natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The public interest taken into account in the examination of each of those grounds for refusal may, or even must, reflect different considerations, depending upon which ground for refusal is at issue.
Splo�ni interes, ki se ga upo�teva pri preizkusu vsakega od teh razlogov za zavrnitev, lahko odraža različne ugotovitve o zadevnih razlogih za zavrnitev in jih celo mora odražati.
Thus, the distinctive character of a mark cannot be assessed by carrying out solely an analysis of its descriptive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c), without a separate examination of the ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(b).
Tako se razlikovalnega učinka znamke ne more presojati samo z eno analizo opisnosti znamke v smislu člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe �t. 40/94, brez posamezne preučitve razloga za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1)(b).
Such an analysis fails to take into account the public interest which Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 aims specifically to protect, that is, to guarantee the identity of the origin of the designated product or service.
Taka analiza namreč ne upo�teva splo�nega interesa, ki ga varuje slednja določba, in sicer zagotoviti istovetnost izvora proizvoda ali storitve, ki ju znamka označuje.
Furthermore, while the criterion according to which a mark composed of descriptive elements could meet the conditions for registration to the extent that the word has become a part of everyday language and has acquired a meaning of its own is relevant in the context of Article 7(1)(c) of Regula - tion No 40/94, it cannot form a basis for the interpretation of Article
V zvezi s tem se pojem splo�nega interesa, ki ga vsebuje člen 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94, očitno zamenjuje z bistveno nalogo znamke, ki je zagotoviti potro�niku ali končnemu uporabniku istovetnost izvora proizvoda ali storitve, ki ju
(see paras 54-56, 58, 59, 61, 62)
(Glej točke od 54 do 56, 58, 59, 61 in 62.)
In the field covered by the trade mark application, the average Germanspeaking consumer understands the word sign EUROHYPO as referring, as a whole and in general, to financial services requiring real securities and, in particular, to mortgage loans paid in the currency of the European Economic and Monetary Union.
Povprečen nem�ki potro�nik namreč razume besedni znak „EUROHYPO“ kot znak, ki se v celoti in na splo�no nana�a na finančne storitve, za katere so potrebna stvarna jamstva, in zlasti na hipotekarna posojila, ki so izplačana v valuti Evropske ekonomske in monetarne unije.
Furthermore, there is no additional element which would allow the view to be reached that the combination, created by the current and usual components EURO and HYPO, is unusual or might have its own meaning which, in the perception of the relevant public, distinguishes the services offered by the trade mark applicant from those of a different commercial origin.
Poleg tega noben dodaten element ne omogoča presoje, da bi bila kombinacija pogostih in običajnih delov „euro“ in „hypo“ neobičajna ali da bi imela lasten pomen, na podlagi katerega bi se v zaznavi zadevne javnosti razlikovale storitve prijavitelja od storitev, ki imajo drug tržni izvor.
Therefore, the relevant public will perceive the trade mark in question as providing details of the type of services which it designates and not as indicating the origin of those services.
Zato upo�tevna javnost zaznava zadevno znamko kot znamko, ki daje informacije o vrsti storitev, ki jih označuje, in ne kot znamko, ki bi označevala izvor zadevnih storitev.
In relation to the services in question, the word sign EUROHYPO, for which registration is sought for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial services; financing’ in Class 36, within the meaning of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
Besedni znak EUROHYPO, katerega registracija se zahteva za „finančne posle; denarne posle; posle v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje“ iz razreda 36 v smislu Nicejskega aranžmaja, je brez razlikovalnega učinka glede zadevnih storitev v smislu člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 o znamki Skupnosti.
(see paras 68, 69)
(Glej točki 68 in 69.)
II — Legal context
II – Pravni okvir
Article 7(1) of the regulation provides:
V členu 7(1) Uredbe je določeno:
‘The following shall not be registered:
„1 Kot znamka se ne registrirajo:
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
[…] b) znamke, ki so brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka;
This appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo v OHIM 2raises, first, the question of the extent of the duty of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to examine the facts of its own motion in the context of the procedure for registering a Community trade mark and, secondly, the question of the scope and the consequences of the overlap between Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark 3 (‘the regulation’).
V tej pritožbi, vloženi zoper sodbo Sodi�- ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. maja 2006 v zadevi Eurohypo proti UUNT (T-439/04 2), se postavlja na eni strani vpra�anje, kak�en je obseg obveznosti Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT), da v okviru postopka registracije znamke Skupnosti dejansko stanje preizkusi po uradni dolžnosti, in na drugi strani vpra�anje, kak�ni so obseg in posledice prekrivanja točk (b) in (c) člena 7(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 40/94 z dne 20. decembra 1993 o znamki Skupnosti 3(v nadaljevanju: Uredba).
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering
c) znamke, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali podatki, ki lahko v gospodarskem prometu označujejo vrsto, kakovost, količino, namen, vrednost, geografski izvor ali čas proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitve ali druge lastnosti blaga ali storitve; […]“
Article 7(2) states that ‘paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community’.
V členu 7(2) Uredbe je podrobneje določeno, da se „[o]dstavek 1 […] uporablja ne glede na to, da razlogi proti registraciji obstajajo le v delu Skupnosti“.
Article 73 of the regulation provides that ‘decisions of [OHIM] shall state the reasons on which they are based’.
V členu 73 Uredbe je določeno, da se „[v] odločbah [UUNT] navedejo razlogi, na katerih odločbe temeljijo“.
On 30 September 2002, the appellant brought an appeal against this decision.
Preizku�evalka je z odločbo z dne 30. av -gusta 2002 prijavo zavrnila na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) in (c) ter (2) Uredbe.
Article 74(1) of the regulation states that ‘in proceedings before it, [OHIM] shall examine the facts of its own motion; …’.
V členu 74(1) Uredbe je določeno, da „[v] postopku [UUNT] preveri dejstva po uradni dolžnosti; […]“.
III — Background to the appeal
30. septembra zoper odločbo
On 30 April 2002, Deutsche Hypothekenbank Frankfurt-Hamburg AG, since renamed Eurohypo AG (‘the appellant’), applied for registration of the Community trade mark ‘EUROHYPO’ as a Community trade mark for the following services falling within Class
Tožeča stranka je 2002 vložila pritožbo preizku�evalke.
By decision of 6 August 2004, the Fourth Board of Appeal upheld the appeal as regards ‘financial analysis, investment affairs, insurance affairs’.
Četrti odbor za pritožbe je z odločbo z dne 6. avgusta 2004 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana odločba) ugodil pritožbi glede storitev „finančne analize, investicijski posli, zavarovalni�tvo“.
However, the appeal was dismissed as regards the other services in Class 36, namely, ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial ser vices; financing’.
Pritožba pa je bila zavrnjena glede drugih storitev iz razreda 36, torej za „finančn[e] posl[e]; denarn[e] posl[e]; posl[e] v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje“. Odbor za pritožbe je presodil, da je besedni znak
in order to reach a decision and it was not obliged to justify its action by the production of evidence (paragraph 19).
EUROHYPO opisen za te zadnje storitve na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe.
Since the Board of Appeal was sufficiently convinced of the descriptiveness of the elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’ and the word ‘eurohypo’ to refuse registration, it chose not to carry out further research.
Dodal je, da to vsekakor velja v nem�ko govorečih državah in da to na podlagi člena 7(2) Uredbe zadostuje, da se upraviči zavrnitev varstva.
Such a decision is not contrary to the first sentence of Article 74(1) of the regulation (paragraph 20).
Dalje je menil, da sestavna dela „euro“ in „hypo“ vsebujeta jasno razumljivo označbo lastnosti petih zgoraj navedenih storitev in da zaradi združitve dveh delov v eno besedo znamka ni manj opisna.
On 5 November 2004, the appellant brought an action for annulment before the Court of First Instance, seeking to have this decision annulled.
Tožeča stranka je 5. novembra 2004 zoper to odločbo pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila tožbo za njeno razveljavitev.
In support of its action, the appellant relied on two pleas in law: one alleging infringement of the principle of OHIM’s duty to examine the facts of its own motion, laid down by the first sentence of Article 74(1) of the regulation, and the other alleging infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation.
V utemeljitev svoje tožbe je navedla dva tožbena razloga, prvič, kr�itev načela preizkusa po uradni dolžnosti, določenega v členu 74(1), prvi stavek, Uredbe, in, drugič, kr�itev člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo tožbo zavrnilo.
On the first plea in law, the Court of First Instance held that it was sufficient that the Board of Appeal applied the descriptiveness test, as interpreted by the caselaw,
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s prvim tožbenim razlogom ugotovilo, da zado�ča, da odbor za pritožbe uporabi merilo opisnosti, kot ga razlaga sodna praksa, da o zadevi odloči, ne da bi moral odločitev utemeljiti s predložitvijo dokazov (točka 19). Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da odločba odbora za
On the second plea in law, the Court of First Instance first of all referred to settled caselaw, according to which a word mark that is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation is, on that account, necessarily devoid of any distinctive character in relation to the same goods or services for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation (paragraph 44).
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je v zvezi z drugim tožbenim razlogom najprej sklicevalo na ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero je besedna znamka, ki je za zadevne proizvode ali storitve opisna v smislu čle -na 7(1)(c) Uredbe, zato nujno brez razlikoval -nega učinka za te proizvode ali storitve v smislu člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe (točka 44).
It then held that the Board of Appeal had rightly observed that the public concerned perceived ‘euro’, in the financial field, as the currency which is in circulation in the European Union and as describing that monetary area (paragraph 51); that, furthermore, the Board of Appeal had rightly held that in the context of financial services ‘hypo’ was understood by the average consumer as an abbreviation of ‘hypothek’ (mortgage) (paragraph 52); that the word sign EUROHYPO is a combination of two descriptive elements, which does not create an impression sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of the elements of which it is composed to amount to more than the sum of its parts (paragraph 55); that the solution identified
Nato je ugotovilo, da je odbor za pritožbe pravilno poudaril, da zadevna javnost v finančnem sektorju zazna „euro“ kot valuto v obtoku v Evropski uniji, ki opisuje to valutno področje (točka 51), da je poleg tega odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da pri finančnih storitvah povprečen potro�nik sestavni del „hypo“ razume kot okraj�avo izraza „hipoteka“ (točka 52), da je besedni znak EUROHYPO preprosta kombinacija dveh opisnih delov, ki ne ustvarja vtisa, dovolj oddaljenega od vtisa preproste združitve delov, ki ga sestavljata, da bi pomenila več kot le vsoto svojih sestavnih delov (točka 55) in da se re�itev sodbe BABY-DRY (sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Procter & Gamble I - 3302
A — The first ground of appeal in the BABY-DRY judgment (Case T-163/98 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (BABY-DRY) [1999] ECR II-2383) cannot be transposed to the sign EUROHYPO (paragraph 56). 14.
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog proti UUNT (BABY-DRY), T-163/98, Recueil, str. II-2383) ne more prenesti na znak EURO -HYPO (točka 56).
It also requests that OHIM should be ordered to pay the costs.
Poleg tega predlaga, naj UUNT naloži plačilo stro�kov.
OHIM contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the costs.
UUNT je Sodi�ču predlagal, naj pritožbo zavrne in pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The appellant claims that the first sentence of Article 74(1) of the regulation requires that in-depth analyses must be carried out in order to establish with certainty whether there are grounds for refusing registration.
Pritožnica zatrjuje, da člen 74(1), prvi stavek, Uredbe določa, da se morajo opraviti izčrpni preskusi, da bi se z gotovostjo ugotovilo, ali obstajajo razlogi za zavrnitev registracije.
Neither the judgment nor the defendant’s decisions which preceded it contain findings of fact as to the allegedly descriptive character of the sign EUROHYPO, seen as a whole.
Meni, da niti v sodbi niti pred tem v odločbah tožene stranke ni bilo ugotovljeno dejstvo o domnevni opisnosti znaka EUROHYPO kot celote.
The defendant cited only the results of research referring to possible descriptive uses of the elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’ and simply asserts, without evidence or indication of any source, that the word as a whole is just as descriptive as the sum of its parts.
Tožena stranka naj bi se sklicevala le na izsledke raziskave, v katerih je navedena morebitna opisna uporaba sestavnih delov „euro“ in „hypo“, in naj bi le zatrjevala, ne da bi dokazala niti navedla katerikoli vir, da je celoten izraz prav tako opisen kot vsota njegovih delov.
The appellant adds that certain documents point to OHIM having carried out research in order to find evidence of a possible descriptive use, and that it ‘knowingly concealed’ the results of its research from the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnica dodaja, da iz določenih dokumentov izhaja, da je UUNT opravil preskuse, da bi dokazal morebitno opisno uporabo in da naj bi Sodi�ču prve stopnje „zavestno prikrival“ izsledke svoje raziskave. UUNT naj bi tako izkrivil dejansko stanje.
IV — Observations submitted to the Court of Justice
Pritožnica v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja dva pritožbena razloga, kr�itev člena 74(1), prvi stavek, in kr�itev člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe.
OHIM acknowledges that it is required to state reasons for a decision to refuse an application for registration.
UUNT priznava, da mora odločbo o zavrnitvi prijave za registracijo znamke obrazložiti.
However, this requirement to give reasons should not be confused with a duty to provide evidence.
Vendar se ta zahteva ne bi smela zamenjati z obveznostjo predložitve dokazov.
According to OHIM, it can, on the basis of its own deliberations, decide whether
UUNT meni, da sme sam presoditi, ali je dejstvo dokazano. Navaja, da iz sodne prakse
OHIM argues that it is clear from the caselaw of the Court of First Instance that it may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods.
Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, da lahko svojo analizo utemelji z dejstvi, ki izhajajo iz praktičnih splo�no pridobljenih izku�enj trženja blaga �iroke potro�nje in ki jih lahko poznajo vsi, zlasti pa potro�niki teh proizvodov.
Since that gives concrete expression to OHIM’s duty to set out the facts, and not to a duty to provide evidence, in such a case OHIM is not obliged to provide examples of such practical experience.
Kadar to pomeni izpolnitev obveznosti navajanja dejstev, kot jo ima UUNT, in ne obveznosti predložitve dokazov, ki naj bi jo ta imel, odboru za pritožbe ne bi bilo treba navesti primerov takih praktičnih izku�enj.
descriptiveness of the elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’ taken separately, and only secondarily examined the overall impression produced by the mark.
„euro“ in „hypo“ posebej ter da je preizkus celotnega vtisa, ki ga ustvarja znamka, opravilo le podredno.
The appellant compares this to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-323/00 SAT.1 v OHIM (SAT.2), 4which was set aside by the Court of Justice in Case C-329/02 P SAT.1 v OHIM.
Pritožnica je obravnavano zadevo primerjala z zadevo, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 2. julija 2002 SAT.1 proti UUNT (SAT.2) (T-323/00) 4, ki je bila razveljavljena s sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi SAT.1 proti UUNT (C-329/02 P) 5.
5 The appellant argues that in both cases, the Court of First Instance only secondarily examined the overall impression produced by the combination of words and refused to give any relevance to aspects such as the existence of an element of imaginativeness, which ought to be taken into account in the context of such an examination.
Pritožnica navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v obeh zadevah celotni vtis, ki ga ustvarja kombinacija besed, preučilo le podredno in ni upo�tevalo dejstev, kot je obstoj domi�ljijskega sestavnega dela, ki se mora upo�tevati pri taki analizi.
These reasons played a decisive part in the Court’s setting aside the judgment in Case T-323/00, and in the present case, according to the appellant, there can be no other outcome.
Ti razlogi naj bi bili odločilni za to, da je Sodi�če sodbo v zadevi T-323/00 razveljavilo, in enako bi moralo storiti v obravnavani zadevi.
OHIM adds that distinctiveness is examined through a priori examination of the average consumer’s supposed perception of the products and services covered by the mark applied for.
UUNT dodaja, da se preizkus razlikovalnega učinka opravi s predhodnim preizkusom tega, kako naj bi povprečni potro�nik zaznaval proizvode in storitve, na katere se nana�a prijavljena znamka.
Consequently, while actual descriptive use of elements of the sign or of the sign taken as a whole could support the finding that it lacked distinctiveness, such use could never require that this finding be reached.
Zato bi lahko bila dejanska opisna uporaba sestavnih delov znaka ali znaka kot celote zagotovo indic v korist ugotovitve o neobstoju razlikovalnega učinka, nikoli pa pogoj za tako ugotovitev.
Therefore, if an issue of fact is irrelevant to the legal analysis, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised for not having mentioned it.
Če torej dejanski element pri pravni analizi ni upo�tevan, naj odboru za pritožbe ne bi bilo mogoče očitati, da ga ni navedel.
The appellant also draws a parallel with Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM. 6 In this judgment, the Court did not base its decision on the unusual nature of the sequence of the words ‘BABY-DRY’ (instead of DRY-BABY), but on the fact that this word combination represented an unusual way of referring to babies’ nappies. The same is true of EUROHYPO for the rejected financial services. In both cases, the individual elements of the two marks are comprehensible to the public. Furthermore, in the B — The second ground of appeal
Pritožnica uveljavlja podobnost s sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT (C-383/99 P) 6. V tej zadevi naj se Sodi�če ne bi sklicevalo na nenavadnost zaporedja besed „BABY-DRY“ (namesto DRY-BABY), ampak na to, da je ta kombinacija besed nenavadno ime za plenice za dojenčke. Enako naj bi glede zavrnjenih finančnih storitev veljalo za EUROHYPO. V obeh primerih naj bi bili posamezni sestavni deli znamk javnosti razumljivi. Poleg tega naj bi bila v imenu „BABY-DRY“ posamezna 4 – Recueil, str. II-2839.5 – ZOdl., str. I-8317.6 – Recueil, str. I-6251.
First, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance merely analysed the
Prvič, pritožnica zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje analiziralo le opisnost delov
EUROHYPO v OHIM name ‘BABY-DRY’, the individual elements are much more clearly emphasised by the hyphen than in EUROHYPO.
EUROHYPO PROTI UUNT sestavna dela jasneje poudarjena kot v imenu znamke EUROHYPO.
In the latter, the graphic fusion of the two elements to form a particular combination of words is much more distinct.
V zadnji naj bi bila grafična združitev delov, ki sestavljata zelo posebno kombinacijo besed, veliko bolj zaznamovana.
registration if the compound word has become part of everyday language and has acquired its own meaning.
beseda postala del vsakdanjega jezika in je pridobila lasten pomen.
That criterion is relevant in the context of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation as regards the possibility of a requirement of availability, but it is not a criterion that applies to the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) for the purpose of establishing distinctive character, that is, whether the mark is capable of being perceived by the public as indicating the commercial origin.
To merilo naj bi se torej upo�tevalo v okviru člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe v zvezi z morebitno potrebo po ohranitvi razpoložljivosti, vendar naj se ne bi uporabljalo pri razlagi točke (b) tega člena, da bi se ugotovil razlikovalni učinek, in sicer zmožnost, da bi javnost zaznavala, da navaja trgovski izvor.
In applying that criterion, which relates solely to Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation, as a reason for its decision to dismiss the action, the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation.
Ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri obrazložitvi odločbe o zavrnitvi uporabilo to merilo, ki naj bi se nana�alo le na člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe, naj bi napačno razlagalo člen 7(1)(b) Uredbe.
OHIM argues that the Court of First Instance, in paragraph 54 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, assessed the overall impression produced by the trade mark and took the view, like the Board of Appeal, that the combination of the two descriptive elements does not create an impression that is more than the sum of its parts.
UUNT navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 54 in naslednjih izpodbijane sodbe presodilo celotni vtis, ki ga ustvarja znamka, in tako kot odbor za pritožbe ugotovilo, da kombinacija dveh opisnih sestavnih delov ne ustvarja vtisa, ki bi pomenil več kot le njihovo vsoto.
As to whether the substance of the result of the assessment of the trade mark as a whole is vindicated, this is a question that can no longer be the subject of review at the stage of appeal proceedings.
Vpra�anja, ali je rezultat presoje znamke po temelju upravičen v celoti, pa naj v pritožbenem postopku ne bi bilo več mogoče preveriti.
OHIM also states that the Court of First Instance concluded that the structure of the word combination is not unusual and therefore that it is not comparable to the sign ‘BABY-DRY’.
UUNT navaja tudi to, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da kombinacija besed ni nenavadna in da primera torej ni mogoče primerjati z znakom „BABY-DRY“.
Secondly, the appellant takes the view that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was based on the use of a criterion according to which a trade mark comprising descriptive elements may be capable of
Drugič, pritožnica meni, da sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje temelji na merilu, v skladu s katerim bi bilo mogoče �teti, da se znamka, sestavljena iz opisnih sestavnih delov, lahko registrira, če je sestavljena