natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such a relationship is not sufficient for Article 8(3) EUTMR to be applicable (para. 67). 
Takšno razmerje ne zadošča za uporabo člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 67).
The Office considered that the evidence on the kind of commercial link between the opponent and the applicant was inconclusive, that is, it could not be established whether the applicant was really an agent or representative or a mere purchaser of the opponent's goods. 
Urad je menil, da so bili dokazi o vrsti poslovnega razmerja med vložnikom ugovora in prijaviteljem nezadostni in ni bilo mogoče opredeliti, ali je bil prijavitelj dejansko posrednik ali zastopnik ali navaden kupec blaga vložnika pritožbe.
Accordingly, the Office was unable to hold that Article 8(3) EUTMR applied. 
Zato Urad ni mogel biti prepričan o uporabi člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
In this case, the applicant was a legal representative of the opponent's company. 
V tem primeru je bil prijavitelj pravni zastopnik družbe vložnika ugovora.
The opposition was rejected. 
Ugovor je bil zavrnjen.
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH The Opposition Division was correct to conclude that there was an agency relationship between the applicant and the opponents, on the basis of correspondence indicating that the two parties had a long and close commercial relationship. 
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Oddelek za ugovore je na podlagi korespondence, iz katere je bilo razvidno, da sta imeli stranki dolgo in tesno poslovno razmerje, pravilno ugotovil, da je med prijaviteljem in vložniki ugovora obstajalo zastopniško razmerje.
The applicant company acted as a distributor of the opponents' goods (para. 18). 
Družba prijavitelja je delovala kot distributer blaga vložnikov ugovora (točka 18).
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (confirmed 09/07/2014, T184/12) The Court confirmed the findings of the Board, who considered that a binding contractual relationship could be established by means of business letters exchanged by the parties, including by email. 
26/01/2012, R 1956/20101, HEATSTRIP / HEATSTRIP (potrjena z dne 09/07/2014, T184/12) Sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitve Odbora, da je mogoče zavezujoče pogodbeno razmerje opredeliti na podlagi izmenjave poslovnih dopisov med strankama, med drugim po elektronski pošti.
The Board examined the email correspondence between the parties to determine what each party asked from the other (para. 50). 
Odbor je proučil korespondenco med strankama, ki je potekala po elektronski pošti, da bi ugotovil, kaj sta stranki zahtevali druga od druge (točka 50).
The Board concluded that the emails showed that both parties were actively cooperating in the promotion of the product, by advertising it in brochures and exhibiting it at a fair, in order to create the best conditions for its successful marketing: the opponent supplied the material for these purposes and the applicant adapted it to the German market (para. 54). 
Odbor je sklenil, da je iz elektronske pošte razvidno, da sta obe stranki dejavno sodelovali pri promociji izdelka, saj sta ga oglaševali v brošurah in razstavili na sejmu, da bi ustvarili najboljše pogoje za njegovo uspešno trženje: vložnik ugovora je predložil gradivo v te namene, prijavitelj pa ga je prilagodil nemškemu trgu (točka 54).
The Board thus concluded that the email correspondence denoted an agreement of commercial cooperation between the parties of a kind that gives rise to a fiduciary relationship (para. 56). 
Odbor je zato sklenil, da korespondenca po elektronski pošti pomeni vrsto sporazuma o poslovnem sodelovanju med strankama, ki ustvarja zaupniško razmerje (točka 56).
The Court dismissed the applicant's arguments that there was no cooperation between the parties (because the applicant was not integrated in the opponent's sales structure, was not subject to a no-competition clause and had to bear the costs of sale and promotion) and confirmed the Board's decision (para. 67 et seq.). 
Sodišče je zavrnilo argumente prijavitelja, da stranki nista sodelovali (ker prijavitelj ni bil vključen v prodajno strukturo vložnika ugovora, zanj ni veljala protikonkurenčna klavzula in je moral nositi stroške prodaje in oglaševanja), in potrdilo odločitev odbora (točka 67 in naslednje).
The opponent granted the applicant a special power of attorney (PoA), consenting to the applicant's filing of trade mark applications. 
Vložnik ugovora je prijavitelju izdal posebno pooblastilo, s katerim je soglašal, da prijavitelj vloži prijave blagovnih znamk.
Subsequent to this PoA, the applicant filed an EUTM. 
Prijavitelj je po pridobitvi pooblastila vložil prijavo blagovne znamke EU.
After the filing, the opponent revoked the PoA and filed the opposition. 
Vložnik ugovora je po vložitvi preklical pooblastilo in vložil ugovor.
The Board considered that the relevant point in time is the filing date. 
Odbor je menil, da je upoštevni datum datum vložitve.
At that moment, the owner's consent was present. 
V zadevnem datumu je obstajalo soglasje imetnika.
The revocation had effects ex nunc (and does not affect the validity of actions performed under the PoA) and not ex tunc (as if the PoA had never existed) (para. 24). 
Preklic je imel učinke ex nunc (in ne vpliva na veljavnost dejanj, opravljenih na podlagi pooblastila), in ne ex tunc (kot da pooblastilo ni nikoli obstajalo) (točka 24).
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The Board of Appeal ought to have examined whether, on the day of the application for registration of the mark, the intervener was still bound by the consent (para. 50). 
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Odbor za pritožbe bi moral proučiti, ali je bil na dan zahteve za registracijo zadevne znamke intervenient še zavezan s tem soglasjem (točka 50).
19/11/2007, R 73/20064 The contested application was not filed during the validity of the agreements between Gallant (owner of shares in Porter, the applicant) and Yoshida (opponent) which allowed Gallant to file an EUTM, but nearly 1 year after the termination of the last agreement (para. 25). 
19/11/2007, R 73/20064 Izpodbijana prijava ni bila vložena v času trajanja veljavnosti sporazumov med družbo Gallant (lastnikom delnic v družbi Porter, ki je prijavitelj) in družbo Yoshida (vložnik ugovora), kar je družbi Gallant omogočilo, da vloži prijavo blagovne znamke EU, vendar skoraj eno leto po prenehanju zadnjega sporazuma (točka 25).
The Board noted that post-termination fiduciary obligations are not meant to last forever but for a certain transitional period after the termination of the agreement in which the parties may redefine their commercial strategies and concluded, inter alia, that any post-contractual relationship between Yoshida and Gallant was phased out at the time of the filing of the EUTM (para. 27). 
Odbor je navedel, da veljavnost zaupniških obveznosti po prenehanju ni mišljena za vedno, ampak za določeno prehodno obdobje po prenehanju sporazuma, v katerem lahko stranki znova opredelita svoji tržni strategiji, in med drugim ugotovil, da kakršno koli popogodbeno razmerje med družbama Yoshida in Gallant v času vložitve blagovne znamke EU ni več obstajalo (točka 27).
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC In this case, it was considered that less than 3 months after the expiry of a contract relationship such as a licence agreement, the fiduciary relationship between the parties still exists imposing on the applicant a duty of loyalty and confidence. 
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC V tem primeru so se manj kot trije meseci po preteku pogodbenega razmerja, kot je licenčna pogodba, šteli za obdobje, v katerem je še vedno veljalo, da med strankama obstaja zaupniško razmerje, ki prijavitelju nalaga obveznost lojalnosti in zaupanja.
28/05/2003, B 413 890, CELLFOOD If it is clear that because of the nature of the relationship between the person filing the application and the agent, the situation is effectively the same as if the application had been filed by the agent personally, it is still possible to apply Article 8(3) EUTMR, notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name of the owner's agent. 
28/05/2003, B 413 890, CELLFOOD Če je očitno, da je stanje zaradi vrste razmerja med osebo, ki vloži prijavo, in posrednikom v bistvu enako, kot če bi prijavo vložil sam posrednik, je še vedno mogoče uporabiti člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne glede na očitno neskladnost med imenom prijavitelja in imenom imetnikovega posrednika.
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC Bearing in mind the position of the authorised representative of the licensee company, the Office considered that despite the fact that the EUTM application was made in the name of this natural person, the situation was effectively the same as if it had been filed by the legal person, that is, the licensee company. 
21/02/2002, B 167 926, AZONIC Urad je ob upoštevanju stališča pooblaščenega zastopnika družbe pridobitelja licence menil, da je bilo stanje kljub dejstvu, da je bila prijava blagovne znamke EU vložena v imenu te fizične osebe, v bistvu enako, kot če bi jo vložila pravna oseba, to je družba pridobitelja licence.
The EUTM application in the name of the former could have a direct effect on the latter due to their professional relationship, and, furthermore, the president or vice-president of a company should be considered obliged by the same limitations as their company, or at least temporarily obliged in the case of the expiry of their professional relationship. 
Prijava blagovne znamke EU v imenu fizične osebe bi lahko neposredno vplivala na pravno osebo zaradi njunega poslovnega razmerja, poleg tega pa je treba predsednika ali podpredsednika družbe šteti za zavezanega enakim omejitvam, kot jim je zavezana njegova družba, ali vsaj začasno zavezanega v primeru izteka njunega poslovnega razmerja.
This position is strengthened by the fact that in the present case there is a clause in the renewed agreement that establishes the licensor's immediate termination right in the case that ‘… control of STYLE'N (the licensee) is transferred and the management thereby changed', which shows that the management of the licensee company was also bound by the terms of the agreement. 
To stališče je podkrepljeno z dejstvom, da je v tem primeru v podaljšanem sporazumu klavzula, ki določa pravico pridobitelja licence do takojšnje odpovedi, če […] se nadzor nad družbo STYLE'N (pridobiteljem licence) prenese in se s tem spremeni uprava, kar kaže, da je bila tudi uprava družbe pridobitelja licence zavezana spoštovanju pogojev sporazuma.
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH ‘In view of its serious effect in extinguishing the exclusive rights of the proprietors of the trade marks in issue in the main proceedings (rights which enable them to control the initial marketing in the EEA), consent must be so expressed that an intention to renounce those rights is unequivocally demonstrated' (para. 18). 
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Zaradi resnega učinka odvzetja spornih izključnih pravic imetnikov znamk v glavnem postopku (pravic, ki jim omogočajo, da nadzorujejo začetno trženje v EGP), mora biti soglasje izraženo tako, da je nedvoumno dokazana namera odpovedi tem pravicam (točka 18).
31/01/2001, B 140 006, GORDON SMITH (fig.); confirmed 07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH The mere fact that the opponents failed to immediately oppose the applicant's action to register the trade mark after they received notice of the fact did not constitute consent. 
31/01/2001, B 140 006, GORDON SMITH (fig.); potrjena z dne 07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH Dejstvo, da vložniki ugovora niso ugovarjali nemudoma za tem, ko je prijavitelj registriral blagovno znamko in ko so sami prejeli zadevno obvestilo, še ne pomeni soglasja.
T537/10 & T538/10, Fagumit, EU:T:2012:2952, The applicant (the EUTM owner in cancellation proceedings) focused her line of argument on the consent allegedly granted by the proprietor of the mark. 
T537/10 in T538/10, Fagumit, EU:T:2012:2952 Vložnik zahteve za izbris (imetnik blagovne znamke EU v postopku izbrisa) se je v svojih trditvah skliceval predvsem na obstoj domnevnega soglasja imetnika znamke.
The Court held (like the Board of Appeal) that the consent for the purposes of the registration of the mark in the name of the representative or agent must be clear, specific and unconditional (paras 20-23). 
Sodišče je menilo (kot odbor za pritožbe), da mora biti soglasje za registracijo znamke v imenu zastopnika ali posrednika jasno, podrobno opredeljeno in brezpogojno (točke od 20 do 23).
The document relied upon by the EUTM owner does not show consent within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR (para. 28). 
Iz dokumenta, na katerega se sklicuje imetnik blagovne znamke EU, ni razvidno soglasje v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 28).
The EUTM owner was not mentioned in the document and it did not refer to the possibility of registration of the sign as a trade mark. 
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU ni naveden v dokumentu, poleg tega ta ne vključuje sklicevanja na možnost registracije znaka kot znamke.
The EUTM owner cannot rely on the fact that the cancellation applicant did not object to the use of the sign by companies other than those referred to in the document. 
Imetnik blagovne znamke EU se ne more sklicevati na dejstvo, da vložnik zahteve za izbris ni nasprotoval temu, da znak uporabljajo družbe, ki niso navedene v dokumentu.
Use of the marks occurred during the course of marketing the goods produced by the cancellation applicant. 
Uporaba znamk je potekala v okviru trženja blaga, ki ga je proizvedel vložnik zahteve za izbris.
However, such use is the logical consequence of the cooperation between the cancellation applicant and the distributors of its goods and does not show any abandonment of the sign, which would enable anyone to make an application for the registration of that sign - or its dominant element - as an EUTM (para. 27) 
Vendar je takšna uporaba logična posledica sodelovanja med vložnikom zahteve za izbris in distributerji njegovega blaga ter ne dokazuje opustitve znaka, na podlagi česar bi lahko kdor koli vložil prijavo za registracijo tega znaka ali njegovega prevladujočega elementa kot blagovne znamke EU (točka 27).
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector The General Court remitted a case of this nature back to the Boards of Appeal in order to determine whether the consent obtained by the EUTM applicant had survived the purchase of the assets of the former trade mark holder and whether, on the day of the application for registration of the mark, the new holder of the trade mark in the USA (the opponent) was still bound by that consent. 
06/09/2006, T6/05, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector Splošno sodišče je zadevo vrnilo v presojo odborom za pritožbe, da bi ti ugotovili, ali je soglasje, ki ga je pridobil prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU, veljalo tudi po nakupu premoženja prejšnjega imetnika blagovne znamke in ali je novega imetnika blagovne znamke v ZDA (vložnika ugovora) še vedno zavezovalo na dan vložitve prijave za registracijo znamke.
If the opponent was no longer bound by the consent, the General Court indicated that the Board ought then to determine whether the applicant had a valid justification which could offset the lack of such consent. 
Če vložnik ugovora ni bil več zavezan soglasju, je Splošno sodišče navedlo, da bi moral odbor presoditi, ali ima vložnik zahteve veljavno utemeljitev, ki bi lahko nadomestila neobstoj takšnega soglasja.
04/10/2011, 4 443 C, CELLO As to the justificatory argument that the EUTM application was filed in order to protect the goodwill of the mark in the EU, which had been established solely as a result of its trading activities, the Cancellation Division considered that the fact that a distributor, exclusive or otherwise, develops the goodwill of the trade mark of the owner in its allocated territory forms part of the usual duties of a distributor and cannot constitute, in itself and in the absence of other circumstances, a valid justification for the appropriation of the owner's mark by the distributor. 
04/10/2011, 4 443 C, CELLO V zvezi z utemeljitvijo, da je bila prijava blagovne znamke EU vložena za zaščito dobrega imena znamke v EU, ki je nastalo le zaradi njegovih trgovinskih dejavnosti, je po mnenju oddelka za izbris dejstvo, da distributer izključno ali kako drugače razvija dobro ime blagovne znamke imetnika na ozemlju, ki mu je bilo dodeljeno, del običajnih obveznosti distributerja ter samo po sebi in v odsotnosti drugih okoliščin ne sme biti veljavna utemeljitev za to, da si je distributer prilastil imetnikovo znamko.
As regards justification concerning economic claims of the party filing the EUTM and its arguments that it is entitled to some financial remuneration for permitting the sign to enjoy protection at EU level, and that it could be transferred to the cancellation applicant, it was held that this could not be valid justification within the meaning of Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
V zvezi z utemeljitvijo glede ekonomskih zahtevkov stranke, ki je vložila prijavo blagovne znamke EU, in njenimi trditvami, da je upravičena do finančne nagrade, ker je omogočila, da je znak zaščiten na ravni EU, in da bi ga bilo mogoče prenesti na vložnika zahteve za izbris, se je štelo, da to ni veljavna utemeljitev v smislu člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
‘Even if remuneration were well deserved, the EUTM proprietor cannot use the registration of a mark in its own name as a means of receiving payment' (from the cancellation applicant) (para. 47). 
Tudi če je bilo plačilo zasluženo, imetnik blagovne znamke EU ne sme uporabiti registracije znamke v lastnem imenu kot sredstva za pridobitev plačila (od vložnika zahteve za izbris) (točka 47).
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH An act which compromises the interests of the trade mark proprietor, such as the filing of a trade mark application in the agent's or a representative's name without the proprietor's consent, and is driven solely by an intention to safeguard the agent's or a representative's own interests, is not considered justifiable for the purposes of Article 8(3) EUTMR. 
07/07/2003, R 336/20012, GORDON SMITH (fig.) / GORDON & SMITH, Dejanje, ki ogrozi interese imetnika znamke, kot je vložitev prijave za znamko v imenu posrednika ali zastopnika brez soglasja imetnika, in je storjeno izključno za zaščito lastnih interesov posrednika ali zastopnika, se za namene člena 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne šteje za utemeljeno.
The same applies to the applicant's second argument, that is, that it was justified in doing so because it bore the registration costs. 
Enako velja za drugo trditev prijavitelja, in sicer da je bilo njegovo ravnanje upravičeno, ker je nosil stroške registracije.
The interests of the trade mark proprietor cannot be subordinate to an agent's or a representative's financial expenses. 
Interesi imetnika blagovne znamke ne morejo biti podrejeni finančnim izdatkom posrednika ali zastopnika.
The fact that an opponent might be unwilling to incur any financial expenses to register a trade mark does not automatically grant a right to the agent or representative to proceed with the registration of the trade mark in its own name. 
Dejstvo, da vložnik ugovora morda ni pripravljen kriti finančnih stroškov za registracijo blagovne znamke, posredniku ali zastopniku ne podeljuje samodejno pravice, da nadaljuje registracijo znamke v svojem imenu.
This would constitute a violation of the agent's or representative's duty of trust and loyalty towards the trade mark proprietor (para. 24). 
To bi bila kršitev posrednikove ali zastopnikove obveznosti zaupanja in lojalnosti do imetnika znamke (točka 24).
Earlier sign EUTM application Case No 
Prejšnji znak Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
FIRST DEFENSE (2 US earlier rights) 04/05/2009, R 493/20024, FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR (fig.) 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector 
FIRST DEFENSE (dve prejšnji pravici v ZDA) 04/05/2009, R 493/20024, FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR (fig.) 13/04/2011, T262/09, First Defense Aerosol Pepper Projector
BERIK (word mark) (2 earlier rights) 03/08/2010, R 1367/20092, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al. 
BERIK (besedna znamka) (dve prejšnji pravici) 03/08/2010, R 1367/20092, BERIK- DESIGN (fig.) / BERIK et al.
BERIK (word mark) (2 earlier rights) 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al. 
BERIK (besedna znamka) (dve prejšnji pravici) 03/08/2010, R 1231/20092, BERIK (fig.) / BERIK et al.
APEX 26/09/2001, B 150 955 and B 170 789, APEX 
APEX 26/09/2001, B 150 955 in B 170 789, APEX
The Board held that the contested disabling sprays in Class 13 were covered by the proprietor's non-explosive defense weapons in the nature of an organic irritant packaged in an aerosol (or pressurized spray) canister. 
Odbor je menil, da so izpodbijani razpršilci za dražljive pline v razredu 13 zajeti v imetnikovem neeksplozivnem obrambnem orožju v obliki organskega dražljivega plina v spreju.
However, it considered that protection did not extend to the contested side arms, ammunition, projectiles. 
Vendar je menil, da varstvo ne vključuje izpodbijanega hladnega orožja, streliva in izstrelkov.
These are goods for which commercial activity from the proprietor cannot be reasonably expected. 
To je blago, v zvezi s katerim od imetnika ni mogoče razumno pričakovati poslovne dejavnosti.
Side arms and ammunition are far too different from pepper sprays to be covered by Article 8(3) EUTMR given that the opponent markets a very specific product (paras 19-24). 
Hladno orožje in strelivo se preveč razlikujeta od poprovih razpršilcev, da bi se zanje uporabljal člen 8(3) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj vložnik ugovora trži zelo specifičen izdelek (točke od 19 do 24).
In its judgment of 13/04/2011, T262/09, the General Court did not examine the arguments of the parties regarding the similarity of the goods. 
Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 13/04/2011, T262/09 ni proučilo utemeljitev strank glede podobnosti blaga.
03/05/2012, R 1642/20112, MARITIME ACOPAFI (fig.) / MARITIME MONTERING AS (fig.) et al. The Board held that the wording suggests only if the mark applied for is essentially identical to the earlier right, in terms of both signs and goods/services, can it be prohibited. 
03/05/2012, R 1642/20112, MARITIME ACOPAFI (fig.) / MARITIME MONTERING AS (fig.) et al. Odbor je menil, da bi bilo mogoče na podlagi besedila sklepati, da je mogoče znamko, za katero je bila vložena prijava, prepovedati le, če je v bistvu enaka prejšnji pravici, in sicer v smislu znakov in blaga/storitev.
On the other hand, a too-literal reading of that provision would fatally weaken its utility by allowing fraudulent agents to register their principals' marks by merely making minor modifications or unimportant additions to them. 
Po drugi strani bi preveč dobesedno branje navedene določbe usodno oslabilo njegovo uporabnost, saj bi goljufivim posrednikom omogočilo, da registrirajo znamke svojih naročnikov tako, da le nekoliko spremenijo prejšnjo znamko ali ji dodajo nepomembne dodatke.
Despite these considerations, however, the provision must apply only where the signs and the goods/services are essentially the same, or largely equivalent (para. 18). 
Kljub tem pomislekom je treba zadevno določbo uporabljati le, če so znaki in blago/storitve v bistvu enaki ali pretežno enakovredni (točka 18).
In view of this, the Board upheld OD's findings that the earlier mark's use for installation of marine accommodation was fundamentally different from the applicant's services in Class 42 (scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software). 
Odbor je na podlagi navedenega potrdil ugotovitve oddelka za ugovore, da je bila uporaba prejšnje znamke za montažo pomorskih namestitev bistveno drugačna od prijaviteljevih storitev iz razreda 42 (znanstvene in tehnološke storitve in raziskave ter pripadajoče storitve oblikovanja; industrijske analize in raziskave; oblikovanje in razvoj računalniške strojne in programske opreme).