its designers and/or marketing efforts rather than from the aesthetic value of the shape or other characteristic itself, Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR will not apply (14/12/2010, R 486/20102, SHAPE OF A CHAIR (3D), § 20-21). 
Če privlačnost oblike ali druge značilnosti izhajajo iz slovesa njenih oblikovalcev in/ali tržnih prizadevanj, ne pa iz estetske vrednosti oblike ali druge značilnosti, se člen 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne uporabi (14/12/2010, R 486/20102, SHAPE OF A CHAIR (3D), § 20-21).
A leading case when it comes to shapes bestowing substantial value on the goods concerns the three-dimensional representation below of a loudspeaker. 
Glavni primer pri oblikah, ki dajo blagu bistveno vrednost, ponazarja tridimenzionalni prikaz zvočnika v nadaljevanju.
The General Court confirmed the Board of Appeal's finding that the sign at issue fell within the scope of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575). 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora za pritožbe, da zadevni znak spada na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(e)(iii) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575).
The General Court held that for goods such as those listed above, the design was an element that would be very important in the consumer's choice even if the consumer took other characteristics of the goods at issue into account. 
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da je za blago, kot je tisto, ki je navedeno zgoraj, podoba zadevnega proizvoda element, ki bi bil zelo pomemben za izbiro potrošnika, tudi če bi potrošnik upošteval druge značilnosti zadevnega proizvoda.
After having stated that the shape for which registration was sought revealed a very specific design and that it was an essential element of the applicant's branding, which increased the appeal of the product and, therefore, its value, the General Court also noted that it was apparent from the evidence on record, namely extracts from the distributors' websites and online auction or second-hand websites, that the aesthetic characteristics of that shape were emphasised first and that the shape was perceived as a kind of pure, slender, timeless sculpture for music reproduction, which made it an important selling point (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575, § 75). 
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da ima oblika, za katero je bila zahtevana registracija, zelo posebno podobo in da je bistven element prijaviteljeve znamke, ki povečuje privlačnost zadevnega proizvoda, torej njegovo vrednost, je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo še, da iz dokumentiranih elementov, in sicer iz povzetkov spletnih strani distributerja ter spletne dražbe ali prodaje rabljenih proizvodov izhaja, da so najprej poudarjene estetske značilnosti te oblike in da se takšna oblika dojema kot neke vrste čist, vitek in brezčasen kip za predvajanje glasbe, zaradi česar je bistveni element za utemeljitev trženja (06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker, EU:T:2011:575, § 75).
The General Court thus concluded that, independently of the other characteristics of the goods at issue, the shape for which registration was sought bestowed substantial value on the goods concerned. 
Splošno sodišče je tako sklenilo, da oblika, za katero je bila zahtevana registracija, neodvisno od drugih značilnosti zadevnega blaga, zadevnemu blagu daje bistveno vrednost.
It follows from the above judgment that it is important to determine whether the aesthetic value of a shape (or, by analogy, other characteristic) can, in its own right, determine the commercial value of the product and the consumer's choice to a large extent. 
Iz navedene sodbe izhaja, da je pomembno ugotoviti, ali lahko estetska vrednost oblike (ali po analogiji druge značilnosti) sama po sebi pomembno opredeli komercialno vrednost proizvoda in potrošnikovo izbiro.
See another example of such an application below: 
Znak Št. zadeve Blago in storitve
Sign Case No Goods and services 
Blagovna znamka EU št.
EUTM No 107 029 10/07/2006, R 856/2004 G 12/11/2008, T270/06 14/09/2010, C48/09 P Class 28 (construction toys) 
107 029 10/07/2006, R 856/2004 G 12/11/2008, T270/06 14/09/2010, C48/09 P Razred 28 (igrače za sestavljanje)
In this case, the shape applied for was described as ... a slightly curved knife handle characterised by a small angle of 5 to 10 degrees between the knife blade and the longitudinal axis of the shell grip, which has a middle section with a somewhat rounded outer cross section, which broadens towards a tapered rear end. 
V tej zadevi je bila prijavljena oblika opisana kot: [...] nekoliko ukrivljen ročaj noža, za katerega je značilen manjši od pet- do desetstopinjski kot med rezilom noža in vzdolžno osjo ročaja z ohišjem, katerega srednji del ima nekoliko zaobljen zunanji presek, ki se razširi proti koničastemu zadnjemu delu.
The handle also incorporates a knurled screw in the shell of the knife (para. 28). 
Ročaj ima na ohišju tudi narebričen vijak (točka 28).
The Court stated that As is apparent from that patent [relied upon by the invalidity applicant], the technical effect of the angle between the knife blade and the longitudinal axis of the mother-of-pearl handle is to facilitate cutting. 
Sodišče je navedlo, da: kot je razvidno iz patenta [na katerega se opira vložnik zahteve za ničnost], je tehnični namen kota med rezilom noža in vzdolžno osjo ročaja z ohišjem iz biserovine olajšati rezanje.
The intermediate section is of particular importance for long cuts. 
Srednji del je zlasti pomemben za dolge reze.
It makes the cut more precise while allowing greater pressure to be exerted. 
Omogoča natančnejše reze in hkrati omogoča večji pritisk na rezilo.
Finally, the knurled screw allows the shell to be opened and the blades of the knife to be changed without using other tools and without hindering manipulation of the knife during use (para. 30). and concluded that the most important elements of the sign, constituting its essential characteristics, are all exclusively functional (para. 33). 
Narebričen vijak omogoča odpiranje ohišja in menjavo rezil brez uporabe drugega orodja, ne da bi to oviralo rokovanje z nožem med uporabo (točka 30), in sklenilo, da so najpomembnejši elementi znaka, ki tvorijo njegove bistvene značilnosti, izključno funkcionalni (točka 33).
The applicant, in this regard, accused the Boards of Appeal of limiting itself to an assessment, in an isolated manner, of all the elements constituting the contested sign without taking into account the overall impression produced by the sign. 
Prijavitelj je v tej zvezi odbore za pritožbe obtožil, da so se omejili na presojo vseh posamičnih elementov, ki sestavljajo sporni znak, ne da bi upoštevali celoten vtis, ki ga daje ta znak.
However, as the Court noted: In this case, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Boards of Appeal did state … that the shape of the knife constituting the disputed trade mark could be perceived as being a fish or a dolphin. 
Vendar je Sodišče ugotovilo, da: so odbori za pritožbe v tem primeru in v nasprotju s trditvami prijavitelja navedli, [...] da bi oblika noža, ki pomeni sporno blagovno znamko, lahko dajala vtis ribe ali delfina.
However, that resemblance with a fish is conditioned by elements having a technical function, namely the invention covered by the expired American patent with a slightly less curved handle and a slight prolongation of the points at the rear end (para. 39). 
Toda podobnost z ribo je odvisna od elementov s tehničnimi učinkom, tj. izuma, ki ga pokriva ameriški patent, ki je potekel, in sicer z nekoliko manj ukrivljenim ročajem in rahlo podaljšanimi točkami na hrbtni strani (točka 39).
Sign Case No Goods 
Znak Št. zadeve Blago
10/09/2008, R 497/20051, LOUDSPEAKER (3D) 06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker Apart from loudspeakers, other apparatus for the reception, processing, reproduction, regulation or distribution of sound signals in Class 9 as well as music furniture in Class 20. 
10/09/2008, R 497/20051, LOUDSPEAKER (3D) 06/10/2011, T508/08, Loudspeaker Poleg zvočnikov še drugi aparati za sprejem, obdelavo, reprodukcijo, regulacijo ali širjenje zvočnih signalov iz razreda 9 ter pohištvo za hi-fi sisteme iz razreda 20.
EUTM Case No 
Blagovna znamka EU Št. zadeve
The BoA cancelled the EUTM in view of the fact that the chair shape as registered had substantial value. 
Odbor za pritožbe je izbrisal blagovno znamko EU, ker je imela registrirana oblika stola bistveno vrednost.
The BoA examined the evidence put forward in detail and concluded, among others, that the promotional strategy of the EUTM proprietor had been dominated by references to the aesthetic value of the chair shape over many years, including well before the registration date. 
Odbor za pritožbe je natančno proučil predložena dokazila in med drugim ugotovil, da so med promocijsko strategijo imetnika blagovne znamke EU več let prevladovala sklicevanja na estetsko vrednost oblike stola, med drugim tudi veliko pred datumom registracije.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part B, Examination Page 2 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del B, Preizkušanje stran 11
Absolute Grounds for Refusal - Trade Marks Contrary to Public Policy or Acceptable Principles of Morality 
Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev - Blagovne znamke, ki nasprotujejo javnemu redu ali sprejetim moralnim načelom
CHAPTER 7 
POGLAVJE 7
TRADE MARKS CONTRARY TO 
BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE, KI NASPROTUJEJO
PUBLIC POLICY OR ACCEPTABLE 
JAVNEMU REDU ALI SPREJETIM
PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY 
MORALNIM NAČELOM
(ARTICLE 7(1)(f) EUTMR) 
(ČLEN 7(1)(f) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU)
1 General Remarks 3 
1 Splošne pripombe 3
2 ‘Public Policy' 4 
2 „Javni red“ 4
2.1 Concept and categories 4 
2.1 Pojem in kategorije 4
3 Accepted Principles of Morality 4 
3 Sprejeta moralna načela 4
Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR excludes from registration trade marks that are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality. 
V skladu s členom 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so iz registracije izključene blagovne znamke, ki so v nasprotju z javnim redom ali sprejetimi moralnimi načeli.
Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR mirrors that of Article 6quinquies(B)(3) of the Paris Convention , which provides for the refusal of trade mark applications and for the invalidation of registrations where trade marks are ‘contrary to morality or public order'. 
Člen 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU temelji na členu 6 quinquies(B)(3) Pariške konvencije, ki predvideva zavrnitev prijave blagovne znamke in razveljavitev registracij, če blagovne znamke nasprotujejo morali ali javnemu redu.
[2: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883 (as amended on 28 September 1979).] 
[2: Pariška konvencija za varstvo industrijske lastnine z dne 20. marca 1883 (kakor je bila spremenjena 28. septembra 1979).]
The wording of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is very broad and allows a great deal of room for interpretation. 
Besedilo člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je zelo široko in pušča veliko prostora za razlage.
A judicious application of this provision necessarily entails balancing the right of traders to freely employ words and images in the signs they wish to register as trade marks against the right of the public not to encounter disturbing, abusive, insulting and even threatening trade marks (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 14). 
Preudarna uporaba te določbe nujno pomeni usklajevanje pravice trgovcev do svobodne uporabe besed in podob v znakih, ki jih želijo registrirati kot blagovne znamke, ter pravico javnosti, da ne naleti na vznemirjajoče, prostaške, žaljive in celo grozilne blagovne znamke (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 14).
The rationale of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is not to identify and filter out signs whose use in commerce must at all costs be prevented, but to preclude trade marks from registration where granting a monopoly would contravene the state of law or would be perceived by the relevant public as going directly against the basic moral norms of society. 
Namen člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni prepoznati in izločiti znake, katerih uporabo v trgovini je treba na vsak način preprečiti, temveč onemogočiti registracijo blagovnih znamk, kadar bi bila odobritev monopolnega položaja v nasprotju s pravno državo ali bi upoštevna javnost v zvezi z njo menila, da je v neposrednem nasprotju s temeljnimi moralnimi načeli družbe.
In other words, the Office should not positively assist people who wish to further their business aims by means of trade marks that offend against certain basic values of civilised society (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 13). 
Z drugimi besedami, Urad ne bi smel pozitivno pomagati tistim, ki želijo pospešiti doseganje svojih poslovnih ciljev z blagovnimi znamkami, ki so žaljive z vidika nekaterih temeljnih vrednot civilizirane družbe (06/07/2006, R 495/2005G, SCREW YOU, § 13).
The application of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR is not limited by the principle of freedom of expression (Article 10, Freedom of expression, European Convention on Human Rights) since the refusal to register only means that the sign is not granted protection under trade mark law and does not stop the sign from being used - even in business (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye! 
Uporaba člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni omejena z načelom svobode izražanja (10. člen: Svoboda izražanja, Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic), saj zavrnitev registracije pomeni le, da znaku ni dodeljeno varstvo v skladu z zakonodajo o blagovnih znamkah, kar ne preprečuje uporabe znaka - celo pri poslovanju (09/03/2012, T417/10, ¡Que buenu ye!
‘Public policy' and ‘accepted principles of morality' are two different concepts that often overlap. 
Javni red in sprejeta moralna načela sta različna pojma, ki se pogosto prekrivata.
The question whether the goods or services for which protection is sought can or cannot be legally offered in a particular Member State's market is irrelevant for the question as to whether the sign itself falls foul of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 33). 
Vprašanje, ali se blago ali storitve, za katere se zahteva varstvo, sme ali ne sme zakonito ponujati na trgu neke države članice, ni pomembno za vprašanje, ali je znak kot tak v nasprotju s členom 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 33).
Whether or not a mark is contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality must be determined by the intrinsic qualities of the mark applied for, and not by the circumstances relating to the conduct of the person applying for the trade mark (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 28). 
Vprašanje, ali je znamka v nasprotju z javnim redom ali sprejetimi moralnimi načeli, je treba opredeliti na podlagi značilnosti, ki jih ima prijavljena znamka, in ne na podlagi okoliščin, ki se nanašajo na vedenje prijavitelja blagovne znamke (13/09/2005, T140/02, Intertops, EU:T:2005:312, § 28).
In its judgment of 20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, the General Court held that the concepts of ‘public policy' and ‘acceptable principles of morality' must be interpreted not only with reference to the circumstances common to all Member States but by taking into account ‘the particular circumstances of individual Member States which are likely to influence the perception of the relevant public within those States' (para. 34). 
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi 20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, menilo, da je treba pri razlagi pojmov javni red in sprejeta moralna načela upoštevati ne le okoliščine, ki so skupne vsem državam članicam, ampak tudi „posebne okoliščine posameznih držav članic, ki lahko vplivajo na zaznavo upoštevne javnosti, ki je na ozemlju teh držav“ (točka 34).
The legislation and administrative practice of certain Member States can also be taken into account in this context (i.e. for assessing subjective values), not because of their normative value, but as evidence of facts that make it possible to assess the perception of the relevant public in those Member States (20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, § 57). 
V tem okviru je mogoče upoštevati tudi zakonodajo in upravno prakso nekaterih držav članic (tj. za presojo subjektivne vrednosti), in sicer ne zaradi njune normativne veljave, temveč kot dokaze o dejstvih, ki omogočajo presojo tega, kako upoštevna javnost v zadevnih državah članicah zaznava znake (20/09/2011, T232/10, Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, EU:T:2011:498, § 57).
In such a case, the illegality of the EUTM applied for is not the determining factor for the application of Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, but rather is of evidential value with regard to the perception of the relevant public in the Member State(s) in question. 
V takšnem primeru nezakonitost blagovne znamke EU, za katero je vložena prijava, ni odločilni dejavnik za uporabo člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, temveč ima dejansko dokazno vrednost v zvezi z zaznavo upoštevne javnosti v zadevni(-ih) državi(-ah) članici(-ah).