natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that judgment, the Court also referred to its caselaw to the eect that the legality of a Commission decision concerning State aid must be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted, so that the applicant cannot rely on factual arguments which were not known to the Commission and which were not notied to it during that formal examination procedure.
V sodbi Sigla proti UUNT – Elleni Holding (VIPS)76 je šlo za to, da se dokaže, ali ugled besedne znamke VIPS, ki se nanaša zlasti na verigo restavracij s hitro prehrano, lahko prepreči registracijo te iste znamke med drugim za storitve programiranja računalnikov, namenjene hotelom ali restavracijam.
The Court stated that it does not follow from that caselaw that proof submitted by the recipient of aid in an action for annulment may not be taken into account in order to appreciate the legality of the decision
Sodišče prve stopnje je pojasnilo, da obstaja tveganje, da bo
Judgment of 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00 (on appeal, Case C-290/07 P).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 11. julija 2007 v zadevi Mülhens proti UUNT – Conceria Toska (TOSKA) (T-263/03).
Judgment of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 (on appeal, Case C-334/07 P).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 22. marca 2007 (T-215/03).
Proceedings where that proof had been properly submitted to the Commission during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested decision if the Commission had excluded it for reasons which cannot be justied.
Dejavnost imela prijavljena znamka neupravičeno korist od ugleda ali razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, če prijavljena znamka sama privlači potrošnika, ne da bi nujno zamenjal trgovski izvor zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve, in bo kupil proizvod ali storitev, na katero se nanaša prijavljena znamka, ker nosi to znamko, ki je enaka ali podobna prejšnji ugledni znamki.Ta presoja je torej drugačna od presoje obstoja tveganja zmede v zvezi s trgovskim izvorom zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve.
In Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission (65
Ker nujni pogoji niso bili izpolnjeni, je Sodišče prve stopnje tožbeni razlog zavrnilo.
) the applicants sought annulment of the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure concerning State aid granted to Italian navigation undertakings. As the main substantive points had already been settled by the Court of Justice in a related case (66), the Court of First Instance observed that it must ascertain whether the solution reached by the Court of Justice could be transposed to the present case, since the arguments put forward by the applicants diered from those to which the Court of Justice had already responded and since the applicants before the Court of First Instance had not had the opportunity to express their views before the Court of Justice, as there was no provision for intervention before that Court by individuals in such a case.
Nasprotno je v sodbi Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 proti UUNT – TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK)77 Sodišče prve stopnje razsodilo, da dejstvo, da ima prejšnja znamkaTDK, ki označuje naprave za snemanje zvoka in slike, povečan razlikovalni učinek zaradi svojega ugleda, omogoča imetniku, da učinkovito nasprotuje registraciji enake znamke za športna oblačila.
Relying on the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning the scope of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita (67), moreover, the Court held that, in the event that the defendant institution should fail to raise a legal consideration, invocation of which would have established the legality of the contested decision, it is for the Community judicature to take such a legal consideration into account in order to preclude the annulment of a lawful act.
Ker se je prejšnja znamka uporabljala za dejavnosti sponzoriranja, zlasti športnega, je obstajalo nedvomno bodoče tveganje, da bi prijavljena znamka lahko imela neupravičeno korist od ugleda prejšnje znamke.
Consequently, the Court relied of its own motion on the consideration that interested third parties cannot secure annulment of the decision on the basis of matters which were not raised before the Commission by the national authorities at the preliminary investigation procedure stage and dismissed the action.
Poleg tega je bilo s sodbo Antartica proti UUNT – Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq)78 pojasnjeno, da je to tveganje mogoče dokazati zlasti na podlagi logičnega sklepanja, ki izhaja iz analize verjetnosti, in ob upoštevanju običajne prakse v ustreznem trgovinskem sektorju ter vseh drugih okoliščin primera.
A number of judgments (68
Postopki za razglasitev ničnosti
) delivered in 2007 claried the consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty for the power of the Commission to make findings of infringement of the competition rules in the sectors previously governed by that Treaty.
Sodišče prve stopnje je na podlagi treh tožb s tega področja, ki jih je obravnavalo leta 2007, razglasilo dve sodbi, v katerih je bila razglašena ničnost akta79, in v eni od teh sodb (sodba La Perla proti UUNT – Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)) opozorilo, da uporaba člena 8(5) Uredbe št. 40/94 ne zahteva obstoja tveganja zmede.
The Court observed that the succession of the legal framework of the EC Treaty to that of the ECSC Treaty is part of the unity and continuity of the Community legal order and its objectives, which requires that the European Community ensures compliance with the rights and obligations which arose under the ECSC Treaty.
V drugi sodbi, ki je privedla do razglasitve ničnosti (sodba Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano proti UUNT – Biraghi (GRANA BIRAGHI)), se je zastavilo vprašanje, ali zaščita, ki jo Uredba št. 2081/9280 daje zaščiteni označbi porekla (v nadaljevanju: ZOP) „grana padano“, upravičuje razglasitev ničnosti znamke GRANA BIRAGHI.
Thus, the pursuit of the aim of undistorted competition in the sectors which initially fell within the common market in coal and steel is not suspended by the fact that the ECSC Treaty has expired, since that objective is also pursued in the context of the EC Treaty.
Sodišče prve stopnje je, potem ko je opozorilo, da uporaba Uredbe št. 40/94 ne sme posegati v zaščito ZOP, odločilo, da mora UUNT zavrniti ali razglasiti za nično vsako znamko, ki prevzema registrirano ime za proizvode, ki niso zajeti v registraciji, oziroma ki zlorabi, posnema ali navaja določen ZOP.
In other words, the sectors which
Ta preizkus mora temeljiti na indicih s pravnega, gospodarskega, tehničnega, zgodovinskega, kulturnega in
Judgment of 20 June 2007 in Case T-246/99.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. februarja 2007 (T-477/04) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-197/07 P).
Case C-400/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I-7303 and [2005] ECR I-3657.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2007 (T-47/06) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-320/07 P).
The points dealt with in the latter judgment also form the subject matter of the judgments of the same date in Case T-45/03 Feralpi Siderurgica v Commission and Case T-94/03 Ferriere Nord v Commission.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 2081/92 z dne 14. julija 1992 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 208, str. 1).
The Court made clear, however, that within each Treaty framework, the institutions are competent to exercise only those powers which that Treaty conferred on them.
Sodišče prve stopnje družbenega področja, na veljavni nacionalni zakonodaji in zakonodaji Skupnosti ter na zaznavi imena s strani povprečnega potrošnika (ki se lahko eventualno pridobi na podlagi anket).
By contrast, the principles governing the succession of legal rules may lead to the application of substantive provisions which are no longer in force at the time of the adoption of a measure by a Community institution.
V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje razsodilo, da je odbor za pritožbe napačno presodil, da je ime „grana“ generično, in da obstoj ZOP „grana padano“ ne preprečuje registracije znamke GRANA BIRAGHI.
), to establish an infringement of Article 65(1) CS by a number of
Postopek pred oddelkom za ugovore
Italian manufacturers of reinforcing bars and imposing a ne on the undertakings concerned.
Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da je ugovor, v katerem je bilo navedeno le to, da temelji na verjetnosti zmede, v skladu z zahtevano obliko, ker je ta navedba zadostovala, da sta UUNT in prijavitelj lahko vedela, na kakšnem razlogu temelji ugovor81.
On the other hand, in González y Diéz v Commission the Court held that the Commission had been entitled, after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, to adopt a decision relating to State aid granted in spheres coming within the scope of that Treaty in reliance on Article 88(2) EC with respect to situations which had come into existence before the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.
Sodišče prve stopnje v zvezi s preizkusom utemeljenosti ugovorov pojasnjuje, da ga mora oddelek za ugovore opraviti, tudi če je v obrazložitvi ugovora navedena le „verjetnost zmede“ in če se obrazložitve ugovora ne da upoštevati, ker je vložena v jeziku, ki ni jezik ugovora. Neobstoj prevoda namreč ne povzroči zavrnitve ugovora zaradi neutemeljenosti.
However, as regards the substantive rules, the Court concluded that the Commission was not entitled to examine the aid in issue under a regulation adopted within the framework of the EC Treaty.
Vseeno pa je treba pri preizkusu upoštevati samo informacije, ki so navedene v prijavi znamke, v registraciji prejšnje znamke in v delu ugovora, ki je napisan v jeziku ugovora83.
Decisions given in the context of Regulation No 40/94 (70
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da oddelek za ugovore ni zavezan, da zadevni stranki določi rok za odpravo te nepravilnosti.
) again accounted in 2007 for a large number (128) of the cases disposed of, and now amount to 32 % of the total.
Navedeni oddelek je torej upravičen, da ne upošteva dokazov, ki jih tisti, ki je podal ugovor, ni predložil pravočasno v ustreznem jeziku84.
Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
Funkcionalna kontinuiteta
The Court annulled decisions of the Boards of Appeal in three of the total of 68 judgments disposing of cases concerning absolute grounds for refusal of registration (71).
Sodišče je leta 2007 razveljavilo tri odločbe odborov za pritožbe, v katerih se ni upoštevalo dejstev in dokazov, ki jih stranke niso pravočasno predložile oddelkom za ugovore85. Na
Judgments of 7 February 2007 in Case T-317/05 Kustom Musical Amplication v OHIM (Shape of a guitar); of 13 June 2007 in Case T-441/05 IVG Immobilien v OHIM (I); and of 10 October 2007 in Case T-460/05 Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker). Annual Report 2007
V opombi 82 navedena sodba Sodišča prve stopnje LURA-FLEX; sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 4. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Advance Magazine Publishers proti UUNT – Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE) (T-481/04) in z dne 6. novembra 2007 v zadevi SAEME proti UUNT – Racke (REVIAN’s) (T-407/05). Letno poročilo 2007
In IVG Immobilien v OHIM (I), the Court criticised the inadequacy of the analysis which led OHIM to refuse registration, in respect of several financial and property services, of a gurative sign formed by the letter‘I’.
Sicer pa je Sodišče prve stopnje v drugi zadevi87, potem ko je ugotovilo, da veljavne določbe ne dopuščajo nobene diskrecijske pravice odbora za pritožbe, potrdilo, da slednji upravičeno ni upošteval dokaza resne in dejanske uporabe prejšnje znamke, ki mu ga je stranka, ki je vložila ugovor, predložila prepozno.
The Court held, in particular, that instead of relying on the finding that the sign at issue was ordinary, OHIM ought to have addressed the question of whether that sign was in fact capable of distinguishing, in the minds of the target public, the services supplied by the trade mark applicant from those of its competitors.
V zvezi z obveznostjo obrazložitve je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo, da kadar odbor za pritožbe v celoti potrdi odločbo oddelka za ugovore, sta ta odločba in njena obrazložitev del konteksta, v katerem je odbor za pritožbe sprejel svojo odločbo88.
Lastly, in Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker), the Court held that, in view, especially, of the particularly careful examination which consumers undertake when buying goods of a durable and technological nature, the shape of a loudspeaker can be registered as a three-dimensional trade mark, regard being had also to the aesthetic result of the whole. It further stated that, even if the existence of specic or original characteristics does not constitute an essential condition for registration, the fact remains that their presence may confer the required degree of distinctiveness on a trade mark which would not otherwise have it. By contrast, in Neumann v OHIM (Shape of a microphone head grill) (72), the Court upheld OHIM’s refusal to register the shape of a microphone head grill as a Community trade mark.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje opozorilo, da kadar odbor za pritožbe šteje relativni razlog za zavrnitev, ki ga je upošteval odbor za pritožbe, za neutemeljenega, se mora opredeliti tudi do drugih razlogov, ki so bili morebiti navedeni pred omenjenim oddelkom, tudi če jih je ta zavrnil ali jih ni preizkusil89.
Although the average consumer of the relevant products is likely to be attentive to their dierent technical or aesthetic details, that does not automatically imply that he may perceive them as having the role of a trade mark.
Sicer pa je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da dejstvo, da stranka, ki je predlagala razveljavitev odločbe odbora za pritožbe, ki je potrdil ugovor zoper registracijo prijavljene znamke, pred odborom za pritožbe ni izpodbijala podobnosti nasprotujočih si znamk, nikakor ne privede do tega, da UUNT ni treba odločiti o vprašanju, ali so si te znamke podobne ali so enake.
Further, no distinctive character can arise from the fact that competing undertakings have been forced to give up producing or marketing products with an analogous shape.
Navedena okoliščina torej ne more tej stranki odvzeti pravice izpodbijati znotraj pravnega in dejanskega okvira spora pred odborom za pritožbe njegove presoje glede tega vprašanja90.
Relative grounds for refusal of registration
Razmerje med absolutnimi in relativnimi razlogi za zavrnitev
Complementary nature of the goods
Sodba Sodišča z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi UUNT proti Kaul (C-29/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-2213).
In El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Bolaños Sabri (PiraÑAM diseño original Juan Bolaños) (73), the Court annulled the decision of OHIM which had found that there is no similarity between clothing, footwear and hats, on the one hand, and leather goods such as handbags, purses and wallets, on the other.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 2007 v zadevi K & L Ruppert Stiftung proti UUNT – Lopes de Almeida Cunha in drugi (CORPO livre) (T-86/05). 88
On this same point, it was held in two other judgments that the degree of complementarity between wine glasses, carafes and decanters, on the one hand, and wine, on the other, is not sucient for a finding of similarity between the goods at issue and that the obvious
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 21. novembra 2007 v zadevi Wesergold Getränkeindustrie proti UUNT – Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT) (T-111/06).
Judgment of 12 September 2007 in Case T-358/04.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 18. oktobra 2007 v zadevi AMS proti UUNT − American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services) (T-425/03) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-565/07 P).
Judgment of 11 July 2007 in Case T-443/05.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 18. oktobra 2007 (T-28/05).
Court of First Instance dierence between perfumery goods and leather goods cannot be called into question by considerations connected with their possible aesthetic complementarity (74
Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnitev nasprotuje registraciji navedene znamke. V tem primeru je bila tožba zavrnjena, ker tožeča stranka ni imela nobenega interesa za razveljavitev odločbe, s katero je bila zavrnjena njena zahteva za registracijo na podlagi relativnega razloga za zavrnitev, kadar je lahko posledica te zavrnitve le, da UUNT sprejme novo odločbo, s katero se zavrne njena zahteva za registracijo na podlagi absolutnega razloga za zavrnitev.
Opposition based on signs other than earlier trade marks
Možnost zožitve seznama proizvodov iz prijave znamke
Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 allows for opposition proceedings to be brought against the registration of a Community trade mark on the basis of a sign other than an earlier trade mark. In the dispute between the Czech company Budějovický Budvar and the American company Anheuser-Busch concerning the Community trade marks BUDWEISER and BUD, the Court clarified the scope of the rights conferred by that provision (75).
V sodni praksi – v skladu s katero je tožeča stranka upravičena, da omeji seznam proizvodov iz svoje prijave znamke pod pogojem, da se to izjavo lahko razlaga v smislu, da ne predlaga več razglasitve ničnosti odločbe o zavrnitvi v delu, v katerem ta zajema proizvode, ki jih je odslej izključila92 – je leta 2007 prišlo do razvoja, saj Sodišče prve stopnje v dveh primerih ni upoštevalo predloženih omejitev.
It was held that Budějovický Budvar, which had previously registered appellations of origin for beer in France under the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin, could not rely on that agreement in order to oppose Anheuser-Busch’s applications in relation to identical or similar goods.
Prvič, presodilo je, da lahko dejstvo, da se prijavo znamke, ki je najprej zajemala mikrofone, zoži zgolj na„studijske mikrofone in njihove dele“, spremeni predmet spora, ker naj bi se spremenila upoštevna javnost glede na tisto, ki jo je upošteval odbor za pritožbe93.
Although French law extends the protection provided for in the Lisbon Agreement to cases in which the goods are not similar, it nonetheless requires that use by third parties of the signs at issue be likely to misappropriate or weaken the reputation, in France, of the appellations of origin in question, which Budĕjovický Budvar had failed to demonstrate.
Drugič, odločilo je, da lahko zožitev, ki ne zajema izključitve enega ali več proizvodov s seznama, ampak spremembo namembnosti vseh proizvodov s tega seznama, vpliva na preizkus znamke Skupnosti, ki ga je opravil UUNT94.
According to Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94, the proprietor of an earlier trade mark with a reputation is entitled to le an opposition against an application for registration of a similar or identical mark even if that mark relates only to goods or services dierent from those by covered by the earlier trade mark.
V treh sodbah, razglašenih leta 2007, ki se nanašajo na Uredbo št. 1049/200195, je Sodišče prve stopnje pojasnilo določene izjeme od načela javnosti, ki ga določa navedena uredba za varstvo, prvič, javnega interesa v okviru mednarodnih odnosov in nančne, denarne ali gospodarske politike Skupnosti, drugič, zasebnosti in integritete posameznika, tretjič, sodnih postopkov in, četrtič, namena preiskav.
In Sigla v OHIM — Elleni Holding (VIPS) (76), it was necessary to establish whether the reputation of the word mark VIPS, covering in particular a fast food chain, could prevent the registration of that same mark inter alia for computer programming services intended for hotels or restaurants.
V zvezi s prvo navedeno izjemo, določeno v členu 4(1)(a), tretja in četrta alinea, Uredbe št. 1049/2001, je bilo v sodbi WWF European Policy Programme proti Svetu ugotovljeno, da je Svet upravičeno zavrnil dostop do medinstitucionalnega zapisa o vprašanjih v zvezi z ministrsko konferenco, ki jo je organizirala Svetovna trgovinska organizacija v Cancunu septembra 2003.
Judgment of 11 July 2007 in Case T-263/03 Mülhens v OHIM — Conceria Toska (TOSKA).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 5. marca 2003 v zadevi Unilever proti UUNT (Tablette ovoïde) (T-194/01, Recueil, str.
Judgments of 12 June 2007 in Joined Cases T-57/04 and T-71/04 Budějovický Budvar and Anheuser-Busch v OHIM (AB GENUINE Budweiser KING OF BEERS); in Joined Cases T-53/04 to T-56/04, T-58/04 and T-59/04 Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUDWEISER); and in Joined Cases T-60/04 to T-64/04 Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 20. novembra 2007 v zadevi Tegometall International proti UUNT – Wuppermann (TEK) (T-458/05).
Judgment of 22 March 2007 in Case T-215/03.
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
Since the earlier mark was used for sponsorship activities, particularly in the sporting eld, there was a future risk, which was not hypothetical, that the mark applied for could take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier mark.
Sodišče prve stopnje je razjasnilo razmerje med Uredbo št. 1049/2001, ki skuša zagotavljati največjo mogočo javnost postopka odločanja javnih organov, in Uredbo št. 45/200196, ki skuša zagotoviti varstvo zasebnosti posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov.
Furthermore, the judgment in Antartica v OHIM — Nasdaq Stock Market (nasdaq) (78) stated that evidence of that risk may be established, in particular, on the basis of logical deductions resulting from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of the usual practices in the relevant commercial sector as well as all the other circumstances of the case.
Sodišče prve stopnje je pri odločanju, ali je Komisija lahko odklonila podjetju posredovanje zapisnika, ki je vseboval imena udeležencev sestanka, ki je v okviru postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti potekal kakšno leto pred tem, priznalo, da je razkritje navedenih osebnih podatkov vsekakor„obdelava podatkov“ v smislu Uredbe št. 45/2001, vendar je dodalo, da je taka obdelava zakonita, ker se jo zahteva zaradi spoštovanja zakonite obveznosti razkritja, ki je določena z Uredbo št. 1049/2001.
Under Article 51 et seq. of Regulation No 40/94, it is possible to make applications to OHIM for declarations of invalidity in respect of Community trade marks which have already been registered.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje razsodilo, da ker Uredba št. 1049/2001 določa, da prosilec za dostop do dokumenta ni dolžan navesti razlogov za prošnjo, ni treba dokazovati nujnosti prenosa podatkov, ki se zahteva na podlagi Uredbe št. 45/2001.
In two of the three actions in this area examined during 2007, the Court
Sodišče prve stopnje je, potem ko je opozorilo, da noben načelni razlog ne more izključiti poklicnih ali poslovnih dejavnosti iz pojma„zasebnosti“, potrdilo, da razkritje imen udeležencev sestanka, ki ga je organizirala Komisija, ne posega v zasebnost zadevnih oseb, ker te osebe na sestanku niso podale svojih stališč, ampak so podale stališča subjektov, ki jih predstavljajo.
79 delivered a judgment annulling a decision of the Boards of Appeal (
V teh okoliščinah za razkritje imen udeležencev ni bilo potrebno predhodno soglasje zadevnih oseb.
) and it recalled, in one of those judgments (La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)), that the application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 does not require the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
V zvezi z izjemo od načela javnosti zaradi varstva sodnih postopkov (člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe št. 1049/2001) zgoraj navedena sodba API proti Komisiji pomeni razvoj sodne prakse v zvezi s pravico do dostopa do postopkovnih listin, ki jih institucije predložijo pri sodiščih Skupnosti.
In the second judgment annulling a decision of a Board of Appeal (Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano v OHIM — Biraghi (GRANA BIRAGHI)), the question arose whether the protection that Regulation No 2081/92 (80) confers on the protected designation of origin (’PDO’) ’grana padano’ justied the annulment of the trade mark GRANA BIRAGHI.
Sodišče prve stopnje, pri katerem je Association de la presse internationale vložilo tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, s katero ji je bil zavrnjen dostop do določenih vlog v zvezi z več zadevami, ki so se odvijale pred Sodiščem in Sodiščem prve stopnje, je najprej opozorilo, da je Komisija dolžna konkretno preizkusiti vsebino vsakega dokumenta, za katerega je bil zaprošen dostop.