natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
all likelihood relying on the Opinion cited in the previous paragraph, maintained that the spirit of the requirement of availability surfaces in Article 6 of the Directive. 43
predlogov, navedenih v prej�nji točki, da je namen zahteve po razpoložljivosti izražen v členu 6 Direktive.
(b) The solution proposed
43 b) Predlagano stali�če
I have already referred to the similarities between Articles 3(1) and 6(1) of the Dir -ective. Likewise, I have pointed out the difference between those articles in terms of the scheme of the Directive, in that the former governs access to registration while the latter concerns the exercise of the ius prohibendi by the holder of a mark.
Opozoril sem že na podobnosti med členoma 3(1) in 6(1) Direktive; poudaril sem tudi sistemsko razliko, ki ju ločuje, ker prvi ureja registracijo, medtem ko drugi omejuje izvr�evanje ius prohibendi lastnika simbola.
The Court detected in that idea the risk of proposing that there should be a minimal review of the absolute grounds for refusal in Article 3 of the Directive at the time when the application for registration is considered, any errors in which would be offset by the limitation of the exercise of trade mark rights by virtue of the requirement of availability under Article 6.
Sodi�če je v tem stali�ču zaznalo nevarnost vzpostavitve minimalnega nadzora nad absolutnimi razlogi za zavrnitev iz člena 3 Direktive pri odločanju o prijavi za registracijo, katere napake bi se popravile z omejitvijo izvr�evanja pravic znamk v skladu z zahtevo po razpoložljivosti iz navedenega člena 6.
The Court held that that proposal is tantamount to transferring the review of those grounds from the registration authorities to the judicial authorities, an approach which it regarded as incompatible with the scheme of the Directive which is founded on a review prior to registration, not on a posteriori review. 44
Po mnenju Sodi�če bi bil ta predlog enak prenosu nadzora nad temi razlogi z organov, pristojnih za registracijo, na sodne organe, kar je ocenilo za neskladno s sistemom Direktive, ki temelji na predhodnem pregledu, in ne na pregledu a posteriori. 44
However, the remarkable similarity between the wording of subparagraphs (c) and (b) respectively, of the two provisions cannot be overlooked.
Kljub temu ne more biti neopažena izredna podobnost vsebine točk c) oziroma b) obeh določb.
With the exception of the phrase ‘which consist exclusively of’ in Article 3(1)(c), the wording is identical.
Razen uporabe izraza „ki jih sestavljajo izključno“ v členu 3(1)(c) je besedilo identično.
In short, the Court has not ruled on the requirement of availability as a criterion for the interpretation of Article 6 of the Directive, since, in the sections of the judgments summarised in the foregoing paragraphs, the Court merely dismissed an argument put forward by the Commission proposing the use of that legal principle exclusively within the context of that article, but did not express any opinion on its use as a criterion for limiting the rights of a trade mark proprietors.
Da povzamem, Sodi�če se ni izreklo o zahtevi po razpoložljivosti kot hermenevtičnem merilu iz člena 6 Direktive, saj je v točkah, ki so strnjeno obravnavane v prej�njih točkah, zgolj zavrnilo trditev Komisije, ki je zagovarjala uporabo tega pravnega instituta nem�kega izvora izključno v mejah te določbe, ni pa izreklo nobene sodbe o njegovi uporabi kot smernici za omejitev pravic imetnika znamke.
43 — Paragraph 57 et seq. of the judgment in Libertel.44 — Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment in Libertel.
43 – Točka 57 in naslednje sodbe Libertel.44 – Točki 58 in 59 sodbe Libertel.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07 loses all relevance in connection with the exercise of the rights of a trade mark proprietor under Article 6, which is aimed simply at ensuring that any sign covered by one of the cases in Article 6(1)(c) remains available for all traders.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 del kompleksne znamke ali pomotoma, 45ne more �koditi drugim gospodarskim izva- nasprotno pa ta posebnost izgubi ves pomen, kadar imetnik znamke uresničuje svoje pravice v skladu s členom 6, saj je namen tega predpisa le, da znak, ki spada v eno od določb iz člena 6(1)(c), ostane na voljo drugim.
Article 5 of the Directive applies without restriction to the other aspects of complex trade marks.
Za ostale elemente kompleksne znamke se brez omejitev uporablja člen 5 Direktive.
a mark which, under a strict application of the criteria, would be available for everyone. The fact that the mark has subsequently been monopolised, because it is part of a complex sign or in error, 45cannot be invoked to the detriment of other economic operators who seek freely to use such descriptive indications, or to the detriment of the other group of individuals affected by the provision, in other words consumers, who seek transparent, truthful information which is exactly what those indications generally provide. 46
jalcem dejavnosti, ki želijo svobodno uporabljati te opisne omembe, in drugi skupini oseb, ki jih ta določba prizadene, potro�nikom, ki zahtevajo preglednost in resničnost podatkov, ki so običajno posledica teh označb. 46
The sacrifice which holders of an industrial property right are required to make in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) means that courts must seek to balance the rights conferred on those proprietors by Article 5 of the Directive with the opposing rights of the other traders and consumers. However, courts should not apply mechanically the principle that provisions which limit rights must be interpreted restrictively.
Žrtev, ki se v skladu s členom 6(1)(b) zahteva od imetnika pravice industrijske lastnine, zavezuje sodnika k temu, da poi�če ravnotežje med pravicami, ki jih člen 5 Direktive podeljuje temu imetniku, ter nasprotnimi pravicami drugih podjetnikov in potro�nikov, vendar ne tako, da mehansko uporabi pravilo ozke razlage določb, ki omejujejo pooblastila.
Furthermore, from the point of view of the scheme of the Directive, Article 6(1)(b) is one of a group of three of its provisions, which also include the examination of the grounds for refusal of registration and the examination of the grounds for invalidity.
Poleg tega je s sistematičnega vidika člen 6(1)(b) del triade iz Direktive, ki jo sestavljata tudi preučitev razlogov za zavrnitev registracije in razlogov za neveljavnost.
Accordingly, when determining whether a sign comes within any of the categories of indications in Article 6(1)(b), there is nothing in the Directive which implies that its effects are limited for a registered trade mark in relation to the effects of the application for registration or the grounds for invalidity, under the aegis of Article 3(1)(c).
Zato pri ugotavljanju, ali znak spada v eno od kategorij označb iz člena 6(1)(b), ni v Direktivi nič, kar implicira omilitev posledic tega člena za registrirani znak v primerjavi s prijavo za registracijo ali razlogom za neveljavnost v skladu s členom 3(1)(c).
While also finding support in academic legal texts, 47 that approach is fully compatible
To stali�če je, poleg tega da ga podpira pravna stroka, 47popolnoma v skladu
45 — It has been rightly suggested that the large number of trade mark applications has resulted in the erroneous registration of generic or descriptive signs, due to the speed with which applications must be handled; Hacker, F., ‘§23’, Ströbele, P. and Hacker.
45 – Pravilno je bilo poudarjeno, da večina prijav znamk povzroča zmotno registracijo generičnih ali opisnih znakov zaradi hitrosti, s katero je treba obravnavati dokumentacijo; Hacker, F., §23, v Ströbele, P./Hacker. F., Markengesetz, ur. Heymanns, 8. izdaja, Köln, 2006, str. 917.
47 — Academic writers have proposed with varying degrees of enthusiasm that that limitation of the rights of a trade mark proprietor should be assessed in a manner consistent with the requirement of availability. See Eisenführ, G., ‘Artikel 7’, Eisenführ, G and Schennen, D., op. cit., p.
47 – To razmejitev pravic imetnika znamke v skladu z zahtevo po razpoložljivosti sta bolj ali manj podprla Eisenführ, G., Artikel 7, v Eisenführ, G./Schennen, D., op. cit., str.
113 et seq., and Fezer, K.-H., op. cit, p. 402.
113 in naslednje, in Fezer, K.-H., op. cit, str. 402.
I also venture to propose that it is not even necessary to interpret Article 6 restrictively merely because it is a provision which limits rights, namely the ones conferred by Article 5 of the Directive.
Upam si trditi tudi, da ne pride v po�tev niti ozka razlaga člena 6, že zato ne, ker ta določba omejuje pravice, ki jih podeljuje člen 5 Direktive. V tem primeru je posebnost v tem, da se uživa lastni�tvo znaka, ki bi bil strogo gledano dostopen vsem. Dejstvo, da je bil kasneje monopoliziran, s tem da je postal
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX with the caselaw of the Court on the legislative purpose of the provision and its aim of reconciling the protection of trade mark rights with the fundamental principles of the common market in such a way that trade marks are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition. 48However, it must be recalled that competitors are not authorised to use the indication as a trade mark but merely for descriptive purposes. 49
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX z navedeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča o ratio legis predpisa in njegovim namenom, da se uskladi varstvo pravic znamke in temeljnih načel skupnega trga, da znamka lahko izpolni svojo nalogo bistvenega elementa sistema neizkrivljene konkurence, 48 ne da bi se pozabilo, da konkurenti ne smejo uporabljati označbe kot lastno znamko, temveč zgolj za opisovanje. 49
In short, the answer I propose to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling must state that it is necessary to invoke the requirement of availability for the purpose of establishing the scope of protection of a mark composed of a sign corresponding to one of the indications referred to in Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive, where that mark has acquired distinctive character through use and has been registered. However, it is not appropriate to rely on that principle where a sign lacked distinctive character in itself, as provided for in Article 3(1)(b), but subsequently acquired such character through use.
Skratka, odgovor, ki ga podajam na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, mora ustrezati potrebi po sklicevanju na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti pri določitvi obsega varstva znamke, sestavljene iz znaka, ki ustreza označbi iz člena 3(1)(c) Direktive, kadar je pridobil razlikovalni učinek z uporabo in bil kot tak registriran; nasprotno pa tega pristopa ni treba uporabiti, kadar znak že na začetku nima razlikovalnega učinka v smislu točke b) iste določbe, temveč ga z uporabo pridobi naknadno.
Accordingly, all those arguments indicate that it is appropriate to take account of the general interest, by means of the requirement of availability, including when assessing Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive.
Vse te trditve gredo v prid temu, da je treba javni interes zavarovati z zahtevo po razpoložljivosti in pretehtati tudi člen 6(1)(b) Direktive.
Finally, in reply to the second question referred by the Hoge Raad, it is necessary to state that the perception by the public of a sign subject to the requirement of availability has only limited relevance in the previous stage, namely, for the purposes of establishing whether the sign corresponds to any of the indications referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive.
Nazadnje je treba v zvezi z drugim vpra�anjem, ki ga je zastavilo Hoge Raad, poudariti, da je pomen, ki ga javnost pripisuje znaku, za katerega velja zahteva po razpoložljivosti, pomemben le v predhodnem položaju, namreč pri ugotavljanju, ali se ga lahko poveže z eno od označb iz člena 6(1)(b) Direktive.
Moreover, that finding does not appear to conflict with paragraph 57 et seq. of the judgment in Libertel, in which, as I have already explained, the Court did not provide a ruling on whether the Freihaltebedürfnis must be evaluated in the context of Article 6 of the Directive. Instead, the Court merely dismissed an argument put forward by the Commission to the effect that its application should be restricted exclusively to the scope of that article.
Poleg tega se ta preučitev zdi nezdružljiva s točko 57 in naslednjimi sodbe Libertel, v katerih Sodi�če, kot sem že omenil, ni odločalo o tem, ali bi bilo treba Freihalte­bedürfnis obravnavati v okviru člena 6 Direktive, temveč je le zavrnilo trditev Komisije, ki je njegovo področje uporabe omejila zgolj na obseg tega člena.
If the average consumer regards the sign as having a merely decorative purpose, he would not identify the sign with the commercial origin of the goods or services, from which it follows that the sign would not be suitable for performing its principal function and its value as a mark would therefore be called into question. 50 Otherwise, if it were
Če mu povprečni potro�nik pripisuje zgolj okrasno vlogo, znaka ne bo identificiral s podjetjem izvora proizvodov ali storitev, zaradi česar znak ne bi mogel opravljati svoje glavne naloge in bi zanikal svoj pomen kot znamka, 50v drugem primeru, če bi sklepal
48 — Judgments in BMW, paragraph 62, and Gerolsteiner Brunnen, paragraph 16.
48 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi BMW, točka 62, in Gerolsteiner Brunner, točka 16.
50 — Judgment in adidas-Salomon paragraphs 39 to 41.
50 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Adidas-Salomon in Adidas Benelux, točke od 39 do 41.
49 — Judgment in Windsurfing Chiemsee, paragraph 28.
49 – Sodba Windsurfing Chiemsee, točka 28.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07 possible to deduce the origin of the goods and services, the contrary situation would arise.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 o izvoru blaga in storitev, pa bi veljalo nasprotno.
Accordingly, the answer proposed to the first question obviates any need to analyse the argument of H & M advocating the application of the Freihaltebedürfnis principle, at least in relation to signs registered before the entry into force of the Directive.
Preučitev preudarkov družbe H & M, ki zagovarja uporabo Freihaltebedürfnis, bi bila zato, glede na predlagani odgovor na prvo vpra�anje, odvečna vsaj glede znakov, ki so bili registrirani pred začetkov veljavnosti Direktive.
That argument thus refers to the liberal practice of registration in Benelux in the period before the harmonisation of trade mark legislation, but that situation falls within the scope of the invalidity of marks without distinctive character which has little connection with the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 5 of the Directive and the limitation of those rights pursuant to Article 6(1)(b).
Sklicuje se na liberalno prakso registrov v Beneluksu v času, ko je veljalo neusklajeno pravno znamk, ter na področje neveljavnosti znamk brez razlikovalnega učinka, kar ni povezano z uresničevanjem pravic iz člena 5 Direktive in njihovimi omejitvami iz člena 6(1)(b).
It is therefore unnecessary for me to elaborate on the answer to the second question, in view of the outcome of my analysis.
Glede na ugotovitev moje analize se mi torej ni treba poglobiti v obravnavanje drugega vpra�anja.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply to the Hoge Raad as follows:
Glede na zgornje preudarke predlagam Sodi�ču, naj Hoge Raad odgovori:
‘To determine the scope of protection of a trade mark consisting of a sign which corresponds to one of the indications referred to in Article 3(1)(c) of First Council
Pri določitvi obsega varstva znamke, sestavljene iz znaka, ki ustreza označbi iz člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 89/104/EGS Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1988, Prve direktive,
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, but which has acquired distinctive character through use and has been registered, it is necessary to take account of the general interest in ensuring that the availability of certain signs is not unduly restricted for other traders offering similar goods or services.
ADIDAS IN ADIDAS BENELUX o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami, ki pa je pridobila razlikovalni učinek z uporabo in bila registrirana, je treba upo�tevati splo�ni interes, da se drugim izvajalcem dejavnosti, ki ponujajo podobne proizvode ali storitve, neupravičeno ne omeji razpoložljivosti določenih znakov.
However, where the same sign lacked distinctive character in itself but subsequently acquired such character through use, the rights of the trade mark proprietor must not be examined in the light of the requirement of availability.’
Nasprotno pa, kadar isti znak že na začetku nima razlikovalnega učinka, temveč ga z uporabo pridobi naknadno, pravic imetnika znamke ni treba preučiti v luči zahteve po razpoložljivosti.
2008 — CASE C-102/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-102/07
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 10. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 16 February 2007, received at the Court on 21 February 2007, in the proceedings adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV, v
V zadevi C-102/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 16. februarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 21. februarja 2007, v postopku adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV proti
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by W. Wils, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 January 2008, gives the following
— za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti W. Wils, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 16. januarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Prve direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL 1989, L 40, str.
1; ‘the Directive’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
The reference was made in proceedings between adidas AG and adidas Benelux BV on the one hand and Marca Mode CV (‘Marca Mode’), C & A Nederland CV (‘C & A’), H & M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV (‘H & M’) and Vendex KBB Nederland BV (‘Vendex’) on the other concerning the scope of protection of the threestripe figurative marks owned by adidas AG. I - 2466
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbama adidas AG in adidas Benelux BV ter družbami Marca Mode CV (v nadaljevanju: Marca Mode), C & A Nederland CV (v nadaljevanju: C & A), H & M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV (v nadaljevanju: H & M) in Vendex KBB Nederland BV (v nadaljevanju: Vendex) glede obsega varstva figurativnih znamk v obliki treh črt, katerih imetnica je družba adidas AG. I - 2466
Article 3(1) of the Directive, entitled ‘Grounds for refusal or invalidity’, provides:
Člen 3 Direktive, naslovljen „Razlogi za zavrnitev ali neveljavnost“, v odstavku 1 določa:
The following shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid:
Kot znamka se ne smejo registrirati ali, če so registrirani, se jih lahko razglasi za neveljavne:
(a) signs which cannot constitute a trade mark;
(a) znaki, ki ne morejo sestavljati znamke;
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(b) znamke, ki so brez slehernega razlikovalnega učinka;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods;
(c) znamke, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali označbe, ki lahko v gospodarskem prometu označujejo vrsto, kakovost, količino, namen, vrednost, geografski izvor ali čas proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitev ali druge lastnosti blaga;
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;
(d) znamke, ki se sestojijo izključno iz znakov in označb, ki so postali običajni v jezikovni rabi ali v dobroverni ustaljeni praksi trgovanja;
(e) signs which consist exclusively of:
(e) znaki, sestavljeni izključno iz:
— the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, or
— oblike, ki izhaja iz same narave blaga, ali
— the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, or
— oblike blaga, ki je nujna za dosego tehničnega učinka, ali
Article 3(3) of the Directive states:
Člen 3(3) Direktive določa:
Any Member State may in addition provide that this provision shall also apply where the distinctive character was acquired after the date of application for registration or after the date of registration.’
Vsaka država članica lahko poleg tega predvidi, da ta določba velja tudi, če je znamka dobila razlikovalni učinek po datumu vložitve prijave za registracijo ali po datumu registracije.“
Article 5(1) and (2) of the Directive, entitled ‘Rights conferred by a trade mark’, provide:
Člen 5 Direktive, naslovljen „Pravice iz znamke“, v odstavkih 1 in 2 določa:
(a) any sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered;
(a) katerikoli znak, ki je enak znamki, za enako blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana znamka;
(b) any sign where, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark and the sign, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark.
(b) katerikoli znak, pri katerem zaradi njegove enakosti ali podobnosti z znamko in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga ali storitev, označenih z znamko in znakom, obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti, ki vključuje verjetnost povezovanja med znakom in znamko.
Any Member State may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or ser -vices which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.’
Vsaka država članica lahko predvidi, da je imetnik upravičen preprečiti vsem tretjim osebam, ki nimajo njegovega soglasja, da v gospodarskem prometu uporabljajo katerikoli znak, enak ali podoben znamki, v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, ki niso podobne tistim, za katere je registrirana znamka, če ima slednja v državi članici ugled in če bi uporaba takega znaka brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali o�kodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke.“
Article 6(1) of the Directive, entitled ‘Limitation of the effects of a trade mark’, provides:
Člen 6 Direktive, naslovljen „Omejitev učinkov znamke“, v odstavku 1 določa:
‘The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade,
„Znamka ne daje imetniku pravice, da prepove tretji osebi uporabo v gospodarskem prometu
(a) his own name or address;
(a) lastnega imena in naslova;