natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In situations where the intervention does not form part of the exercise of public powers the private operator test applies in order to determine whether a private operator with a view to pro¤t would have been likely to make the investment.
Poudarja, da čeprav znak ESTEVE razen v španščini nima pomena v drugih uradnih jezikih Unije, se bo znak ESTER-E povezoval z dobro znanim imenom oziroma s kemijsko spojino in da na podlagi te konceptualne razlike med navedenima znakoma ni verjetnosti zmede.
In the case in point, the Court observed that the Commission had not examined whether the capital increase in Électricité de France (EDF), carried out by the French Republic by means of the waiver of a tax claim, constituted a legal measure in the light of the private investor test.
Nadaljnji pomemben razvoj sodne prakse tega leta se nanaša na člen¥8(4) Uredbe št.¥40/94, zlasti v zvezi s postopki za ugotavljanje ničnosti.
In the Commission’s view, that test could not apply to a tax advantage since the waiver stemmed from the exercise by the State of its regulatory powers or even of its rights and powers as a public authority.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 24.¥marca¥2009 v¥združenih zadevah Moreira da Fonseca proti UUNT – General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA) (od T-318/06 do T-321/06, še neobjavljena) opozorilo, da mora navedeni znak, da bi omogočal ugovor zoper registracijo ali predlog za razglasitev ničnosti znamke Skupnosti na podlagi navedene določbe, kumulativno izpolnjevati štiri pogoje: uporabljen mora biti v gospodarskem prometu; imeti mora več kot le lokalni pomen; pravice do tega znaka so morale biti v skladu s pravom države članice, kjer se je znak uporabljal, pridobljene pred datumom vložitve prijave znamke Skupnosti in ta znak mora imetniku podeljevati pravico do prepovedi uporabe poznejše znamke.
The Court rejected the Commission’s interpretation, stating that the application of the private investor test could not be dismissed solely on the ground that EDF’s capital increase stemmed from the waiver by the State of a tax claim which it held against EDF.
Dalje je Splošno sodišče natančno določilo, da je treba prva pogoja razlagati zgolj ob upoštevanju prava Unije, medtem ko je treba druga pogoja presojati ob upoštevanju meril, ki jih določa veljavno nacionalno pravo.
In such circumstances, it was for the Commission to determine whether a private investor would have invested a comparable amount in similar circumstances, irrespective of the form of the intervention by the State to increase EDF’s capital and the possible use of tax resources to that end, with a view to ascertaining the economic rationale for that investment and to comparing it with the actions such an investor would have taken with respect to the same undertaking in the same circumstances.
Nazadnje je glede drugega pogoja razsodilo, prvič, da je treba pomen presojati glede na ozemeljsko in tudi gospodarsko razsežnost in, drugič, da dejstvo, da znak imetniku podeljuje izključno pravico na celotnem nacionalnem ozemlju, samo po sebi ne zadostuje za ugotovitev, da njegov pomen ni zgolj lokalen.
The Court also stated that such an obligation on the part of the Commission to determine whether the capital was provided by the State in circumstances corresponding to normal market conditions existed irrespective of the form in which the capital was provided by the State, regardless of whether it was similar to that which a private investor could have used.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 11.¥junija¥2009 v¥združenih zadevah Last Minute Network proti UUNT – Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR) (T-114/07 in T-115/07, še neobjavljena) poudarilo, da mora odbor za pritožbe pri uporabi zgoraj navedene določbe upoštevati tako nacionalno zakonodajo zadevne države članice, ki se uporablja v skladu z napotitvijo, določeno s to določbo, kot upoštevno nacionalno sodno prakso.
Lastly, the Court stated that the very purpose of the private investor test is to establish whether, despite the fact that the State has at its disposal means which are not available to a private investor, the latter would, in the same circumstances, have taken an investment decision comparable to that taken by the State.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 14.¥maja¥2009 v zadevi Fiorucci proti UUNT – Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI), (T-165/06, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) preverilo, ali je oddelek za pritožbe UUNT upošteval pogoje za uporabo člena¥52(2) Uredbe št.¥40/94.
The nature of the claim converted into capital and, therefore, the fact that a private investor cannot hold a tax claim are therefore irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the private investor test must be applied.
V obravnavanem primeru je Elio Fiorucci med drugim predlagal razglasitev ničnosti znamke ELIO FIORUCCI s sklicevanjem na svojo pravico do osebnega imena, ki je zaščitena z italijanskim pravom.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Commission, by refusing to examine the contested measure in its context and to apply the private investor test, had erred in law. It therefore annulled the contested decision in part.
Splošno sodišče je opozorilo, da lahko UUNT v skladu s to določbo razglasi ničnost znamke Skupnosti, če je mogoče njeno uporabo prepovedati zlasti na podlagi pravice do osebnega imena, ki je varovana z nacionalnim pravom, in ugotovilo, da varstvo, zagotovljeno z upoštevno italijansko določbo, ni izključeno, kadar je ime zadevne osebe postalo splošno znano zaradi njene trgovske dejavnosti.
In Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France and France Télécom v Commission (judgment of 30 November 2009), the Court con¤rmed the line of case-law according to which it must be possible, having regard to the information given in the decision, to calculate the amount of the aid to be recovered without overmuch diculty.
Poleg tega je sodba z dne 30.¥junija¥2009 v zadevi Danjaq proti UUNT – Mission Productions (Dr.´No) (T-435/05, še neobjavljena) Splošnemu sodišču omogočila, da je pojasnilo, da enak znak lahko uživa varstvo avtorskega prava kot izvirno ustvarjalno delo in varstvo prava znamk kot označba trgovskega izvora označenih proizvodov in storitev.
It held that the Commission is justi¤ed in con¤ning itself to ¤nding that there is an obligation to repay the aid in question and leaving it to the national authorities to calculate the exact amount of aid to be repaid, particularly where that calculation requires tax and social security systems, the detailed rules of which are laid down in the applicable national legislative provisions, to be taken into account.
Splošno sodišče opozarja, da ti izključni pravici temeljita na različnih lastnostih, in sicer na eni strani na izvirnosti ustvarjalnega dela in na drugi strani na sposobnosti znaka, da razlikuje navedeni trgovski izvor.
In the case in point attention must be drawn to the fact that the Commission had used a range of amounts.
Čeprav je naslov lma lahko v¥skladu z nekaterimi nacionalnimi pravicami zavarovan kot umetniško delo, neodvisno od varstva, priznanega samemu lmu, pa samodejno ne uživa varstva, ki se priznava znamkam.
In that connection, the Court pointed out that the Commission had stated, in the contested decision, that the amount of aid in question was between EUR 798 million and EUR 1 140 million.
Nazadnje je Splošno sodišče pojasnilo pravila v zvezi z dokazom za resno in dejansko uporabo prejšnje znamke v postopku za ugotavljanje ničnosti.
Formal investigation procedure
Razlogi za razveljavitev
That provision therefore raised doubts as to the compatibility of the aid in question with the Guidelines for State aid for advertising and should have led to the initiation of the procedure referred to in Article 88(2) EC. The Court therefore annulled the contested decision.
Pravice imetnika znamke Skupnosti se lahko v skladu s členom¥50 Uredbe št.¥40/94 razveljavijo, zlasti kadar lahko zaradi uporabe znamke v javnosti obstaja verjetnost zmede glede narave, kakovosti ali geografskega izvora označenega blaga ali storitev.
On another point, in France and France Télécom v Commission, the Court stated that the fact that the Commission had, in the contested decision, altered its analysis by comparison with the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure would lead, in the case of the State concerned, to infringement of the rights of the defence only if the information contained in that decision or subsequently provided during the exchange of arguments in the administrative procedure had not enabled the State to comment properly on all the matters of law or fact contained in the contested decision.
Glede tega je Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi ELIO FIORUCCI menilo, da to, da sta znamka in rodbinsko ime enaka, ne zadostuje za sklepanje, da zadevna javnost misli, da je oseba, katere rodbinsko ime sestavlja znamko, oblikovala proizvode, označene s to znamko, saj javnost ve, da se za vsako znamko, ki je rodbinsko ime, ne skriva nujno modni oblikovalec z enakim imenom.
By contrast, di¥erences between the contested decision and the opening decision which resulted from the Commission accepting, in whole or in part, the arguments put forward by the Member State, could not, by de¤nition, give rise to an infringement of the rights of the defence of that State.
Da bi bilo mogoče uporabiti člen¥50 Uredbe št.¥40/94, mora zainteresirana oseba dokazati, da je bila znamka uporabljena prevarantsko ali da obstaja dovolj velika nevarnost prevare, kar v¥obravnavanem primeru ni bilo dokazano.
Similarly, in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission (judgment of 4 September 2009), the Court held that the formal investigation procedure allows there to be a more in-depth examination and clari-¤cation of the questions raised in the decision to initiate the procedure, so that any di¥erence between that decision and the ¤nal decision cannot be regarded in itself as constituting a defect rendering the ¤nal decision unlawful.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 10.¥decembra¥2009 v zadevi Stella Kunststo§technik proti UUNT – Stella Pack (Stella) (T-27/09, še neobjavljena) tudi natančno določilo predmet in učinke postopkov za razveljavitev ter postopkov z ugovorom.
The provisions relating to the review of State aid do not require the Commission to inform the Member State concerned of its position before adopting its decision, where the Member State has been given notice to submit its comments.
Poudarja zlasti, da upoštevne določbe ne določajo, da lahko postopek z ugovorom, ki je bil sprožen na podlagi prejšnje znamke in še vedno poteka, kakor koli vpliva na dopustnost ali celo na potek postopka za razveljavitev te znamke.
The applicants in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission (judgment of 9 September 2009, under appeal) had argued, inter alia, that the Commission’s conduct had constituted an exceptional circumstance capable of justifying their legitimate expectation that the aid schemes at issue were lawful, on the ground that there had been a failure to publish a notice to potential aid recipients, as provided for in the 1983 Communication on illegal aid.
Ker je sodna praksa v zvezi z obličnostnimi in postopkovnimi vprašanji to leto posebej bogata, se je treba omejiti na navajanje njenih glavnih prispevkov.
) Case C-441/06 Commission v France [2007] ECR°I-8887.
V sodbi z dne 2.¥aprila¥2009 v¥zadevi Zu§a proti UUNT (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP) (T-118/06, še neobjavljena) je
Although the Court found it regrettable that the notice had not been published in the Ocial Journal, it stated that it remained the case that the information contained in that Communication was wholly unambiguous.
Splošno sodišče navedlo, da je mogoče sprejeti skupno obrazložitev za vrsto proizvodov ali storitev le, če med njimi obstaja dovolj neposredna in konkretna vez, da je mogoče, prvič, da je z ugotovitvami, ki sestavljajo obrazložitev zadevne odločbe za vse proizvode in storitve, ki spadajo v to kategorijo, dovolj jasno oblikovano razlogovanje odbora za pritožbe in, drugič, da se lahko brez razlike uporabljajo za vsakega od zadevnih proizvodov in storitev.
Moreover, to adopt the construction proposed by the applicants was to give the 1983 Communication on illegal aid a signi¤cance which is contrary to Article 88(3) EC.
V sodbi z dne 20.¥maja¥2009 v združenih zadevah CFCMCEE proti UUNT (P@YWEB CARD in PAYWEB CARD) (T-405/07 in T-406/07, še neobjavljena, v¥pritožbenem postopku) je dodalo tudi, da mora skupna obrazložitev sodišču vseeno omogočati, da opravlja svoj nadzor.
The risk attaching to illegally granted aid was a consequence of the practical e¥ect of the obligation to notify laid down in Article 88(3) EC and did not depend on whether or not the notice provided for in the 1983 Communication on illegal aid was published in the Ocial Journal.
Poleg tega, kadar odločba ne vsebuje niti osnutka obrazložitve v zvezi z razlogi, iz katerih je UUNT presodil, da nekateri proizvodi oblikujejo homogeno skupino, ni dovoljeno dopolniti obrazložitve odločbe med postopkom.
In particular, if the system of monitoring State aid established by the Treaty were to be maintained, the recovery of illegally granted aid could not be rendered impossible merely because there had been no publication of such a notice by the Commission.
Četrtič, Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 3.¥junija¥2009 v zadevi Frosch Touristik proti UUNT – DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE) (T-189/07, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) natančno določilo, daj je zgolj datum vložitve zahteve za registracijo, ne pa datum registracije, upoštevni datum za presojo, ki jo mora UUNT opraviti v postopku za ugotavljanje ničnosti, v katerem se navaja, da znamka Skupnosti ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz člena¥7 Uredbe št.¥40/94.
The Court concluded that the failure to publish the notice provided for in the 1983 Communication on illegal aid did not constitute an exceptional circumstance capable of justifying any expectation whatever that the illegally granted aid was lawful.
S tem pristopom se je namreč mogoče izogniti temu, da bi se zaradi trajanja postopka registracije povečala verjetnost, da znamke ne bi bilo več mogoče registrirati.
Since it had failed to give that noti¤cation before the implementation of the tax regime in question, it could not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations unless it could prove that there were exceptional circumstances.
Zlasti v prvi in četrti zgoraj navedeni sodbi je Splošno sodišče natančno določilo, da se ta določba uporablja za rok za izpodbijanje odločbe pred odborom za pritožbe, ne pa za rok za vložitev same zahteve za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje.
In France and France Télécom v Commission, the Court provided important clari¤cation concerning the procedure for the adoption of Commission decisions on State aid. The Court held that it is possible, as provided in the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (20), for the College of Commissioners to instruct one or more of its Members to adopt the de¤nitive text of any decision the substance of which has already been determined in discussion.
Poleg tega je v drugi sodbi pojasnilo pojem „stranka v postopku“, medtem ko je v tretji določilo, da če imetnik znamke prenese administrativne naloge v zvezi z njenim podaljšanjem na družbo, ki je za to specializirana, je treba preveriti, ali ima ta potrebna zagotovila, na podlagi katerih je mogoče domnevati, da bo dobro izvajala navedene naloge.
Where the College exercises that power, it is for the Court which is considering the question of whether that power was properly exercised to ascertain whether the College may be regarded as having adopted all the factual and legal elements of the decision in question.
Zlasti kadar ta družba vzpostavi računalniško voden sistem za opozarjanje glede rokov, mora predvideti tudi mehanizem za odkrivanje in odpravo morebitnih napak.
Decisions relating to the application of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, replaced by Regulation (EC)
Nazadnje, Splošno sodišče je glede odločbe o preklicu, ki jo sprejme organ UUNT, da bi se odpravila napaka dela v zvezi s stroški odločbe, ki jo je prej sprejel ta organ, v sodbi z dne 1.¥julija¥2009 v¥zadevi Okalux proti UUNT – Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH) (T-419/07, še neobjavljena) potrdilo, da ker je ta razveljavitev lahko zgolj delna, je treba pritožbeni rok določiti glede na prvo odločbo.
21) which is essentially limited however to codifying the rules on the Community
Okolje – Sistem za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov
Proceedings represent in 2009 a large number of the cases disposed of by the Court (168 cases, that is to say 30% of the total number of cases disposed of in 2009).
(v nadaljevanju: NNR) držav članic in preverjanju skladnosti teh NNR – ki ga opravlja Komisija –
Absolute grounds for refusal and absolute grounds for invalidity
Splošno sodišče je ugodilo tem predlogom in razglasilo izpodbijani odločbi za nični.
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 prohibits the registration as a Community trade mark of signs which, by reason of their descriptiveness, are incapable of ful¤lling the function of indicating the commercial origin of the goods and services in question.
Splošno sodišče ugotavlja, da je zmanjšanje emisij toplogrednih plinov bistveno v boju zoper globalno segrevanje, ki pomeni eno največjih socialnih, ekonomskih in okoljskih groženj, s katerimi se v tem času spopada svet.
Furthermore, according to settled caselaw, the descriptiveness of a sign must be assessed by reference, on the one hand, to the goods or services in question and, on the other, to the relevant public’s perception of that sign (22).
Sledenje temu cilju vseeno ne bi moglo upravičiti ohranitve veljavnosti odločbe o zavrnitvi NNR, če bi bil ta akt sprejet s kršitvijo pristojnosti, ki so z Direktivo 2003/87 podeljene državam članicam in Komisiji.
In Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS) (judgment of 19 November 2009), the Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Oce for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) according to which, for the average consumer, the word sign CANNABIS was descriptive of the characteristics of beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages, which could contain among their ingredients cannabis as a ªavouring in the manufacture thereof.
Splošno sodišče opozarja, da navedena direktiva na podlagi člena¥249, tretji odstavek, ES zavezuje države naslovnice glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, vendar jim prepušča izbiro primernih oblik in metod. Komisija mora pri opravljanju nadzora dokazati, da so instrumenti, ki jih je država članica uporabila v ta namen, v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
The Court stated that such a ¤nding is not a¥ected by the fact that the word ‘cannabis’ is an evocative and allusive word which gives rise to the idea of pleasure, distraction or relaxation.
Dosledna uporaba teh načel je bistvena za zagotovitev spoštovanja načela subsidiarnosti, ki pomeni, da Skupnost na področjih, ki niso v njeni izključni pristojnosti, ukrepa le, če in kolikor države članice ne morejo zadovoljivo doseči želenih ciljev.
Furthermore, in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222, 333 and 555), Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250 and 150) and Case T-298/06 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1 000) (judgments of 19 November 2009, not published), the Court stated that word signs consisting solely of ¤gures are descriptive of goods such as brochures, periodicals, the daily press and games, in so far as they refer to the characteristics of those goods, in particular the number of pages, works, items of information and compiled games.
Poleg tega Splošno sodišče navaja, da je iz določb Direktive 2003/87 jasno razvidno, prvič, da je le država članica pristojna za pripravo NNR ter sprejetje končne odločitve, s katero določi skupno količino pravic, ki jih bo dodelila za vsako petletno obdobje, in razdelitev te količine med gospodarske subjekte in, drugič, da je Komisija pristojna za nadzor tega NNR ob upoštevanju meril, ki jih določa navedena direktiva, saj lahko država članica dodeli pravice le, če je Komisija po svoji prvotni zavrnitvi sprejela predlagane spremembe načrta.
In the case of ¤gurative signs consisting of numbers framed by a rectangle and accompanied by coloured decoration, the Court was also called upon to adjudicate, in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100 and 300) (judgment of 19 November 2009), on the consequences of the refusal of an undertaking which made an application for registration of those signs as Community trade marks to state, in accordance with Article 38(2) of Regulation No 40/94, that it disclaimed any exclusive right to those numbers.
Vendar Splošno sodišče meni, da je Komisija z natančnejšo določitvijo količine pravic in z zavrnitvijo NNR zadevnih držav članic, ker skupna količina predlaganih pravic presega ta prag, presegla meje pooblastil za nadzor, ki ji ga dodeljuje Direktiva 2003/87, saj to količino določi zgolj država članica.
In addition, the Court again adjudicated on the distinctiveness of very simple ¤gurative signs, namely an exclamation mark, on its own or framed by a rectangle, in Case T-75/08 Joop! v OHIM (!) and Case T-191/08 JOOP! v OHIM (!)
Prav tako, čeprav lahko Komisija pripravi lastni ekološki in ekonomski model za preverjanje, ali so NNR različnih držav članic v skladu z merili iz Direktive 2003/87, pri čemer ima široko diskrecijsko pravico, pa nasprotno ne more zahtevati neupoštevanja podatkov iz NNR, da bi jih nadomestila s podatki, pridobljenimi na podlagi svoje metode presoje, saj bi se ji s tem priznalo dejansko pooblastilo za poenotenje, ki ji ga navedena direktiva ne priznava.
(Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle) (judgments of 30 September 2009, not published). The Court recalled that registration of a trade
Splošno sodišče tudi ugotavlja, da mora država članica pri pripravi svojega NNR izbrati politike, ki se sprejmejo, metodo, ki se uporabi, in podatke, ki se upoštevajo, da bi predvidela razvoj zadevnih emisij, saj je nadzor Komisije
) Case C-383/99°P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251, paragraph 39, and Case C-64/02°P OHIM v Erpo
Direktiva 2003/87/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13.¥oktobra¥2003 o vzpostavitvi sistema za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov v Skupnosti in o spremembi Direktive Sveta 96/61/ES (UL L¥275, str.¥32).
General Court mark which consists of signs that are used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or incitements to purchase the goods or services in question is not excluded as such by virtue of such use.
Splošno sodišče je torej razsodilo, da je Komisija s tem, da je s svojo metodo analize nadomestila tisto, ki so jo uporabile zadevne države članice, namesto da bi zgolj opravila nadzor nad skladnostjo njihovih NNR z merili, določenimi z Direktivo 2003/87, po potrebi ob upoštevanju podatkov, pridobljenih s svojo metodo, prekoračila pooblastila, ki so ji bila zaupana s to direktivo.
A sign which ful¤ls functions other than that of a trade mark in the traditional sense of the term is only distinctive, however, if it may be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 30.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Sison proti Svetu (T-341/07, še neobjavljena), prvič, opozorilo na načela, ki so razvidna iz sodb Organizacija mudžahidov iranskega
The Court went on to observe that, in the cases in point, consumers, including those with a higher degree of attention, were not able to determine the origin of the goods designated by reference to an exclamation mark, which would be viewed rather as a term of praise, even if the exclamation mark were positioned inside a rectangular frame — a secondary element giving the sign in question the appearance of a label.
Poleg tega se široka pooblastila za presojo, ki jih ima Svet na voljo glede okoliščin, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri sprejetju ali ohranitvi ukrepa zamrznitve sredstev, raztezajo na oceno grožnje, ki jo lahko še naprej pomeni oseba ali organizacija, ki je v preteklosti izvršila teroristična dejanja, ne glede na prekinitev njenih dejavnosti med bolj ali manj dolgim obdobjem.