natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court added that the fact that an opposition to a Community trade mark application is based on several earlier marks and that those marks display characteristics which give grounds for regarding them as forming part of a single ‘series’ or ‘family’ constitutes such a relevant factor for the purpose of assessing whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
Dodalo pa je, da tak upošteven dejavnik za presojo obstoja verjetnosti zmede pomeni dejstvo, da ugovor zoper prijavo znamke Skupnosti temelji na več prejšnjih znamkah in da so te znamke take, da jih je mogoče obravnavati, kot da so del iste„serije“ oziroma „družine“ znamk.
That may be the case, inter alia, either when those marks reproduce in full a single distinctive element with the addition of a figurative or word element dierentiating them from one another, or when they are characterised by the repetition of a single prex or sux taken from an original mark.
To je možno v primeru, da bodisi v celoti ponazarjajo isti razlikovalni element z dodatkom figurativnega ali besednega elementa, ki jih medsebojno razlikuje, bodisi je zanje značilna ponovitev iste predpone ali pripone, ki izhaja iz originalne znamke.
In those circumstances, a likelihood of confusion may be created by the possibility of association between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks
V teh primerih je namreč verjetnost zmede ustvarjena zaradi možnosti povezovanja med prijavljeno znamko in prejšnjimi znamkami, ki so del serije, če je prijavljena znamka prejšnjim tako podobna, da lahko potrošnika zavede, da je prijavljena znamka del iste serije in da so proizvodi, ki jih označuje, istega trgovskega ali sorodnega porekla kot proizvodi, ki jih zajemajo prejšnje znamke.
Judgments of 15 March 2006 in Case T-129/04 Develey v OHIM (Shape of a plastic bottle) (under appeal, Case C-238/06 P); of 16 March 2006 in CaseT-322/03 Telefon & Buch v OHIM — Herold Business Data (Weisse Seiten), neither yet published in the ECR; and of 31 May 2006 in Case T-15/05 De Waele v OHIM (Shape of a sausage), not yet published in the ECR. 44
Drugič, poleg podobnosti znamkam, ki pripadajo seriji, mora imeti prijavljena znamka tudi lastnosti, ki jo lahko ločijo od serije. Sodišče prve stopnje navaja, da to na primer ni mogoče, če se skupni element prejšnjih serijskih znamk v prijavljeni znamki uporabi v drugačnem položaju od tega, v kakršnem se navadno pojavlja v znamkah, ki pripadajo seriji, ali s pomensko drugačno vsebino.
See, respectively, judgments of 12 July 2006 in CaseT-277/04 Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM — Johnson’s Veterinary Products (VITACOAT) and of 13 September 2006 in Case T-191/04 MIP Metro v OHIM — Tesco Stores (METRO) (under appeal, Case C-493/06 P), neither yet published in the ECR.
Glej sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. julija 2006 v zadevi Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann proti UUNT – Johnson’s Veterinary Products (VITACOAT), T-277/04, in z dne 13. septembra 2006 v zadevi MIP Metro proti UUNT – Tesco Stores (METRO), T-191/04 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-493/06 P), še neobjavljeni v ZOdl.
Judgment of 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM — Marine Enterprise Projects (BAINBRIDGE) (under appeal, Case C-234/06 P), not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Ponte Finanziaria proti UUNT – Marine Enterprise Projects (BAINBRIDGE), T-194/03 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-234/06 P), ZOdl., str. II-445.
Proceedings forming part of the series where the trade mark applied for displays such similarities to those marks as might lead the consumer to believe that it forms part of that same series and therefore that the goods covered by it have the same commercial origin as those covered by the earlier marks, or a related origin.
Člen 15(1) Uredbe št. 40/94 določa: „če v obdobju petih let po registraciji imetnik ni začel resno in dejansko uporabljati znamke Skupnosti v Skupnosti za blago ali storitve, za katere jo je registriral, ali če je bila takšna uporaba prekinjena v obdobju petih zaporednih let, se za znamko Skupnosti uporabljajo sankcije iz te uredbe, razen če obstajajo upravičeni razlogi za neuporabo.“ Drugi odstavek tega člena določa, da resna in dejanska uporaba pomeni tudi uporabo znamke Skupnosti v obliki, ki se glede na obliko, v kateri je bila registrirana, razlikuje v elementih, ki ne spreminjajo razlikovalnega značaja znamke.
The Court however limited that solution to cases in which two conditions are cumulatively satised. First, the proprietor of a series of earlier registrations must furnish proof of use of all the marks belonging to the series or, at the very least, of a number of marks capable of constituting a ‘series’.
Poleg tega v skladu s členom 43(2) Uredbe št. 40/94 velja, da mora imetnik prejšnje znamke Skupnosti, ki je vložil pisni ugovor, če tako zahteva prijavitelj, priskrbeti dokaz o tem, da se je v obdobju petih let pred datumom objave znamke Skupnosti prejšnja znamka Skupnosti resno in dejansko uporabljala v Skupnosti za blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana in ki jih imetnik navaja kot razlog za ugovor, ali da obstajajo razlogi za neuporabo pod pogojem, da je bila prejšnja znamka Skupnosti na ta dan registrirana vsaj pet let.
Second, in addition to its similarity to the marks belonging to the series, the trade mark applied for must also display characteristics capable of associating it with the series.
V skladu z isto določbo tudi velja, da če se je prejšnja znamka Skupnosti uporabljala le za del blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana, se za namene preizkusa ugovora šteje, da je registrirana le za ta del blaga ali storitev.
The Court stated that that could not be the case where, for example, the element common to the earlier marks in a series is used in the trade mark applied for either in a dierent position from that in which it usually appears in the marks belonging to the series or with a dierent semantic content.
Tretji odstavek člena 43 Uredbe št. 40/94 razširja uporabo teh načel na primere prejšnjih nacionalnih znamk.
In this instance the Court held that, at the very least, the first of those two conditions was not satised since the applicant had proved the presence on the market only of two earlier marks in the series relied on.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Ponte Finanziaria proti UUNT se je moralo Sodišče prve stopnje opredeliti glede trditve tožeče stranke, ki je temeljila na pojmu „obrambne znamke“.
Scope of the protection conferred by genuine use of the trade mark
Ta pojem v italijanskem pravu omogoča ureditev izjeme od pravila razveljavitve znamke zaradi neuporabe, če je imetnik neuporabljane znamke obenem imetnik druge znamke ali več drugih podobnih znamk, ki so v veljavi, od katerih se vsaj ena uporablja za označbo istih proizvodov ali storitev.
Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 states that if, within a period of five years following registration, the proprietor has not put the Community trade mark to genuine use in the Community in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the Community trade mark is to be subject to the sanctions provided for in that regulation, unless there are proper reasons for non-use.
Vendar je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da je pojem „obrambne znamke“ nepoznan v sistemu varstva znamke Skupnosti, ki kot bistven pogoj za priznanje pravic iz znamk določa dejansko uporabo znaka v trgovini z zadevnim blagom ali storitvami.
Article 15(2) provides that use of the Community trade mark in a form diering in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered also constitutes genuine use.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem navedlo, da obrambne registracije niso„upravičeni razlogi“ za neuporabo iz člena 43(2) Uredbe št. 40/94.
Furthermore, according to Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, if the applicant so requests, the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark who has given notice of opposition must furnish proof that, during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the Community trade mark application, the earlier Community trade mark has been put to genuine use in the Community in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered and which he cites as justication for his opposition, or that there are proper reasons for non-use, provided the earlier Community trade mark has at that date been registered for not less than five years.
Ta pojem se namreč nanaša na obstoj ovir glede uporabe znamke ali na okoliščine, v katerih bi se gospodarsko izkoriščanje znamke, upoštevajoč vse pomembne okoliščine v zadevi, izkazalo za izredno potratno.
Article 43(2) also provides that if the earlier Community trade mark has been used in relation to part only of the goods or services for which it is registered it is, for the purposes of the examination of the opposition, to be deemed to be registered in respect only of that part of the goods or services.
Tako je lahko na primer, če nacionalna ureditev nalaga omejitve glede trženja proizvodov, označenih z znamko.
Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 extends the application of those principles to the case of earlier national trade marks.
Nasprotno pa to ne velja pri nacionalni določbi, ki omogoča registracijo znakov kot znamk, ki zaradi svoje izključno obrambne naloge zoper druge znake, ki se bodo gospodarsko izkoriščali, niso namenjeni za uporabo v trgovini.
In Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM, the Court ruled on an argument of the applicant based on the concept of a ‘defensive mark’.
Možnost, da imetnik znamke dokaže resno in dejansko uporabo znamke s tem, da predloži dokaz o uporabi v trgovini v obliki, ki se nekoliko razlikuje od oblike, v kateri je bila opravljena registracija, nič bolj ne zajema pojma „obrambne znamke“.
That concept makes it possible, in Italian law, to bring about an exception to the rule that a trade mark must be revoked for non-use where the proprietor of the unused trade mark is, at the same time, the proprietor of another, similar trade mark
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje je namen člena 15(2)(a) Uredbe št. 40/94 dejansko omogočiti imetniku znamke, da pri njenem gospodarskem izkoriščanju izvede spremembe glede znaka, ki brez spremenjenega razlikovalnega učinka omogočajo boljše prilagajanje zahtevam trgovine in oglaševanja zadevnega blaga in storitev. Področje uporabe ratione materiae te
Nor is the concept of a ‘defensive mark’ covered by the possibility, for the proprietor of a mark, to demonstrate genuine use by furnishing proof of use in trade in a form slightly dierent from that in which registration was eected.
Sodišče prve stopnje določbe je treba šteti za omejeno na situacije, v katerih znak, ki ga konkretno uporablja imetnik znamke, pomeni obliko, v kateri se ista znamka gospodarsko izkorišča.
According to the Court, the purpose of Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 is to allow the proprietor of a mark, on the occasion of its commercial exploitation, to make variations in the sign, which, without altering its distinctive character, enable it to be better adapted to the marketing and promotion requirements of the goods or services concerned.
Nasprotno ta določba imetniku registrirane znamke ne dovoljuje, da se izogne obveznosti, ki mu nalaga uporabo te znamke, tako da se sklicuje na pravico uporabe podobne znamke, ki je predmet druge registracije.
It follows from the principle of continuity in terms of functions as between the adjudicating bodies of the Oce for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) that, within the scope of application of Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (which restricts, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, the examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought), the Board of Appeal is required to base its decision on all the matters of fact and of law which the party concerned introduced either in the proceedings before the body which heard the application at first instance or in the appeal, subject only to Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (the fact that OHIM disregards facts or evidence which are not submitted in due time by the parties concerned) 46.
Iz funkcionalne kontinuitete med oddelki Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT) izhaja, da mora v zadevah, za katere velja člen 74(1) Uredbe št. 40/94 (v postopku v zvezi z relativnimi razlogi za zavrnitev registracije določa omejitev preizkusa na zahtevani ukrep in na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih podale stranke), odbor za pritožbe svojo odločbo utemeljiti z vsemi dejanskimi in pravnimi elementi, ki jih je zadevna stranka predložila bodisi v postopku pred enoto, ki je odločala na prvi stopnji, bodisi v postopku s pravnim sredstvom z edino izjemo iz člena 74(2) Uredbe št. 40/94 (in sicer možnosti, da UUNT spregleda dejstva, na katera se stranke niso sklicevale, ali dokaze, ki jih zadevne stranke niso predložile v ustreznem času)46.
Judgment in Case T-308/01 Henkel v OHIM — LHS (UK) (KLEENCARE) [2003] ECR II-3253, paragraph 32.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 23. septembra 2003 v zadevi Henkel proti UUNT – LHS (UK) (KLEENCARE), T-308/01, Recueil, str. II-3253, točka 32.
The Court continued in 2006 to dene the scope of its caselaw by clarifying the purpose of the examination which the Board of Appeal must carry out, both from a factual and a legal point of view.
Dejavnost dokumenti predloženi v prilogi k izjavi pred odborom za pritožbe v roku štirih mesecev, ki ga določa člen 59 Uredbe št. 40/94.
First, as regards the factual examination of the Board of Appeal, in La Baronia de Turis v OHIM — Baron Philippe de Rothschild (LA BARONNIE) and Caviar Anzali v OHIM — Novomarket (Asetra), the Court held that the Board of Appeal has the same powers as the department which was responsible for the decision appealed and that its examination concerns the dispute as a whole as it stands on the date of its ruling 47.
Sodišče prve stopnje je kljub temu razsodilo, da je treba preučiti posledice te zmotne uporabe prava, pri čemer kršitev postopka nima za posledico delne alicelotne razveljavitve odločbe, razen če se ugotovi, da bi bila odločba brez te nepravilnosti vsebinsko drugačna.
Consequently, the review exercised by the Boards of Appeal is not limited to the lawfulness of the contested decision, but, by virtue of the devolutive eect of the appeal proceedings, it requires a reappraisal of the dispute as a whole, since the Boards of Appeal must reexamine in full the initial application and take into account evidence produced in due time before them.
V tej zadevi je Sodišče prve stopnje, sklicujoč se na to, da s svojo presojo ne sme nadomestiti presoje zadevnih elementov s strani UUNT, menilo, da se ne more izključiti, da so dokazi, ki jih je odbor za pritožbe nezakonito zavrnil, lahko takšni, da bi spremenili vsebino izpodbijane odločbe. Zato je izpodbijano odločbo razveljavilo48.
The Court therefore held that, although Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 gives OHIM the option to disregard evidence which is not submitted ‘in due time’ by the parties, that concept must be interpreted in proceedings before a Board of Appeal as referring to the time limit applicable to the lodging of an appeal and to the time limits granted in the course of those proceedings.
Sodišče prve stopnje je po drugi strani glede pravnega preizkusa, ki ga mora opraviti odbor za pritožbe, v sodbi DEF-TEC Defense Technology proti UUNT – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) razsodilo, da ta preizkus načeloma ni izključno omejen na pritožbene razloge stranke, ki je vložila pritožbo49.
Since this notion applies in each of the proceedings pending before OHIM, the expiry of the time limits granted by the department hearing the application at first instance for producing evidence therefore has no bearing on the question whether the evidence has been produced ‘in due time’ before the Board of Appeal.
Zato mora odbor za pritožbe, tudi če stranka, ki je vložila tožbo, ni navajala posebnega tožbenega razloga, kljub temu z vidika vseh upoštevnih dejstev in dokazov preizkusiti, ali je bila lahko odločba, ki je predmet pritožbe, zakonito sprejeta ali ne.
The Board of Appeal is therefore required to take into consideration the evidence produced before it, irrespective of whether or not it has been produced before the Opposition Division.
V tej zadevi je tožeča stranka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje zahtevala razveljavitev odločbe oddelka za ugovore, ker na njej ni bilo podpisov.
In this instance, since the documents in question had been annexed to the statement before the Board of Appeal within the four-month time limit laid down in Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the production of those documents could not be regarded as late for the purposes of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da čeprav ta tožbeni razlog ni bil navajan pred odborom za pritožbe in ob domnevi, da je podana kršitev obličnostnih pravil, ki se uporabijo, bi ga moral odbor za pritožbe preučiti po uradni dolžnosti.
The Court nonetheless held that it was necessary to examine the consequences that had to be derived from that error in law, since a procedural irregularity entails the annulment of a decision in whole or in part only if it is shown that in the absence of such irregularity the contested decision might have been substantively dierent.
Sodišče prve stopnje se je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann proti UUNT tako pri zavzetju stališča, da dejstva, na katera se stranka sklicuje pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, pa se nanje ni predhodno sklicevala pred organi UUNT, lahko vplivajo na zakonitost odločbe odbora za pritožbe le, če bi jih bil UUNT dolžan upoštevati po uradni dolžnosti, oprlo na svojo sodno prakso.
In this instance, the Court, whilst observing that it was not for it to replace OHIM in assessing the matters at issue, held that it could not be ruled out that the evidence which the Board of Appeal wrongly refused to take into consideration might be such as to modify the substance of the contested decision.
Ker člen 74(1) Uredbe št. 40/94 določa, da je v postopku o relativnih razlogih za zavrnitev registracije preizkus UUNT omejen na zahtevani ukrep ter na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih podale stranke, UUNT ni dolžan po uradni dolžnosti upoštevati dejstev, ki jih stranke niso navajale.
It therefore annulled the contested decision 48.
S takimi dejstvi zato ni mogoče izpodbijati zakonitosti odločbe odbora za pritožbe.
Second, as regards the legal examination which the Board of Appeal must conduct, the Court stated, in DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR), that that examination is not, in principle, determined
Nasprotno je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Armacell proti UUNT – nmc (ARMAFOAM) razsodilo, da dejstvo, da se je v obravnavani zadevi stranka pred oddelkom za ugovore strinjala s tem, da bi lahko bili zadevni proizvodi morebiti enaki, in je nato pred odborom za pritožbe izjavila, da vprašanja podobnosti proizvodov ni mogoče obravnavati zaradi domnevne razlike, ki ločuje nasprotujoča si znaka, nikakor nima za posledico, da UUNT ni dolžan obravnavati vprašanja, ali so proizvodi, ki so označeni z zadevnimi znamkami,
See, for a substantially similar analysis, the judgment in Torre Muga.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi DEF-TEC Defense Technology proti UUNT – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR), T-6/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Court of First Instance exclusively by the grounds relied on by the party who has brought the appeal 49.
Sodišče prve stopnje podobni ali enaki50.
Accordingly, even if the party who brought the appeal has not raised a specic ground of appeal, the Board of Appeal is nonetheless bound to examine whether or not, in the light of all the relevant matters of fact and of law, the decision under appeal could be lawfully adopted.
Taka okoliščina torej nima za posledico, da ta stranka nima pravice, da pred Sodiščem prve stopnje v mejah pravnega in dejanskega okvira spora pred odborom za pritožbe izpodbija ugotovitve tega odbora glede tega vprašanja.
In the present case, the applicant contended before the Court that the decision of the Opposition Division was void because it does not have signatures.
V tem letu sta bili razglašeni le dve sodbi, ki sta obravnavali zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov glede na Uredbo št. 1049/200151.
The Court held that although that plea was not put forward before the Board of Appeal, and assuming that an infringement of the formal rules applicable were proven, the Board of Appeal should have raised it of its own motion.
Ti dve sodbi pa sta Sodišču prve stopnje vendarle omogočili, da je opredelilo obseg izjem, ki temeljijo na varstvu namena inšpekcije in preiskave ter na varstvu sodnih postopkov.
Also from a procedural point of view, the Court dealt again in 2006 with the question of the factors which could be relied on before it against a decision of the Board of Appeal.
Sodišče prve stopnje je po eni strani v sodbi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji o zavrnitvi prošnje za dostop do dokumentov v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi odločilo, da zgolj dejstvo, da Komisija navaja, da bi lahko dostop škodoval potrebnemu dialogu med Komisijo, državo članico in podjetji, glede katerih poteka preiskava, ne dokazuje obstoja posebnih okoliščin, ki upravičujejo, da se ne opravi konkreten in posamičen preizkus dokumentov, do katerih je bil zaprošen dostop.
In Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM, the Court thus relied on its earlier caselaw in holding that facts which are pleaded before it without having previously been brought before the departments of OHIM can aect the legality of a decision of the Board of Appeal only if OHIM should have taken them into account of its own motion.
Po drugi strani se je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji ukvarjalo z zavrnitvijo dostopa do različnih dokumentov OLAF in notranje revizijske službe Komisije.
Since Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 provides that, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, OHIM is to be restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought, it is not required to take into account of its own motion facts which have not been put forward by the parties.
O teh dokumentih so bili obveščeni francoski in luksemburški sodni organi v okviru preiskave o nepravilnostih, ki naj bi bile zagrešene v okviru Eurostata.
Therefore, such facts cannot aect the legality of a decision of the Board of Appeal.
Osumljenca v tej zadevi sta bili tožeči stranki.
Consequently, such a fact does not deprive that party of the right to challenge before the Court, in the factual and legal context of the dispute before the Board of Appeal, the findings of that body on this point.
Sodišče prve stopnje je po tem, ko je spomnilo, da je treba izjeme od načela dostopa do dokumentov institucij razlagati in uporabljati restriktivno, preučilo, kako je Komisija uporabila te izjeme, in sicer izjeme na podlagi varstva sodnih postopkov in namena inšpekcije, preiskave in revizije.
Only two judgments were delivered in 2006 in relation to a refusal of access to documents in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 51.
Glede prve izjeme je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da naj v okoliščinah te zadeve Komisija ne bi mogla sprejeti, da so bili različni dokumenti, ki jih je poslal OLAF, pripravljeni izključno za sodni postopek.
Those judgments nonetheless enabled the
Spoštovanje nacionalnih postopkovnih predpisov je zadostno zagotovljeno, če se institucija prepriča, da razkritje dokumentov ne krši nacionalnega prava.
Judgment of 6 September 2006 in Case T-6/05 DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR), not yet published in the ECR.
OLAF bi se v primeru dvoma moral posvetovati z nacionalnim sodiščem in bi moral dostop zavrniti le, če bi nacionalno sodišče nasprotovalo razkritju omenjenih dokumentov.