The Beatles oor Maltees
The Beatles
Vertalings in die woordeboek Engels - Maltees
The Beatles
Geskatte vertalings
Vertoon algoritmies gegenereerde vertalings
voorbeelde
Advanced filtering
Voorbeelde moet herlaai word.
And an agent of the Decca Record Company, who rejected the Beatles in 1962, believed that guitar-playing groups were on the way out.
Din il-Pożizzjoni Komuni tidħol fis-seħħ mad-data li tkun adottatajw2019 jw2019
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks)
ma' l-ewwel dħul f'SSRU, l-ewwel # refgħat, imsejħa l-ewwel serje, għandhom jissejħu refgħat ta' riċerka u għandhom jissodisfaw il-kriterji msemmija fl-ArtikoluEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks
tindif u disinfettazzjoni eżawrjenti ta’ l-inħawi kollha ta’ fejn jinżammu l-annimali twettqu wara li tkun tneħħiet il-merħlaEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark BEATLE, for goods in class
Sabiex tiġi faċilitata l-introduzzjoni ta’ dawn l-ammonti minimi, għandu jiġi stabbilit perijodu ta’ tranżizzjonioj4 oj4
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BEATLE’, for goods in class 12
Titjib fl-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva u ż-żjieda fin-numru ta’ Kunsilli li jitwaqqfuEurLex-2 EurLex-2
EMI Records Limited (‘EMIRL’): this includes: (i) all artists signed to EMIRL (including in particular the label Parlophone), with the exception of Virgin-branded artists and the Beatles which are the subject of a reverse carve-out; (ii) the EMI Classics and Virgin Classics-branded artists signed to this legal entity; and (iii) the Pink Floyd catalogue;
Riżoluzzjoni leġiżlattiva tal-Parlament Ewropew tal-# ta' Ottubru # dwar il-proposta għal deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill dwar il-konklużjoni tal-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea u l-Federazzjoni ta’ Saint Kitts u Nevis dwar l-eżenzjoni mill-viża għal perjodu qasir (COM# – C#-#/# – #/#(CNSEurLex-2 EurLex-2
The Beatles, the first pop supergroup, attract huge crowds of teenagers wherever they appear.
Għandu jkun hemm kooperazzjoni sħiħa fi ħdan il-Komunità dwar din il-ħidma jekk dawn l-għodod għandhom isiru parti integrali tas-sistema għall-monitoraġġ u l-informazzjoni dwar it-traffiku tal-bastimenti stabbilita mid-Direttiva #/#/KEParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
This year at Ta’ Liesse, apart from his music, he will also perform music from The Beatles and Piazzolla.
L-ewwel żewġ kolonni fil-lista jiddeskrivu l-prodott miksubParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
The company Apple Corps, founded by the The Beatles, opposed the registration of the word ‘BEATLE’ for electric mobility scooters.
NovoMix # u NovoMix # injettati tlett darbiet ġew imqabbla f’ # pajent (b’ dijabete tip # jew tip #) ma ’ insulina # tal-bniedem injettata darbtejn kuljumParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
It was in Hamburg that the Beatles famously learned how to play, grinding through set after set at the famous Kaiserkeller club.
L-istatus fiskali tad-destinatarju ta’ kampjuni ma għandux effett fuq ir-risposti mogħtija għad domandi l-oħraParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — You-Q v OHIM – Apple Corps (BEATLE)
Li jingħata tagħrif dwar il-karatteristiċi taż-żejt tal-kolza u l-iżvilupp reċenti tiegħuEurLex-2 EurLex-2
The General Court agreed with Apple Corps, taking the view that the word ‘BEATLE’ could take unfair advantage of the repute and consistent selling power of the marks (THE) BEATLES held by Apple Corps.
Ikkundannat. taħtl-intestatura Persuni fiżiċi għandha tinbidel b'dan li ġejParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
The 1960s sees the emergence of 'youth culture’, with groups such as The Beatles attracting huge crowds of teenage fans wherever they appear, helping to stimulate a cultural revolution and widening the generation gap.
Kull Stat Membru għandu jistabbilixxi s-sanzjonijiet biex ikunu imposti fejn id-disposizzjonijiet taParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
The stronger the earlier mark’s distinctive character and reputation are, the easier it will be to accept that harm has been caused to the earlier mark for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (see judgment of 29 March 2012, BEATLE, T‐369/10, not published, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).
STRATEĠIJI MARINI: PROGRAMMI TA' MIŻURIEurlex2018q4 Eurlex2018q4
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks
Ir-regoli li għandhom ikunu jorbtu lill-produtturi kollha fParaCrawl Corpus ParaCrawl Corpus
Although the signs at issue are only slightly similar, it is not altogether inconceivable that the relevant public could make a link between them and, even if there is no likelihood of confusion, be led to transfer the image and the values of the earlier marks to the goods bearing the mark applied for (see, to that effect, judgment in BEATLE, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 71).
Huwa mistenni li doża eċċessiva ta ’ mycophenolate mofetil tista ’ tirriżulta possibilment fi trażżin żejjed tas-sistema immuni u suxxettibilità akbar għal infezzjonijiet u suppressjoni tal-mudullun (ara sezzjoniEurLex-2 EurLex-2
92 However, as has been observed in paragraph 75 above, since the question whether unfair advantage would be taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks was not examined by the Board of Appeal, it is not for the Court to give a ruling on it, for the first time, in its review of the legality of the contested decision (see, to that effect, judgments in Edwin v OHIM, paragraph 75 above, EU:C:2011:452, paragraphs 72 and 73; VÖLKL, paragraph 75 above, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 63; and BEATLE, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
Il-metodi taEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Since that question was not examined by the Board of Appeal, it is not for the Court to give a ruling on it, for the first time, in its review of the legality of the contested decision (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 July 2011 in Edwin v OHIM, C‐263/09 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:452, paragraphs 72 and 73; of 14 December 2011 in Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL), T‐504/09, ECR, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 63; and BEATLE, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
L-Artikolu # tal-Ftehim Senegal- BelġjuEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Moreover, although it is conceivable that in certain circumstances the sections of the public who are the target of the goods designated by the marks at issue may overlap (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 March 2012, You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE), T‐369/10, not published, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 53), and that a specialised public may be familiar with the earlier mark covering goods or services aimed at the general public, that is not sufficient to demonstrate that that specialised public will establish a link between the marks at issue (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 May 2015, SWATCHBALL, T‐71/14, not published, EU:T:2015:293, paragraph 32).
Ir-rata ta ’ rispons molekulari maġġuri wara # xahar kienet ta ’ # % (# % għal pazjenti reżistenti għal imatinib u # % għal pazjenti intolleranti għal imatinibEurlex2018q4 Eurlex2018q4
82 The first point to note is that unfair advantage has been taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark where there is an attempt at clear exploitation and free-riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark (judgments in SPA-FINDERS, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2005:179, paragraph 51; nasdaq, paragraph 26 above, EU:T:2007:131, paragraph 55; and BEATLE, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 63) and that taking unfair advantage of that distinctive character or repute is, therefore, behind the idea of ‘the risk of free-riding’.
Ġugarelli fl-ikelEurLex-2 EurLex-2
43 Since the Board of Appeal did not carry out a full examination of the reputation of the earlier marks, the Court is not in a position to rule on the plea alleging infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM, C‐263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraphs 72 and 73; 14 December 2011, Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL), T‐504/09, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 63, and 29 March 2012, You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE), T‐369/10, not published, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
Ir-reazzjonijiet normalment ifiequ fi żmien ftit jiem sa ftit ġimgħatEurLex-2 EurLex-2
‘However, as has been observed in paragraph 75 above, since the question whether unfair advantage would be taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks was not examined by the Board of Appeal, it is not for the Court to give a ruling on it, for the first time, in its review of the legality of the contested decision (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM, C‐263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraphs 72 and 73; of 14 December 2011, Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL), T‐504/09, EU:T:2011:739, paragraph 63; and of 29 March 2012, You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE), T‐369/10, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
Bis-saħħa tal-programmi ta’ ħidma annwali tal-Istrument jiġu koperti mhux biss l-attivitajiet tal-Mekkaniżmu Komunitarju tal-Protezzjoni Ċivili (it-trasport, it-taħriġ, eċċ.), iżda wkoll attivitajiet oħra marbutin mat-tħejjija, l-ippjanar, it-twissija bikrija u l-prevenzjonieurlex-diff-2018-06-20 eurlex-diff-2018-06-20
27 Those factors include, first, the degree of similarity between the signs at issue, second, the nature of the goods or services for which the signs at issue are registered, including the degree of closeness or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant section of the public, third, the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation, fourth, the degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use and, fifth, the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public (judgment in Intel Corporation, paragraph 26 above, EU:C:2008:655, paragraph 42, and BEATLE, paragraph 25 above, EU:T:2012:177, paragraph 47).
Il-Kummissjoni għandha tadotta l-miżuri msemmija fl-Artikolu #a tar-Regolament (KE) Nru #/# kif emendat minn dan ir-Regolament qabel il-# ta’ DiċembruEurLex-2 EurLex-2
23 sinne gevind in 11 ms. Hulle kom uit baie bronne en word nie nagegaan nie.