natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The appellant adds that the Court of First Instance erred in the application of this criterion by stating in paragraph 55 of the judgment that the appellant had not established that the compound word at issue had acquired its own meaning and by denying on that basis that it was sufficiently distinctive.
Pritožnica dodaja, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje to merilo uporabilo napačno, ker je v točki 55 sodbe potrdilo, da pritožnica ni dokazala, da je sporna sestavljena beseda pridobila lasten pomen, in ji zato ni priznalo zadostnega razlikovalnega učinka.
According to the appellant, the overall sign EUROHYPO fulfils the criterion of having its own meaning.
Pritožnica meni, da naj bi znak EUROHYPO kot celota izpolnjeval merilo v zvezi z lastnim pomenom.
Even if it were to be accepted that the individual elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’ are actually understood as a descriptive indication of the European currency and of the word ‘hypothek’ (mortgage), the word ‘eurohypo’ is more likely to be understood by the German public as an abbreviation of ‘Europäische Hypothekenbank’ (‘European mortgage bank’) — apart merely from being an indication of the appellant as the undertaking of origin — and therefore in a sense is more than the sum of the currency ‘euro’ and the idea of ‘hypothek’.
Če domnevamo, da bi posamezna dela „euro“ in „hypo“ dejansko �tela za opisno označbo evropske valute in hipoteke, bi lahko nem�ka javnost izraz „eurohypo“ prej razumela kot okraj�avo „Europäische Hypothekenbank“ (evropska hipotekarna banka) – če ne zgolj kot označbo pritožnice kot družbe – torej tako, da bi pomenila več kot le vsoto valute „euro“ in pojma „hipoteka“.
This is, moreover,
To naj bi dokazovala praksa več drugih bank, katerih
sign normally falls within the scope of both rules.
Opisni znak naj bi tako običajno spadal na področje uporabe obeh določb.
Therefore it is self-evident that the rules identified in the caselaw concerning Article 7(l)(c) of the regulation with regard to findings on the descriptiveness of a compound word are equally applicable to the analysis of a descriptive term in the context of Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation, in so far as the criterion for examining both rules is the relevant public’s perception.
Torej naj bi pravila sodne prakse glede člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe v zvezi z ugotovitvijo razlikovalnega učinka sestavljene besede veljala tudi za ana -lizo opisnega imena v okviru člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe, če bi bilo zaznavanje upo�tevne javnosti merilo preučitve obeh določb.
The appellant fails to show why the different public interest that underlies each of the rules should lead to a different interpretation of the criterion of the descriptive term, depending on the rule at issue.
Pritožnica naj ne bi dokazala, zakaj bi se moralo zaradi različnih splo�nih interesov za posamezni določbi merilo opisnega imena razlagati različno.
OHIM considers that the question whether the consumer will perceive a word as descriptive precisely does not depend on the protection which the rule to be applied seeks to achieve.
UUNT meni, da vpra�anje, ali potro�nik zazna ime kot opisno, ni odvisno zgolj od cilja varstva določbe, ki naj bi se uporabila.
Furthermore, the appellant appears to share this point of view, since it would like to transpose the caselaw in BABY-DRY, handed down in the context of Article 7(l)(c) of the regulation, to the present case.
Zdi se, da pritožnica meni enako, saj želi, da se v obravnavani zadevi uporabi sodna praksa iz sodbe „BABY-DRY“, sprejeta v okviru člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe.
Finally, the appellant states that, while the public interest underlying Article 7(1) (b) of the regulation is based on the need not to restrict unjustifiably the availability of the sign for other operators which market goods or services such as those in respect of which registration is sought, the public interest which Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation is designed to protect is clearly based on the requirement that the sign may be freely used by all.
Pritožnica nazadnje navaja, da medtem ko splo�ni interes za določbo člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe zahteva, da se razpoložljivost znaka ne sme neupravičeno omejiti za druge subjekte, ki tržijo proizvode ali storitve, kot so ti, za katere je bila zahtevana registracija, splo�ni interes za člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe neomajno temelji na nujnosti, da bi lahko znak vsi prosto uporabljali.
Thus, by examining in passing the ground for refusal set out in subparagraph (c) in examining subparagraph (b), without distinguishing between the different types of public interest, the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted Article 7(l)(b).
Tako naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje, ker je razlog za zavrnitev iz točke (c) tega člena preučilo podredno v okviru analize točke (b) tega člena, ne da bi ločilo različni naravi splo�nih interesov, člen 7(1)(b) razlagalo napačno.
On this subject, the appellant refers to paragraph 36 of the judgment in SAT.1 v OHIM. 7
Pritožnica se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na točko 36 sodbe SAT.1 proti UUNT 7.
A — The first ground of appeal
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog
According to OHIM, the scope of the rules set out in Article 7(1)(b) overlaps with that of the rules set out in Article 7(1) (c) of the regulation. Thus a descriptive
UUNT meni, da se področji uporabe določb člena 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe ujemata.
In response to the appellant, which states that the Board of Appeal simply maintained,
UUNT pritožnici – ki trdi, da se je odbor za pritožbe zadovoljil s tem, da je zatrjeval,
7 — Cited in footnote 5.
7 – Navedena zgoraj.
EUROHYPO v OHIM particular known by the consumers of those goods.
EUROHYPO PROTI UUNT splo�no pridobljenih izku�enj trženja blaga �iroke potro�nje in ki jih lahko poznajo vsi, zlasti pa potro�niki teh proizvodov 10.
10 but without establishing, that the word ‘eurohypo’ taken as a whole is just as descriptive as the sum of the elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’, OHIM states that it is not under a duty to provide evidence, but only a duty to state reasons.
ne pa dokazal, da je izraz „eurohypo“ kot celota prav tako opisen kot vsota sestavnih delov „euro“ in „hypo“ – odgovarja, da nima obveznosti dokazovanja, temveč le obveznost obrazložitve.
In this case, as the judgment under appeal points out in paragraph 20, the Board of Appeal analysed not only the meaning of the elements ‘euro’ and ‘hypo’ but also the possible meanings of the compound word ‘eurohypo’.
V obravnavani zadevi, kot izhaja iz točke 20 izpodbijane sodbe, odbor za pritožbe ni preučil le pomena delov „euro“ in „hypo“, ampak tudi mogoče pomene sestavljenega izraza „eurohypo“.
In particular, the Board of Appeal states, in paragraph 14 of the contested decision, that this word will, for the German consumer, denote financial transactions guaranteed by securities and financing, notably in property affairs but also in other spheres where securities are needed.
Odbor za pritožbe je v točki 14 izpodbijane odločbe navedel zlasti to, da bo ta izraz za nem�kega potro�nika pomenil finančne storitve, zavarovane s stvarmi, in financiranje, predvsem na področju poslov v zvezi s posredovanjem nepremičnin, vendar tudi na drugih področjih, na katerih obstaja potreba po zavarovanju s stvarmi 11.
11In paragraph 16, the Board of Appeal states that the Court of Justice’s solution in Proctor & Gamble v OHIM 12cannot be accepted in this case, since this judgment considered the unusual word order crucial to declaring 10 — Case T-185/02 Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM — DaimlerChrysler (PICARO) [2004] ECR II-1739, para- graph 29.
Odbor za pritožbe v točki 16 pojasnjuje, da re�itve iz sodbe Sodi�ča v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT 12 ni mogoče uporabiti v obravnavani zadevi, ker je bil v tej sodbi pri ugotovitvi, ali je „BABY-DRY“ (namesto dry baby) opisen 10 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 22. junija 2004 v zadevi Ruiz-Picasso in drugi proti UUNT – DaimlerChrysler (PICARO) (T-185/02, ZOdl., str. II-1739, točka 29).
Under Article 74(1) of the regulation, OHIM examiners and, on appeal, the Boards of Appeal of OHIM are required to examine the facts of their own motion in order to determine whether the mark applied for falls under one of the grounds for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7 of the regulation.
V členu 74(1) Uredbe je določeno, da morajo preizku�evalci UUNT in v primeru pritožb odbori za pritožbe UUNT po uradni dolžnosti preveriti dejstva, da bi ugotovili, ali je pri znamki, za katero se zahteva registracija, podan kateri od razlogov za zavrnitev prijave iz člena 7 te uredbe 8.
8However, this provision clearly does not state in what way OHIM is to carry out this examination of the facts.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da ta določba ne določa podrobneje, kako mora UUNT to preveriti.
It is evident from the caselaw of the Court of First Instance, as the judgment under appeal in this case points out in paragraph 19, that the Board of Appeal is not obliged to justify its action by the production of evidence.
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, tako kot je poudarjeno v točki 19 sodbe, ki se izpodbija s to pritožbo, da odboru za pritožbe odločitve ni treba utemeljiti s predložitvijo dokazov 9.
9It is also clear from the caselaw of the Court of First Instance that the Board of Appeal may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja tudi to, da lahko odbor za pritožbe svojo analizo utemelji z dejstvi, ki izhajajo iz praktičnih
12 — Cited in footnote 6.
12 – Zgoraj navedena sodba.
14 that the elements concerned, which are not distinctive if viewed alone, also cannot become distinctive when they are combined, instead of basing its assessment on the average consumer’s perception of this combination as a whole.
sestavna dela, ki nista razlikovalna, če se ju obravnava sama, niti ne moreta postati razlikovalna, če sta kombinirana, namesto da bi se oprlo na presojo, kako povprečni potro�nik zaznava to kombinacijo kot celoto.
The appellant’s first ground of appeal should therefore be rejected. 15
Prvi pritožbeni razlog pritožnice je treba torej zavrniti 15.
B — The second ground of appeal
B – Drugi pritožbeni razlog
It should be borne in mind first of all that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to make findings of fact, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je samo Sodi�če prve stopnje pristojno za ugotavljanje dejanskega stanja, razen če bi vsebinska nepravilnost njegovih ugotovitev izhajala iz listin v spisu, ki so mu bile predložene, in za presojo tega dejanskega stanja.
That appraisal thus does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal. 16
Presoja dejanskega stanja, razen pri izkrivljanju predloženih dokazov, torej ni pravno vpra�anje, ki bi bilo predmet nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe 16.
879: according to these authors, in principle, combining words does not make a whole into more than the sum of its parts.
879: avtorja menita, da kombinacija besed načeloma ne povzroči, da bi vsota pomenila več kot njena sestavna dela.
This does not apply, however, where words that are not usually used in combination are combined in such a way as to form a compound word which is unusual in its structure and can be easily memorised.
To pa ne velja, če besede, ki jih ne uporabimo v običajni kombinaciji, kombiniramo tako, da oblikujemo sestavljeno besedo z neobičajno zgradbo, ki si jo je lahko zapomniti.
Minor stylistic variations, such as joining words that are normally separated, change nothing with regard to lack of distinctiveness, unless a completely different overall impression is created.
Manj�e slogovne razlike, kot je združitev besed, ki so običajno ločene, ne spremenijo ničesar glede neobstoja razlikovalnega učinka, razen če bi bil ustvarjen popolnoma drugačen celoten vtis.
It should also be borne in mind that, as regards a trade mark comprising words, the possible distinctiveness of each of its terms or elements, taken separately, may be assessed, in part, but must, in any event, depend on an appraisal of the whole which they comprise.
Opozoriti je treba tudi na to, da se, ko gre za znamko, sestavljeno iz besed, preveri mogoč razlikovalni učinek za vsak njen izraz ali del posebej, vendar mora biti v vsakem primeru odvisen od presoje celote, ki jo ti sestavljajo.
Indeed, the mere fact that each of those
Zgolj okoli�čina, da je vsak
15 — In OHIM v Celltech, cited in footnote 8, the Court of Justice confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which held that the Board of Appeal should have established, for example by referring to scientific literature, the correctness of the findings on the basis of which it held that the mark CELLTECH is descriptive, while the Board of Appeal had found that ‘the combination “CELLTECH” will immediately and unambiguously be perceived by the relevant consumer [specialists and average consumers] as designating activities in the field of cell technology and products, apparatus and equipment used in connection with or resulting from such activities’.
15 – V zgoraj navedeni sodbi UUNT proti Celltech je Sodi�če potrdilo sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je ugotovilo, da bi odbor za pritožbe moral, na primer z navajanjem znanstvene literature, dokazati pravilnost ugotovitev, na podlagi katerih je ugotovilo, da je znamka CELLTECH opisna, medtem ko je odbor za pritožbe menil, da bo „zadevni potro�nik (specialisti in povprečni potro�nik) izraz ‚CELLTECH‘ takoj in nedvoumno zaznal kot izraz, ki označuje dejavnosti s področja celične tehnologije ter proizvode, naprave in material, ki se uporabljajo pri teh dejavnostih ali ki iz teh dejavnosti izhajajo“.
In this case, however, there cannot properly speaking be any ‘scientific proof’ to be adduced; assessing the word ‘eurohypo’ necessarily supposes a subjective assessment.
Vendar v obravnavani zadevi ni mogoče govoriti ravno o „znanstvenem dokazu“, ki ga ja treba predložiti; za presojo izraza „eurohypo“ je nujna subjektivna presoja.
EUROHYPO v OHIM elements, considered separately, is devoid of any distinctive character does not mean that their combination cannot present a distinctive character.
EUROHYPO PROTI UUNT posamezen del brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka, ne izključuje tega, da ima lahko njihova kombinacija razlikovalni učinek 17.
17 the mere sum of its parts: that assumes either that because of the unusual nature of the combination in relation to the goods or services the word creates an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of its parts, or that the word has become part of everyday language and has acquired its own meaning, with the result that it is now independent of its elements.
če obstaja zaznavna razlika med besedo in preprosto sestavo njenih sestavnih delov, kar bodisi pomeni, da zaradi nenavadne kombinacije za navedene proizvode ali storitve beseda ustvarja vtis, ki je dovolj oddaljen od vtisa, ki ga ustvarja preprosta kombinacija pomenov njenih sestavnih delov, s posledico, da je beseda več kot le vsota njenih delov, bodisi da je beseda postala del vsakdanjega jezika in pridobila lasten pomen, tako da je zdaj neodvisna od svojih sestavnih delov.
The Court of First Instance first of all stated, in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal, that the Board of Appeal had rightly observed that the public concerned perceived ‘euro’, in the financial field, as the currency which is in circulation in the European Union and which describes that monetary area or also, as the appellant claims, as the abbreviation of the word ‘Europe’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej v točki 51 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da je odbor za pritožbe pravilno menil, da zadevna javnost v finančnem sektorju zazna „euro“ kot valuto v obtoku v Evropski uniji, ki opisuje to valutno področje, ali celo, kot trdi pritožnica, kot okraj�avo besede „Europe“.
That element therefore designates, according to the Court of First Instance, at least in one of its possible meanings, a characteristic of the financial services in question.
Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da torej sestavni del vsaj z enim od mogočih pomenov določa lastnost zadevnih finančnih storitev.
The Court of First Instance next stated, in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, that the Board of Appeal had rightly held that in the context of financial services ‘hypo’ was understood by the average consumer as an abbreviation of the term ‘hypothek’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje nato v točki 52 izpodbijane sodbe navaja, da je odbor za pritožbe upravičeno ugotovil, da je povprečni potro�nik v okviru finančnih storitev del „hypo“ razumel kot okraj�avo izraza „hipoteka“.
The Court of First Instance concluded from this, in paragraph 55, that, first, the word sign EUROHYPO is a straightforward combination of two descriptive elements, which does not create an impression sufficiently far 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 and that, secondly, the appellant did not show that that compound word had become part of everyday language and had acquired a meaning of its own, but argued, to the contrary, that the word sign EUROHYPO has not become part of everyday German for describing financial services.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zaključilo, da je po eni strani besedni znak EURO-HYPO preprosta kombinacija dveh opisnih sestavnih delov, ki ne ustvarja vtisa, dovolj oddaljenega od vtisa preproste združitve njegovih sestavnih delov, da bi pomenila več kot le vsoto njenih delov, in da po drugi strani pritožnica ni dokazala, da bi ta beseda postala del vsakdanje rabe in bi pridobila lasten pomen, ampak trdi nasprotno, da besedna znamka EUROHYPO ni postala del vsakdanje rabe v nem�kem jeziku, ki opisuje finančne storitve.
The Court of First Instance then pointed out, in paragraph 54, that it is clear from the caselaw that a mark consisting of a word composed of elements, each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the characteristics of those goods or services unless there is a perceptible difference between the word and
Sodi�če prve stopnje nato v točki 54 opozarja, da iz sodne prakse izhaja, da znamka, sestavljena iz besede, ki je sestavljena iz delov, ki oba opisujeta lastnosti proizvodov ali storitev, za katere se zahteva registracija, tudi sama opisuje lastnosti, razen
I - 3309
Pritožnica obravnavano zadevo primerja s tistima, v katerih sta bili izdani sodbi Sat.1 proti UUNT in Procter & Gamble proti UUNT. V prvi sodbi je Sodi�če sodbo Sodi�ča I - 3309
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-304/06 P alia, meat products, since this sign does not create ‘an impression sufficiently far removed from that produced by the mere juxtaposition of the verbal elements of which it is composed as to modify the meaning or the scope’. 22
2007 ugotovilo, da znak EUROPIG ni mogel biti registriran zlasti za mesne izdelke, ker ne ustvarja „vtisa, ki bi bil dovolj oddaljen od tega, ki ga ustvarja preprosta združitev njegovih dveh besednih sestavnih delov, tako da bi se spremenil pomen ali obseg“ 22.
Therefore, the appellant’s argument that the Court of First Instance did not assess the overall impression arising from the word sign ‘EUROHYPO’ should not be accepted.
Trditve pritožnice, da naj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi presodilo celotnega vtisa besednega znaka „EUROHYPO“, torej ni mogoče sprejeti.
of First Instance did not take into account the existence of an element of imaginativeness in the overall impression produced by the term SAT.2 that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
prve stopnje razveljavilo predvsem zato, ker Sodi�če prve stopnje pri preučevanju celotnega vtisa, ki ga ustvarja besedna zveza, ni upo�tevalo domi�ljijskega sestavnega dela 18.
18 In the present case, contrary to what the appellant maintains, there is no element of imaginativeness introducing any originality that might confer the slightest distinctiveness on the word sign EUROHYPO.
V obravnavani zadevi torej, v nasprotju s tem, kar trdi pritožnica, ni nobenega domi�ljijskega sestavnega dela, katerega izvirnost bi lahko dala besednemu znaku EUROHYPO vsaj najmanj�i razlikovalni učinek.
As to the appellant’s reference to the judgment in Proctor & Gamble v OHIM, it is sufficient, as OHIM has pointed out, to note that paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal indicated that the word combination BABY-DRY was a lexical invention which had an unusual structure, 19which is not the case with the word sign EUROHYPO. According to the judgment in Proctor & Gamble v OHIM, any perceptible difference between the combination of words submitted for registration and the terms used in the common parlance of the relevant class of consumers to designate the goods or services or their essential characteristics is apt to confer distinctive character on the word combination enabling it to be registered as a trade mark. 20In the present case, it must be said that there is no perceptible difference between the compound sign and the sum of the meanings lent by its descriptive elements. 21 41.
V zvezi s pritožničinim navajanjem sodbe Procter & Gamble proti UUNT, kot poudarja UUNT, zadostuje, da opozorimo, da je v točki 56 izpodbijane sodbe navedeno, da je bila besedna zveza BABY-DRY nenavaden leksikalen sestav 19, pri besednem znaku EURO-HYPO pa ni tako. V skladu s sodbo Procter & Gamble proti UUNT lahko vsaka opazna razlika med formulacijo besedne zveze, za katero se zahteva registracija, in izrazjem, ki ga zadevna kategorija potro�nikov uporablja v vsakdanjem jeziku za označitev proizvodov, storitev ali njihovih bistvenih lastnosti, tej besedni zvezi dodeli razlikovalni učinek, kar ji omogoča, da se registrira kot znamka 20. V obravnavani zadevi je mogoče ugotoviti zgolj to, da ni opazne razlike med sestavljenim znakom in vsoto sestavnih delov na podlagi opisnih dejavnikov 21. 41.
The appellant next criticises the Court of First Instance for having incorrectly interpreted Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation by using the criterion according to which a mark made up of descriptive components may be capable of registration if the compound word has entered general linguistic use and has acquired a meaning of its own.
Pritožnica Sodi�ču prve stopnje nato očita, da je napačno razlagalo člen 7(1)(b) Uredbe, ker je uporabilo merilo, v skladu s katerim bi bilo mogoče �teti, da se znamka, sestavljena iz opisnih delov, lahko registrira, če je sestavljena beseda postala del vsakdanjega jezika in je pridobila lasten pomen.
According to the appellant, that criterion is relevant only in the context of Article 7(1)(c).
Pritožnica meni, da bi bilo to merilo mogoče upo�tevati le v okviru člena 7(1)(c).
It is also interesting to note that, in a judgment of 14 June 2007, the Court of First Instance took the view that the word sign EUROPIG could not be registered for, inter
Zanimiva pa je tudi ugotovitev, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 14. junija
18 — SAT.1 v OHIM, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 35.
18 – Zgoraj navedena sodba SAT.1 proti UUNT (C-329/02 P, točka 35).
The judgment under appeal confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal, which
Z izpodbijano sodbo je bila dejansko potrjena odločba odbora za pritožbe, ki
19 — Proctor & Gamble v OHIM, cited in footnote 6, paragraph 43. 20 — Ibid., paragraph 40.
19 – Točka 43 sodbe Procter & Gamble proti UUNT.20 – Prav tam, točka 40. 21 – V zvezi s pojmom „opazna razlika“ glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja, predstavljene 31. januarja 2002 v zadevi Koninklijke KPN Nederland (sodba z dne 12. februarja 2004, C-363/99, Recueil, str.
22 — Case T-207/06 Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG) [2007] ECR II-1961, paragraph 35.
I-1619) točka 69 in naslednje.