natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, during that transitional period for the adaptation of existing landfill sites, even though the rules of national law prior to Legislative Decree No 36/2003 which related to the procedure for the disposal of hazardous waste laid down specific provisions for the acceptance of that waste at landfills, they did not secure the full application of Articles 4, 5, 11 of, and Annex II to, Directive 1999/31 to the landfills receiving that waste.
Poleg tega v tem prehodnem obdobju, ki je omogočal prilagoditev obstoječih odlagali�č, predpisi nacionalnega prava, ki so veljali pred zakonsko uredbo �t. 36/2003 in ki so se nana�ali na postopek izločanja nevarnih odpadkov, čeprav so določali posebne določbe za sprejetje teh odpadkov na odlagali�ča, niso zagotavljali popolne uporabe členov 4, 5 in 11 Direktive 1999/31 za odlagali�ča, ki sprejemajo te odpadke.
The Italian Republic has in fact admitted, in its defence, that that domestic legislation did not have the same content as that of the relevant provisions of the directive.
Italijanska republika je v svojem odgovoru na tožbo dejansko priznala, da ta notranja ureditev ni imela iste vsebine kot ureditev z upo�tevnimi določbami navedene direktive.
It follows from those considerations that the second complaint relied on by the Commission must also be held to be well founded.
Iz teh ugotovitev sledi, da je treba drugi očitek, ki ga navaja Komisija, tudi �teti za utemeljen.
— in so far as that legislative decree does not provide for the application of Art -icles 2 to 13 of Directive 1999/31 to landfills authorised subsequent to the date of expiry of the period for transposition of that directive and prior to the date of the entry into force of the legislative decree, and
– ker ta zakonska uredba ne določa uporabe členov od 2 do 13 Direktive 1999/31 za odlagali�ča, za katera so bila izdana dovoljenja po preteku roka za prenos te direktive in pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene zakonske uredbe, in
— in so far as it does not secure the transposition of Article 14(d)(i) of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 14 of Directive 1999/31.
– ker ne zagotavlja prenosa člena 14(d)(i) navedene direktive, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov od 2 do 14 Direktive 1999/31.
Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Ker je Komisija predlagala, naj se Italijanski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Legislative Decree No 36 of 13 January 2003, as amended, which transposes Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste into national law,
Italijanska republika s tem, da je sprejela in ohranila veljavnost zakonske uredbe št. 36 z dne 13. januarja 2003, kot je bila spremenjena in ki v nacionalno pravo prenaša določbe Direktive Sveta 1999/31/ES z dne 26. aprila 1999 o odlaganju odpadkov na odlagališčih,
— in so far as that legislative decree does not provide for the application of Articles 2 to 13 of Directive 1999/31 to landfills authorised subsequent to the date of expiry of the period for transposition of that directive and prior to the date of the entry into force of the legislative decree, and
– ker ta zakonska uredba ne določa uporabe členov od 2 do 13 Direktive 1999/31 za odlagališča, za katera so bila izdana dovoljenja po preteku roka za prenos te direktive in pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene zakonske uredbe, in
— in so far as it does not secure the transposition of Article 14(d)(i) of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 14 of Directive 1999/31;
– ker ne zagotavlja prenosa člena 14(d)(i) navedene direktive, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov od 2 do 14 Direktive 1999/31.
(Trade marks — Articles 5(1)(b), 5(2) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC — Requirement of availability — Threestripe figurative marks — Two-stripe motifs used by competitors as decoration — Complaint alleging infringement and dilution of the mark)
„Znamke – Člena 5(1)(b) in (2) ter 6(1)(b) Direktive 89/104/EGS – Zahteva po razpoložljivosti – Figurativne znamke v obliki treh črt – Motivi dveh črt, ki jih konkurenti uporabljajo kot okras – Očitek kr�itve in oslabitve znamke“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 10. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use
Približevanje zakonodaj – Znamke – Direktiva 89/104 – Pravica imetnika znamke, da ugovarja nezakoniti uporabi svoje znamke
SUMMARY — CASE C-102/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-102/07
Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Well-known trade mark (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))
Približevanje zakonodaj – Znamke – Direktiva 89/104 – Znamka z ugledom (Direktiva Sveta 89/104, člen 5(2))
(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 6(1)(b))
Približevanje zakonodaj – Znamke – Direktiva 89/104 – Omejitev učinkov znamke (Direktiva Sveta 89/104, člen 6(1)(b))
goods covered by the sign used by the third party on the other. 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.
V skladu z deseto uvodno izjavo Prve direktive 89/104 o znamkah je presoja obstoja verjetnosti zmede „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“.
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.
Obstoj verjetnosti zmede je torej treba celovito presojati ob upo�tevanju vseh upo�tevnih dejavnikov v zadevnem primeru.
According to the 10th recital in the preamble to First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, the appreciation of a likelihood of confusion ‘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’.
strani pa, kako zaznava proizvode, ki jih pokriva znak, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe. Poleg tega je znake, ki morajo načeloma ostati razpoložljivi za vse gospodarske subjekte, mogoče zlorabiti tako, da se ustvari zmeda pri potro�niku.
The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.
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.
(see paras 29-31)
(Glej točke od 29 do 31.)
The fact that there is a need for the sign to be available for other economic operators cannot be one of those relevant factors.
Okoli�čina, da obstaja potreba, da je znak gospodarskim subjektom na voljo, ne spada med te upo�tevne dejavnike.
As is apparent from the wording of Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive, the answer to the question as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion must be based on the perception by the public of the goods covered by the mark of the proprietor on the one hand and the
Kot namreč izhaja iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive, mora odgovor na vpra�anje, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede, po eni strani temeljiti na tem, kako javnost zaznava proizvode, ki jih pokriva znamka imetnika, po drugi
The public’s perception that a sign is a decoration cannot constitute a restriction on the protection conferred by Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104
Zaznavanje javnosti znaka kot okras ne vpliva na varstvo, ki ga daje člen 5(1)(b) Prve direktive 89/104 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z
ADIDAS AND ADIDAS BENELUX to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks when, despite its decorative nature, the 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.
blagovnimi znamkami, 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.
States relating to trade marks 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) Prve direktive 89/104 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami za znamke z ugledom določa varstvo, za izvajanje katerega se ne zahteva obstoj verjetnosti zmede.
Article 5(2) applies to situations in which the specific condition of the protection consists of a use of the sign in question without due cause which takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
Ta določba se namreč uporablja za situacije, v katerih je glede varstva določen poseben pogoj neupravičene uporabe izpodbijanega znaka, ki bi brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali o�kodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke.
As is clear from the 10th recital in the Directive, that appreciation of likelihood of confusion 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 verjetnosti zmede 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 more the mark is well known, the greater the number of operators who will want to use similar signs.
Bolj ko je namreč znamka prepoznavna, več subjektov bo želelo uporabljati podobne znake.
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.
The infringements referred to in Article 5(2) of the Directive, where they occur, are the consequence of a certain degree of similarity between the mark and the sign, by virtue of which the relevant section of the public makes a connection between the sign and the mark, that is to say, establishes a link between them even though it does not confuse them.
Morebitne kr�itve iz člena 5(2) Direktive so posledica določene stopnje podobnosti med znamko in znakom, zaradi katere upo�tevna javnost poveže oziroma vzpostavi zvezo med znakom in znamko, čeprav ju ne zamenja.
It is not therefore necessary that the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party is such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public.
Ne zahteva se torej, da je stopnja podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe, taka, da bi pri upo�tevni javnosti pri�lo do verjetnosti zmede.
It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark.
Zadostuje, da upo�tevna javnost zaradi podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom vzpostavi zvezo med znakom in znamko.
The existence of such a link must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the relevant factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.
Obstoj take zveze je treba presojati celovito ob upo�tevanju vseh upo�tevnih dejavnikov.
SUMMARY — CASE C-102/07 the common market in such a way that trade mark rights are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-102/07 blaga ter svobode opravljanja storitev na skupnem trgu, in sicer tako, da pravica iz znamke lahko izpolni svojo vlogo bistvenega elementa sistema neizkrivljene konkurence, ki ga ima Pogodba namen vzpostaviti in ohranjati.
The requirement of availability is extraneous both to the assessment of the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party and to the link which may be made by the relevant public between that mark and the sign.
Zahteva po razpoložljivosti je nepomembna tako pri presoji stopnje podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe, kot pri zvezi, ki jo upo�tevna javnost lahko vzpostavi med navedeno znamko in znakom.
It cannot therefore constitute a relevant factor for determining whether the use of the sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
Ta zahteva torej ni upo�teven dejavnik za presojo, ali uporaba znaka brez upravičenega razloga izkori�ča razlikovalni učinek ali ugled znamke ali mu �koduje.
(see paras 40-43)
(Glej točke od 40 do 43.)
Specifically, Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive seeks to ensure that all economic operators have the opportun- ity to use descriptive indications.
Namen člena 6(1)(b) Direktive je ohraniti možnost, da vsi gospodarski subjekti uporabljajo opisne označbe.
That provision therefore gives expression to the requirement of availability.
Ta določba je torej izraz zahteve po razpoložljivosti.
However, the requirement of availability cannot in any circumstances constitute an independent restriction of the effects of the trade mark in addition to those expressly provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive.
Vendar zahteva po razpoložljivosti v nobenem primeru ne pomeni samostojne omejitve učinkov znamke, ki bi se pridruževala omejitvam, ki so izrecno določene v členu 6(1)(b) Direktive.
It must be stated in that regard that, in order for a third party to be able to plead the limitations of the effects of the trade mark in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive and rely in that respect on the requirement of availability underlying that provision, the indication used by it must, as required by that provision of the Directive, relate to one of the characteristics of the goods marketed or the service provided by that third party.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da se mora – zato da bi se tretje osebe lahko sklicevale na omejitve učinkov znamke iz člena 6(1)(b) Direktive in v tem kontekstu na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti, ki je temelj te določbe – označba, ki jo tretje osebe uporabljajo, nana�ati na eno od značilnosti proizvoda ali storitve, ki jo trži oziroma ponuja ta tretja oseba.
Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive provides that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, 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, provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Člen 6(1)(b) Direktive določa, da imetnik znamke ne more prepovedati tretji osebi, da v gospodarskem prometu uporablja označbe glede vrste, kakovosti, količine, namena, vrednosti, geografskega izvora, časa proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitve ali drugih značilnosti blaga ali storitev, če jih uporablja v skladu z dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.
By thus limiting the effects of the exclusive rights of a trade mark proprietor, Article 6 of the Directive seeks to reconcile the fundamental interests of trade mark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in
Člen 6 Direktive s takim omejevanjem učinkov izključne pravice imetnika znamke združuje temeljne interese varstva pravic iz znamke in interese prostega pretoka
(see paras 44-47)
(Glej točke od 44 do 47.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALRUIZ-JARABO COLOMER
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCADÁMASA RUIZ-JARABOJA COLOMERJA, predstavljeni 16. januarja 2008 1
I — Introduction requirement of availability for the purposes of defining the scope of the rights of a trade mark proprietor.
I – Uvod zahteve po razpoložljivosti za razmejitev pravic imetnika znamke.
The famous sports equipment manufacturer adidas and its Netherlands subsidiary are once again challenging 2other undertakings regarding the use of certain signs similar to their well-known threestripe trade mark, alleging that those undertakings have infringed their industrial property rights in that mark.
�portne opreme družba Adidas in njena nizozemska podružnica sta znova 2v sporu z drugimi druž- bami zaradi uporabe znakov, ki so podobni njeni znani znamki treh trakov, in jih obtožujeta, da so kr�ile njune pravice industrijske lastnine na tem znaku.
These proceedings essentially concern the struggle to make headway in a market where fierce rivalries are stoked by the vast profits which the companies involved expect to make.
V bistvu gre za odpiranje poti na trg hudih rivalstev, ki jih spodbujajo mastni dobički, s katerimi se podjetja želijo obogatiti.
That explains why what the uninitiated would regard as a triviality — the battle to own the rights in two or three stripes, superimposed and coloured in a particular manner — takes on dramatic proportions when the contest unfolds in the sportswear market.
Razumljivo je torej, da spor o lastni�tvu dveh ali treh obarvanih in vzporednih črt, ki bi se laiku zdel banalen, dobi dramatične razsežnosti, če se nana�a na �portna oblačila.
In the present case, adidas asserts its trade mark rights against other sellers of sportswear who seek to use a double stripe in contrasting colours to conceal and strengthen the seams of their garments.
Tokrat družba Adidas nasprotuje drugim proizvajalcem oblačil te kategorije, ki hočejo uporabiti dvojni trak različnih odtenkov, da bi prikrili in okrepili �ive svojih oblačil.
In the light of those facts, the Hoge Raad raises questions concerning the application of the
V teh okoli�činah se Hoge Raad spra�uje o uporabi
With regard to the Community customs regime, see Case C-223/98 adidas [1999] ECR I-7081.
V zvezi s carinskim sistemom skupnosti je sodelovala v primeru, v katerem je bila izdana sodba z dne 14. oktobra 1999 v zadevi Adidas (C-223/98, Recueil, str. I-7081).
In a highly competitive world, stars’ triumphs provide the best publicity for the sportswear companies which sponsor them, naturally through the payment of large sums of money. However, there have been runners — even long distance runners —
V svetu hude konkurence je uspeh zvezdnikov najbolj�a reklama za proizvajalce �portnih majic in copat, ki so njihovi pokrovitelji in jih očitno bogato plačujejo; kljub temu so nekateri tekači kot na primer Etio-
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-102/07 who have won barefoot, such as the Ethiopian Abebe Bikila. 3
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-102/07 pijec Abebe Bikila celo na dolgih progah zmagovali bosi.
Article 3, which is headed ‘Grounds for refusal or invalidity’, lists those grounds specifically in paragraph 1:
Člen 3 z naslovom „Razlogi za zavrnitev ali neveljavnost“ na�teva te razloge taksativno v odstavku 1:
First of all, I must state that, in view of the similarity between the provisions of Direct- ive 89/104/EEC 4(‘the Directive’) and those
Najprej je treba razložiti, da se glede na vsebinske podobnosti med Direktivo 89/104/EGS 4(v nadaljevanju: Direktiva) in Uredbo �t.
The following shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid: of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘the Regulation’), 5it is appro- priate, for the purposes of interpreting the Directive, to refer to a number of judgments of the Court which concern articles of the Regulation. 6
Kot znamka se ne smejo registrirati ali, če so registrirani, se jih lahko razglasi za neveljavne: a) znaki, ki ne morejo sestavljati znamke;
3 — Shoeless, he won the gold medal for the marathon in the 1960 Summer Olympic Games in Rome and, wearing proper shoes, he took gold in the Tokyo Games in 1964.
3 – Zlato medaljo v maratonu na poletnih olimpijskih igrah leta 1960 v Rimu je osvojil bos, leta 1964 pa je z ustrezno obutvijo v Tokiu uspeh ponovil.
It is not clear whether he ran barefoot to go faster or to draw attention to the poverty of his continent of origin, being as he was the first African champion in the history of the Olympics of the modern era (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila).
Ni jasno, ali je tekel bos zato, da bi bil hitrej�i, ali zato, da bi opozoril na rev�čino celine, s katere je prihajal, saj je bil prvi Afričan z olimpijskim naslovom v zgodovini olimpijskih iger moderne dobe (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila).
Other sporting heroes have equalled his feat and today a number of Ethiopians, such as Haile Gebrselassie, still train with nothing on their feet (http://www.elmundo.es/1997/02/24/deportes/24N0150.html).
Tudi drugi �portni heroji so dosegli primerljive uspehe in �e danes nekateri Abesinci, kot na primer Haile Gebreselassie, trenirajo brez obutve (http://www.elmundo.es/1997/02/24/deportes/24N0150.html).
4 — 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. 1).
4 – Prva Direktiva Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL L 40, str. 1).
5 — Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p.
5 – Uredba (ES) �t. 40/94 Sveta z dne 20. decembra 1993 (UL 1994, L 11, str.
83) and, most recently, by Council Regulation (EC) No 422/2004 of 19 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 70, p. 1).
83) in, nazadnje, z Uredbo (ES) �t. 422/2004 Sveta z dne 19. februarja 2004 (UL L 70, str. 1).
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve,
c) znamke, ki jih sestavljajo izključno znaki ali označbe, ki lahko v gospodarskem
6 — Specifically, Articles 4, 7, 9 and 12 of the Regulation.
6 – Konkretno členov 4, 7, 9 in 12 te uredbe.
(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;
Odstavek 3 člena 3 ureja navedeno pridobitev razlikovalne sposobnosti z uporabo simbolov in določa: prometu označujejo vrsto, kakovost, količino, namen, vrednost, geografski izvor ali čas proizvodnje blaga ali opravljanja storitev ali druge lastnosti blaga; d) znamke, ki se sestojijo izključno iz znakov in označb, ki so postali običajni v jezikovni rabi ali v dobroverni ustaljeni praksi trgovanja;
‘A trade mark shall not be refused registration or be declared invalid in accordance with paragraph 1(b), (c) or (d) if, before the date of application for registration and following the use which has been made of it, it has acquired a distinctive character.
„Registracija znamke se ne zavrne, znamka pa se ne razglasi za neveljavno v skladu z odstavkom 1(b), (c) ali (d), če je pred datumom prijave za registracijo in z njeno uporabo dobila razlikovalen značaj.