natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although mention must be made of the judgment of 28 October 2004 in Case T-35/01 Shanghai Teraoka Electronic v Council, not yet published in the ECR, dismissing the action for annulment of a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales, 38in particular because it is the only decision delivered in the anti-dumping sphere, it is to the judgment of 14 December 2004 in Case T-317/02 Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF) and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, that the reader’s attention is drawn.
Omeniti je treba sodbo z dne 28. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Shanghai Teraoka Electronic proti Svetu (T-35/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil), s katero je bila zavrnjena tožba o razglasitvi ničnosti Uredbe o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev za uvoz nekaterih elektronskih trgovskih tehtnic38, ker pomeni edino odločitev, izdano na področju protidampinga, vendar bo pozornost bralca usmerjena predvsem na sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2004 v zadevi Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF) in drugi proti Komisiji (T-317/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil).
In adjudicating for the first time on the lawfulness of a Commission decision rejecting a complaint lodged in accordance with the Council regulation on trade barriers 39
S tem, da je Sodišče prve stopnje prvič izreklo svoje mnenje o zakonitosti odločbe
Court of First Instance specified the conditions in which those obstacles to trade justify Community intervention.
, je določilo pogoje, pod katerimi trgovinske ovire upravičujejo posredovanje Skupnosti.
See also, to that effect, Pollmeier Malchow v Commission, cited above, paragraph 76.
V tem smislu glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi Pollmeier Malchow proti Komisiji, točka 76.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales (REWS) originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 42).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2605/2000 z dne 27. novembra 2000 o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev za uvoz nekaterih elektronskih trgovskih tehtnic po poreklu iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, Republike Koreje in Tajvana (UL L 301, str. 42).
Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspicies of the World Trade Organisation (OJ 1994 L 349, p. 71).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 3286/94 z dne 22. decembra 1994 o določitvi postopkov Skupnosti na področju skupne trgovinske politike za zagotovitev izvrševanja pravic Skupnosti po mednarodnih pravilih trgovanja, zlasti tistih, ki so dogovorjena v okviru Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) (UL L 349, str. 71).
In this case, the complaint lodged in June 2001 by the FICF, which represents all the principal French producers of prepared mustard, sought to denounce the effects of the measures which the United States of America had been authorised to take by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), 40 which consisted, inter alia, in imposing an additional customs duty of 100% on certain products from the Member States of the European Community, including ‘prepared mustard’.
Amerike40 in ki zajemajo zlasti ukrep dodatne carine v višini 100 % za določeno število proizvodov držav članic Evropske skupnosti, med katerimi je bila „pripravljena gorčica“.
In its complaint, the FICF denounced the selective nature of the United States retaliatory measures applied only vis-à-vis certain Member States and not vis-à-vis the European Community as a whole.
V svoji pritožbi je FICF prijavila selektivno naravo ameriških povračilnih ukrepov, uporabljenih samo proti določenim državam članicam in ne proti celotni Evropski skupnosti.
The complaint also stated that the trade barrier created by the United States had unfavourable commercial effects on the exports of prepared mustard of the undertakings that were members of the FICF and that it was in the Community interest, under the rules on international trade, to initiate proceedings against the measures adopted by the United States.
Pritožba je navajala tudi to, da je imela trgovinska ovira, ki so jo postavile Združene države, škodlijve učinke na trgovino pri izvozu pripravljene gorčice podjetij, članov FICF, in da bi bilo v interesu Skupnosti, da se na podlagi mednarodnih pravil trgovanja zoper uvedene ukrepe Združenih držav začne postopek.
In accordance with the trade barriers regulation, the Commission initiated an examination procedure which was subsequently extended to three other trade organisations of producers of foie gras, Roquefort and shallots.
V skladu z uredbo o trgovinskih ovirah je Komisija začela postopek pregleda, ki se je nato razširil na tri druge profesionalne organizacije proizvajalcev jetrne paštete, vrste ovčjega sira „roquefort“ in šalotke.
That procedure was closed in 2002, the Commission concluding that no specific action was necessary in the interests of the Community, as the selective withdrawal of concessions by the United States did not cause adverse trade effects within the meaning of that regulation.
Ta postopek se je leta 2002 končal s tem, da je Komisija menila, da posebno ukrepanje v interesu Skupnosti ni bilo potrebno, kolikor selektivna odprava koncesij s strani Združenih držav ni povzročila škodljivih učinkov na trgovino v smislu navedene uredbe.
Upon application by the FICF and the other organisations concerned for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to take action against the retaliatory measures taken by the United States, the Court of First Instance upheld that decision.
FICF in druge zadevne organizacije so na Sodišču prve stopnje vložile ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije o zavrnitvi delovanja proti ameriškim povračilnim ukrepom, ki je to odločbo potrdilo.
The Court observed, first of all, that under the Trade Barriers Regulation, the Community may take action pursuant to international rules against an obstacle to trade created by a third country on the basis of three cumulative conditions: there must be an obstacle to trade which produces adverse trade effects and action must be necessary in the interests of the Community.
Sodišče prve stopnje najprej ugotavlja, da lahko Skupnost deluje na podlagi uredbe o trgovinskih ovirah zaradi mednarodnih pravil trgovanja proti trgovinskim oviram, ki jih uvedejo tretje države, če so kumulativno izpolnjeni trije pogoji: obstoj trgovinske ovire, škodljivi učinki na trgovino, ki so posledica trgovinske ovire, in potreba po delovanju v interesu Skupnosti.
The Court of First Instance then considered that the Commission had correctly taken into account all the essential and indissociable elements of the concept of an obstacle to trade.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je Komisija pravilno upoštevala celoto elementov, ki so nerazdružljivi s pojmom trgovinske ovire.
As regards adverse trade effects, the Court found that the increase in exports of prepared mustard between 1996-1998 and 2000 from the United Kingdom to the United States, in terms of both value and volume, was extremely small in size and proportion by comparison to exports from other Member States of the Community.
Ker gre za škodljive učinke na trgovino, Sodišče prve stopnje poudarja, da je večanje izvoza pripravljene gorčice iz Združenega kraljestva v Združene države v obdobju od 1996 do 1998 ter v letu 2000 tako po vrednosti kot po količini predstavljalo skrajno nepomemben del in razmerje v primerjavi z izvozi iz drugih držav članic Skupnosti.
Therefore, even on the assumption that exporters from Member States other than the United Kingdom themselves would have benefited from that increase if the retaliatory measures adopted by the United States had been extended to prepared mustard from the United Kingdom
Čeprav postopek pregleda ni izključil splošnega dolgoročnega interesa Skupnosti za prihodnje ukrepe, je Komisija zaradi odsotnosti posebnega interesa Skupnosti, glede nasprotovanja trgovinski oviri, ki nima škodljivih učinkov na trgovino v smislu uredbe o trgovinskih učinkih, ustavila postopek. Sodišče prve stopnje sodi, da tožeča stranka
Between 1981 and 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted a number of directives against the use of certain substances having a hormonal action in animal feedstuffs, in order to protect human health.
Med letoma 1981 in 1996 je Svet Evropske unije za varovanje zdravja ljudi sprejel več direktiv proti uporabi nekaterih substanc s hormonskim delovanjem v živalski prehrani.
In January 1998, the Appellate Body of the WTO, following a complaint lodged by the United States, declared that legislation contrary to the WTO rules.
Januarja 1998 je prizivno telo STO na podlagi pritožbe, ki so jo vložile Združene države, razglasilo, da je ta ureditev Skupnosti v nasprotju s pravili STO.
In July 1999, as the Community legislation had not been adjusted to comply with those rules, the Appellate Body authorised the United States to adopt retaliatory measures and in particular to impose additional customs duties of 100% on a number of products from the European Community.
Julija 1999 je zaradi neusklajenosti ureditve Skupnosti dovolilo, da Združene države sprejmejo povračilne ukrepe, zlasti ukrep dodatnih carin v višini 100 % za nekatere prozvode Evropske skupnosti.
The Court held that a complainant may not urge the Community to take action on principle to protect the general interest without, at the least, having itself suffered adverse trade effects within the meaning of the Trade Barriers Regulation.
Skupnosti ne more napeljati na to, da bi začela načelno delovati v varstvo splošnega interesa, ne da bi stranka sama trpela škodljive učinke na trgovino v smislu uredbe o trgovinskih ovirah.
Contrary to the French producers’ contention, therefore, the Commission had not confused the interests of the Community with those of the FICF.
Posledično in obratno od tega, kar so trdili francoski proizvajalci, Komisija interesa Skupnosti ni pomešala z interesom FICF.
Furthermore, although the contested decision did not refer to the interested parties other than the FICF, the Court found that the Commission had considered their interests in the context of its examination.
Čeprav napadena odločba ne omenja drugih zadevnih strank od FICF, Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je Komisija pri pregledu presodila tudi njihove interese.
Community trade mark
Znamka Skupnosti
Given the place which it now occupies in the Court’s work, the registration of Community trade marks is a prime source of litigation before the Court: 110 actions were brought in 2004 (compared with 100 in 2003) and 76 cases were disposed of (47 by judgment and 29 by order), which is 29 more than last year.
Registracija znamke Skupnosti je glede na obseg dela, ki ga nalaga Sodišču prve stopnje, prvovrstni razlog za sojenje na tem sodišču: 110 novih zadev v letu 2004 (v primerjavi s 100 v letu 2003) in 76 rešenih zadev (47 s sodbo in 29 s sklepom), kar pomeni 29 več kot prejšnje leto.
Under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, 41 registration as a Community trade mark is to be refused if, inter alia, the mark is devoid of distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b)) or descriptive (Article 7(1)(c)) (absolute grounds for refusal) or in the event of well-founded opposition on the basis of an earlier mark protected in a Member State or as a Community trade mark (Article 8) (relative grounds for refusal). 42
V skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 40/94 z dne 20. decembra 1993 o znamki Skupnosti41 se registracija znamke Skupnosti zavrne, zlasti če je znamka brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka (člen 7(1)(c)) (absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev) ali v primeru ugovora, ki temelji na obstoju starejše znamke, ki je varovana v državi članici ali kot znamka Skupnosti (člen 8) (relativni razlogi za zavrnitev)42.
Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
Absolutni razlog za zavrnitev registracije
In its 14 judgments ruling on the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to absolute grounds for refusal of registration, the Court annulled only one of those
Od štirinajstih sodb, v katerih se je odločalo o zakonitosti odločb odborov za pritožbe, ki se nanašajo na absolutne razloge za zavrnitev registracije, je Sodišče prve stopnje samo enkrat razglasilo razveljavitev (sodba z dne 24. novembra 2004 v zadevi Henkel proti UUNT (Oblika bele in prozorne stekleničke), T-393/02) in v vseh drugih primerih tožbo zavrnilo43.
A Community trade mark may also be declared invalid by OHIM where an application for such a declaration has been made under Article 51(1) of Regulation No 40/94.
Na podlagi zahteve, vložene v skladu s členom 51(1) iste uredbe, lahko UUNT razglasi ničnost znamke Skupnosti.
No ruling was given by the Court in 2004 on the lawfulness of any decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM.
V letu 2004 Sodišče prve stopnje sploh ni odločalo o zakonitosti odločbe oddelka UUNT za izbris.
Judgments of 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02 Deutsche SiSi-Werke v OHIM (stand-up pouch) (under appeal, Case C-173/04 P); of 31 March 2004 in Case T-216/02 Fieldturf v OHIM (LOOKS LIKE GRASS...
Sodbe z dne 28. jaunarja 2004 v zadevi Deutsche SiSi-Werke proti UUNT (Pokončna vrečka), od T-146/02 do T-153/02 (pritožba, zadeva C-173/04 P); z dne 31. marca 2004 v zadevi Fieldturf proti UUNT (LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS), T-216/02; z dne 21. aprila 2004 v zadevi Concept proti UUNT (ECA), T-127/02; z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Eurocermex proti UUNT (Oblika steklenice za pivo), T-399/02 (pritožba, zadeva C-286/04 P); z dne 30. junija 2004 v zadevi Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb proti UUNT (Mehr für Ihr Geld), T-281/02; z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi Telepharmacy Solutions proti UUNT – (TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS), T-289/02; z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi MLP Finanzdienstleistungen proti UUNT (bestpartner), T-270/02; z dne 20. julija 2004 v zadevi Lissotschenko in Hentze proti UUNT (LIMO), T-311/02; z dne 14. septembra 2004 v zadevi Applied Molecular Evolution proti UUNT (APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION), T-183/03; z dne 10. novembra 2004 v zadevi Storck proti UUNT (Oblika zavitka bonbona), T-402/02; z dne 10. novembra 2004 v zadevi Storck proti UUNT (Oblika bonbona), T-396/02; z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Frischpack proti UUNT (Oblika posode za sir), T-360/03; z dne 30. novembra 2004 v zadevi Geddes proti UUNT (NURSERYROOM), T-173/03, še neobjavljena v Recueil.
Moreover, for the first time, the Court applied Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure in order to dismiss by order an action brought against a decision of a Board of Appeal, in which it was held that QUICK-GRIP was descriptive of clamps (DIY equipment), on the ground that it was manifestly lacking any foundation in law (order of 27 May 2004 in Case T-61/03 Irwin Industrial Tool v OHIM (QUICK GRIP), not yet published in the ECR).
Prvič, znamke, omenjene v členu 7 (1)(b) Uredbe št. 40/94, so tiste, ki niso sposobne izvrševati temeljne funkcije znamke, ki je razlikovanje trgovskega porekla blaga ali storitev. Z drugimi besedami, razlikovalni učinek znamke v smislu omenjene določbe pomeni, da je ta znamka sposobna zagotoviti, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila zahtevana registracija, prihajajo iz določenega podjetja in da lahko to blago ali storitve razlikuje od blaga ali storitev drugih podjetij.
Third, in Concept v OHIM (ECA), cited above, the Court reviewed whether the Board of Appeal had properly applied the absolute ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 40/94.
Med drugimi so bile potrjene odločbe odbora za pritožbe o zavrnitvi registracije znamk Skupnosti zaradi odsotnosti razlikovalnega učinka: predstavitve pokončnih vrečk za pijače za sadne sokove; besedni znak „LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS...
It found that such a mark is an imitation from a heraldic point of view of the European emblem within the meaning of Article 6 ter (1)(b) of the Paris Convention.
Nasprotno je Sodišče prve stopnje razveljavilo odločbo odbora za pritožbe, ki je menil, da tridimenzionalni znak v obliki bele in prozorne stekleničke za čistila nima razlikovalnega učinka.
It held, in addition, that the Board of Appeal had been right to find that registration of the mark sought was likely to give the public the impression that there is a connection between the mark sought and the Council of Europe, the European Union or the European Community.
V svoji zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Henkel proti UUNT (Oblika bele in prozorne stekleničke) je Sodišče prve stopnje dejansko menilo, da je bila zahtevana tridimenzionalna znamka nenavadna in sposobna razlikovanja zadevnega blaga od tistega, ki ima drugo trgovsko poreklo.
Fourth, since Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 expressly provides that Article 7(1)(b) to (d) does not apply if the mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested ‘in consequence of the use which has been made of it’, applicants do not neglect to rely on that provision before OHIM in support of their argument that the mark should be registered.
Drugič, v zvezi s spori o razlikovalnem učinku zahtevanih znamk v smislu člena 7 (1)(c) Uredbe št. 40/94, je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo celoto presojanj odborov za pritožbe, ki se nanašajo na to vprašanje.
The Court set out the circumstances in which such distinctiveness may be regarded as established, in terms of both the procedural requirements and the necessary proof, in its judgments Eurocermex v OHIM (shape of a beer bottle) and Case T-396/02 Storck v OHIM (shape of a sweet) and Case T-402/02 Storck v OHIM (shape a sweet wrapper), cited above.
Tako je sodilo o zakonitosti odločb, ki so odločile o nesposobnosti izpolnitve funkcije znamke, da sporoči poreklo: besedni znak TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS za opremo za distribucijo farmacevtskih proizvodov na daljavo, besedni znak LIMO za nekatere kategorije laserskih proizvodov, besedni znak APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION za storitve, ki se nanašajo na molekularno inženirstvo spojin in besedni znak NURSERYROOM za blago za mlajše otroke.
In the last of those judgments, the Court stated that the Boards of Appeal do not infringe the first clause of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 where they refrain from examining, of their own motion, all the facts on the basis of which it may be concluded that a mark has become distinctive as a result of use within the meaning of Article 7(3).
Sodišče prve stopnje je prvič uporabilo člen 111 Poslovnika in s sklepom zavrglo tožbo na razveljavitev odločbe odbora za pritožbe, ki je potrdila opisno naravo besed QUICK-GRIP za jermene za pričvrstitev (rokodelski pripomočki), ker je tej tožbi očitno manjkala vsaka podlaga v zakonu (sklep z dne 27. maja 2004 v zadevi Irwin Industrial Tool proti UUNT (QUICK-GRIP), T-61/03, še neobjavljen v Recueil).
Although, in contrast to what is stated at the end of Article 74(1) with regard to the relative grounds for refusal, there is no rule in the first clause of that provision requiring that the examination by OHIM (that is, by the examiner or the Board of Appeal, as the case may be) be limited to the facts pleaded by the parties, the Court found that, if the applicant for a mark does not plead distinctiveness acquired through use, OHIM is, in practical terms, unable to take account of the fact that the mark claimed may have become distinctive.
Tretjič, Sodišče prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Concept proti UUNT (ECA)44 preverilo pravilno uporabo člena 7 Uredbe št. 40/94, ki v svojem odstavku 1(h) navaja absolutni razlog za zavrnitev registracije.
Accordingly, under the principle that ‘no one is obliged to do the impossible’, OHIM is not bound to examine facts showing that the mark claimed has become distinctive through use within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 unless the applicant has pleaded them.
V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo zavrnitev registracije simboličnega znaka, sestavljenega iz kroga petokrakih zvezdic enake oblike in velikosti, ki imajo en krak obrnjen navzgor, ki na štirikotni podlagi obkroža besedni element „ECA“, katerega registracija se je zahtevala predvsem za podporo za shranjevanje podatkov in organizacijo ter vodenje seminarjev. Sodilo je, da tak znak dejansko posnema
That provision states that ‘trade marks which have not been authorised by the competent authorities and are to be refused pursuant to Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention are not to be registered’.
V skladu s to določbo se zavrne registracija „znamk […], za katere ni bilo izdano dovoljenje pristojnih organov in morajo biti zavrnjene na podlagi člena 6b Pariške konvencije“.
Relative grounds for refusal of registration
Relativni razlogi za zavrnitev registracije
In addition to the cases which were disposed of by order, including that ordering that there was no need to adjudicate where the opposition to the mark had been withdrawn (order of 9 February 2004 in Case T-120/03 Synopharm v OHIM – Pentafarma (DERMAZYN), not yet published in the ECR), the Court gave 19 rulings by way of judgment.
Ločeno od primerov, v katerih so bile zadeve rešene s sklepom, zlasti tistih, v katerih je bil po umiku ugovorov zoper registracijo znamke postopek ustavljen (sklep z dne 9. februarja 2004 v zadevi Synopharm proti UUNT – Pentafarma (DERMAZYN), T-120/03, še neobjavljen v Recueil), je Sodišče prve stopnje izdalo 19 sodb.
Fourteen of the judgments delivered upheld the decisions of the Boards of Appeal, 45 whilst the others annulled the contested decisions either for reasons of form and procedure 46or because the Board of Appeal had infringed Article 8(1)(b) of
S štirinajstimi razglašenimi sodbami je potrdilo odločbe odborov za pritožbe45, z drugimi pa spodbijane
Judgment of 30 June 2004 in Case T-317/01 M+M v OHIM – Mediametrie (M+M EUROdATA), not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba z dne 30. junija 2004 v zadevi M+M proti UUNT – Mediametrie(M+M EUROdATA), T-317/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil.
Moreover, several judgments help to clarify the rules governing the procedure for examining an opposition laid down in Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94.
Dejavnost uporabe in to, da mora dokazovati tisti, ki ugovarja, ter je preverilo presojo odbora za pritožbe o resni in dejanski naravi uporabe.
In several decisions (MFE Marienfelde v OHIM – Vétoquinol (HIPOVITON), Sunrider v OHIM – Espadafor Caba (VITAFRUIT) and Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM – Krafft (VITAKRAFT)), the Court also clarified the definition of genuine use and the standard of proof which must be met by the opponent and reviewed the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the genuine nature of the use.
V zvezi s tem zadnjim stališčem je treba navesti, da je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann proti UUNT – Krafft (VITAKRAFT) menilo, da je odbor za pritožbe napačno odločil, da je bila resna in dejanska uporaba dokazana, kolikor se je pri svoji utemeljitvi skliceval zgolj na domneve; posledično je razveljavilo sporne odločbe.
Formal and procedural issues
Obličnostna in postopkovna vprašanja
Although the Court dealt with a relatively large number of formal and procedural issues, the limited nature of this account means that only some of them can be addressed.
Čeprav so bila obličnostna in postopkovna vprašanja, ki jih je obravnavalo Sodišče prve stopnje, sorazmerno številna, omejena narava tega besedila zahteva, da se izpostavijo le nekatera izmed njih.
Four points have thus been chosen.
Izbrane so bile štiri teme.
The first point concerns the admissibility or inadmissibility of certain forms of order.
Prva tema zadeva dopustnost nekaterih tožbenih predlogov.
First of all, the question arose as to whether OHIM may seek a form of order other than dismissal of the action, given that OHIM is designated as the defendant before the Court in the Rules of Procedure.
Najprej se je postavilo vprašanje, ali bi bil UUNT lahko odločil drugače, kot da je zavrnil tožbo na razveljavitev, glede na to, da je UUNT v skladu s Poslovnikom48 toženec pred Sodiščem prve stopnje.