natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 73 — Figurative mark ‘Aire Limpio’ — Community, national and international figurative marks representing a fir tree with various names — Opposition by the proprietor — Partial refusal to register — Inference of the particularly distinctive character of the earlier mark from evidence relating to another mark)
„Pritožba – Znamka Skupnosti – Uredba (ES) �t. 40/94 – Člena 8(1)(b) in 73 – Figurativna znamka ‚Aire Limpio‘ – Figurativna znamka Skupnosti ter nacionalne in mednarodne figurativne znamke, ki predstavljajo jelko z različnimi imeni – Ugovor imetnika – Delna zavrnitev registracije – Ugotovitev posebnega razlikovalnega učinka prej�nje znamke na podlagi dokazov glede druge znamke“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
Znamka Skupnosti – Opredelitev in pridobitev znamke Skupnosti – Relativni razlogi za zavrnitev – Ugovor imetnika prejšnje enake ali podobne znamke, registrirane za enake ali podobne proizvode ali storitve
SUMMARY — CASE C-488/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-488/06 P
The acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may be as a result of its use as part of another registered trade mark.
Pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke lahko izhaja iz njene uporabe kot dela druge registrirane znamke.
It is sufficient that, in consequence of such use, the relevant class of persons actually perceives the product or service, designated by the mark, as originating from a given undertaking.
Zadostuje, da kot posledica te uporabe upo�tevna javnost dejansko zazna proizvod ali storitev, označen s prej�njimi znamkami, kot da izvira iz določenega podjetja.
In the examination of the opposition brought on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark by the owner of an earlier mark, that earlier mark can have a par -ticularly distinctive character not only per se, but also because of the reputation it enjoys with the public.
V okviru obravnave ugovora, ki ga je na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 o znamki Skupnosti vložil imetnik prej�nje znamke, ima prej�nja znamka poseben razlikovalni učinek lahko kot taka ali zaradi prepoznavnosti v javnosti.
An argument based on the very weak inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark cannot therefore cast doubt on the finding that that mark has acquired a particularly distinctive character because it is well known.
Trditev, ki se nana�a na majhen razlikovalni učinek prej�nje znamke, ne more omajati ugotovitve, da je ta znamka dobila poseben razlikovalni učinek zaradi svoje prepoznavnosti.
(see paras 65, 67)
(Glej točki 65 in 67.)
That is true both for the acquisition of distinctive character by a mark which it was sought to register and for establishing whether an earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character in order to ascertain whether there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
To velja tako v primeru, ko gre za pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka za znamko, za katero se zahteva registracija, kot v primeru, ko gre za ugotovitev posebnega razlikovalnega učinka prej�nje znamke, da bi se določil obstoj verjetnosti zmede v smislu člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 o znamki Skupnosti.
In the examination of the opposition brought on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark by the owner of an earlier mark, account may be taken of evidence
V okviru obravnave ugovora, ki ga je na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 40/94 o znamki Skupnosti vložil imetnik prej�nje znamke, je mogoče upo�tevati dokaze, ki, čeprav segajo v čas po datumu vložitve
(see paras 49, 51)
(Glej točki 49 in 51.)
L & D v OHIM which, although subsequent to the date of filing the application for the Community trade mark, enables the drawing of conclusions on the situation as it was on that date. trade mark by the owner of an earlier mark, there is no rule that in the case of mixed trade marks comprising both graphic and word elements, the word elements must systematically be regarded as dominant.
L & D PROTI UUNT prijave znamke Skupnosti, omogočajo sklepanje o položaju, kakr�en je bil na ta datum. znamke, ne obstaja nobeno pravilo, v skladu s katerim bi bilo treba pri me�anih znamkah, ki vsebujejo grafične in besedne elemente, zadnje sistematično obravnavati kot prevladujoče.
Furthermore, there is no rule to the effect that the name used in that complex mark must be regarded as distinctive and fanciful where it is devoid of specific meaning.
Poleg tega ni nobenega pravila, da je treba del tak�ne kompleksne znamke, v katerem je ime, �teti za razlikovalnega in domi�ljijskega, če nima posebnega pomena.
(see paras 55, 84)
(Glej točki 55 in 84.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 13 March 2008 1 a third party may object to registration — are listed in Article 8.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 1 v členu 7, „relativni“ razlogi – razlogi, na podlagi katerih lahko tretja oseba ugovarja registraciji – pa v členu 8.
The proprietor of an earlier trade mark may object to the registration of a Community trade mark where, because of its similarity to his earlier mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the two, there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, a likelihood which may be enhanced if the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character.
Imetnik prej�nje znamke lahko ugovarja registraciji znamke Skupnosti, ko zaradi podobnosti njegove prej�nje znamke z njo in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga in storitev, ki ju znamki označujeta, obstaja verjetnosti zmede v javnosti, ta verjetnost pa se lahko poveča, če ima prej�nja znamka poseben razlikovalni učinek.
The main issues in the present appeal gravitate around the question whether, and if so on what basis, a recent mark may be considered to have acquired such a character through its use as part of a more longstanding mark.
Glavna vpra�anja te pritožbe se nana�ajo na to, ali in na kateri podlagi je mogoče �teti, da je mlaj�a znamka pridobila tak učinek z uporabo kot dela starej�e znamke.
Article 7(1)(e)(ii) precludes any registration of signs which consist exclusively of ‘the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result’.
Člen 7(1)(e)(ii) prepoveduje registracijo znakov, ki so sestavljeni izključno iz „oblike blaga, ki je nujna za doseg tehničnega učinka“.
The Community Trade Mark Regulation 2lays down various grounds on which an application for registration of a trade mark is to be refused.
Uredba o znamki Skupnosti 2določa različne razloge, na podlagi katerih je mogoče zavrniti prijavo za registracijo znamke.
‘Absolute’ grounds for refusal are listed in Article 7, while ‘relative’ grounds — that is to say, grounds on which
„Absolutni“ razlogi za zavrnitev so navedeni
1; ‘the Regulation’).
1; v nadaljevanju: Uredba).
Article 7(2) provides: ‘Paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community.’
Člen 7(2) določa: „Odstavek 1 se uporablja ne glede na to, da razlogi proti registraciji obstajajo le v delu Skupnosti.“
Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered:
Ob ugovoru imetnika prej�nje znamke se znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, ne registrira v naslednjih primerih:
(iii) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in a Member State;
(iii) znamke, registrirane po mednarodnih sporazumih, ki veljajo v državi članici;
(b) if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.
(b) če zaradi enakosti ali podobnosti s prej�njo znamko in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga ali storitev, ki jih označujejo znamke, obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti na ozemlju, na katerem je varovana prej�nja znamka; verjetnost zmede zajema verjetnost povezovanja s prej�njo znamko.
Article 8 contains no explicit provision, like that in Article 7(2), to the effect that relative grounds for refusal are to apply even if they obtain in only part of the Community.
Člen 8 ne vsebuje nobene izrecne določbe, kot jo vsebuje člen 7(2), da se relativni razlogi za zavrnitev uporabljajo, tudi če obstajajo le v delu Skupnosti.
For the purposes of paragraph 1, “Earlier trade marks” means:
Za namen odstavka 1 izraz, prej�nje znamke’ pomeni:
(a) trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark …:
(a) znamke naslednje vrste z datumom zahtev za registracijo, ki predhodi datumu zahteve za registracijo znamke Skupnosti, […]
The Court has consistently held that, in the context of Article 8(1)(b), the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.
Sodi�če je dosledno menilo, da je treba v okviru člena 8(1)(b) obstoj verjetnosti zmede v javnosti celovito presojati, ob upo�tevanju vseh okoli�čin primera.
That assessment, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.
Kar zadeva vidno, slu�no ali pojmovno podobnost zadevnih znamk, mora biti ta presoja utemeljena na celotnem vtisu, ki ga te ustvarjajo, ob upo�tevanju zlasti njihovih razlikovalnih in prevladujočih elementov.
The perception of the marks by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global
Glavno vlogo pri celoviti presoji te verjetnosti zmede igra, kako znamke zaznava povprečni potro�nik zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev.
Community trade marks;
(i) znamke Skupnosti;
Procedure appreciation of that likelihood of confusion.
Postopek njenih podrobnosti.
3 Moreover, likelihood of confusion may arise from conceptual similarity between marks and may be increased if the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because of its reputation with the public. 4
3 Verjetnost zmede lahko poleg tega izhaja iz pojmovne podobnosti med znamkami in se lahko poveča, če ima prej�nja znamka poseben razlikovalni učinek kot taka ali zaradi ugleda v javnosti. 4
On 30 April 1996, L & D SA (‘L & D’) filed an application with OHIM to register as a Community trade mark the following figurative mark, containing the word element ‘Aire Limpio’. I shall refer to it as ‘the Aire Limpio mark’. 8.
Družba L & D SA (v nadaljevanju: L & D) je 30. aprila 1996 pri UUNT vložila prijavo za registracijo spodaj prikazane figurativne znamke kot znamke Skupnosti, ki vsebuje besedni element „Aire Limpio“. V nadaljevanju jo bom imenovala „znamka Aire Limpio“. 10.
Article 73 of the Regulation provides: ‘Decisions of the Office [ 5] shall state the
Registracija je bila zahtevana za razreda 3 in 5 Nicejskega aranžmaja, 6ki pokri- vata parfumerijske izdelke in eterična olja oziroma odi�avljena sredstva za osveževanje zraka.
Registration was requested for, in par -ticular, Classes 3 and 5 of the Nice Agreement 6covering, respectively, perfumery and essential oils, and scented air freshener products.
Člen 73 Uredbe določa: „V odločbah Urada[ 5] se navedejo razlogi, na katerih odločbe temeljijo.
They shall be based only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had [an] opportunity to present their comments.’
Temeljijo lahko le na razlogih ali dokazih, na katere so imele zadevne stranke priložnost podati pripombe.“
3 — See, for example, Case C-334/05 P OHIM v Shaker [2007] ECR I-4529, paragraphs 34 and 35 and the caselaw cited there.
3 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 12. junija 2007 v zadevi UUNT proti Shaker (C-334/05, ZOdl., str. I-4529, točki 34 in 35 ter navedena sodna praksa).
On 29 September 1998, Julius Sämann Ltd (‘Sämann’) filed a notice of opposition to the requested registration, on the basis of a number of earlier trade marks.
Družba Julius Sämann Ltd (v nadaljevanju: Sämann) je 29. septembra 1998 vložila pisni ugovor zoper zahtevano registracijo na podlagi več prej�njih znamk.
4 — See in particular Case C-251/95 SABEL [1997] ECR I-6191, paragraph 24; Case C-425/98 Marca Mode [2000] ECR I-4861, paragraph 38.
4 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. novembra 1997 v zadevi SABEL (C-251/95, Recueil, str. I-6191, točka 24) in sodbo z dne 22. junija 2000 v zadevi Marca Mode (C-425/98, Recueil, str.
Those cases concerned national trade marks, and thus fell not under the Regulation but under 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).
I-4861, točka 38). Ti zadevi sta se nana�ali na nacionalne znamke, zato zanju ni veljala Uredba, temveč Prva direktiva Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL 1989, L 40, str. 1).
However, the provisions of the two measures concerning grounds for refusal of registration are essentially identical, and have been interpreted as such by the Court.
Toda določbi teh dveh ukrepov v zvezi z razlogi za zavrnitev registracije sta v bistvu enaki in ju je Sodi�če kot taki tudi razlagalo.
6 — Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.
6 – Nicejski aranžma o mednarodni klasifikaciji blaga in storitev zaradi registracije znamk z dne 15. junija 1957, kot je bil spremenjen in dopolnjen.
5 — That is to say, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (‘OHIM’).
5 – Urad za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (v nadaljevanju: UUNT).
I shall refer to it as ‘the silhouette mark’.
V nadaljevanju jo bom imenovala „znamka v obliki obrisa“.
They also included 17 other national and international figurative marks, all with a similar outline, though all but one 7 differing in having a white base and/or some wording on the body of the tree.
Prej�nje znamke so vključevale tudi 17 drugih nacionalnih in mednarodnih figurativnih znamk, ki so imele podoben obris, čeprav so se vse razen ene 7razlikovale po tem, da so imele bel podstavek in/ali besedilo na deblu drevesa.
Of particular relevance to the present appeal are the two international trade marks 8shown below, registered for goods in classes 3 and 5 with effect in, in particular, Italy.
Za to pritožbo sta posebno pomembni dve spodaj prikazani mednarodni znamki, 8registrirani za proizvode v razredih 3 in 5, med drugim z učinkom v Italiji. Mednarodna znamka �t. 178.969 je bila registrirana 21. avgusta 1954, �t. 328.915 pa 30. novembra 1966.
They are figurative marks containing word elements, and I shall refer to them as ‘the CAR-FRESHNER
Obe sta figurativni znamki, ki vsebujeta besedne elemente, v nadaljevanju pa ju bom imenovala „znamka
7 — International trade mark No 612525, registered on 9 December 1993, with effect in, inter alia, Italy, for goods in class 5.
7 – Mednarodna znamka �t. 612.525, registrirana 9. decembra 1993, z učinkom tudi v Italiji, za proizvode v razredu 5.
It appears identical to the silhouette mark, but has not been referred to specifically in the decisions in issue in the present case.
Zdi se enaka znamki v obliki obrisa, vendar v spornih odločbah v obravnavanem primeru ni bila posebej navedena.
8 — That is to say, trade marks protected in several countries under the Madrid system for the international registration of marks, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
8 – To pomeni znamke, ki so po madridskem sistemu za mednarodno registracijo znamk, ki ga upravlja Svetovna organizacija za intelektualno lastnino, za�čitene v več državah.
It found that the goods in classes 3 and 5, in respect of which the application was made, were identical or very similar to those in class 5 covered by the silhouette mark.
Ugotovil je, da so proizvodi v razredih 3 in 5, na katere se je nana�ala prijava, enaki ali zelo podobni proizvodom v razredu 5, ki jih označuje znamka v obliki obrisa.
It then considered whether the similarity between the marks was sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion.
Nato je ugotavljal, ali je podobnost med znamkami taka, da lahko povzroči verjetnost zmede.
It took the view essentially that the form of a pine or fir tree (or any other tree, fruit or flower) was not particularly distinctive with regard to perfumery or air fresheners, but was even generic or descriptive and thus could not be monopolised by a single trader.
Menil je, da oblika borovca ali jelke (ali katerega koli drugega sadnega ali okrasnega drevesa) v bistvu ni posebej razlikovalna za parfumerijske izdelke ali osvežilce zraka, temveč da je celo generična ali opisovalna in da si je tako en sam trgovec ne sme prilastiti.
There were significant graphic and verbal differences between the two marks and the strongly distinctive differences outweighed the weakly distinctive
Med znamkama so obstajale pomembne grafične in besedne razlike, močne razlike v razlikovalnosti pa so pretehtale �ibke podobnosti v razlikovalnosti, s čimer je bil ustvarjen celoten vtis, ki je bil zadosti različen, da je izključil kakr�no koli
Having reached that view, the opposition division did not consider it necessary to examine in detail any of the other earlier marks relied upon, which displayed even greater differences vis-à-vis the Aire Limpio mark than did the silhouette mark. 9
Oddelek za ugovore je glede na te ugotovitve menil, da ni treba natančno preizkusiti nobene od prej�njih znamk, na podlagi katerih je bil vložen ugovor in ki se od znamke Aire Limpio razlikujejo �e bolj kot pa znamka v obliki obrisa. 9
It found that both marks were made up of a fir tree with branches formed by protrusions and indents on the sides and a short trunk on top of a wider base, but that the silhouette mark was a true silhouette whereas the Aire Limpio mark was an outline containing other elements.
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da obe znamki sestavlja jelka z vejami v obliki stranskih izboklin in vboklin ter kratko deblo na �ir�em podstavku, toda da je znamka v obliki obrisa pravi obris, medtem kot je znamka Aire Limpio obris, ki vsebuje tudi druge elemente.
The question was therefore whether the differences were sufficient to rule out a likelihood of confusion, and the answer depended, decisively, on the distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier mark. 12
Zato se je postavilo vpra�anje, ali razlike zadostujejo za izključitev verjetnosti zmede, odgovor pa je bil odločilno odvisen od razlikovalnosti in ugleda prej�nje znamke. 12
Sämann contested that decision before OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal, which took a different view of the likelihood of confusion. 10
Družba Sämann je to odločbo izpodbijala pred drugim odborom za pritožbe UUNT, ki je glede verjetnosti zmede zavzel drugačno stali�če. 10
The Board recalled that conceptual similarity can lead to likelihood of confusion, in particular where the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because it is well known to the public.
Odbor za pritožbe je opozoril, da pojmovna podobnost lahko pripelje do verjetnosti zmede, zlasti ko ima prej�nja znamka poseben razlikovalni značaj, bodisi sama po sebi bodisi ker je v javnosti splo�no znana.
To determine whether the latter condition is fulfilled, all the relevant facts must be taken into consideration, in particular the market share held by the mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it. 13
Da bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali je slednji pogoj izpolnjen, je treba upo�tevati vse relevantne okoli�čine, zlasti tržni delež, ki ga ima znamka, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje njene uporabe ter vrednost investicije podjetja za njeno promocijo. 13
Accepting the undisputed similarity between the goods concerned, the Board of Appeal focussed its assessment of likelihood of confusion on the Aire Limpio and silhouette marks, and ‘not on all the earlier marks relied upon’ by Sämann.
Ker je odbor za pritožbe sprejel, da so si zadevni proizvodi nesporno podobni, se je pri presoji verjetnosti zmede osredotočil na znamko Aire Limpio in znamko v obliki obrisa, ne pa na „vse prej�nje znamke, na katere se je sklicevala“ družba Sämann.
It did so ‘for the same reasons of economy’ as those given by the opposition division, because the silhouette mark was ‘representative’ of the other marks and because it was the mark examined by the opposition division. 11
To je storil „zaradi istih razlogov ekonomičnosti postopka“ kot oddelek za ugovore, ker znamka v obliki obrisa „predstavlja“ druge znamke in ker je to znamka, ki jo je preizkusil oddelek za ugovore. 11
The evidence showed that over 45 million of Sämann’s car air fresheners were sold each year, and that they had an estimated market share of over 50% in Italy, where the earlier mark had been protected,
Dokazi so pokazali, da je družba Sämann prodala več kot 45 milijonov osvežilcev zraka za avtomobile in da ocenjeni tržni delež v Italiji presega 50-odstotkov, kjer je bila prej�nja znamka v bistveno enaki obliki znamke
9 — That summary of the Opposition Division’s analysis is based on the version reproduced in point 6 of the Board of Appeal’s decision.
9 – Ta povzetek analize oddelka za ugovore temelji na različici iz točke 6 odločbe odbora za pritožbe.
10 — Decision of 15 March 2004 in Case R 326/2003-2 Julius Sämann v L & D. 13 — Points 27 and 29, citing Case C-375/97 General Motors [1999] ECR I-5421, paragraph 27.
10 – Odločba z dne 15. marca 2004 v zadevi Julius Sämann proti L & D, R 326/2003-2. 13 – Točki 27 in 29, v katerih je navedena sodba z dne 14. septembra 1999 v zadevi General Motors, C-375/97, Recueil, str. I-5421, točka 27.
11 — Points 22 and 23 of the Board of Appeal’s decision.
11 – Točki 22 in 23 odločbe odbora za pritožbe.
L & D applied to the Court of First Instance for annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision. It alleged infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 73 of the Trade Mark Regulation. The Court of First Instance however dismissed the action. 17 The judgment under appeal
Družba L & D je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razveljavitev odločbe odbora za pritožbe. Sklicevala se je na kr�itev členov 8(1)(b) in 73 Uredbe o znamki Skupnosti. Sodi�če prve stopnje je tožbo zavrnilo. 17 Izpodbijana sodba
Alleged infringement of Article 8(1)(b)
Domnevna kršitev člena 8(1)(b)
The Board deduced that the conceptual similarity between the marks — the idea represented by the shared shape of a fir tree — could, at least in Italy, create a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public concerned.
Iz tega je odbor za pritožbe sklepal, da bi pojmovna podobnost med znamkama – obris jelke pri obeh – lahko vsaj v Italiji v zadevni javnosti ustvarila verjetnost zmede.