natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, in Case T-424/07 Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM) (judgment of 20 January 2009, not published), the Court stated that, precisely because it is commonly used in everyday language, as well as in trade, as a generic laudatory term, the sign OPTIMUM cannot be regarded as appropriate for the purpose of identifying the commercial origin of the goods which it designates and that the fact that the goods in question are intended for a specialised public in no way alters that assessment, given that the level of attention of such a public, which is generally high, is relatively low when it comes to promotional indications.
V teh okoliščinah od Sveta ni mogoče zahtevati, da čim podrobneje navede, kako zamrznitev sredstev zainteresirane osebe konkretno prispeva k boju proti terorizmu, ali da predloži dokaze za to, da bi zainteresirana oseba ta sredstva lahko uporabila za to, da bi v¥prihodnosti izvršila ali poskusila izvršiti teroristična dejanja.
Under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, a trade mark may be registered if it has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services in question in consequence of the use which has been made of it.
Drugič, Splošno sodišče, potem ko je opozorilo na pogoje za izvršitev odločbe o zamrznitvi sredstev, na pravila v zvezi z dokaznim bremenom Sveta v teh okoliščinah in na obseg sodnega nadzora na obravnavanem področju, poudarja, da mora biti ob upoštevanju besedila, smisla in ciljev zadevnih določb kot tudi bistvene vloge, ki jo imajo nacionalni organi v procesu zamrznitve sredstev, odločba o „začetku preiskave ali pregona“, zato da se Svet lahko veljavno sklicuje nanjo, izdana v okviru nacionalnega postopka, katerega neposreden in bistven namen je sprejetje preventivnih ali restriktivnih ukrepov zoper zainteresirano osebo na podlagi boja proti terorizmu in zaradi njene vpletenosti vanj.
In this respect, in Case T-137/08 BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of the colours green and yellow) (judgment of 28 October 2009, under appeal), the Court ¤rst recalled that not every use of a sign, in the case in point a combination of the colours green and yellow, necessarily constitutes use as a trade mark.
Ta zahteva v primeru odločbe nacionalne sodne oblasti, ki le podredno in posredno odloča o morebitni vpletenosti zainteresirane osebe v tako dejavnost v¥okviru spora, ki se na primer nanaša na državljanske pravice in obveznosti, ni izpolnjena.
However, in the circumstances of this case, OHIM’s decision not to declare the mark consisting of that sign invalid was based inter alia on statements from professional associations according to which the combination of the colours green and yellow referred to the intervener’s agricultural machines and on the fact that the intervener had been using the same combination of colours on its machines for a considerable time.
Poleg tega Splošno sodišče pojasnjuje, da kadar Svet po ponovni preučitvi želi sprejeti ali ohraniti ukrep zamrznitve sredstev iz naslova Uredbe št.¥2580/2001 na podlagi nacionalne odločbe o¥„začetku preiskave ali pregona“ za teroristično dejanje, mora upoštevati poznejši razvoj teh preiskav ali pregonov.
The Court also stated that, although it must be proved that the disputed mark has acquired distinctive character throughout the Union, the same types of evidence do not have to be provided in respect of each Member State.
Vendar se lahko zgodi, da je preiskava policijskih ali varnostnih organov končana, ne da bi se nadaljeval sodni postopek, ker ni bilo mogoče zbrati dovolj dokazov, ali pa da se sodna preiskava iz istih razlogov ustavi. Prav tako se lahko zaradi odločbe o pregonu opusti
The main contributions to the case-law in 2009 concern the assessment of similarity of signs and the evaluation of likelihood of confusion.
Sodba z dne 12.¥decembra¥2006 (T-228/02, ZOdl., str.¥II-4665).Sodba z dne 11.¥julija¥2007 (T-47/03, neobjavljena).
First of all, in Case T-80/08 CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect) (judgment of 28 October 2009), the Court found that the similarities between the signs RNAifect and RNActive resulting from the identical nature of the ¤rst three letters is strongly mitigated by the di¥erences between their last ¤ve letters.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št.¥2580/2001 z dne 27.¥decembra¥2001 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte zaradi boja proti terorizmu (UL L¥344, str.¥70).
Accordingly, that element could not be regarded by the public as being distinctive and dominant in the overall impression conveyed by the complex marks in question.
Letno poročilo 2009
Proceedings comparison between signs can counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between those signs.
Bilo bi nedopustno, da Svet ne bi upošteval teh elementov, ki so del celote informacij, ki jih je treba upoštevati za presojo položaja.
The Court observed that, although the sign ESTEVE has no meaning in any ocial Union language apart from Spanish, the sign ESTER-E will be associated with a well-known ¤rst name or with a chemical compound and that that conceptual di¥erence between those signs means that there is no likelihood of confusion.
Drugačna odločitev bi Svetu in državam članicam ponovno vrnila neomejeno pooblastilo za zamrznitev sredstev osebe za nedoločen čas, ne da bi bil nad tem mogoč kakršen koli sodni nadzor, in sicer ne glede na izid morebitnih sodnih postopkov, ki bi mu sledili.
On the other hand, in Case T-386/07 Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Redl (Agile) (judgment of 29 October 2009, not published), the Court stated that situations in which a sign whose meaning the relevant public is capable of grasping immediately has only limited distinctiveness in relation to the goods or services in question do not constitute such circumstances. It took the view that the conceptual di¥erence between the signs Aygill’s and Agile is not sucient to counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between those signs. With regard to the goods at issue, sports equipment and clothing, the word ‘agile’ has a laudatory character, which, in light of those similarities, might also be attributed by consumers to the earlier mark. Also, in Case T-291/07 Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM – Byass (ALFONSO) (judgment of 23 September 2009, not published), the Court upheld OHIM’s assessment that the earlier mark PRINCIPE ALFONSO and the mark applied for ALFONSO are conceptually di¥erent for Spanish consumers, in particular in that, in so far as the ‘principe’ element singles out one person from among all those with the same ¤rst name, the mark applied for has a clear and speci¤c meaning, so that the relevant public will be capable of grasping it immediately. As regards comparison of goods or services, in Case T-316/07 Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel) (judgment of 22 January 2009), the Court, having recalled that goods and services are complementary where there is a close connection between them, such that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other, stated that that de¤nition implies that those goods or services can be used together and therefore that they are intended for the same public.
Splošno sodišče je v združenih zadevah Melli Bank proti Svetu (sodba z dne 9.¥julija¥2009, T-246/08 in T-332/08, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) in v zadevi Bank Melli Iran proti Svetu (sodba z dne 14.¥oktobra¥2009, T-390/08, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku), ki so bile končane po hitrem postopku, prvič preučilo tožbe zoper ukrepe zamrznitve sredstev, sprejete v okviru sistema omejevalnih ukrepov, uvedenega zaradi pritiska na Islamsko republiko Iran, da bi ustavila jedrske dejavnosti, ki pomenijo tveganje širjenja jedrskega orožja, in razvoj sistemov za dobavo jedrskega orožja.
Other signi¤cant case-law developments in 2009 concern Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94, in particular in the context of invalidity proceedings.
Pobudo za zadevni sistem je dala resolucija Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov, izvedena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št.¥423/200727, ki predvideva zamrznitev sredstev oseb, subjektov ali organizacij, ki jih je imenoval Varnostni svet, in zamrznitev sredstev subjektov, ki so v lasti ali pod nadzorom subjektov, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da sodelujejo pri širjenju jedrskega orožja, da so neposredno povezani z njim ali da ga podpirajo.
In Joined Cases T-318/06 to T-321/06 Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM – General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA) (judgment of 24 March 2009), the Court recalled that, in order to oppose the registration or apply for a declaration of invalidity of a Community trade mark under that provision, the sign relied on must satisfy all of four conditions: it must be used in the course of trade; it must be of more than mere local signi¤cance; the right to that sign must have been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the sign was used prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark and it must confer on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark.
Na podlagi te uredbe so bila iranski banki in njeni hčerinski družbi s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, ki je v stoodstotni lasti matične družbe, z odločbama zamrznjena sredstva ob upoštevanju njune domnevne vloge olajševanja občutljive dejavnosti Islamske republike Iran pri številnih nakupih občutljivih materialov za iranske jedrske programe in programe balističnih izstrelkov ter opravljanju nančnih storitev.
The Court went on to state that the ¤rst two conditions must be interpreted in the light of European Union law alone, while the other two conditions must be assessed in the light of the criteria set by applicable national law.
Prvič, v odgovor na ugovor nezakonitosti, ki ga je podala Melli Bank plc glede Uredbe št.¥423/2007, ker naj bi bilo z njo kršeno načelo sorazmernosti, je Splošno sodišče opozorilo, da za zakonitost prepovedi gospodarske dejavnosti velja pogoj, da so prepovedi primerne in potrebne za uresničitev legitimnih ciljev, ki jim sledi zadevna ureditev, pri tem pa je treba takrat, ko je mogoče izbirati med več primernimi ukrepi, uporabiti tistega, ki je najmanj omejujoč, povzročene neugodnosti pa ne smejo biti čezmerne glede na zastavljene cilje.28 Pojasnjuje, da je cilj Uredbe št.¥423/2007 preprečitev širjenja jedrskega orožja in njegovega nanciranja ter s tem izvajanje pritiska na Islamsko republiko Iran, da bi ustavila zadevne dejavnosti. Ta cilj spada v širši okvir prizadevanj za ohranjanje miru in mednarodne varnosti in je zato legitimen.
Lastly, as regards the second condition, the Court held, ¤rst, that the signi¤cance must be assessed in the light of both the geographical dimension and the economic dimension and, second, that the fact that a sign confers on its proprietor an exclusive right throughout the national territory is in itself insucient to prove that it is of more than mere local signi¤cance.
Poleg tega je zamrznitev sredstev subjektov v lasti ali pod nadzorom subjekta, za katerega je ugotovljeno, da sodeluje pri širjenju jedrskega orožja, povezana s tem ciljem, ker obstaja nezanemarljivo tveganje, da bo tak subjekt izvajal pritisk na subjekte, ki jih ima v lasti ali jih nadzoruje, da bi se izognil učinku njemu namenjenih ukrepov, in jih spodbujal, bodisi naj nanj posredno ali neposredno prenesejo svoja sredstva, bodisi naj zanj opravijo transakcije, ki jih sam zaradi zamrznjenih sredstev ne more opraviti.
Moreover, in Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07 Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR) (judgment of 11 June 2009), the Court held that, when applying Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94, the Board of Appeal is required to take into consideration both the legislation of the Member State concerned, applicable by virtue of the reference made by that provision, and the relevant national case-law.
Nazadnje iz sodne prakse izhaja, da lastninska pravica in pravica do opravljanja gospodarske dejavnosti nista absolutni pravici in da za njuno uresničevanje lahko veljajo omejitve, ki jih upravičujejo cilji v splošnem interesu, ki jim Skupnost sledi. S pomenom ciljev, ki jim sledijo
Furthermore, in Case T-165/06 Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI) (judgment of 14 May 2009, under appeal), the Court ascertained whether the conditions for the application of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 40/94 had been observed by the Board of Appeal of OHIM.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 423/2007 z dne 19. aprila 2007 o omejevalnih ukrepih proti Iranu (UL L¥103, str.¥1).Sodba Sodišča z dne 13.¥novembra¥1990 v zadevi Fedesa in drugi (C-331/88, Recueil, str.¥I-4023, točka¥13).
OHIM may declare a Community trade mark to be invalid if its use can be prohibited pursuant to, in particular, a right to a name protected by a national law, the Court held that the protection guaranteed by the relevant Italian provision is not precluded where the name of the person concerned has achieved renown on account of his commercial activity.
Splošno sodišče poudarja, da sta z zamrznitvijo sredstev svoboda opravljanja gospodarske dejavnosti in lastninska pravica zadevnih bančnih ustanov znatno omejeni, saj te lahko razpolagajo s svojimi sredstvi, ki so na ozemlju Skupnosti ali v lasti državljanov Skupnosti, zgolj na podlagi posebnih dovoljenj, in njihove hčerinske družbe s sedežem na navedenem ozemlju ne morejo opravljati novih transakcij s svojimi strankami. Vendar meni, da povzročene neugodnosti niso pretirane v primerjavi z zastavljenimi cilji.
In addition, Case T-435/05 Danjaq v OHIM — Mission Productions (Dr. No) (judgment of 30 June 2009) enabled the Court to make it clear that the same sign may be protected as an original creative work by copyright and as an indicator of the commercial origin of the goods and services in question by trade mark law.
Drugič, Splošno sodišče je v drugi zgoraj navedeni sodbi navedlo pomembna pojasnila glede obveznosti seznanitve zadevnih oseb z obrazložitvijo ukrepov, ki jih, čeprav so splošni, vseeno neposredno in posamično zadevajo in lahko omejujejo uresničevanje njihovih temeljnih pravic.
The Court recalled that those two exclusive rights are based on distinct qualities, that is to say the original nature of a creation, on the one hand, and the ability of a sign to distinguish that commercial origin, on the other.
Meni, da mora Svet zadevne subjekte o ukrepih zamrznitve sredstev v čim večjem obsegu seznaniti z osebno vročitvijo.
Therefore, even if the title of a ¤lm can be protected by certain national laws as an artistic creation independently of the protection a¥orded to the ¤lm itself, it does not automatically enjoy the protection a¥orded to trade marks.
Pravila, da se nihče ne more sklicevati na to, da ne pozna zakonodaje, namreč ni mogoče uveljavljati, če je zadevni akt za zadevno osebo individualni akt.
Accordingly, even if the signs Dr. No and Dr. NO serve to distinguish the ¤lm bearing that title from the other ¤lms in the ‘James Bond’ series, that does not establish that such signs indicate the commercial origin of the goods and services in question.
Toda Svet v obravnavanem primeru ni opravil osebne vročitve, čeprav je poznal naslov sedeža tožeče stranke. Splošno sodišče torej meni, da Svet ni upošteval obveznosti, da tožečo stranko seznani z¥obrazložitvijo izpodbijanega sklepa.
Lastly, the Court clari¤ed the rules concerning proof of genuine use of the earlier mark in the context of invalidity proceedings.
Vendar je iz spisa razvidno, da je francoska bančna komisija obvestila podružnico tožeče stranke v Parizu o sprejetju izpodbijanega sklepa in njegovi objavi v Uradnem listu istega dne.
It stated in Case T-450/07 Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick COLOUR GROUP) (judgment of 12 June 2009) that OHIM is required to examine the issue of proof of genuine use of the earlier mark even where the proprietor of the Community trade mark which is the subject matter of an application for a declaration of invalidity has not submitted a speci¤c request to that e¥ect, but has challenged the evidence submitted by the proprietor of the earlier mark to prove use.
Ta je bila tako pravočasno in uradno obveščena tako o sprejetju izpodbijanega sklepa kot o tem, da lahko obrazložitev navedenega sklepa najde v Uradnem listu, tako da v teh izjemnih okoliščinah ugotovljena nepravilnost ne utemeljuje razglasitve ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa.
Grounds for revocation
Registracija za dajanje tofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet
Under Article 50 of Regulation No 40/94, a Community trade mark is liable to revocation inter alia where the use of the trade mark may mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services in question.
Splošno sodišče je leta 2009 razglasilo več sodb v zvezi z odločbami Komisije, sprejetimi na podlagi Direktive 91/414, ki določa postopek za izdajo in odvzem registracij za dajanje v promet (v¥nadaljevanju: RDP) tofarmacevtskih sredstev v Skupnosti.
In this respect, in ELIO FIORUCCI the Court found that the fact that a mark and a patronymic are identical is not sucient to warrant the conclusion that the public concerned will think that the person whose patronymic constitutes the mark designed the goods bearing that mark, since that public is aware that, behind every trade mark consisting of a patronymic, there is not necessarily a fashion designer of that name.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 3.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Cheminova in drugi proti Komisiji (T-326/07, še neobjavljena) opozorilo, da člen¥5(1)(b) Direktive 91/414 določa, da se aktivna snov lahko registrira, če se ob upoštevanju trenutnega znanstvenega in tehničnega znanja lahko pričakuje, da uporaba tofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki vsebujejo to aktivno snov, v skladu z dobro prakso varstva rastlin nima nikakršnega škodljivega vpliva na zdravje ljudi ali živali in na okolje.
In order that Article 50 of Regulation No 40/94 may be applied, the person concerned must prove that the mark has been used in a deceptive manner or that a suf-¤ciently serious risk of deception has been established, which was not demonstrated in the case in point.
Splošno sodišče pojasnjuje, da ta določba, če se razlaga ob upoštevanju načela previdnosti, glede zdravja ljudi določa, da obstoj resnih pokazateljev, ki ne da bi odpravili znanstvene negotovosti, dopuščajo razumen dvom o neškodljivosti snovi, načeloma nasprotuje registraciji te snovi.
In Case T-27/09 Stella Kunststo§technik v OHIM — Stella Pack (Stella) (judgment of 10 December 2009), the Court also clari¤ed the respective purpose and e¥ects of revocation and opposition proceedings.
Tako iz sklicevanja Direktive 91/414 na„trenutno znanstveno in tehnično znanje“ ni mogoče sklepati, da bi lahko bila podjetja, ki so prijavila aktivno snov in se soočajo z verjetnostjo odločbe o nevključitvi te snovi med registrirane snovi, upravičena predlagati nove študije in podatke tako dolgo, dokler obstajajo dvomi o škodljivosti sporne snovi.
It observed in particular that the relevant provisions do not provide that opposition proceedings brought on the basis of an earlier mark and still pending can inªuence in any way the admissibility or even the progress of revocation proceedings against that mark.
Taka razlaga bi bila v nasprotju s ciljem zagotoviti visoka merila varstva okolja ter zdravja ljudi in živali, ker bi privedla do tega, da bi imela stranka, ki je prijavila aktivno snov in mora po eni strani dokazati neškodljivost, po drugi strani pa ima najboljše znanje o zadevni aktivni snovi, v zvezi z morebitno odločbo o neregistraciji zadevne snovi pravico veta.
Opposition proceedings and revocation proceedings are two distinct and autonomous types of proceedings: opposition is designed to frustrate, under certain conditions, an application for registration of a mark due to the existence of an earlier mark, and rejection of an opposition does not entail revocation of the mark concerned, whereas revocation can be brought about only where proceedings have been instituted for that purpose.
Glej v tem smislu sodbo Sodišča z dne 30.¥julija¥1996 v zadevi Bosphorus (C-84/95, Recueil, str.¥I-3953, točke od¥21 do 23).
Formal and procedural issues
Dostop do dokumentov institucij
Since a large number of cases dealt with formal and procedural issues in 2009, it is necessary to limit these remarks to an outline of the main developments.
Splošno sodišče je v zadevah Borax Europe proti Komisiji (sodbi z dne 11.¥marca¥2009, T-121/05 in T-166/05, neobjavljeni) podalo pojasnila v zvezi z izjemami od pravice dostopa do dokumentov institucij glede, prvič, varstva zasebnosti in integritete posameznika in, drugič, varstva postopka odločanja.
First, Case T-140/08 Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT) (judgment of 14 October 2009, under appeal) is of particular importance, since it enabled the Court to specify the value, in the context of invalidity proceedings, of assessments made and conclusions reached by a Board of Appeal of OHIM in an earlier decision in opposition proceedings involving the same parties and the same Community trade mark.
V obravnavanem primeru je bil zavrnjen predlog tožeče stranke, naj se ji pošljejo dokumenti in zvočni posnetki srečanj, ki se nanašajo zlasti na komentarje in poročila strokovnjakov in predstavnikov industrije in ki so bili izdani v postopku uvrstitve borove kisline in boratov, v katerem je Komisija objavila končne ugotovitve navedenih strokovnjakov, ki so priporočali uvrstitev teh proizvodov med strupene snovi.
Second, as regards the consequences for OHIM of annulment of a decision of the Board of Appeal, the Court stated in Case T-402/07 Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL) (judgment of 25 April 2009, under appeal) that OHIM has to ensure that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, which again becomes pending following that annulment, leads to a new decision, possibly adopted by the same board.
Komisija je v utemeljitev te zavrnitve zlasti trdila, da bi razkritje teh dokumentov pomenilo kršitev pravice do varstva osebnih podatkov iz Uredbe¥(ES) št.¥45/200131in bi omogočalo identikacijo strokovnjakov, ki bi lahko bili izpostavljeni zunanjim pritiskom zaradi zadevnih gospodarskih interesov.
It stated that, if, as in the case in point, the judgment annulling the decision has not taken a position on whether or not the marks at issue are similar, the Board of Appeal must re-examine that question, independently of the position adopted in the earlier annulled decision.
Splošno sodišče je razglasilo izpodbijane odločbe za nične, zlasti ker Komisija ni pojasnila, kako bi lahko dostop do zadevnih dokumentov konkretno in dejansko škodil interesom, zaščitenim z zadevno izjemo.
Third, the Court clari¤ed the scope of the duty to state the reasons on which decisions of the Boards of Appeal are based where a trade mark covers several di¥erent goods or services.
Najprej je Splošno sodišče pojasnilo, da Komisija svoje zavrnitve ne more utemeljiti na zagotovilu, ki naj bi ga dala strokovnjakom, da se lahko osebno izrečejo in da njihova istovetnost in mnenje ne bosta razkrita.
In Case T-118/06 Zu§a v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP) (judgment of 2 April 2009), the Court stated that it is possible to use general reasoning for a series of goods or services only where there exists between them a suciently direct and speci¤c link as to enable the considerations constituting the grounds of the decision in question, ¤rst, to explain adequately the reasoning followed by the Board of Appeal for each of the goods and services belonging to that category and, second, to be applicable without distinction to each of the goods or services concerned.
Ker je bila zaveza o zaupnosti, za katero Komisija trdi, da jo zavezuje do strokovnjakov, sklenjena med njimi in to institucijo, je ni mogoče uveljavljati proti družbi Borax, katere pravice do dostopa do dokumentov so zagotovljene v skladu s pogoji in omejitvami, določenimi z Uredbo št.¥1049/2001.