natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 10(4) EUTMDR also allows market surveys and quotations of the mark in lists and publications of associations of the relevant profession as suitable means of evidence (14/03/2011, B 1 582 579; 18/06/2010, B 1 316 134). 
Člen 10(3) Delegirane uredbe kot ustrezne dokaze dopušča tudi tržne raziskave ter navedbe blagovne znamke na seznamih in v publikacijah poklicnih združenj iz zadevnega sektorja (14/03/2011, B 1 582 579; 18/06/2010, B 1 316 134).
Price lists and catalogues are examples of ‘material stemming directly from the party itself'. 
Ceniki in katalogi so primeri gradiva, ki izvira neposredno od stranke.
A company's annual report and accounts would also come under that heading. 
Pod ta naslov se uvrščajo tudi letno poročilo in računovodski izkazi podjetja.
Article 10(4) EUTMDR is to be read in conjunction with Article 64 EUTMDR. 
Člen 10(4) Delegirane uredbe je treba brati v povezavi s členom 64 Delegirane uredbe.
This means that annexes to communications may be submitted on data carriers in accordance with technical specifications determined by the Executive Director. 
To pomeni, da se lahko priloge k sporočilom v skladu s tehničnimi zahtevami, ki jih določi izvršni direktor, predložijo na nosilcih podatkov.
Nevertheless, material that cannot be scanned or photocopied (such as CDs, physical items) cannot be taken into account unless submitted in two copies so that one can be forwarded to the other party. 
Vendar se ne sme upoštevati gradivo, ki ga ni mogoče skenirati ali fotokopirati (kot so zgoščenke, materialni predmeti), razen če je predloženo v dveh izvodih, da ga je mogoče posredovati še drugi stranki.
The requirement of proof of use always raises the question of the probative value of the submitted material. 
Z zahtevo glede dokaza o uporabi se vedno postavlja vprašanje dokazne vrednosti predloženega gradiva.
The evidence must at least have a certain degree of reliability. 
Dokazi morajo imeti vsaj neko stopnjo zanesljivosti.
As a general rule, the Office considers material produced by third parties as being of a higher probative value than material produced by the owner itself or by its representative. 
Urad načeloma šteje, da ima gradivo, ki ga pripravijo tretje osebe, večjo dokazno vrednost od gradiva, ki ga pripravi sam imetnik ali njegov zastopnik.
Reference by the opponent to internal printouts or hypothetical surveys or orders is particularly problematic. 
Zlasti problematično je sklicevanje vložnika ugovora na notranje izpiske ali hipotetične raziskave ali naročila.
However, where material must regularly be produced for use by the public and/or authorities according to statutory rules, for instance, company law and/or stock exchange regulations, and where it may be assumed that such material is subject to certain official verification, its probative value is certainly higher than ordinary ‘personal' material produced by the opponent (see also paragraph 3.3.2.3, ‘Declarations', below). 
Če pa je treba gradivo redno pripravljati, da ga lahko javnost in/ali organi uporabljajo v skladu z zakonskimi predpisi, na primer pravom družb in/ali borznimi predpisi, in če je mogoče domnevati, da je takšno gradivo predmet določenega uradnega preverjanja, je njegova dokazna vrednost nedvomno večja od dokazne vrednosti navadnega osebnega gradiva, ki ga pripravi vložnik ugovora (glej tudi odstavek 3.3.2.3 Izjave, kot sledi v nadaljevanju).
3.3.2.2 References 
Sklicevanja
The opponent may avail itself of findings of national offices and courts in parallel proceedings. 
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje na ugotovitve nacionalnih uradov in sodišč v vzporednih postopkih.
Although the Office is not bound by findings of the national offices and courts, such decisions must be taken into account and may influence the Office's decision. 
Čeprav Urada ne zavezujejo ugotovitve nacionalnih uradov in sodišč, jih je treba upoštevati, saj lahko vplivajo na odločbo Urada.
It is important for the Office to have the possibility of considering the kind of evidence that led to the relevant decision at national level. 
Za Urad je pomembno, da ima možnost upoštevati tisto vrsto dokazov, ki so privedla do sprejetja ustrezne odločbe na nacionalni ravni.
The Office takes into account the different procedural and substantive requirements that may exist before the respective national body (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23). 
Urad upošteva različne postopkovne in vsebinske zahteve, ki se lahko uporabljajo v postopkih pred zadevnim nacionalnim organom (25/08/2003, R 1132/20004, VANETTA / VIENNETTA (fig.), § 16; 18/10/2000, R 550/19993, (DUKE) (fig.) / DUKE, § 23).
The opponent may wish to refer to material submitted as proof of use in previous proceedings before the Office (confirmed by the General Court in ‘ELS' quoted above). 
Vložnik ugovora se lahko sklicuje na gradivo, ki je bilo predloženo kot dokaz o uporabi v prejšnjih postopkih pred Uradom (to je potrdilo Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi „ELS“).
The Office accepts such references on condition that the opponent clearly identifies the material referred to and the proceedings in which it was submitted. 
Urad takšna sklicevanja sprejme, če vložnik ugovora jasno opredeli gradivo, na katerega se sklicuje, in postopek, v katerem je bilo predloženo.
If the reference does not sufficiently identify the relevant material, the Office requires the opponent to clearly specify the material referred to or to file it (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300). 
Če zadevno gradivo ni dovolj jasno opredeljeno v sklicu, Urad vložnika ugovora pozove, naj jasno navede gradivo, na katero se sklicuje, ali ga predloži (30/11/2010, B 1 080 300).
For further details on the conditions for identifying relevant material, see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters. 
Za več podrobnosti o pogojih za opredelitev ustreznega gradiva glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve.
The onus of providing proof of use is on the opponent and not on the Office or the applicant. 
Dokazno breme nosi vložnik ugovora, in ne Urad ali prijavitelj.
Therefore, a mere indication of the website where the Office can find further information is insufficient, as this does not provide the Office with sufficient indications about place, nature, time and extent of use (31/10/2001, B 260 192). 
Zato ne zadostuje le navedba spletne strani, na kateri lahko Urad najde dodatne informacije, saj to Uradu ne zagotavlja zadostnih podatkov o kraju, naravi, času in obsegu uporabe (31/10/2001, B 260 192).
Whereas the means of evidence listed, such as packages, labels, price lists, catalogues, invoices, photographs and newspaper advertisements, do not present any particular problems, it is necessary to consider in some detail declarations as referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR. 
Ker navedeni dokazi, kot so embalaža, nalepke, ceniki, katalogi, računi, fotografije in časopisni oglasi, niso posebej problematični, je treba podrobneje obravnavati izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The opposing party is not obliged to submit an affidavit concerning the sales made under the earlier trade mark. 
Stranki, ki ugovarja, ni treba predložiti zaprisežene izjave o prodaji, opravljeni pod prejšnjo blagovno znamko.
It is up to the opposing party to select the form of evidence that it considers suitable for the purpose of establishing that the earlier trade mark was put to genuine use during the relevant period (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37). 
Od nje se pričakuje, da izbere obliko dokazov, ki jo šteje kot primerno za dokazovanje, da se je prejšnja blagovna znamka v upoštevnem obdobju resno in dejansko uporabljala (08/07/2004, T203/02, Vitafruit, EU:T:2004:225, § 37).
The role of the affidavit is to give facts or an explanation of the supporting documents, not to give a legal opinion (06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56). 
Namen zaprisežene izjave je navesti dejstva ali pojasniti dokaze, ne pa podati pravno mnenje 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 56).
Distinction between admissibility and relevance (probative value) 
Razlikovanje med dopustnostjo in pomembnostjo (dokazno vrednostjo)
The importance of declarations has been much debated. 
Veliko se je razpravljalo o pomenu izjav.
In this regard, there must be a clear differentiation between the admissibility and the probative value of such evidence. 
V zvezi s tem je treba jasno razlikovati med dopustnostjo in dokazno vrednostjo takšnih dokazov.
As far as admissibility is concerned, Article 10(4) EUTMDR expressly mentions written statements referred to in Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR as admissible means of proof of use. 
V zvezi z dopustnostjo je v členu 10(4) Delegirane uredbe izrecno navedeno, da so pisne izjave iz člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU dopustni dokazi o uporabi.
Only in cases where the statements have not been sworn or affirmed is it necessary to consider the rules of law of the national jurisdiction as to the effects of a written statement (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; confirmed 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49). 
Zakonodajo zadevne države članice je treba upoštevati le, če izjave niso bile zaprisežene ali potrjene (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 40; potrjena 09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 49).
Where there are doubts as to whether a statement has been sworn or affirmed, it is up to the opponent to submit evidence in this regard. 
Vložnik ugovora mora v primeru dvoma, ali je bila izjava zaprisežena ali potrjena, predložiti zadevne dokaze.
Failing this, the statement will not be considered a statement within the sense of Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR. 
Če tega ne stori, se izjava ne bo štela za izjavo v smislu člena 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Article 97(1)(f) EUTMR does not specify by whom these statements should be signed, so there is no reason to consider that statements signed by the parties to the proceedings themselves are not covered by this provision (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46). 
V členu 97(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni navedeno, kdo mora podpisati te izjave, zato ni razloga, da se ta določba ne bi uporabljala za izjave, ki jih podpišeta sami stranki v postopku (16/12/2008, T86/07, Deitech, EU:T:2008:577, § 46).
The EUTMR, the EUTMDR and the EUTMIR do not support the conclusion that the evidential value of items of evidence of use of the mark, including affirmations, must be assessed in the light of the national law of a Member State (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53). 
Uredba o blagovni znamki EU, Delegirana uredba in Izvedbena uredba ne podpirajo sklepanja, da bi bilo treba dokazno moč dokazov o uporabi znamke, vključno s potrjenimi izjavami, presojati ob upoštevanju nacionalne zakonodaje države članice (28/03/2012, T214/08, Outburst, EU:T:2012:161, § 33; 09/12/2014, T278/12 PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 53).
The probative value of a statement depends first and foremost on the credibility of the account it contains. 
Dokazna vrednost izjave je odvisna predvsem od verodostojnosti navedb, ki jih vsebuje.
It is then necessary to take account, in particular, of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on the face of it, the document appears sound and reliable (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42). 
Upoštevati je torej treba zlasti izvor dokumenta, okoliščine njegove izdelave, njegovega naslovnika in se vprašati, ali se glede na njegovo vsebino zdi razumen in zanesljiv (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 42).
As far as the probative value of this kind of evidence is concerned, the Office, following the established case-law, makes a distinction between statements coming from the sphere of the opponent themselves or their employees and statements drawn up by an independent source (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54). 
Kar zadeva dokazno vrednost tovrstnih dokazov, Urad v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso razlikuje med izjavami, ki izvirajo od samih vložnikov ugovora ali njihovih zaposlenih, in izjavami, ki jih pripravi neodvisen vir (09/12/2014, T278/12, PROFLEX, EU:T:2014:1045, § 51; 06/11/2014, T463/12, MB, EU:T:2014:935, § 54).
Declarations by the proprietor or its employees 
Izjava imetnika ali njegovih zaposlenih
Statements coming from the sphere of the owner of the earlier mark (drawn up by the interested parties themselves or their employees) are generally given less weight than independent evidence. 
Izjavam, ki izvirajo od imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke (ki jih pripravijo same zainteresirane strani ali njihovi zaposleni), se na splošno pripisuje manjši pomen kot neodvisnim dokazom.
This is because the perception of the party involved in the dispute may be more or less affected by personal interests in the matter (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 and 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610). 
Razlog je morda to, da na dojemanje stranke, udeležene v sporu, bolj ali manj vplivajo osebni interesi v zvezi z zadevo (11/01/2011, R 490/20104, BOTODERM / BOTOX, § 34; 27/10/2009, B 1 086 240 in 31/08/2010, B 1 568 610).
Generalisation should be avoided, since the exact value of such statements always depends on their concrete form and content. 
Izogibati se je treba posploševanju, saj je natančna vrednost takšnih izjav vedno odvisna od njihove konkretne oblike in vsebine.
Statements including detailed and concrete information have a higher probative value than very general and abstractly drafted statements. 
Izjave, ki vključujejo podrobne in konkretne informacije, imajo večjo dokazno vrednost od zelo splošnih in abstraktno oblikovanih izjav.
The final outcome depends on the overall assessment of the evidence in each individual case. 
Končni izid je odvisen od celovite presoje dokazov v posameznem primeru.
In general, further material is necessary for establishing evidence of use, since such statements have to be considered as having less probative value than physical evidence (labels, packaging, etc.) or evidence originating from independent sources. 
Na splošno je za dokazovanje uporabe potrebno dodatno gradivo, saj je treba v zvezi s takšnimi izjavami šteti, da imajo manjšo dokazno vrednost od materialnih dokazov (etiket, embalaže itd.) ali dokazov, ki izvirajo iz neodvisnih virov.
Therefore, the probative strength of the further material submitted is very important. 
Zato je dokazna moč predloženega dodatnega gradiva zelo pomembna.
An assessment should be made of whether the content of the affidavit is sufficiently supported by the further material (or vice versa). 
Izvesti je treba presojo, ali je vsebina zaprisežene izjave zadostno podprta z dodatnim gradivom (in obratno).
The fact that the national office concerned may adopt a certain practice in assessing such kind of evidence of use does not mean that it is applicable in proceedings concerning European Union trade marks (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.). 
Dejstvo, da lahko zadevni nacionalni Urad pri presoji tovrstnih dokazov sprejme določeno prakso, še ne pomeni, da jo je mogoče uporabljati v postopku v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami EU (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 41 et seq.).
A change of ownership after the filing or priority date of the EUTM application may render declarations made by the new owners void as the latter generally do not have any direct knowledge to form a basis for making declarations concerning use of the mark by the previous owner (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER). 
Zaradi spremembe lastništva, izvedene po datumu vložitve ali datumu prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU, so lahko izjave novih imetnikov nične, saj ti na splošno nimajo neposrednega znanja za pripravo izjav o uporabi blagovne znamke s strani prejšnjega imetnika (17/06/2004, R 16/20041, REPORTER / REPORTER).
Nevertheless, in the case of a transfer or other succession in title, any new owner may rely on use by their predecessor(s) within the grace period concerned. 
Kljub temu se lahko novi imetnik v primeru prenosa ali drugega dedovanja pravice sklicuje na uporabo v odložnem roku s strani svojega(-ih) predhodnika(-ov).
Use made by the predecessor may be evidenced by the predecessor and by all other reliable means, for instance, information from business records if the predecessor is not available. 
Predhodnikovo uporabo lahko dokaže predhodnik ali pa se lahko dokaže z drugimi zanesljivimi sredstvi, na primer z informacijami iz poslovnih evidenc, če predhodnik ni na voljo.
Declarations by third parties 
Izjave tretjih oseb
Statements (such as e.g. surveys) drawn up by an independent source, for example by experts, professional organisations, Chambers of Commerce, suppliers, customers or business partners of the opponent, are given more probative weight (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615). 
Izjavam (kot so na primer raziskave), ki jih oblikuje neodvisni vir, na primer strokovnjaki, poklicne organizacije, gospodarske zbornice, dobavitelji, stranke ali poslovni partnerji vložnika ugovora, se pripisuje večja dokazna vrednost (19/01/2011, R 1595/20082, FINCONSUM ESTABLECIMIENTO FINANCIERO DE CREDITO / FINCONSUMO (fig.), § 9(ii); 30/03/2010, R 665/20091, EUROCERT (fig.) / EUROCERT, § 11; 12/08/2010, B 1 575 615).
This practice is in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice in the Chiemsee judgment (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), where the Court gave some indications of appropriate evidence for proving the acquired distinctiveness of a mark in the market place. 
Ta praksa je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča v sodbi v zadevi Chiemsee (04/05/1999, C108/97 & C109/97, Chiemsee, EU:C:1999:230), v kateri je Sodišče predložilo nekaj primerov ustreznih dokazov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče opredeliti pridobljen razlikovalni učinek znamke na trgu.
Although acquisition of distinctiveness is not per se the same as genuine use, the former does comprise elements of evidence of use of a sign on the market. 
Čeprav pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka sama po sebi ni enakovredna resni in dejanski uporabi, zajema dokazne elemente o uporabi znaka na trgu.
Consequently, case-law relating to these can be used by analogy. 
Zato je mogoče po analogiji uporabljati sodno prakso v zvezi s takšnimi dokaznimi elementi.
Statements drawn up by the parties themselves are not ‘third-party evidence' whereas all other evidence, such as opinion polls, statements from Chambers of Commerce, or from professional organisations or from experts, does originate from third parties. 
Izjave, ki jih pripravijo same stranke, niso dokazi tretjih oseb, vsi drugi dokazi, kot so javnomnenjske raziskave, izjave gospodarskih zbornic ali poklicnih organizacij ali strokovnjakov, pa izvirajo od tretjih oseb.
3.4 Reaction from the applicant 
Odziv prijavitelja
3.4.1 Forwarding of evidence 
Posredovanje dokazov
After having received the evidence of use submitted by the opponent, the Office forwards the complete evidence to the applicant. 
Potem ko Urad prejme dokaze o uporabi, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora, popolne dokaze posreduje prijavitelju.
The Office, in general, allows the applicant 2 months to file its observations in reply to the evidence of use (and to the opposition). 
Urad na splošno prijavitelju da na voljo dva meseca za predložitev pripomb kot odgovor na dokaze o uporabi (in kot odgovor na ugovor).
3.4.2 No evidence or no relevant evidence submitted 
Dokazi niso predloženi oziroma predloženi dokazi niso ustrezni
However, the Office may close the proceedings immediately if, within the time limit given, the opponent has submitted no evidence, or the evidence is manifestly of no relevance, and all the earlier rights of the opposition are affected. 
Vendar lahko Urad nemudoma konča postopek, če vložnik ugovora v določenem roku ni predložil dokazov oziroma so dokazi očitno neustrezni in če to vpliva na vse prejšnje pravice, na katerih temelji ugovor.
The rationale behind this practice is to avoid the continuation of proceedings when their outcome is already known, that is, the opposition is to be rejected for lack of proof of use (principle of economy and good administration of proceedings). 
Razlog za to prakso je preprečiti nadaljevanje postopka, kadar je izid že znan, tj. ugovor bo zavrnjen zaradi pomanjkanja dokaza o uporabi (načelo gospodarnosti in dobrega upravljanja postopka).
In all other cases the evidence is forwarded to the applicant, which is given 2 months to file its observations. 
V vseh drugih primerih se dokazi posredujejo prijavitelju, ki ima na voljo dva meseca za vložitev pripomb.
The Office must not indicate to the opponent that the sufficiency of the evidence is doubtful, or even invite the opponent to file further evidence in such cases. 
Urad vložnika ugovora ne sme opozoriti, da obstajajo dvomi o zadostnosti dokazov, ali ga v takšnih primerih pozvati, naj predloži dodatne dokaze.
Such acts would be against the impartial position of the Office in adversarial proceedings (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19). 
Takšna dejanja bi bila v nasprotju z nepristranskostjo Urada v kontradiktornem postopku (01/08/2007, R 201/20064, OCB (fig.) / O.C.B., OCB (fig.)§ 19).
3.4.3 No reaction from applicant 
Nobenega odziva od prijavitelja
If the applicant does not react within the time limit, the Office will give a decision on the basis of the evidence before it. 
Če se prijavitelj v tem roku ne odzove, bo Urad sprejel odločbo na podlagi dokazov, ki jih ima na voljo.
The fact that the applicant does not reply does not mean that it accepts the submitted evidence as sufficient proof of use (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79). 
Dejstvo, da prijavitelj ne odgovori, ne pomeni, da predložene dokaze sprejema kot zadosten dokaz o uporabi (07/06/2005, T303/03, Salvita, EU:T:2005:200, § 79).
3.4.4 Formal withdrawal of the request 
Formalni umik zahteve
Where the applicant reacts to the proof of use by formally withdrawing its request for proof of use, the issue will no longer be relevant. 
Če se prijavitelj na dokaz o uporabe odzove tako, da formalno umakne svojo zahtevo za dokaz o uporabi, vprašanje uporabe blagovne znamke ne bo več sporno.
As it is the applicant who sets in motion the respective procedure, the applicant logically is in a position to bring an end to this part of the proceedings by formally withdrawing its request (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23). 
Ker je prijavitelj tisti, ki sproži zadevni postopek, lahko ta del postopka vsekakor konča s formalnim umikom svoje zahteve (21/04/2004, R 174/20032, SONNENGARTEN / SOMMERGARTEN, § 23).
3.5 Further reaction from the opponent 
Nadaljnji odziv vložnika ugovora
The opponent is entitled to file observations in reply to the applicant's observations. 
Vložnik ugovora lahko predloži pripombe kot odgovor na pripombe prijavitelja.
This is of particular importance in cases where the decision to be taken might be based in part on the arguments put forward by the applicant to the effect that the evidence does not prove the use of the mark. 
To je zlasti pomembno, kadar bi lahko odločba, ki bo sprejeta, deloma temeljila na navedbah prijavitelja, da iz dokazov ni razvidna uporaba znamke.
The Board of Appeal has regarded failure to allow the opponent to comment in such a case as a substantial procedural violation (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20). 
Odbor za pritožbe šteje, da gre za bistveno kršitev postopka, če se vložniku ugovora v takšnem primeru ne omogoči predložitev pripomb (28/02/2011, R 16/20104, COLORPLUS, § 20).
For further details on the submission of additional evidence, see paragraph 3.3.1 above. 
Za več podrobnosti o predložitvi dodatnih dokazov glej odstavek 3.3.1 zgoraj.
3.6 Languages in proof of use proceedings 
Jeziki v postopkih v zvezi z dokazom o uporabi