natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
11 — The 1936 law was substantially amended in 1968 (Bekanntmachung of 2 January 1968; BGBl.
11 – Predpis iz leta 1936 je bil občutno spremenjen leta 1968 (Bekanntmachung z dne 2. januarja 1968, BGBl. I, str.
401 et seq., describes all those aspects at length.
401 in naslednje, natančno opisuje vse te vidike.
The same author also states that the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) extended the principle to Paragraph 8(2)(2) of the WZG.
Omenjeni avtor poudarja, da je nem�ko Bundesgerichtshof (vrhovno sodi�če) načelo raz�irilo na člen 8(2)(2) WZG.
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive does not depend on there being a real, current or serious need to leave [a sign or indication] free … under German case-law…’, 21a declaration which did not go unnoticed by German legal writers. 22
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX po razpoložljivosti […] v smislu nem�ke sodne prakse“, 21kar je odločitev, ki ni �la neopazno mimo nem�ke pravne stroke. 22
The amendment of the German legislation which took place in 1995 with the entry into force, on 1 January of that year, of the new Law on trade marks based on the Directive, affected the wording of Paragraph 4(2) of the WZG; as a result, the absolute grounds for refusal set out therein were inserted into Paragraph 8 of the new Law.
Na oblikovanje zakonske spremembe iz leta 1995, ko je 1. januarja tega leta začel veljati novi nem�ki zakon o znamkah, izdelan v skladu z Direktivo, je vplival člen 4(2) WZG, saj so bili njegovi absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev preneseni v člen 8 novega zakona.
However, the Court did not reject outright the Freihaltebedürfnis principle, since it acknowledged the link between the principle and the general interest underlying the provision which the Landgericht München I had asked the Court to interpret.
Vendar Sodi�če ni preprosto zavrnilo teorije o Freihaltebedürfnis, saj je priznalo, da je povezana s splo�nim interesom, na katerem je temeljila določba, katere razlago želi omenjeno sodi�če iz Münchna.
23That provides the basis for the view that the prohibition of registration of descriptive signs or indications as provided for in Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive reflects the aim of precluding the monopolisation of such signs or indications to ensure that the legitimate expectation of a company to use them freely is not infringed. 24
23 Na tem temelji tudi stali�če, da zavrnitev registracije opisnih znakov ali označb v smislu člena 3(1)(c) Direktive ustreza ideji preprečitve njihove monopolizacije, da se ne kr�i zakonitega pričakovanja družbe, da jih bo lahko uporabljala neovirano. 24
20It is not surprising that, in the light of the 1995 legislation, the Bavarian referring court asked, inter alia, whether the Freihaltebedürfnis principle was compatible with Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive.
20Ni čudno, da je v luči zakonskega besedila iz leta 1995 bavarsko sodi�če med drugim spra�evalo o skladnosti Freihaltebedürfnis s čle nom 3(1)(c) Direktive.
Since then, Community caselaw has repeatedly drawn attention to the need to apply the principle of availability — which is inherent in the general interest — and has linked it to the abovementioned aim of ensuring that a mark or indication may continue to be used freely when deciding
Od takrat je sodna praksa Skupnosti večkrat poudarila nujnost uporabe načela razpoložljivosti, ki je tesno povezano s splo�nim interesom, in ga usmerila k cilju navedene določbe, da se uporaba znaka ali označbe ohrani prosta, ko se je odločalo o
It is well-known that that dispute concerned geographical indications of origin, but that does not diminish the scope or importance of the statement of the Court to the effect that ‘… the application
Kot je znano, je �lo za spor o označbah geografskega izvora, kar ne vpliva na obseg in prepričljivost ugotovitve Sodi�ča, da „[…] uporaba člena 3(1)(c) Direktive ni odvisna od obstoja konkretne, dejanske ali resne zahteve
402, had questioned whether the German caselaw on Freihaltebedürfnis was applicable before the judgment in Windsurfing Chiemsee.
402, je postavil pod vpra�aj veljavnost nem�ke sodne prakse o Freihaltebedürfnis, ki je bila oblikovana pred sodbo Windsurfing Chiemsee.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07 whether it is eligible for registration. 25 It has also extended that view to Article 3(1)(b) and (e).
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 obsegu registracije znaka ali označbe, 25 ter to stali�če raz�irila na točki b) in e) člena 3(1).
26 the analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling to an interpretation of Article 5 of the Directive, as advocated by the appellants in cassation and the United Kingdom Government in their written observations.
26 odločanje omeji na razlago člena 5 Direktive kot v pisnih stali�čih posplo�ujejo pritožnice v kasacijskem postopku in vlada Združenega kraljestva.
This is an appropriate point at which to conclude the analysis of the requirement of availability, since it is not worth considering minor factors which would be of no assistance in the analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad, and which might cloud understanding of this Opinion.
S preučitvijo zahteve po razpoložljivosti je treba počakati, saj ni treba preusmerjati pozornosti na manj pomembne vidike, ki ne bi prispevali k obravnavi vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje Hoge Raad in bi lahko skalili razumevanje teh sklepnih predlogov.
It is now necessary, using the relevant knowledge gained about that principle, to examine Article 6 of the Directive in more detail, and to ascertain the extent to which it includes the principle as part of the general interest.
Ob pomoči ustreznega pridobljenega znanja o tem pravnem institutu se je treba najprej poglobiti v člen 6 Direktive in v njem poiskati ukrep, ki vsebuje ta institut, ki izvira iz prakse sodi�č, kot del splo�nega interesa.
I am aware that there is a logical and systematic connection between Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive, which will in all likelihood have an interpretative influence on the final outcome, but it is essential to bear in mind Article 6(1) when it comes to determining the boundaries of the exercise of the iusprohibendi by the proprietor of a trade mark, in accordance with the heading of the article.
Poznam logično in sistematično povezavo med omenjenima členoma 5 in 6 Direktive, katerih razlagalni vpliv na končni rezultat se zdi verjeten, vendar se ne sme pozabiti člena 6(1), ravno ko gre za preučitev mej izvr�evanja ius prohibendi imetnika znamke v skladu z naslovom tega člena.
27 In addition, the copious caselaw on Article 5 of the Directive would not suffice for the purposes of replying to the referring court, which, without referring to it, relies on Article 6 of that Community legislation.
27Prav tako bi se obsežna sodna praksa v zvezi s členom 5 Direktive izkazala za nezadostno za zadovoljitev predložitvenega sodi�ča, ki se sklicuje na člen 6 tega zakonskega teksta Skupnosti, ne da bi ga izrecno omenilo.
C — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Directive
C – Razloga člena 6(1) Direktive
Before embarking on an analysis of this provision, I must point out that I am not persuaded by the view that the resolution of the main proceedings lies in restricting
Preden začnem preučevati to določbo, moram poudariti, da me ne prepriča ideja o iskanju re�itve spora o glavni stvari, s tem da se analiza vpra�anja za predhodno
Article 5 of the Directive sets out the rights of a trade mark proprietor.
Člen 5 Direktive opredeljuje pravice imetnika znamke.
There are two arguments in favour of finding that the requirement of availability does not apply in that context. The first is the origin of the Freihaltebedürfnis principle, which is clearly linked to the registration of signs rather than to the scope of the exercise of the rights of the holder of the sign.
Obstajata dva razloga, zakaj je treba zahtevo po razpoložljivosti izključiti s tega področja: prvič, izvor Freihal­tebedürfnis, ki je očitno povezan z registracijo znakov, in ne z obsegom izvr�evanja pravic imetnika znaka, in drugič, sistematika Direktive, ki izrecno ureja omejitve teh pravic v členu 6, tako da bi sprejetje nem�kega načela
25 — As regards Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, in addition to Windsurfing Chiemsee and Linde, see the judgments in Case C-104/01 Libertel [2003] ECR I-3793, paragraph 52, and Case C-218/01 Henkel [2004] ECR I-1725, paragraphs 40 and 41.
26 – Glede člena 3(1)(b) Direktive, poleg zgoraj navedene sodbe Henkel proti UUNT, tudi sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi SAT.1 proti UUNT (C-329/02, ZOdl., str.
26 — As regards Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, in addition to Henkel v OHIM, see the judgment in Case C-329/02 SAT.1 v OHIM [2004] ECR I-8317, paragraphs 26 and 27.
I-8317), točki 26 in 27; glede točke e) iz tega člena, poleg zgoraj navedene sodbe Libertel, sodba z dne 18. junija 2002 v zadevi Philips (C-299/99, Recueil, str.
Regarding Article 3(1)(e), in addition to Libertel, see the judgment in Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 80.
I-5475), točka 80.
27 — Set out in point 10 of this Opinion.
27 – Naveden v točki 10 teh sklepnih predlogov.
Accordingly, Article 6(1) includes as signs whose use the holder of the industrial property right may not prohibit: names (subparagraph (a)), descriptive signs (sub -paragraph (b)), and the use of the trade mark to indicate the intended purpose of the goods or services concerned (subparagraph (c)), provided that such use takes place ‘in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters’.
Med znaki, katerih uporabo imetnik pravice industrijske lastnine ne more prepovedati, člen 6(1) vključuje imena (točka a)), opisne znake (točka b)) in uporabo znamke za označitev namena (točka c)), pod pogojem, da se uporabijo „v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji“.
Moreover, the clear similarities and the marked differences between Articles 3(1) and 6(1) of the Directive militate in favour of an analysis of both provisions, albeit one which does not focus on Article 6(1)(a) because that provision does not concern the substance of the questions referred and has been interpreted in detail in the recent caselaw of the Court. 28
Poleg tega očitne podobnosti in očitane razlike med členoma 3(1) in 6(1) Direktive vabijo k preučitvi obeh določb, vendar brez poglobitve v določbo iz točke a) člena 6, ker se ne dotika podlage vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje in je na �iroko obravnavana v nedavni sodni praksi Sodi�ča. 28
There is no reference to marks which are devoid of any distinctive character, as provided for in Article 3(1)(b).
Manjka napotitev na znamke brez razlikovalnega učinka v smislu člena 3(1)(b).
Since Article 3(3) makes it possible to register such marks, it is clear that, in those cases, the acquisition of distinctive character through use weakens the obstacle presented by the original defect of lack of distinctive character, and that the legislature recognises an effort by the proprietor of a mark to overcome that shortcoming by permitting him to object to use of the mark by competitors.
Ker člena 3(3) omogoča registracijo te vrste znakov, se lahko sklepa, da v takih primerih razlikovalni učinek, pridobljen z uporabo, slabi ugovor zoper začetno odsotnost razlikovalnega učinka in da zakonodajalec nagrajuje prizadevanja imetnika znamke, da se izogne takim čerem, s tem da mu dovoli, da nasprotuje uporabi znamke s strani drugih konkurentov.
The exclusion of signs devoid of any distinctive character under Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive
Neobstoj znakov brez razlikovalnega učinka v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Direktive
The reason for such a significant omission may be found in a view which I have espoused for some time, albeit in relation to the Regulation, 29namely, that considerations of public interest militating in favour of denying registration to certain signs so that they may remain fully available for all
Vzrok za tako pomembno opustitev je v ideji, ki jo zagovarjam že dalj časa, pa čeprav v okviru Uredbe: 29da se v okviru člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe (člen 3(1)(b) Direktive) ne upo�teva razlogov javnega interesa
A comparison of Article 3(1)(b) with Article 6(1) reveals important differences which are derived from the fact that Article 6 is aimed at precluding a proprietor from prohibiting the use of a trade mark by third parties, rather than at denying registration of a similar mark.
Primerjava te določbe s členom 6(1) pokaže pomembne razlike, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da se člen 6 navezuje na odrekanje „prepovedi uporabe“ znamke tretjim osebam, in ne na področje ugovora zoper registracijo podobne znamke.
29 — The following considerations are taken from the Opinion I delivered in Henkel v OHIM, cited above, in particular points 48 and 78 to 82.
29 – Naslednji preudarki so zajeti v sklepnih predlogih, ki sem jih predstavil dne 6. novembra 2003 v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Henkel proti UUNT, zlasti v točkah 48 in od 78 do 82.
28 — Judgment in Case C-17/06 Céline [2007] ECR I-7041, paragraph 29 et seq.
28 – Sodba z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Céline (C-17/06, ZOdl., str. I-7041), točka 29 in naslednje).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07 it comes from, or signs which are customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 za omejitev registracije določenih znakov, zato da ostanejo popolnoma na razpolago vsem izvajalcem dejavnosti (zahteva po razpoložljivosti).
However, that protection must not be extended to signs which, without being descriptive, are for other reasons devoid of any specific distinctive character.
Kljub temu se takega varstva ne bi smelo raz�iriti na znake, ki, ne da bi bili opisni, zaradi drugih razlogov nimajo posebnega razlikovalnega učinka.
It would not be logical to assert that there is any general interest in maintaining in the public domain signs which are incapable of identifying the commercial origin of the goods or services which they designate.
Ne bi bilo namreč logično podpirati splo�nega interesa, da se v javni lasti ohranijo znaki, ki niso primerni za razkrivanje podjetja izvora za proizvode ali storitve, ki jih označujejo.
Accordingly, once a trader has achieved his wish of obtaining from an insignificant sign a trade mark which, through use and publicity, is recognised by the public, the nature of the industrial property right requires that he be rewarded for having succeeded in neutralising the sign’s lack of distinctive character and making it suitable to fulfil the role of indicating the commercial origin of the goods or services.
Ko je trgovec dosegel cilj, da se z uporabo nepomembnega znaka in njegovim ogla�evanjem pridobi znamka, ki je v javnosti poznana, pravica industrijske lastnine zahteva, da se ga nagradi, ker mu je uspelo odpraviti pomanjkanje razlikovalnega učinka svojega znaka in ga je tako naredil sposobnega za opravljanje funkcije nosilca informacij o podjetju izvora za proizvode ali storitve. Prehod iz bagatele v pravico industrijske lastnine se opravi prek člena 3(3) Direktive.
Subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Article 7(1) of the Regulation (the same subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of the Direct- ive) deal with the public interest in preventing certain operators from appropriating signs which are useful from an aesthetic or technical point of view, or apt to describe the product per se, its actual or supposed qualities and other characteristics, such as where
Točke c), d) in e) člena 7(1) Uredbe (iste točke člena 3(1) Direktive) varujejo javni interes tako, da preprečujejo, da bi si nekateri izvajalci dejavnosti prilastili znake, ki so uporabni kot okras, ali tehnično koristni, ali primerni za opis proizvoda, njegovih dejanskih ali domnevnih lastnosti in drugih značilnosti, kot so kraj izvora, ali tistih, ki so običajne v jezikovni rabi ali v dobroverni ustaljeni praksi trgovanja.
119, referring to the American system under which generic terms and trade marks are regarded as mutually exclusive.
119, se sklicuje na ameri�ko pravno stroko, ki primerja pojma „vrsta“ in „znamka“ in meni, da se medsebojno izključujeta.
The foregoing considerations will assist the Hoge Raad if it takes the view, having regard to the factual uncertainty referred to in paragraph 30 of this Opinion, that the three stripes of adidas were initially devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive.
Vse do zdaj navedeno bi koristilo Hoge Raad, če bi ob upo�tevanju alternativ, navedenih v točki 30 teh sklepnih predlogov, ugotovilo, da trije trakovi družbe Adidas sprva niso imeli razločevalnega učinka v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Direktive.
Otherwise, should the Hoge Raad conclude that the threestripe mark gives an indication of the qualities of the product, it will be necessary to embark on a detailed analysis of Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive.
V nasprotnem primeru, če odloči, da navedena znamka pomeni označbo lastnosti proizvoda, se je treba poglobiti v preučitev člena 6(1)(b) Direktive.
The scope of Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive
Obseg člena 6(1)(b) Direktive
The interpretation of this provision warrants a brief outline of the judgments of the Court which refer to it.
Razlaga te določbe zahteva kratko ponovitev odločb Sodi�ča, ki se nanjo sklicujejo.
In Windsurfing Chiemsee, the referring court did not in fact request an interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive but rather asked whether that provision has any bearing on the interpretation of Article 3 of the Directive. The Court replied to that question in the negative but described the scope of the former provision by going on to state that Article 6(1)(b) does not confer on third parties the right to use a geographical name as a trade mark but merely guarantees their right to use it descriptively, that is to say, as an indication of geographical origin, provided that it is used in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. 33
V že navedeni zadevi Windsurfing Chiemsee predložitveno sodi�če dejansko ni spra�evalo o razlagi člena 6(1)(b) Direktive, temveč o morebitnem vplivu na razlago člena 3 Direktive; Sodi�če je zanikalo ta vpliv, vendar je opisalo področje uporabe prve določbe, s tem da je takoj nato dodalo, da člen 6(1)(b) tretjim osebam ne omogoča uporabe geografskega imena kot znamke, temveč se opisno omejuje na dopustitev uporabe, namreč kot označba geografskega izvora, če se uporablja v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.
As a result of that clarification, the use by competitors of a descriptive sign which has been accepted for registration is dependent on the twofold condition that those competitors do not use the sign as a trade mark and they respect honest commercial practices. 34
Na podlagi te razlage je uporaba opisnega znaka, ki je bil registriran, odvisna od dveh pogojev: da se ne uporablja kot znamka in da se spo�tujejo po�teni trgovski običaji. 34
In BMW, 31the Court considered the purpose of the provision which it found was to reconcile trade mark protection with the free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the common market in such a way that trade mark rights play an essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain. 32
V sodbi BMW 31je Sodi�če preučilo ratio legis te določbe in odločilo, da uskladi varstvo pravic znamk s prostim pretokom blaga in svobodnim opravljanjem storitev na skupnem trgu, da bi znamke služile kot bistveni elementi sistema neizkrivljene konkurence, ki ga Sodi�če želi vzpostaviti in ohraniti. 32
With regard to the methodology of the application of Article 6(1)(b), the Court provided some guidance in Gerolsteiner Brunnen.
Nekaj pojasnil v zvezi z metodo uporabe člena 6(1)(b) je v sodbi v zadevi Gerolsteiner Brunnen.
31 — Case C-63/97 [1999] ECR I-905.
31 – Sodba z dne 23. februarja 1999 (C-63/97, Recueil, str. I-905).
33 — Paragraph 28 of the judgment in Windsurfing Chiemsee.
33 – Točka 28 sodbe Windsurfing Chiemsee.
34 — That view was confirmed recently in the judgment in Case C-48/05 Adam Opel [2007] ECR I-1017, paragraph 43.
32 – Točka 62 sodbe BMW, ki se sklicuje na sodbo z dne 17. oktobra 1990 v zadevi Hag GF, HAG II (C-10/89, Recueil, str. 3711), točka 13.
32 — Paragraph 62 of the judgment in BMW, which in turn refers to the judgment in Case C-10/89 Hag GF [1990] ECR 3711, ‘Hag II’, paragraph 13.
34 – To mnenje je bilo nedavno potrjeno s sodbo z dne 25. januarja 2007 v zadevi Adam Opel (C-48/05, ZOdl., str. I-1017), točka 43.
Advocate uses of the indications to which it refers, the Court stated, with regard to its function, that for such an indication to fall within the scope of the article, it suffices that it refers to one of the characteristics set out therein, like geographical origin.
V prvi zadevi 39 je generalni pravobra- nilec Jacobs povezal zahtevo po razpoložljivosti s členom 12 Uredbe (alter ego člena 6 Direktive), 40sodba v zadevi „Baby-Dry“ je v bistvenem sledila sklepnim predlogom 41 področje uporabe navedenega člena, zadostuje, da se nana�a na eno od označb, ki jih na�teva, na primer geografski izvor.
35Since it concerns questions of fact, the task of determining whether an indication falls within the scope of the provision falls to the national court, which must carry out an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances. 36
35To subsumpcijo mora kot vpra�anje o ugotavljanju dejstev opraviti nacionalno sodi�če, ki mora izvesti globalno presojo ustreznih okoli�čin.
General Jacobs linked the requirement of availability to the scope of Article 12 of the Regulation (the mirror image of Article 6 of the Directive). 40 The judgment in ‘BabyDry’ essentially followed the opinion, 41and
36 in iz člena 7 v povezavi s členom 12 Uredbe (člena 3 in 6 Direktive) zaključila, da je objekt prepovedi, da se kot znamka registrirajo znaki ali označbe, ki so izključno opisne, preprečitev registrskega varstva znakov ali označb, ki zaradi identičnosti z običajnimi sredstvi opisovanja proizvodov ali storitev, za katere gre, ali njihovih posebnosti ne omogočajo, da se razvije lastnost identifikacije podjetja, ki jih prodaja, in nimajo razlikovalnega učinka, ki jo ta lastnost zahteva. 42
None of those judgments makes any reference to the link between Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive and the requirement of availability.
Iz vseh teh odločitev ni mogoče izločiti razlage o povezavi med členom 6(1)(b) Direktive in zahtevo po razpoložljivosti.
In the second case, Libertel, the Court gave lukewarm approval to the Freihaltebedürfnis principle.
V drugem primeru, sodbi v zadevi Libertel, je počasi pri�lo do približanja k Freihaltebedürfnis.
After accepting, in the field of Community trade mark law, ‘a public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders’, the Court dismissed an argument put forward by the Commission, which, in
Potem ko je Sodi�če na področju prava Skupnosti o znamkah priznalo „splo�ni interes, da se neupravičeno ne omeji razpoložljivosti barv za ostale izvajalce dejavnosti“, ni sprejelo očitka Komisije, ki je trdila, verjetno na podlagi sklepnih
35 — Judgment in Case C-100/02 [2004] ECR I-691, paragraph 19.36 — Judgment in Gerolsteiner Brunnen, paragraph 26.
36 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Gerolsteiner Brunnen, točka 26.
39 — Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251 (‘Baby-Dry’). 37 — Judgments in Case C-228/03 Gilette Company and Gilette Group Finland [2005] ECR I-2337, paragraph 41 (hereinafter ‘Gilette’); BMW, paragraph 61, and Gerolsteiner Brunnen, paragraph 24.
39 – Sodba z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT, Baby-Dry (C-383/99 P, Recueil, str. I-6251). 37 – Sodba z dne 17. marca 2005 v zadevi Gilette Company in Gilette Group Finland (C-228/03, ZOdl., str. I-2337), točka 41 (v nadaljevanju: Gilette), ter zgoraj navedene sodbe BMW, točka 61, in Gerolsteiner Brunnen, točka 24.
40 — Point 77 et seq. of his Opinion.41 — In that assertion I agree with Eisenführ, G., op. cit., p.
40 – Točka 77 in naslednje njegovih sklepnih predlogov.41 – Pri tej presoji se strinjam z Eisenführ, G., op. cit., str.
230.42 — Paragraph 37 of ‘Baby-Dry’.
230.42 – Točka 37 sodbe Baby-Dry.
38 — Judgment in Gilette, paragraph 44.
38 – Sodba Gilette, točka 44.