natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similarly, the applicant itself accepts that the word ‘eurohypo’ is
Tudi v skladu s pojasnili same pritožnice bi lahko nem�ka javnost izraz „eurohypo“ razumela kot okraj�avo „Europäische
45 — SAT.1 v OHIM, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 26.
45 – Sodba SAT.1 proti UUNT, točka 26.
This need was first established by the Court of Justice in the context of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104, in its judgment in Case C-104/01 Libertel [2003] ECR I-3793, paragraph 60.
To nujnost je najprej določilo Sodi�če v okviru člena 3(1)(b) zgoraj navedene Direktive 89/104/EGS v sodbi z dne 6. maja 2003 v zadevi Libertel (C-104/01, Recueil, str. I-3793, točka 60).
46 — See, inter alia, Joined Cases C-186/02 P and C-188/02 P Ramondín and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-10653, paragraph 60; Storck v OHIM, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 61; and OHIM v Celltech, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 21.
46 – Zlasti sodba z dne 11. novembra 2004 v združenih zadevah Ramondín in drugi proti Komisiji (C-186/02 P in C-188/02 P, ZOdl., str. I-10653, točka 60) in zgoraj navedeni sodbi Storck proti UUNT (točka 61) in UUNT proti Celltech (točka 21).
44 — DKV v OHIM, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 29.
44 – Zgoraj navedena sodba DKV proti UUNT, točka 29.
VI — Costs
VI – Stroški
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika, ki velja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since Eurohypo has applied for costs and OHIM has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs of the two actions.
Družba Eurohypo je predlagala, naj se UUNT naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s pritožbenimi razlogi ni uspel, se mu naloži plačilo stro�kov postopkov na obeh stopnjah.
‘(1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo v OHIM;
1. razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. maja 2006 v zadevi Eurohypo proti UUNT (T-439/04);
(2) annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2004;
2. razveljavi odločbo četrtega odbora za pritožbe Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT) z dne 6. avgusta 2004;
2008 — CASE C-304/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-304/06 P
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)8 May 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 8. maja 2008 *
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 13 July 2006,
V zadevi C-304/06 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 13. julija 2006,
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 October 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 November 2007, gives the following
Trstenjak, sodni tajnik: J. Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 4. oktobra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 8. novembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
By its appeal, Eurohypo AG (‘the appellant’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO) [2006] ECR II-1269 (‘the judgment under appeal’) in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant’s action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-4) (‘the contested decision’).
S to pritožbo družba Eurohypo AG (v nadaljevanju: pritožnica) predlaga razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 3. maja 2006 v zadevi Eurohypo proti UUNT (EUROHYPO) (T-439/04, ZOdl., str. II-1269, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to zavrnilo njeno tožbo zoper odločbo četrtega odbora za pritožbe Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT) z dne 6. avgusta 2004 (zadeva R 829/2002-4, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
By the contested decision, OHIM had refused to register the word sign EURO-HYPO as a Community trade mark for services in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957 concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised and amended (‘the Nice Agreement’), corresponding to the following description: ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial services; financing …’.
UUNT je s sporno odločbo zavrnil registracijo besednega znaka „EUROHYPO“ kot znamko Skupnosti za storitve iz razreda 36 v smislu Nicejskega aranžmaja o mednarodni klasifikaciji blaga in storitev zaradi registracije znamk z dne 15. junija 1957, v revidirani in spremenjeni obliki (v nadaljevanju: Nicejski aranžma), to je razreda, ki ustreza temu opisu: „[f]inančni posli; denarni posli; posli v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje […]“.
Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p.
Člen 7 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 40/94 z dne 20. decembra 1993 o znamki Skupnosti (UL 1994, L 11, str.
1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 349, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 3288/94 z dne 22. decembra 1994 (UL L 349, str.
83) (‘Regulation No 40/94’), provides:
83, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 40/94), določa:
The following shall not be registered:
Kot znamka se ne registrirajo:
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service;
[…] b) znamke, ki so brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka; c) znamke, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali podatki, ki lahko v gospodarskem prometu označujejo vrsto, kakovost, količino, namen, vrednost, geografski izvor ali čas proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitve ali druge lastnosti blaga ali storitve;
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;
EUROHYPO PROTI UUNT d) znamke, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali označbe, ki so postali običajni v jezikovni rabi ali v dobroverni ustaljeni praksi trgovanja;
Article 38(1) of Regulation No 40/94 provides:
Člen 38(1) Uredbe �t. 40/94 določa:
‘Where, under Article 7, a trade mark is ineligible for registration in respect of some or all of the goods or services covered by the Community trade mark application, the application shall be refused as regards those goods or services.’
„Če znamka po členu 7 ne more biti registrirana za del ali celotno blago ali storitve, ki jih zajema prijava znamke Skupnosti, se prijava za to blago ali storitve zavrne.“
Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 provides:
Člen 74(1) Uredbe �t. 40/94 določa:
In proceedings before it the Office shall examine the facts of its own motion; …’
V postopku Urad preveri dejstva po uradni dolžnosti; […]“
Background
Dejansko stanje
On 30 April 2002, the appellant applied to OHIM for registration of the word sign EUROHYPO for services in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement and corresponding to the following description:
Pritožnica je 30. aprila 2002 pri UUNT zahtevala registracijo besednega znaka „EUROHYPO“ za storitve iz razreda 36 v smislu Nicejskega aranžmaja, ki ustreza temu opisu:
‘Financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial services; financing; financial analysis; investment affairs; insurance affairs’.
„finančni posli; denarni posli; posli v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin; finančne storitve; financiranje; finančne analize; investicijski posli; zavarovalni�tvo“.
Since the application was rejected by the OHIM examiner by decision of 30 August 2002, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 40/94, the appellant filed an appeal at OHIM.
Ker je bila ta zahteva z odločbo preizku�evalca UUNT z dne 30. avgusta 2002 na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) in (c) ter (2) Uredbe �t. 40/94 zavrnjena, je pritožnica pri UUNT vložila pritožbo.
In the contested decision OHIM partially upheld the appeal and annulled the examiner’s decision as regards ‘financial analysis; investment affairs; insurance affairs’.
UUNT je s sporno odločbo deloma ugodil pritožbi in razveljavil odločbo preizku�evalca v delu, v katerem se je nana�ala na storitve „finančne analize; investicijski posli; zavarovalni�tvo“.
The appeal was, however, dismissed as regards the other services in Class 36, namely, ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial affairs; provision of financial services; financing’.
Nasprotno pa je bila pritožba za druge storitve iz razreda 36, in sicer za „finančn[e] posl[e]; denarn[e] posl[e]; posl[e] v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin; finančne storitve; financiranje“, zavrnjena.
Essentially, OHIM held that the components EURO and HYPO contained a clearly understandable indication of the characteristics of the five services mentioned above and that the combination of those two components in one word did not render the mark less descriptive.
UUNT je v bistvu menil, da dela „EURO“ in „HYPO“ vsebujeta jasno razumljivo označbo lastnosti petih zgoraj navedenih storitev in da združitev teh dveh delov v eno besedo ne povzroči, da bi bila znamka manj opisna. Zato je presodil, da besedni
EUROHYPO v OHIM descriptive of ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial services; financing’ and that it was, therefore, devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, at least in Germanspeaking countries, and that that ground was sufficient, under Article 7(2) of that regulation, to justify a refusal of protection.
EUROHYPO PROTI UUNT znak „EUROHYPO“ opisuje „[f]inančn[e] posl[e]; denarn[e] posl[e]; posl[e] v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin; finančne storitve; financiranje“ in da zato vsaj v nem�ko govorečih deželah nima razlikovalnega učinka v smislu člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 ter da to na podlagi člena 7(2) te uredbe zado�ča za utemeljitev zavrnitve varstva.
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
On 5 November 2004, the appellant brought an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the contested decision.
Pritožnica je 5. novembra 2004 pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila tožbo na razveljavitev sporne odločbe.
In support of that action, the appellant raised two pleas in law claiming, respectively, infringement of Article 74(1), and of Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation No 40/94.
V utemeljitev svoje tožbe je navedla dva tožbena razloga, prvega v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 74(1) in drugega v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94.
By its first plea, alleging infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94, the appellant claimed that, in the contested decision, OHIM did not exhaustively examine the public’s perception of the word sign EUROHYPO.
S prvim tožbenim razlogom v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 74(1) Uredbe �t. 40/94 je pritožnica trdila, da UUNT v sporni odločbi ni popolnoma preučil tega, kako besedni znak „EUROHYPO“ zaznava javnost.
The Court of First Instance rejected that plea, holding, at paragraph 20 of the judgment under appeal that ‘… the fact that the Board of Appeal, being sufficiently convinced of the descriptiveness of the elements “euro” and “hypo” and the word “eurohypo” to refuse registration, chose not to carry out further research is not contrary to the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ta tožbeni razlog zavrnilo in v točki 20 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da „[…] dejstvo, da se je odbor za pritožbe odločil, da ne opravi dodatnih raziskav, saj je bil dovolj prepričan o opisnosti sestavnih delov ‚euro‘ in ‚hypo‘ ter izraza ‚eurohypo‘, da je sklenil zavrniti registracijo, ni v nasprotju s členom 74(1), prva poved, Uredbe �t. 40/94.“
By its second plea, the appellant claimed infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 inasmuch as the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM had held that the word sign EUROHYPO was descriptive of the financial services at issue.
V drugem tožbenem razlogu je pritožnica navedla kr�itev člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94, ker je četrti odbor za pritožbe presodil, da besedni znak „EUROHYPO“ opisuje zadevne finančne storitve.
As regards the basis of the contested decision, the Court of First Instance first observed, at paragraphs 41, 43 and 44 of the judgment under appeal:
V zvezi z utemeljenostjo sporne odločbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej v točkah 41, 43 in 44 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da:
‘41 … contrary to OHIM’s submissions, it is clear from paragraph 12 et seq. of the contested decision that the decision to refuse registration of the word sign EUROHYPO, in respect of “financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; financial services; financing”, refers only to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
„41 […] v nasprotju s tem, kar trdi UUNT, iz točke 12 in naslednjih [sporne] odločbe izhaja, da se odločba o zavrnitvi zahteve za registracijo besednega znaka EURO-HYPO za storitve ‚finančni posli; denarni posli; posli v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje‘ nana�a le na člen 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94.
43 However, there is a clear overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) to (d) of that provision ….
43 Vendar obstaja očitno prekrivanje področij uporabe razlogov, navedenih v točkah od (b) do (d), v navedeni določbi […].
44 It is also clear from the caselaw of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance that a word mark which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94
44 Tudi iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča in Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, da je besedna znamka, ki je za zadevne proizvode ali storitve opisna v smislu člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe
The Court of First Instance then stated at paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal that ‘… the assessment of the legality of the contested decision requires verification as to whether the Board of Appeal has established that the word sign EUROHYPO was descriptive of “financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; financial services; financing” within Class 36.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 45 izpodbijane sodbe torej navedlo, da „[…] presoja zakonitosti [sporne] odločbe pomeni preveriti, ali je odbor za pritožbe dokazal, da je besedni znak EUROHYPO opisen za storitve „finančni posli; denarni posli; posli v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje“ iz razreda 36.
If that is the case the refusal to register is the result of a correct application of both Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 7(1) (c) and the contested decision must be upheld. …’.
Če je tako, je zavrnitev registracije posledica tako pravilne uporabe člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 kot člena 7(1)(c) te uredbe in je treba [sporno] odločbo potrditi. […]“.
The Court of First Instance then examined whether the word sign EUROHYPO was descriptive for the services at issue.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato preučilo, ali je besedni znak „EUROHYPO“ za zadevne storitve opisen.
First, it held, at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgment under appeal, that OHIM had rightly found that the individual components EURO and HYPO were descriptive of the services at issue.
Prvič, v točkah 51 in 52 izpodbijane sodbe je presodilo, da je UUNT pravilno ugotovilo, da sta ločena sestavna dela „EURO“ in „HYPO“ za zadevne storitve opisna.
Second, the Court of First Instance examined whether the descriptive character of the components which comprised the word sign EUROHYPO also existed for the compound word itself.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je preučilo, ali opisnost delov, ki sestavljata besedni znak „EUROHYPO“, velja tudi za sestavljeno besedo samo.
At paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, the Court found in the affirmative in the following terms:
V točki 55 izpodbijane sodbe je ugotovilo, da je to tako iz teh razlogov:
‘In the present cases the word sign EUROHYPO is a straightforward combination of two descriptive elements, which does not create an impression sufficiently far
„55 V tej zadevi je po eni strani besedni znak EUROHYPO preprosta kombinacija dveh opisnih elementov, ki ne ustvarja vtisa, dovolj oddaljenega od vtisa preproste
2008 — CASE C-304/06 P removed from that produced by the mere combination of the elements of which it is composed to amount to more than the sum of its parts.
2008 – ZADEVA C-304/06 P združitve elementov, ki ga sestavljata, da bi pomenila več kot le vsoto svojih elementov.
The applicant has not shown that that compound word had become part of everyday language and had acquired a meaning of its own.
Po drugi strani tožeča stranka ni dokazala, da bi ta beseda [postala del] vsakdanj[e] rab[e] in v vsakdanji rabi pridobila lasten pomen.
It argues, to the contrary, that the word sign EUROHYPO has not become part of everyday German for describing financial services.’
Nasprotno trdi, da besedna znamka EUROHYPO ni [postala del] vsakdanj[e] rab[e] nem�kega jezika, ki opisuje finančne storitve.“
In addition, at paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance held that the solution identified in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-383/99 P Proctor & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251 (‘Baby-dry’) could not be transposed to the present case given that ‘… the term at issue in that case was a lexical invention which had an unusual structure, which is not the case for the word sign EUROHYPO’. 21
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 56 izpodbijane sodbe razsodilo, da se re�itve iz sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT, imenovane „Baby-dry“ (C-383/99 P, Recuiel, str. I-6251) ne da prenesti na ta primer, ker je bila: „[z]adevna besedna zveza v omenjeni zadevi […] leksikalni izum neobičajne zgradbe, pri besednem znaku EUROHYPO pa ni tako“.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance held, at paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal:
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 57 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo:
‘The Board of Appeal … lawfully found that the word sign EUROHYPO was descriptive of “financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; financial services and financing” in Class 36 and was, therefore, devoid of any distinctive character.
„Odbor za pritožbe je […] zakonito presodil, da je besedni znak EUROHYPO opisen za storitve ‚finančni posli; denarni posli; posli v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, finančne storitve, financiranje‘ iz razreda 36 in je zato brez razlikovalnega učinka.
It follows that, in accordance with the findings in paragraph 45 above, there is no need to examine whether the Board of Appeal put forward other grounds for finding that the mark applied for was devoid of any distinctive character.’
Torej v skladu s tem, kar je bilo navedeno v točki 45 zgoraj, ni treba preučiti, ali je odbor za pritožbe predstavil druge razloge za ugotovitev, da je prijavljeni znak brez razlikovalnega učinka.“
Finally, at paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the claim based on the widespread use of the mark was inadmissible as that claim was raised for the first time before the Court of First Instance.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je očitek glede intenzivnosti uporabe znamke nedopusten, ker se je nanj prvič sklicevalo pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje v celoti zavrnilo tožbo.
In its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court should:
S pritožbo pritožnica Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— annul the contested decision;
– razveljavi sporno odločbo;
— order OHIM to pay the costs.
– UUNT naloži plačilo stro�kov.
OHIM claims the Court should dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the costs.
UUNT Sodi�ču predlaga, naj zavrne pritožbo in pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law alleging, respectively, infringement of Article 74(1), and of Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation No 40/94.
Pritožnica v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja dva pritožbena razloga, prvega v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 74(1) in drugega v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94.
The first plea in law
Prvi pritožbeni razlog
In the present case, OHIM restricted itself to an analysis of the descriptive character of the individual components EURO and HYPO without making findings of fact on the word mark EURO-HYPO as a whole.
V tem primeru pa naj bi UUNT analiziral le opisnost ločenih sestavnih delov „EURO“ in „HYPO“, ne da bi predstavil dejanske ugotovitve v zvezi z besedno znamko EUROHYPO kot celoto.
In addition, the appellant criticises OHIM for having carried out internet research in relation to the mark EUROHYPO and that it knowingly concealed the results in so far as they did not show that the mark was used in a descriptive way.
Poleg tega pritožnica UUNT očita, da je opravil raziskave v zvezi z znamko EURO-HYPO po internetu in da je namenoma prikril rezultate, ker z njimi ni bilo mogoče dokazati, da se ta znamka uporablja opisno.
In so doing, OHIM misrepresented the facts.
UUNT naj bi tako izkrivil dejstva.
The Court of First Instance accordingly erred in law by holding that the absence of references to Internet research in relation to the descriptive character of the mark EUROHYPO in the reasoning of the contested decision was not contrary to Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tako z ugotovitvijo, da nenavajanje raziskav, opravljenih po internetu, v zvezi z opisnostjo znamke EUROHYPO v obrazložitvi sporne odločbe ni v nasprotju s členom 74(1) Uredbe �t. 40/94, napačno uporabilo pravo.
OHIM contends that it is not bound by strict evidential requirements.
UUNT navaja, da ni vezan s strogimi zahtevami v zvezi z dokazovanjem.
In particular, under the principle of unfettered evaluation of the evidence, it may make its decision on the basis of its own belief whether it considers a fact has been proved.
Zlasti v skladu z načelom proste presoje dokazov lahko na podlagi lastnega prepričanja razsodi, ali �teje določeno dejstvo za dokazano.
Therefore, once it considers that it has sufficient evidence to make a decision, it is not obliged to continue its investigation and analysis.
Zato takrat, ko meni, da ima dovolj podatkov za sprejetje odločbe, ni več dolžan nadaljevati raziskav in analiz.
OHIM contends, in addition, that the descriptive use of a newly-created word is not a relevant criterion in the application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and, therefore, that the Board of Appeal could not be criticised for not mentioning it.
UUNT poleg tega poudarja, da opisna uporaba na novo ustvarjenega pojma ni upo�tevno merilo za uporabo člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 in da torej ne bi bilo mogoče očitati odboru za pritožbe, da je ni navedel.