natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Limitation: the generic character of a name
Omejitev: generičnost imena
An important limitation to the scope of protection granted to registered PDOs consists in the fact that generic names do not fall under the protection granted by the Basic Regulation.
Pomembno omejitev obsega za�čite, zagotovljene registriranim ZOP, opredeljuje dejstvo, da so generična imena izvzeta iz obsega za�čite po Temeljni uredbi.
As a result of the registration of the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, its use is exclusively reserved to manufacturers operating in a limited geographical area of Italy and who produce this cheese conforming to the mandatory specification for that PDO.
Kot posledica registracije označbe „Parmigiano Reggiano“ je njena uporaba rezervirana izključno za proizvajalce, ki delujejo na omejenem geografskem območju v Italiji in proizvajajo ta sir v skladu z obvezno specifikacijo za ZOP.
According to Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, ‘for the purposes of this Regulation, a “name that has become generic” means the name of an agricultural product or a foodstuff which, although it relates to the place or the region where this product or foodstuff was originally produced or marketed, has become the common name of an agricultural product or a foodstuff’.
V skladu s členom 3(1) Temeljne uredbe „za namene te uredbe pomeni ‚ime, ki je postalo generično‘ ime kmetijskega proizvoda ali živila, ki je, čeprav se nana�a na kraj ali regijo, kjer je bil ta proizvod ali živilo prvotno proizvedeno ali trženo, postalo splo�no ime kmetijskega proizvoda ali živila“.
The scope of the protection granted to PDOs under Community law is wide.
Pravo Skupnosti zagotavlja �irok obseg za�čite za ZOP 6. Za�čito določa člen 13
6 That protection is laid down in Article 13 of the Basic Regulation.
Temeljne uredbe.
According to Article 13(1)(b), a registered designation is protected against any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’ or similar.
Po členu 13(1)(b) je registrirana označba za�čitena proti vsaki zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, tudi če je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno ali mu je dodan izraz kot je „slog“, „tip“, „metoda“, „kakor se proizvaja v“, „imitacija“ in podobno.
6 — See, for further explanations, Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Germany and Denmark v Commission (‘Feta II’) [2005] ECR I-9115, points 26 to 28.
6 – Za nadaljnjo razlago glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja v združenih zadevah Nemčija in Danska proti Komisiji (Feta II) (C-465/02 in C-466/02, ZOdl, str. I-9115, točke od 26 do 28).
Thus, with respect to geographical indications, this implies a process of generalisation or erosion of a name which refers to a place, most likely where a given foodstuff was originally produced.
Zato glede na geografske podatke to pomeni proces generalizacije ali erozije imena, ki se nana�a na kraj, najpogosteje kraja, kjer so dano živilo prvotno proizvajali.
Examples of geographical names which have undergone such a process are ‘Roquefort’ (named after a town in France) or ‘Edam cheese’ (named after a town in the Netherlands).
Primeri geografskih imen, ki so bila predmet takega procesa, so „Roquefort“ (imenovan po kraju v Franciji) ali „sir Edam“ (imenovan po mestu na Nizozemskem).
Does the term ‘Parmesan’ fall within the scope of the protection provided for by Article 13 of the Basic Regulation?
Ali izraz „Parmesan“ sodi v obseg za�čite v skladu s členom 13 Temeljne uredbe?
Under the Basic Regulation the generic character of a term is mentioned in three connections.
Temeljna uredba omenja generični značaj izraza v treh povezavah.
First, the regulation provides that generic terms may not be registered (Article 3(1)); second, protected names may not become generic (Article 13(3)); and, third, the generic elements of a registered designation are not protected (Article 13(1), second sentence).
Prvič, ta uredba določa, da generični izrazi ne smejo biti registrirani (člen 3(1)); drugič, za�čitena imena ne smejo postati generična (člen 13(3)); in, tretjič, generični elementi registrirane označbe niso za�čiteni (člen 13(1), drugi stavek).
In the present case the first and second issues, relating to the scope of Article 3(1) and Article 13(3) respectively, are not debated, because what was registered was the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, which as such is not claimed to be generic and the registration of which has thus not been questioned.
V tem primeru ne razpravljamo o prvem in drugem vpra�anju o obsegu člena 3(1) oziroma člena 13(1), ker je bila registrirana označba „Parmigiano Reggiano“, za katero se ne trdi, da je generična in katere registracija zato ni bila vpra�ljiva.
The translations of PDOs into other official languages of the EU are not separately registered unless several languages are used in the area of production of the products bearing the PDO.
Prevodi teh ZOP v druge uradne jezike EU niso posebej registrirani, razen če se več jezikov uporablja na ozemlju države članice porekla ZOP.
In this case the PDO will normally be registered in the languages used in the area of production of the products bearing the PDO.
V tem primeru bo ZOP praviloma registriran v jezikih, ki se uporabljajo na območju proizvodnje proizvodov z ZOP.
Since the translations of PDOs are, as a general rule, not registered, this raises the question whether a translation of a PDO is protected to the same extent as the registered PDO itself.
Ker prevodi ZOP načeloma niso registrirani, se zastavlja vpra�anje, ali je prevod ZOP za�čiten v enakem obsegu kot sam registrirani ZOP.
It appears from the wording (‘even if … the protected name is translated’) of Article 13(1)(b) that translations of registered PDOs are in principle protected to the same extent as the PDO in the original language.
Iz besedila („četudi […] je za�čiteno ime prevedeno“) člena 13 (1)(b) izhaja, da so prevodi registriranih ZOP načeloma za�čiteni v istem obsegu kot ZOP v jeziku izvirnika.
Moreover, this approach is in my view supported by the Court’s decision
Poleg tega po mojem mnenju ta
In the present case it is claimed that the words ‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano’ are generic but no such claim is made as regards the registered PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ as a whole.
V tej zadevi se trdi, da sta besedi „Parmesan“ in „parmigiano“ generični, vendar pa se tega ne trdi za registrirano ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ kot celoto.
Thus it is in the context of Article 13(1), second sentence, which excludes the protection of generic elements of compound PDOs, that the question of the generic character arises in the present case.
Tako se vpra�anje generičnosti v tem primeru pojavlja v kontekstu člena 13(1), drugi stavek, ki izključuje za�čito generičnih elementov sestavljene ZOP.
This legal context is different from that in the Feta line of cases where what was in question was the generic character of the designation submitted for registration.
Ta pravni okvir je drugačen od tistega v zadevah Feta, kjer je �lo za vpra�anje generičnega značaja označbe, vložene za registracijo.
COMMISSION v GERMANY in Bigi, where the Court assumed that the protection afforded by Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation equally applied to translations of PDOs. 7
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI pristop potrjuje sodba Sodi�ča v zadevi Bigi, kjer je Sodi�če presodilo, da za�čita, zagotovljena po členu 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe, enako velja tudi za prevode ZOP 7.
Advocate General Léger took the view that given the historical and etymological evolution of the designation, it could be considered that ‘Parmesan’ was the ‘faithful’ rather than the literal translation of the PDO and that the names ‘Parmigiano’ or ‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ were interchangeable or equivalent. 9
Generalni pravobranilec P. Léger je menil, da, upo�tevajoč zgodovinski in etimolo�ki razvoj označbe, lahko �tejemo, da je „Parmesan“ bolj „zvest“ kot dobeseden prevod ZOP in da so imena „parmigiano“ ali „Parmesan“ in „Parmigiano Reggiano“ medsebojno zamenljiva in enakovredna 9.
However, the Basic Regulation is silent as to how to determine what constitutes a translation of a PDO.
Vendar Temeljna uredba ne govori o tem, kako določiti, kaj je prevod ZOP.
This question is unlikely to raise difficulties very often, as in most cases either the PDO will not be translated but used in the form used in the language of the country of origin of the PDO or the translation will be so literal that no doubt may arise.
Ni verjetno, da bo to vpra�anje pogosto povzročalo težave, saj v večini primerov ZOP ne bodo prevedeni, ampak se bodo uporabljali v jeziku države porekla ZOP ali pa bo prevod tako dobeseden, da ne bo pu�čal nikakr�nega dvoma.
The Court, however, merely indicated that a majority of the Member States which submitted written observations 10assumed that ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and ‘Parmesan’ were equivalent and declared that it was far from clear that ‘Parmesan’ had become generic.
Vendar je Sodi�če zgolj navedlo, da je večina držav članic, ki so vložile pisna stali�ča 10, menila, da sta „Parmigiano Reggiano“ in „Parmesan“ enakovredna,
9 — See, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Bigi, cited in footnote 5, points 45 to 55 (in particular point 53).
9 – V tej zvezi glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca P. Légera v zadevi Bigi, navedeni v opombi 5, točke od 45 do 55 (�e posebej točko 53).
This is not so in the present case.
V tem primeru ni tako.
While it is undisputed that ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ was registered according to the simplified procedure laid down by Article 17 of the Basic Regulation and that it benefits from the protection laid down in Article 13 of the Basic Regulation, it is disputed whether ‘Parmesan’ is to be regarded as the translation, within the meaning of the Basic Regulation, of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, and should therefore benefit as such from the protection granted by the Basic Regulation.
Nesporno je, da je bil „Parmigiano Reggiano“ registriran po poenostavljenem postopku, ki ga določa člen 17 Temeljne uredbe, in da uživa za�čito po členu 13 Temeljne uredbe, je pa sporno, ali se „Parmesan“ �teje za prevod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v smislu Temeljne uredbe in ali bi zato moral uživati za�čito, ki jo zagotavlja Temeljna uredba.
10 — This statement of the Court is surprising because, in that case, four Governments submitted written observations, namely the Italian, Greek, German and Austrian Governments.
10 – Ta ugotovitev Sodi�ča je presenetljiva, ker so v tej zadevi �tiri vlade vložile pisna stali�ča, in sicer italijanska, gr�ka, nem�ka in avstrijska vlada.
Apparently, Germany and ‘to some extent’ Austria disagreed on the statement that ‘Parmesan’ is the correct translation of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Očitno se Nemčija in „do neke mere“ Avstrija nista strinjali z ugotovitvijo, da je „Parmesan“ pravilen prevod „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
Two Member States, France and Portugal, only presented oral observations.
Dve državi članici, Francija in Portugalska, sta predstavili samo ustna stali�ča.
They seem to have endorsed the position of Italy and Greece, and thus been included in what the Court considered a majority.
Zdi se, da sta sprejeli stali�če Italije in Grčije ter bili tako vključeni v to, kar je Sodi�če �telo za večino.
(See, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Bigi, cited in footnote 5, point 47).
(Glej v ta namen sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca P. Légera v zadevi Bigi, navedeni v opombi 5, točka 47).
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-132/05 equivalent to the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, which refers exclusively to a certain type of cheese produced in Emilia-Romagna.
izvira iz označbe „Parmigiano“, ki označuje sir, ki se proizvaja v regiji Parma, ne dokazujejo pa, da se beseda „Parmesan“ �e vedno �teje za enakovredno označbi „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ki se ekskluzivno nana�a na določeno vrsto sira, ki se proizvaja v Emilii-Romagni.
The packaging material produced by the Commission merely demonstrates that consumers may possibly relate the word ‘Parmesan’ to Italy, the country of origin of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Embalaža, ki jo je predložila Komisija, kaže le, da potro�niki lahko povežejo besedo „Parmesan“ z Italijo, državo porekla ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
For the purpose of the present case, it may be pointed out that it is not disputed between the parties that Parmesan is not the literal translation into German of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ but that it is a name derived from the translation into French of ‘Parmigiano’, one constituent element of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Za potrebe tega primera lahko poudarimo, da med strankami ni sporno, da Parmesan ni dobesedni prevod „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v nem�čino, ampak gre za ime, ki izvira iz prevoda „parmigiano“ v franco�čino, enega temeljnih elementov ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
What is in dispute however is whether, as the Commission contends, ‘Parmesan’ is also the German translation, borrowed from the French language, of the designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Sporno je to, kar priznava Komisija, ali je „Parmesan“ tudi nem�ki prevod, izposojen iz francoskega jezika, označbe porekla „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
In my view, for ‘Parmesan’ to be considered a translation of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation, these two terms must generally be regarded by consumers as equivalent.
Po mojem mnenju morajo oba izraza potro�niki �teti na splo�no za enakovredna, če želimo pojem „Parmesan“ �teti kot prevod „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v smislu člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe.
Although this Convention is no longer in force as it has been supplanted by the Basic Regulation, it constitutes factual evidence as to how the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ has been translated into German, by mutual agreement between Italy and Austria, after the Italian legislature decided to protect the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ by law.
Čeprav ta konvencija ne velja več, ker jo je nadomestila Temeljna uredba, je dejanski dokaz, kako se je označba „Parmigiano Reggiano“ prevedla v nem�čino z medsebojnim dogovorom med Italijo in Avstrijo, potem ko so se italijanski zakonoda -jalci odločili pravno za�čititi označbo „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
While the quotations provided by the Commission in the course of the proceedings show that the name ‘Parmesan’ was initially derived from the designation ‘Parmigiano’, which designated a cheese produced in the region of Parma, they do not show that the word ‘Parmesan’ is still regarded as
Navedbe Komisije v postopku sicer kažejo na to, da ime „Parmesan“ prvotno
COMMISSION v GERMANY in his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI označbe, tako da potro�nik, ki se sreča z imenom proizvoda, najprej pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je za�čitena 12.
According to the Court’s case-law, it is possible for a protected designation to be evoked where there is no likelihood of confusion between the products concerned and even where no Community protection extends to the parts of that designation which are echoed in the term or terms at issue.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča se je možno sklicevati na za�čiteno označbo, kjer ni verjetnosti zamenjave zadevnih proizvodov in celo kjer se za�čita Skupnosti ne razteza na dele označbe, ki se ponavljajo v zadevnem izrazu oziroma zadevnih izrazih 13.
13An indication of the true origin of the product on its packaging has no bearing on the question whether there was a misuse, imitation or evocation, as Article 13(1)(b) expressly provides. 14
Navedba pravega porekla proizvoda na embalaži ne vpliva na vpra�anje, ali gre za zlorabo, posnemanje ali navajanje, kot izrecno določa člen 13(1)(b) 14.
Article 13(1)(b) prohibits the ‘evocation’ of a PDO ‘even if the true origin of the product is indicated’.
Člen 13(1)(b) prepoveduje „navajanje“ ZOP „četudi je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno“.
When confronted with the question whether the use of the trademark ‘Cambozola’ was to be regarded as an evocation of the PDO ‘Gorgonzola’, the Court considered visual similarity (the product at issue was a soft blue cheese which is not dissimilar in appearance to ‘Gorgonzola’) and phonetic similarity (the term used to designate that product ends in the same two syllables and contains the same number of syllables) to
Ko je bilo Sodi�če soočeno z vpra�anjem, ali gre pri uporabi blagovne znamke „Cambozola“ za navajanje ZOP „Gorgonzola“, je menilo, da sta vizualna podobnost (zadevni proizvod je bil mehki sir z žlahtno plesnijo, ki na pogled ni nepodoben siru „Gorgonzola“) in sli�na podobnost (izraz, uporabljen
13 — Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 26.
13 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola (točka 26).
14 — Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 29.
14 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola (točka 29).
The Court has held that the term ‘evocation’, as referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation, covers a situation where the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image triggered
Sodi�če je odločilo, da izraz „navajanje“, kot je v členu 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe, zajema položaje, kjer izraz, uporabljen za označbo proizvoda, vsebuje del za�čitene
15 basis of Article 13(1), second sentence, of the Basic Regulation under which generic elements of PDOs are not protected. 16
za označbo tega proizvoda, se konča na ista zloga in ga sestavlja isto �tevilo zlogov) bistvenega pomena za določitev, ali gre za navajanje 15.
In the present case, there is phonetic similarity between the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and the word ‘Parmesan’, since it contains the same four first letters and is, as agreed by the parties, the translation of one of its constituent parts, namely ‘Parmigiano’.
V tem primeru obstaja sli�na podobnost med ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ in besedo „Parmesan“, ker ima ta prve �tiri črke iste in je, kot se stranke strinjajo, prevod enega njegovih temeljnih delov, namreč „Parmigiano“.
There is also visual similarity, since the two words are used for the same kind of hard cheese which is grated or intended to be grated.
Obstaja tudi vizualna podobnost, ker se besedi uporabljata za isto vrsto trdega sira, ki se strga ali pa je namenjen za strganje.
In Denmark and Others v Commission (‘Feta I’) the Court held that Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation expressly requires that, in order to determine whether a name has become generic, account is to be taken of all factors, including always those expressly listed, namely the existing situation in the Member State in which the name originates and in areas of consumption, the existing situation in other Member States and the relevant national or Community laws. 17
V sodbi Danska in drugi proti Komisiji (Feta I) je Sodi�če odločilo, da člen 3(1) Temeljne uredbe izrecno zahteva, da je treba za ugotovitev, ali je ime postalo generično, upo�tevati vse dejavnike, vključno z izrecno navedenimi, namreč obstoječe stanje v državi članici, od koder izvira poreklo imena, in na območjih potro�nje, obstoječe stanje v drugih državah članicah in zadevno nacionalno zakonodajo ali zakonodajo Skupnosti 17.
Therefore the term ‘Parmesan’ would appear in principle to constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Zato bi „Parmesan“ načeloma pomenil navajanje ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
In Germany and Denmark v Commission 18(‘Feta II’) the Court assessed the generic character of the name ‘feta’ in particular on the basis of (i) the production situation inside and outside the country of origin of the designation; (ii) the consumption of feta and the perception of consumers
V sodbah Nemčija proti Komisiji in Danska proti Komisiji 18(Feta II) je Sodi�če presodilo generičnost imena „feta“ �e posebej na podlagi (i) kraja proizvodnje v državi označbe porekla in zunaj nje; (ii) potro�nje fete in percepcije potro�nikov v državi označbe porekla in zunaj nje; (iii) obstoja posebne nacionalne zakonodaje v zvezi s feto, in (iv) načina uporabe imena v pravu Skupnosti. Sodi�če je odločilo, da je nekaj
The German Government claims however that the term ‘Parmesan’ cannot be regarded as an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ since ‘Parmesan’ is a generic term.
Nem�ka vlada pa trdi, da za izraz „Parmesan“ ni mogoče �teti, da gre za navajanje ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ker je „Parmesan“ generični pojem.
It follows that it must be determined whether Germany has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim on the
Iz tega sledi, da je treba ugotoviti, ali je Nemčija predložila zadostne dokaze za utemeljitev tega zahtevka na podlagi člena 13(1)(b), drugi
16 — In this connection it should also be pointed out that if the term ‘Parmigiano’ and its translation ‘Parmesan’ constitute an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ it is also unnecessary to consider the question of the effect of the registration of compound designations on its constituent elements, since it is clear that if a constituent element of a compound designation is to be regarded as an evocation of the whole PDO within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), its use to designate goods which do not fulfil the specification for the PDO concerned infringes the protection granted to that PDO under Article 13(1)(b).
16 – V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da če izraz „Parmigiano“ in njegov prevod „Parmesan“ pomenita navajanje ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ni potrebno preučiti vpra�anja učinka registracije sestavljenih označb na njihove temeljne elemente, ker je jasno, da je, če gre pri temeljnem elementu sestavljene označbe za navajanje celotno ZOP v skladu s členom 13(1)(b), njegova uporaba za označevanje blaga, ki ne izpolnjuje specifikacije za zadevno ZOP, kr�itev za�čite, ki jo taka ZOP uživa po členu 13(1)(b).
17 — Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 [1999] ECR I-1541, paragraph 88.
17 – Sodba z dne 16. marca 1999 (združene zadeve C-289/96, C-293/96 in C-299/96, Recueil, str. I-1541, točka 88).
15 — Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 27.
15 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola (točka 27).
The Court held that several relevant and important factors indicated that the term has not become generic.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI upo�tevnih in pomembnih faktorjev kazalo na to, da izraz ni postal generičen.
In fact the essential elements seem to have been the concentration of production and consumption in Greece as well as the association in the mind of consumers between ‘feta’ and a cheese originating in Greece.
Dejansko se zdi, da sta bila bistvena elementa koncentracija proizvodnje in potro�nje v Grčiji ter povezava v mislih potro�nikov med „feto“ in siri, ki izvirajo iz Grčije.
material which shows that some producers of cheese which is marketed under the name ‘Parmesan’ but which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ try to establish a connection between their product and Italy but not with the actual region where ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is produced.
vendar ni v skladu s specifikacijo za ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, sku�ajo vzpostaviti povezavo med takimi proizvodi in Italijo, a ne z dejansko regijo, kjer proizvajajo „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
It is however doubtful whether the mere association between the product and the Member State of origin of the PDO at issue is, in the present case, 19sufficient to prove that a name has or has not become generic.
Dvomljivo je, ali sama povezava med proizvodom in zadevno državo članico porekla ZOP v tej zadevi 19 zadostuje za ugotovitev, ali je ime postalo generično ali ne.
In the present case, the parties submitted some empirical evidence as to the generic or non-generic character of the word ‘Parmesan’.
V tem primeru so stranke predložile nekaj empiričnih dokazov o generičnosti ali negeneričnosti besede „Parmesan“.