natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(b) indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services;
(b) označb glede vrste, kakovosti, količine, namena, vrednosti, geografskega izvora, časa proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitve ali drugih značilnosti blaga ali storitev;
(c) the trade mark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts; provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.’
(c) znamke, če je potrebno z njo označiti namen proizvoda ali storitve, zlasti za dodatke ali nadomestne dele; ob pogoju, da jih uporablja v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.“
Article 12(2) of the Directive, entitled ‘Grounds for revocation’, states:
Člen 12 Direktive, naslovljen „Razlogi za razveljavitev“, v odstavku 2 določa:
‘A trade mark shall … be liable to revocation if, after the date on which it was registered,
„Znamka se razveljavi […], če [je] po datumu registracije
(a) in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered;
(a) zaradi dejanj ali opustitve imetnika v gospodarskem prometu […] znamka postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katerega je registrirana;
Adidas AG is the proprietor of figurative trade marks composed of three vertical, parallel stripes of equal width which are featured on the sides of sports and leisure garments in a colour which contrasts with the basic colour of those garments.
Družba adidas AG je imetnica figurativnih znamk, ki so sestavljene iz treh navpičnih vzporednih črt enake �irine, name�čenih vzdolž oblačil za �port in prosti čas v barvi, ki se razlikuje od osnovne barve teh oblačil.
Adidas Benelux BV is the holder of an exclusive licence for the Benelux countries granted by adidas AG.
Družba adidas Benelux BV je imetnica izključne licence za Beneluks, ki ji jo je podelila družba adidas AG.
Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex are competing undertakings operating in the textile trade.
Družbe Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex so konkurenčna podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s trženjem tekstilnih izdelkov.
Having found that some of those competitors had begun to market sports and leisure garments featuring two parallel stripes, the colour of which contrasts with the basic colour of those garments, adidas AG and adidas Benelux BV (together, ‘adidas’) brought interlocutory proceedings before the Rechtbank te Breda (local court of Breda) against H & M and an action on the merits against Marca Mode and C & A for prohibition of the use by those undertakings of any sign consisting of the threestripe logo registered by adidas or a motif similar to it, such as the motif with two parallel stripes used by those undertakings.
Družbi adidas AG in adidas Benelux BV (v nadaljevanju: adidas) sta, potem ko sta ugotovili, da so njuni konkurenti začeli prodajati oblačila za �port in prosti čas, na katerih sta name�čeni dve vzporedni črti v barvi, ki se razlikuje od osnovne barve teh oblačil, pri Rechtbank te Breda sprožili postopek za izdajo začasne odredbe zoper družbo H & M ter postopek v glavni stvari zoper družbi Marca Mode in C & A, da bi tem podjetjem prepovedali uporabo vseh znakov, ki vsebujejo figurativni znak v obliki treh črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, ali podoben motiv, kot je motiv dveh vzporednih črt, ki ga ta podjetja uporabljajo.
Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex have, for their part, brought applications before the Rechtbank te Breda for a declaration that they are free to place two stripes on their sports and leisure garments for decorative purposes.
Družbe Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex pa so pri Rechtbank te Breda predlagale, naj to sodi�če ugotovi, da imajo pravico do namestitve dveh okrasnih črt na oblačila za �port in prosti čas.
By judgment of 2 October 1997, the president of the Rechtbank te Breda made an interlocutory order against H & M to refrain from using in Benelux the sign consisting of the threestripe logo registered by adidas or any other sign similar to it, such as the two-stripe motif used by H & M.
Predsednik Rechtbank te Breda, ki je odločal o izdaji začasne odredbe, je z odločbo z dne 2. oktobra 1997 družbi H & M odredil, naj v Beneluksu preneha uporabljati znak, ki vsebuje figurativni znak v obliki treh črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, ali podoben motiv, kot je motiv dveh vzporednih črt, ki ga uporablja.
By an interlocutory judgment of 13 October 1998 the Rechtbank te Breda held that the trade marks owned by adidas had been infringed.
Rechtbank te Breda je z vmesno sodbo z dne 13. oktobra 1998 razsodilo, da je pri�lo do kr�itve znamk družbe adidas.
Appeals against the judgments of 2 October 1997 and 13 October 1998 were brought before the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (regional appeal court of ‘s-Hertogenbosch).
Zoper odločbi z dne 2. oktobra 1997 in 13. oktobra 1998 so bile vložene pritožbe pri Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch.
By judgment of 29 March 2005, the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch set aside the judgments of 2 October 1997 and 13 October 1998 and, giving a ruling on the dispute, rejected both the application of adidas and those of Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex on the ground, first, that the trade marks owned by adidas had not been infringed and, secondly, that the scope of the applications made by Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex was too general.
Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch je s sodbo z dne 29. marca 2005 razveljavilo odločbi z dne 2. oktobra 1997 in 13. oktobra 1998 ter zavrnilo tako zahtevke družbe adidas kot družb Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex, ker po eni strani ni pri�lo do kr�itve znamk družbe adidas, po drugi strani pa zato, ker so bili zahtevki družb Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex preveč splo�ni.
The Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch stated that a threestripe motif such as that registered by adidas is not very distinctive per se but that, owing to the investment in advertising by adidas, the marks it owned had acquired considerable distinctive character and become well known.
Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch je pojasnilo, da so figurativni znaki v obliki treh črt, kot je znak, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, sami po sebi malo razlikovalni, da pa so znamke družbe adidas zaradi njenih ogla�evalskih naporov pridobile znaten razlikovalni učinek in so postale splo�no znane.
Those marks therefore enjoyed wide protection so far as concerns the threestripe logo.
Te znamke naj bi zato uživale �ir�e varstvo glede motiva treh črt.
However, given that stripes and simple stripe logos are, generally, signs which must remain available and do not therefore lend themselves to exclusive rights, the marks owned by adidas cannot afford any protection against the use of two-stripe motifs.
Vendar glede na to, da so črte in preprosti motivi načeloma znaki, ki morajo ostati razpoložljivi in iz katerih ne izhajajo izključne pravice, naj znamke družbe adidas ne bi dajale nobenega varstva zoper uporabo motivov dveh črt.
Having appealed on a point of law to the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), adidas takes the view that, in the scheme of the system set up by the Directive, the requirement of availability must be taken into account only when the grounds for refusal or invalidity provided for in Article 3 of the Directive apply.
Družba adidas je pri Hoge Raad der Nederlanden vložila kasacijsko pritožbo in meni, da je glede na sistematiko ureditve iz Direktive treba zahtevo po razpoložljivosti upo�tevati zgolj pri uporabi razlogov za zavrnitev ali neveljavnost iz člena 3 Direktive.
It is in those circumstances that the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
By its questions, which must be examined together, the national court asks, essentially, to what extent it is necessary to take into account the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of certain signs in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, koliko je treba upo�tevati splo�ni interes, da se pri presoji obsega izključne pravice imetnika znamke ne bi neupravičeno omejila razpoložljivost določenih znakov.
That court set out that question having regard to the three stripe-logo registered by adidas, which has acquired distinctive character through use.
To sodi�če je ta predlog oblikovalo glede na figurativni znak v obliki treh črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas in ki je pridobil razlikovalni učinek z uporabo.
In particular, it asks whether, when third parties use identical or similar signs to the mark in question without the permission of the proprietor of that mark and rely on the requirement of availability in support of that use, it is important to know whether or not those signs are regarded as decorative by the relevant public, whether or not they are devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive and whether or not they are descriptive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi zlasti izvedeti, ali je, kadar tretje osebe brez dovoljenja imetnika zadevne znamke uporabljajo znake, ki so enaki ali podobni tej znamki, in se v utemeljitev te uporabe sklicujejo na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti, treba preveriti, ali upo�tevna javnost te znake �teje za okrasne, ali imajo razlikovalni učinek v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Direktive in ali so opisovalni v smislu člena 3(1)(c) Direktive.
Preliminary considerations
Uvodne ugotovitve
As noted by the Advocate General in point 33 et seq. of his Opinion, there are public interest considerations, connected in particular with the need for undistorted competition, which militate in favour of certain signs being used freely by all economic operators.
Kot je opozoril generalni pravobranilec v točki 33 – in naslednjih – sklepnih predlogov, obstajajo razlogi javnega interesa, zlasti potreba po neizkrivljeni konkurenci, v skladu s katerimi lahko vsi gospodarski subjekti določene znake prosto uporabljajo.
As the Court has previously held, that requirement of availability is the reason underlying certain grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3 of the Directive
Kot je Sodi�če že razsodilo, je ta zahteva po razpoložljivosti ratio določenih razlogov za zavrnitev registracije iz člena 3 Direktive (v tem smislu glej zlasti sodbe z dne 4. maja 1999 v združenih zadevah Windsurfing Chiemsee, C-108/97 in C-109/97,
Further, Article 12(2)(a) of the Directive provides that a trade mark is liable to revocation if, after the date on which it was registered, in consequence of acts or in activity of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service in respect of which it is registered.
Člen 12(2)(a) poleg tega določa, da se znamka razveljavi, če je po datumu registracije zaradi dejanj ali opustitve imetnika v gospodarskem prometu postala obča oznaka za proizvod ali storitev, za katerega je registrirana.
By that provision, the Community legislature balanced the interests of the trade mark proprietor against those of his competitors in the availability of signs (see Case C-145/05 Levi Strauss [2006] ECR I-3703, paragraph 19).
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je s to določbo uravnovesil interese imetnika znamke in interese njegovih konkurentov v zvezi z razpoložljivostjo znakov (glej sodbo z dne 27. aprila 2006 v zadevi Levi Strauss, C-145/05, ZOdl., str. I-3703, točka 19).
Accordingly, if it is established that the requirement of availability plays an important role in the framework of Articles 3 and 12 of the Directive, it is clear that the present reference for a preliminary ruling falls outside that framework since it raises the question of whether the requirement of availability constitutes a criterion, after registration of a trade mark, for the purposes of defining the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of the mark.
Če se torej izkaže, da ima zahteva po razpoložljivosti pomembno vlogo v okviru členov 3 in 12 Direktive, je treba ugotoviti, da ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe presega ta okvir, ker se z njim zastavlja vpra�anje, ali zahteva po razpoložljivosti po registraciji znamke pomeni merilo presoje za določitev obsega izključne pravice imetnika znamke.
Marca Mode, C & A, H & M and Vendex do not seek to obtain a declaration of invalidity within the meaning of Article 3 or rev -ocation within the meaning of Article 12, but plead the need for the availability of stripe motifs other than that registered by adidas in order to argue their right to use those motifs without the consent of the latter.
Družbe Marca Mode, C & A, H & M in Vendex namreč ne predlagajo razglasitve neveljavnosti v smislu navedenega člena 3 ali razveljavitve v smislu navedenega člena 12, temveč se sklicujejo na potrebo po razpoložljivosti motivov s črtami, ki se razlikujejo od figurativnega znaka, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, da bi uveljavljale svojo pravico do uporabe teh motivov brez njenega dovoljenja.
When a third party relies on the requirement of availability to argue its right to use a sign other than that registered by the trade mark proprietor, the relevance of such an argument cannot be assessed under Articles 3 and 12 of the Directive, but must be examined in the light of Article 5 of the Directive, which concerns the protection of the registered mark against use by third parties, as well as of Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive, if the sign in question comes within the scope of that provision.
Ko se tretje osebe sklicujejo na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti, da bi uveljavljale svojo pravico do uporabe znaka, ki ni znak, ki ga je registriral imetnik znamke, upo�tevnosti take trditve ni mogoče presojati v okviru členov 3 in 12 Direktive, ampak jo je treba preizkusiti glede na člen 5 Direktive, ki se nana�a na varstvo registrirane znamke zoper uporabo znakov s strani tretjih oseb, ter glede na člen 6(1)(b) Direktive, če zadevni znak spada na področje uporabe te določbe.
Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive
Razlaga člena 5(1)(b) Direktive
In conferring on the proprietor of a trade mark the right to prevent all third parties from using an identical or similar sign, where there is a likelihood of confusion, and in setting out the uses of such a sign which may be prohibited, Article 5 of the Dir -ective seeks to protect that proprietor from uses of signs likely to infringe that trade mark (see, to that effect, Levi Strauss, paragraph 14).
Člen 5 Direktive, s tem da imetniku znamke podeljuje pravico, da tretjim osebam v primeru obstoja verjetnosti zmede prepove uporabo enakih ali podobnih znakov, in s tem da so v njem na�tete določene oblike uporabe takih znakov, ki se lahko prepovejo, varuje tega imetnika proti oblikam uporabe znakov, ki lahko kr�ijo to znamko (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Levi Strauss, točka 14).
The likelihood of confusion is the specific condition of the protection conferred by the trade mark, in particular against use by third parties of non-identical signs.
Verjetnost zmede je poseben pogoj varstva, ki ga daje registrirana znamka, zlasti proti uporabi znakov, ki niso enaki, s strani tretjih oseb.
According to the 10th recital in the preamble to the Directive, the appreciation of such likelihood ‘depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, of the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, of the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified’.
V skladu z deseto uvodno izjavo Direktive je presoja obstoja take verjetnosti „odvisn[a] od �tevilnih elementov, zlasti od prepoznavnosti znamke na trži�ču, povezovanja, ki ga lahko povzroči uporabljen ali registriran znak[, in] stopnje podobnosti med znamko ter označenim blagom in storitvami“.
As is apparent form the wording of Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive and the caselaw cited, the answer to the question as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion must be based on the perception by the
Kot namreč izhaja iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive in iz zgoraj navedene sodne prakse, mora odgovor na vpra�anje, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede, po
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX public of the goods covered by the mark of the proprietor on the one hand and the goods covered by the sign used by the third party on the other.
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX eni strani temeljiti na tem, kako javnost zaznava proizvode, ki jih pokriva znamka imetnika, po drugi strani pa, kako zaznava proizvode, ki jih pokriva znak, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe.
Moreover, signs which must, generally, remain available for all economic operators are likely to be used abusively with a view to creating confusion in the mind of the consumer.
Poleg tega je znake, ki morajo načeloma ostati razpoložljivi za vse gospodarske subjekte, mogoče zlorabiti tako, da se ustvari zmeda pri potro�niku.
If, in such a context, the third party could rely on the requirement of availability to use a sign which is nevertheless similar to the trade mark freely without the proprietor of the latter being able to oppose that use by pleading likelihood of confusion, the effective application of Article 5(1) of the Directive would be undermined.
Če bi se tretje osebe v tem okviru lahko sklicevale na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti, zato da bi prosto uporabljale znak, ki je vendarle podoben znamki, ne da bi imetnik te znamke temu lahko nasprotoval s sklicevanjem na verjetnost zmede, bi to nasprotovalo učinkoviti uporabi pravila iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive.
That consideration applies in particular to stripe motifs.
Ta ugotovitev velja zlasti za motive črt.
As adidas recognised in the introduction to its observations, stripe motifs as such are available and may therefore be placed in a vast number of ways on sports and leisure garments by all operators.
Kot je družba adidas priznala v uvodnem delu svojih stali�č, so motivi črt kot taki na voljo in jih torej vsi subjekti lahko različno namestijo na oblačila za �port in prosti čas.
Nonetheless, the competitors of adidas cannot be authorised to infringe the threestripe logo registered by adidas by placing on the sports and leisure garments marketed by them stripe motifs which are so similar to that registered by adidas that there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public.
Konkurenti družbe adidas kljub temu ne smejo kr�iti figurativnega znaka v obliki treh črt, ki ga je slednja registrirala, s tem da na oblačila za �port in prosti čas, ki jih tržijo, namestijo motive črt, ki so tako podobni figurativnemu znaku, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, da v javnosti obstaja verjetnost zmede.
It is for the national court to determine whether such a likelihood of confusion exists.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora ugotoviti, ali obstaja taka verjetnost zmede.
For the purpose of that determination, it is useful to examine the national court’s question seeking to ascertain whether it is important to determine whether the public perceives the sign used by the third party as mere decoration of the goods in question.
Za namene te ugotovitve je treba preizkusiti vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča, in sicer ali je treba preveriti, ali javnost znak, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe, zaznava zgolj kot okras zadevnega proizvoda.
In that respect, it should be pointed out that the public’s perception that a sign is a decoration cannot constitute a restriction on the protection conferred by Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive when, despite its decorative nature, that sign is so similar to the registered trade mark that the relevant public is likely to perceive that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da zaznavanje javnosti znaka kot okras ne vpliva na varstvo, ki ga daje člen 5(1)(b) Direktive, kadar je navedeni znak kljub svoji okrasni vlogi tako podoben registrirani znamki, da bi upo�tevna javnost lahko verjela, da proizvodi izhajajo iz istega podjetja ali, odvisno od primera, iz gospodarsko povezanih podjetij.
In the present case, it must therefore be determined whether the average consumer, when he sees sports or leisure garments featuring stripe motifs in the same places and with the same characteristics as the stripes logo registered by adidas, except for the fact that they consist of two rather than three stripes, may be mistaken as to the origin of those goods, believing that they are marketed by adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV or an undertaking linked economically to those undertakings.
V obravnavanem primeru je torej treba presoditi, ali je lahko povprečni potro�nik, ko vidi oblačila za �port in prosti čas, na katerih so motivi črt name�čeni na istih mestih in z istimi značilnostmi kot figurativni znak v obliki črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, s to razliko, da so sestavljeni iz dveh, ne pa iz treh črt, v zmoti glede izvora tega proizvoda, ker verjame, da ga tržijo družba adidas AG, družba adidas Benelux BV ali z njima gospodarsko povezano podjetje.
As is clear from the 10th recital in the Directive, that appreciation depends not solely on the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign, but also on the ease with which the sign may be associated with the mark having regard, in particular, to the recognition of the latter on the market.
Kot izhaja iz desete uvodne izjave Direktive, ta presoja ni odvisna zgolj od stopnje podobnosti med znamko in znakom, temveč tudi od lahkotnosti povezovanja znaka z znamko, zlasti ob upo�tevanju prepoznavnosti slednje na trgu.
The presence on the market of a large quantity of goods covered by similar signs might adversely affect the trade mark in so far as it could reduce the distinctive character of the mark and jeopardise its essential function, which is to ensure that consumers know where the goods concerned come from.
To, da je na trgu veliko proizvodov, ki jih pokrivajo podobni znaki, bi lahko �kodilo znamki, ker bi to lahko zmanj�alo razlikovalni učinek znamke in ogrozilo njeno bistveno funkcijo, to je, potro�nikom zagotoviti informacijo o poreklu zadevnih proizvodov.
Interpretation of Article 5(2) of the Directive
Razlaga člena 5(2) Direktive
It is not disputed by the parties in the main proceedings that the threestripe logo registered by adidas is a trade mark with a reputation.
Stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ne izpodbijajo, da je figurativni znak v obliki treh črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, znamka z ugledom.
Moreover, it is common ground that the legislation applicable in the Netherlands includes the rule referred
Poleg tega ni sporno, da
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX to in Article 5(2) of the Directive.
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX zakonodaja, ki velja na Nizozemskem, vsebuje pravilo iz člena 5(2) Direktive.
The threestripe logo registered by adidas thus benefits from both the protection conferred by Article 5(1) of the Directive and the extended protection granted by Article 5(2) of the Directive (see, by analogy, Davidoff, paragraphs 18 and 19).
Figurativni znak v obliki treh črt, ki ga je registrirala družba adidas, torej uživa varstvo v skladu s členom 5(1) Direktive in okrepljeno varstvo v skladu z odstavkom 2 istega člena (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Davidoff, točki 18 in 19).
In those circumstances, the question referred for a preliminary ruling must also be answered from the point of view of the latter provision, which specifically relates to the protection of trade marks with a reputation.
V teh okoli�činah je treba na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti tudi ob upo�tevanju slednje določbe, ki se nana�a posebej na varstvo znamk z ugledom.
Article 5(2) of the Directive establishes, for the benefit of trade marks with a reputation, a form of protection whose implementation does not require the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
Člen 5(2) Direktive za znamke z ugledom določa varstvo, za izvajanje katerega se ne zahteva obstoj verjetnosti zmede.