natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Any Member State may in addition provide that this provision shall also apply where the distinctive character was acquired after the date of application for registration or after the date of registration.’
Vsaka država članica lahko poleg tega predvidi, da ta določba velja tudi, če je znamka dobila razlikovalni učinek po datumu vložitve prijave za registracijo ali po datumu registracije.“ e) znaki, sestavljeni izključno iz:
— the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, or
– oblike, ki izhaja iz same narave blaga, ali
Under the heading ‘Rights conferred by a trade mark’, Article 5 of the Directive sets out the range of powers conferred on the holder of an industrial property right.
Člen 5 Direktive z naslovom „Pravice iz znamke“ opisuje sveženj pravic, ki so imetniku pravice intelektualne lastnine v oporo; odstavka 1 in 2 pa določata:
— the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, or
– oblike blaga, ki je nujna za dosego tehničnega učinka, ali
The registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein.
Registrirana znamka podeljuje imetniku izključne pravice.
— the shape which gives substantial value to the goods;
– daje blagu bistveno oblike, ki vrednost; a) katerikoli znak, ki je enak znamki, za enako blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana znamka;
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 b) označb glede vrste, kakovosti, količine, namena, vrednosti, geografskega izvora, časa proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitve ali drugih značilnosti blaga ali storitev; b) katerikoli znak, pri katerem zaradi njegove enakosti ali podobnosti z znamko in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga ali storitev, označenih z znamko in znakom, obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti, ki vključuje verjetnost povezovanja med znakom in znamko.
(c) the trade mark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts; provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.’
c) znamke, če je potrebno z njo označiti namen proizvoda ali storitve, zlasti za dodatke ali nadomestne dele;
Any Member State may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.’
Vsaka država članica lahko predvidi, da je imetnik upravičen preprečiti vsem tretjim osebam, ki nimajo njegovega soglasja, da v gospodarskem prometu uporabljajo katerikoli znak, enak ali podoben znamki, v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, ki niso podobne tistim, za katere je registrirana znamka, če ima slednja v državi članici ugled in če bi uporaba takega znaka brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali o�kodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke.“ ob pogoju, da jih uporablja v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.“
By contrast, Article 6 of the Directive governs the ‘Limitation of the effects of a trade mark’.
Nasprotno pa člen 6 Direktive ureja „Omejitev učinkov znamke“; odstavek 1, ki ustreza kontekstu vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje, pa določa:
Article 6(1), which is material to the present reference for a preliminary ruling, provides that:
III – Dejstva spora o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade,
Znamka ne daje imetniku pravice, da prepove tretji osebi uporabo v gospodarskem prometu:
By means of seven international and Benelux registrations, adidas AG became the proprietor in the latter territory of a number of figurative trade marks composed of three vertical parallel stripes of equal width, running the length of the sides, shoulders, sleeves, legs and side seams of a garment, in a
Ob pomoči sedmih mednarodnih in benelu�kih registrov je družba Adidas AG v Beneluksu pridobila lastni�tvo vrste figurativnih znamk, ki so sestavljene iz treh navpičnih vzporednih črt enake �irine, name�čenih vzdolž strani, ramen, rokavov, hlačnic in stranskih �ivov oblačil, v barvi, ki se a) lastnega imena in naslova;
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX colour which contrasts with the basic colour of the garment.
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX razlikuje od osnovne barve oblačila.
The signs are protected by registration in respect of sports and leisure clothing.
Registracija varuje znake �portnih oblačil in oblačil za prosti čas.
In an action for interim measures against H & M, and in a substantive action against Marca Mode and C & A, both brought before the Rechtbank (District Court) Breda (‘the Rechtbank’), the appellant in cassation, alleging the infringement of its industrial property rights, requested the prohibition and withdrawal from use of a sign consisting of the figurative threestripe trade mark or any other sign similar to the adidas figurative mark, such as the two stripes described above, used by the four defendant companies.
V postopku za sprejetje začasnih odredb zoper družbo H & M in v postopku o temelju zoper družbi Marca Mode in C & A, ki sta potekala pred Rechtbank Breda (v nadaljevanju: Rechtbank), je tožeča stranka zatrjevala kr�itev njenih pravic intelektualne lastnine in zahtevala prepoved ter opustitev znaka, sestavljenega iz figurativne znamke treh črt ali katerega koli drugega znaka, ki je podoben figurativnemu znaku družbe Adidas, kot so prej opisane črte, ki so jih uporabljale �tiri tožene družbe.
The aforesaid German company, which granted an exclusive licence for the distribution of its products in Benelux to its subsidiary adidas BV (hereinafter both referred to as ‘adidas’), has brought an action concerning its rights against the textile sector undertakings Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘the four defendant companies’), which also have establishments in the Netherlands.
Omenjena nem�ka družba, ki je izključno licenco za distribucijo svojih izdelkov v Beneluksu podelila svoji hčerinski družbi Adidas BV (v nadaljevanju: družba Adidas), je z družbami tekstilne industrije Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex (v nadaljevanju: �tiri tožene družbe), ki imajo na Nizozemskem prav tako svoje prodajalne, v sporu glede svojih pravic.
H & M, Marca Mode, C & A and Vendex contested those claims.
Družbe H & M, Marca Mode, C & A in Vendex so tem zahtevkom nasprotovale.
First, by a counterclaim and, subsequently, by a separate action, the four defendant companies applied to the Rechtbank for a declaration that they are entitled to use two stripes as decoration on sports and leisure clothing.
Štiri tožene družbe so najprej z nasprotnim zahtevkom in nato s tožbo Rechtbank zaprosile za izdajo ugotovitvene sodbe glede obstoja njihove pravice do uporabe dveh trakov za okras �portnih oblačil in oblačil za prosti čas.
In 1986, adidas ascertained that Marca Mode and C & A had begun to sell sports and leisure clothing featuring two vertical parallel stripes the colour of which contrasted with the basic colour of the clothing (black on white).
Leta 1986 je Adidas ugotovil, da sta družbi Marca Mode in C & A začeli prodajati telovadna oblačila in oblačila za rekreacijo, opremljena z navpičnima vzporednima trakovoma, katerih barva se je razlikovala od barve oblačila (črno na belem).
The judge hearing the application for interim measures, in a decision of 2 October 1997, and the Rechtbank, which was seised of the main proceedings, by interlocutory decision of 13 October 1998, found that certain aspects of the trade mark rights of adidas had been infringed.
Sodnik, ki je odločal o sprejetju začasnih ukrepov, je v odločbi z dne 2. oktobra 1997 ugotovil, da so bile v nekaterih pogledih kr�ene pravice znamke družbe Adidas, enako je z vmesnim sklepom z dne 13. oktobra 1998 ugotovilo tudi Rechtbank, ki je odločalo o sporu.
The four defendant companies then each lodged appeals against those two decisions
Nasprotne stranke so bile pred začetkom spora gotovo v stiku, saj iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se družbi Marca Mode in C & A, preden sta se zapletli v spor na sodi�ču, nista hoteli odreči uporabi dveh navpičnih vzporednih trakov zaradi popolnoma drugačnega razloga.
not be extended to other stripe motifs or to simple stripe designs, which must remain available to third parties since they constitute signs in common use, which, by their nature, do not lend themselves to monopolisation.
Vendar se takega varstva ne bi smelo prenesti na druge znake iz črt in preproste vzorce iz trakov, saj bi morali ostati na voljo tretjim osebam za oblikovanje znakov za splo�no dobro, ker zaradi svojih lastnosti ne morejo biti monopolizirani.
By judgment of 29 March 2005, the Gerechtshof dismissed the claims of adidas, the claims which Marca Mode and C & A had put forward in their counterclaim, and the claims made by the four defendant com -panies in a separate action, and also annulled the decision of 2 October 1997.
To sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 29. marca 2005 zavrnilo zahtevke družbe Adidas, zahtevke družb Marca Mode in C & A, vložene v nasprotni tožbi, in zahtevke, ki so jih �tiri tožene stranke vložile v tožbi, hkrati pa je razveljavilo odločbo z dne 2. oktobra 1997.
Adidas appealed in cassation to the Hoge Raad against the judgment of the Gerechtshof, alleging that that judgment was incorrect.
Družba Adidas je pri Hoge Raad vložila kasacijsko pritožbo zoper sodbo Gerechts- hof, ker je menila, da je napačna.
While the Gerechtshof recognised the importance of availability for third parties which, according to the caselaw of the Court, must be taken into consider -ation when examining the absolute grounds for refusal in Article 3 of Directive 89/104, it refused to consider any new arguments on the interpretation of the requirement of availability for the purposes of establishing the protection afforded to a trade mark when the sign does not come under one of those grounds for refusal in Article 3.
Čeprav je priznala pomen razpoložljivosti za tretje osebe, ki se mora po sodni praksi Sodi�ča upo�tevati pri ugotavljanju absolutnih razlogov za zavrnitev iz člena 3 Direktive 98/104, je zavrnila novo razpravo o pomenu zahteve po dostopnosti, da bi natančneje opredelila varstvo, ki ga uživa znamka, kadar znak ne spada med razloge za zavrnitev iz navedenega člena 3.
The Gerechtshof held that the conduct of the four defendant companies did not infringe the trade mark rights relied on by adidas. However, it did not give a declaratory ruling on the use of the two stripes, since, because they were too general, the actions brought failed to take into account the scope of protection of a trade mark, which is not static but subject to a number of factors which vary in time and space, which is of particular importance in assessing infringement.
Gerechtshof je odločilo, da ravnanje �tirih toženih družb ni kr�ilo pravic znamke, ki jih je zatrjevala družba Adidas, vendar ni izdalo ugotovitvene sodbe o uporabi dveh črt, ker so bili ti zahtevki preveč splo�ni, da bi spadali na področje varstva znamke, ki ni togo, temveč odvisno od posameznih okoli�čin, ki se v prostoru in času spreminjajo, kar pri ugotavljanju kr�itve dobi poseben pomen.
The Gerechtshof took the view that it was not possible to describe the threestripe mark as intrinsically strong, because in itself it has little distinctive character.
Po oceni Gerechtshof se znamke treh trakov ne more �teti za posebno izvirno, saj ima majhen razlikovalni učinek.
However, by 1996, as a result of adidas’ advertising efforts, the sign had acquired distinctive character through use, from which it followed that its protection had increased.
Kljub temu je zaradi ogla�evalskih prizadevanj družbe Adidas znak leta 1996 z uporabo pridobil
With regard to the appeal in cassation, the Hoge Raad accepts that adidas’ threestripe trade mark has acquired considerable distinctive character through widespread use. However, the referring court is uncertain as to the scope of protection of a mark composed of a sign which in itself lacked distinctive character for the purposes of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104, which obtained such character through use, and
Hoge Raad za potrebe kasacijskega postopka ugotavlja, da je znamka treh črt družbe Adidas dosegla velik razlikovalni učinek zaradi zelo raz�irjene uporabe, vendar dvomi o obsegu varstva znamke, ki jo predstavlja znak, ki sam po sebi nima razlikovalnega učinka v smislu člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 89/104, vendar ga je pridobil z uporabo in
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX relevant public as being signs used to distinguish goods or merely to embellish them?
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX razpoložljivost se zahteva, za razlikovalne znake ali le za okrasje proizvodov?
which was subsequently registered. In par -ticular, the Hoge Raad wishes to ascertain whether it is necessary to take account of the general interest in ensuring that the availability of certain signs is not unduly restricted for other traders who offer the goods or ser -vices concerned (Freihaltebedürfnis).
se je registriral naknadno; ter želi ugotoviti zlasti, ali je treba upo�tevati splo�ni interes, da se drugim izvajalcem dejavnosti, ki ponujajo zadevne proizvode ali storitve, neupravičeno ne omeji razpoložljivosti določenih znakov (Freihaltebedürfnis).
(3) Does it, further, make any difference whether the sign contested by the holder of a trade mark is devoid of distinctive character, within the terms of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, or contains a designation, within the terms of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive?’
Ali je položaj drugačen tudi, če znak, ki ga imetnik znamke izpodbija, nima razli -kovalnega učinka v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Direktive ali če vsebuje označbo iz čle -na 3(1)(c) Direktive?“
In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Hoge Raad prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
The order for reference was received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2007.
Predložitvena odločba je bila v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložena 21. februarja 2007.
Written observations were lodged, within the period laid down in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, by Marca Mode, H & M, adidas, the Italian and United Kingdom governments, and the Commission of the European Communities.
V roku, določenem v členu 23 Statuta Sodi�ča, so pisna stali�ča vložile družbe Marca Mode, H & M in Adidas, italijanska vlada, vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti.
At the hearing, held on 6 December 2007, the representatives of adidas, Marca Mode and H & M, and the agents of the
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen: ali je položaj drugačen, če upo�tevna javnost �teje znake, katerih
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 obravnavi 6. decembra 2007 ustno predstavili svoja stali�ča.
Italian Government, the United Kingdom Government and the Commission presented their oral arguments.
prednost člen 6(1)(b) Direktive, saj zajema sistem omejitev pravic znamke, njegovo besedilo pa je podobno besedilu člena 3(1)(c) Direktive, ki se nana�a na opisne označbe.
A — Overview
A – Stališče
In order to reply to that question, it is necessary to examine the limitations of the exercise of the rights conferred by that industrial property right, under Articles 5 and 6 of the Directive.
Predložitvena odločba se nana�a na obseg varstva znamk; odgovor pa zahteva preučitev obsega izvr�evanja pooblastil, ki jih člena 5 in 6 Direktive dajeta tej pravici industrijske lastnine.
In that connection, it is appropriate to point out to the referring court the need to establish whether adidas’ sign in the main proceedings comes under Article 3(1)(b) or Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, because, in contrast with subparagraph (c), the ground for refusal of registration or invalidity, as the case may be, laid down in subparagraph (b), does not fall within the limitations of trade mark rights referred to in Article 6(1).
V teh okoli�činah je treba predložitveno sodi�če opozoriti na potrebo, da se razjasni, ali znak družbe Adidas iz spora o glavni stvari spada pod točko b) ali točko c) čle -na 3(1) Direktive, saj razlog za zavrnitev regi -stracije oziroma razlog za neveljavnost, ki je zajet v točki b), v nasprotju z določbo iz točke c) ni na�el prostora v omejitvah pravice iz znamke, na katere se nana�a člen 6(1).
It follows from the foregoing that the outcome will be different depending on whether the mark in itself lacked distinctive character (governed by Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive) or whether it is an indication designating the product (Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive).
Iz tega izhaja, da razplet ni enak, če znak sam po sebi ni imel razlikovalnega učinka (področje uporabe člena 3(1)(b) Direktive) ali če je opisoval eno od označb proizvoda (točka c) iste določbe.
However, owing to its factual nature, that assessment may be made only by the Hoge Raad or, if it is barred from examining the facts in an appeal in cassation, by the court whose judgment is the subject of the appeal.
Vendar je ta preučitev, ker se nana�a na dejstva, v pristojnosti Hoge Raad ali, če se v kasacijskem postopku ni mogoče ugotavljati dejstev, v pristojnosti sodi�ča, ki odloča o glavni stvari.
In view of the close connection between those two questions, I agree with the Italian Government that it is advisable to consider them together, with particular emphasis on the first question in which the Netherlands court essentially asks whether the general
Glede na navedeno v predložitveni odločbi je sporni znak pridobil razlikovalni učinek z Adidasovo uporabo, zaradi česar je treba uporabiti določbe o simbolih, ki se jih v skladu s točkami b), c) in d) člena 3 Direktive ne sme registrirati.
According to the case-file, the contested sign acquired distinctive character through the use made of it by adidas.
Vendar ker Hoge Raad poudarja predvsem zahtevo po razpoložljivosti kot merilo za razlago, ki bi utegnilo koristiti pri razlagi navedenih določb, ima pri re�itvi primera
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX interest in keeping a particular sign available constitutes a factor to be taken into account when interpreting the extent of the rights conferred on the proprietor of a mark in an action for infringement of that right.
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX nizozemsko sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je splo�ni interes za ohranitev razpoložljivosti konkretnega znaka element razlage obsega učinkovanja pravic, ki jih znamka podeljuje imetniku v postopku kr�itve te pravice industrijske lastnine.
principle of German law’, according to which, ‘in addition to the impediments associated with a lack of distinctive character, there are also other public interest considerations which militate in favour of limiting the registration of certain signs so that they may be used freely by all operators’. 9
zahtevo po razpoložljivosti iz nem�ke doktrine“, ki določa obstoj, „poleg ovir zaradi razlikovalnega učinka, �e drugih preudarkov javnega interesa, ki svetujejo, da se registracija določenih znakov omeji, zato da jih lahko drugi izvajalci dejavnosti prosto uporabljajo“. 9
Errors or omissions on my part excepted, although it has frequently referred to the requirement of availability, the Court 7has never carried out a detailed analysis of that legal principle of German origin. I therefore feel moved to undertake a more comprehensive examination which goes beyond the simple definition I have put forward in other opinions.
Kljub večkratnemu sklicevanju na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti ni Sodi�če 7 nikoli podrobno preučilo tega pravnega instituta, ki nosi nem�ki pečat, razen če se motim ali sem kaj spregledal, kar me spodbuja k temu, da se lotim ob�irnej�e analize, ki presega golo opredelitev, ki jo ponujam v drugih sklepnih predlogih.
I drew attention, on the one hand, to the German origins of the principle, even using its German name (Freihaltebedürfnis), 10 and, on the other, to its close connection with the general interest.
Tako izstopa na eni strani njen nem�ki izvor, ki ji je dal tudi ime v nem�kem jeziku (Freihaltebedürfnis), 10in na drugi strani njena tesna povezanost s splo�nim interesom.
However, in order to understand better that principle of national law, and its significance within the Community legal system, it is appropriate to explore its development in both legal orders.
Vendar se zaradi bolj�ega razumevanja tega načela v nacionalnem pravu in njegovega pomena v ureditvi Skupnosti zdi primerno, da se poglobim v njegov razvoj v obeh pravnih ureditvah.
B — Introduction: availability
B – Uvod: zahteva po razpoložljivosti
An investigation of the origins of the Freihaltebedürfnis principle leads back to the period when the Warenzeichengesetz (former German Law on trade marks;
Sledi začetkov Freihaltebedürfnis izvirajo iz časa veljavnosti Warenzeichengesetz (biv�i nem�ki zakon o znamkah, v nadaljevanju:
9 — Paragraph 52 of the Opinion cited in the previous footnote.
I-7561); z dne 8. aprila 2003 v združenih zadevah Linde in drugi (C-53/01, C-54/01 in C-55/01, Recueil, str.
7 — For example, principally in the judgments in Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779; Case C-104/00 P DKV [2002] ECR I-7561; Joined Cases C-53/01, C-54/01 and C-55/01 Linde and Others [2003] ECR I-3161; and Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01 P Henkel v OHIM [2004] ECR I-5089.
8 – Sklepni predlogi z dne 31. januarja 2002 v zadevi Koninklijke KPN Nederland (sodba z dne 12. februarja 2004, C-363/99, Recueil, str. I-1619).
10 — Academic lawyers writing in German do not differentiate between that term, used, for example, in Sosnitzas, O. and Fröhlich, S., ‘Freihaltebedürfnis bei mehrdeutigen Zeichen — Unterschiede in der Beurteilung durch EuGH, BGH und BPatG?’, Markenrecht, 09/2006, p.
10 – Nem�kogovoreča pravna stroka uporablja ta termin brez razlike, na primer: Sosnitzas, O./Fröhlich, S., Freihaltebedürfnis bei mehrdeutigen Zeichen – Unterschiede in der Beurteilung durch EuGH, BGH und BPatG?, Markenrecht, 09/2006, str. 383 in naslednje, in različica Freihaltungsbedürfnis, na primer: Bender, A., Absolute Eintragungshindernisse – Art. 7 GMV, v Ekey, F./Klippel, D., Heidelberger Kommentar zum Markenrecht, ur. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg, 2003, str. 893.
11In practice, it was thought that the wording of Paragraph 4(2)(1) was too concise, because it prohibited only the registration of signs composed exclusively of numbers, letters or words containing an indication of the kind, age, place of production, qualities, intended purpose, price, quantity or weight of the goods. 12
11V praksi so menili, da ima člen 4(2)(1) zelo borno besedilo, saj je prepovedoval registracijo znakov, ki so bili sestavljeni zgolj iz �tevk, črk ali besed, ki so vsebovale označbe o načinu, času in kraju proizvodnje, posebnostih, namembnosti, ceni, količini ali teži proizvoda.
To overcome a number of difficulties, the caselaw which was developed extended the range of signs in respect of which registration is prohibited to include all signs whose individual function as a monopoly was considered to be contrary to the interests of competitors. 13 That approach had an effect on the examination of trade mark applications, since a refusal based on the requirement of availability exempted the German authorities from assessing the distinctive character of the mark requested. 14
Da bi re�ili nekatere težave, se je razvila sodna praksa, ki je raz�irila krog znakov, ki se jih ni smelo registrirati, na vse znake, katerih posamezna opredelitev kot monopol je bila v nasprotju z interesi tekmecev; 13tako ravnanje pa je vplivalo na odločanje o prijavah znamk, ker zaradi zavrnitve na podlagi zahteve po razpoložljivosti nem�kim organom ni bilo treba ugotavljati razlikovalnega učinka prijavljenega znaka. 14
The traditional German interpretation associated three adjectives with the principle of availability, requiring it to be real, current
Tradicionalna nem�ka razlaga je načelu razpoložljivosti pripisala tri pridevnike in