natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The relevant public is the general public and professionals with a high level of attention (para. 64).
Relevantna su javnost šira javnost i stručnjaci s visokom razinom pozornosti (t. 64.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl The goods for which the earlier mark enjoys reputation are pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles.
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; potvrđeno 0/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl Proizvodi za koje raniji žig ima ugled jesu farmaceutski pripravci za tretiranje bora.
The evidence of the promotion of the earlier mark ‘BOTOX' in English in the scientific and general-interest press was sufficient to establish the mark's reputation amongst both the general public and health-care professionals (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67).
Dokazi o promidžbi ranijeg žiga „BOTOX” na engleskom jeziku u znanstvenim i općim tiskovinama bili su dovoljni za utvrđivanje ugleda žiga u široj javnosti i među zdravstvenim djelatnicima (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67).
Therefore, both these categories of consumers have to be taken into account.
Stoga treba uzeti u obzir obje kategorije potrošača.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The relevant services are stock exchange price quotation services in Classes 35 and 36, which normally target professionals.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Relevantne usluge jesu usluge kotacije cijena na burzi iz razreda 35. i 36. koje su obično namijenjene stručnjacima.
The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark ‘NASDAQ' appears almost daily in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe.
Podnositelj prigovora podnio je dokaze koji pokazuju da se žig „NASDAQ” pojavljuje svakodnevno u brojnim novinama i na brojnim televizijskim programima koji se mogu čitati/gledati diljem Europe.
Therefore, the Board was right to hold that the reputation of the trade mark ‘NASDAQ' had to be determined for European consumers not only among the professional public, but also in an important subsection of the general public (paras 47 and 51).
Stoga je Vijeće ispravno zaključilo da ugled žiga „NASDAQ” treba utvrditi za europske potrošače i to ne samo u profesionalnoj javnosti, već i u znatnom dijelu šire javnosti (t. 47. i 51.).
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 The evidence submitted in respect of reputation supports and reinforces the fact that the relevant public for theatre productions is the public at large and not a limited and exclusive circle.
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 Dokazom podnesenim u pogledu ugleda potkrjepljuje se i dodatno potvrđuje činjenica da je relevantna javnost za kazališne produkcije šira javnost, a ne ograničen i ekskluzivan krug.
The intervener's activities were advertised, presented and commented on in numerous newspapers targeting the public at large.
Aktivnosti posrednika oglašavale su se, iznosile i komentirale u brojnim novinama namijenjenima široj javnosti.
The intervener toured different regions throughout the United Kingdom and performed before a wide public in the United Kingdom.
Posrednik je posjetio različite dijelove Ujedinjene Kraljevine i nastupao pred širom javnošću u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
An activity on a large scale and, hence, a service offered to the public at large, is reflected both in the high turnover and the high box-office sales.
Aktivnost velikih razmjera te, stoga, usluga koja se pruža široj javnosti, odražava se i u velikim prihodima te znatnoj prodaji na blagajnama.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents submitted by the intervener that the intervener received substantial annual sponsorship income from undertakings in diverse sectors that also reach the public at large, such as banks, undertakings in the alcoholic drinks sector and car manufacturers (paras 35 and 36).
Nadalje, iz dokumenata koje je posrednik podnio jasno je da je primio znatna sredstva od godišnjih sponzorstava poduzeća iz raznih sektora koja jednako tako obuhvaćaju širu javnost, kao što su banke, poduzeća u sektoru alkoholnih pića i proizvođači automobila (t. 35. i 36.).
Article 8(5) EUTMR can only be invoked if the trade mark affirmed to be well known/renowned is a registered trade mark and if the goods/services for which this reputation/renown is claimed appear on the certificate (para. 49).
Uredbe o žigu EU-a može se pozivati samo ako je žig za koji se tvrdi da je dobro poznat / renomiran registrirani žig te ako se proizvodi/usluge za koje se zahtijeva ugled/renomiranost nalaze na potvrdi (t. 49.).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe The goods that were assessed to be reputed in Germany by the decision and order referred to only concern articles of skin and body care and children's cream.
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Proizvodi za koje je odlukom procijenjeno da imaju ugled u Njemačkoj i na koje se nalog odnosio obuhvaćaju samo proizvode za njegu kože i tijela te dječje kreme.
These articles are not identical to the earlier mark's goods in Class 3, make-up products; nail treating products; namely nail lacquer and remover.
Ti proizvodi nisu istovjetni s proizvodima ranijeg žiga iz razreda 3., odnosno proizvodima za njegu noktiju; odnosno lakovima za nokte i odstranjivačima laka za nokte.
Therefore, the opponent did not prove reputation for the earlier German mark in the relevant territories (para. 31).
Stoga podnositelj prigovora nije dokazao ugled ranijeg njemačkog žiga na relevantnim državnim područjima (t. 31.).
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE The Board concluded that the enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier marks did not concern the opponent's G&S, which were considered to be identical or similar to the contested G&S.
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE Vijeće je zaključilo da se naglašena razlikovnost i ugled ranijih žigova ne odnose na proizvode i usluge podnositelja prigovora koji se smatraju istovjetnima s osporavanim proizvodima i uslugama ili njima sličnima.
For these G&S no enhanced distinctiveness or reputation was proven, with the exception of computer software in Class 9 (para. 43).
Za te proizvode i usluge nisu dokazani naglašeni razlikovni karakter ili ugled, uz iznimku računalnog softvera iz razreda 9. (t. 43.).
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrated that the ‘ARENA' brand was known by a significant part of the relevant public.
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. Podneseni dokazi u dovoljnoj su mjeri pokazali da je robna marka „ARENA” bila poznata znatnom djelu relevantne javnosti.
However, the evidence did not include any relevant information that could allow the level of brand awareness of the ‘ARENA' brand in sectors other than swimwear and swimming articles to be determined (paras 58 and 60).
Međutim, dokazi nisu obuhvaćali nikakve relevantne informacije na temelju kojih bi se mogla utvrditi razina svjesnosti o robnoj marki „ARENA” u sektorima osim sektora plivačkih kostima i plivačke opreme (t. 58. i 60.).
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 The case concerned a European Union trade mark with a reputation throughout Austria.
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 Predmet se odnosio na žig Europske unije s ugledom diljem Austrije.
The Court indicated that a European Union trade mark must be known in a substantial part of the EU by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark.
Sud je naveo da žig Europske unije mora biti poznat u znatnom dijelu EU-a znatnom dijelu javnosti kojoj su namijenjeni proizvodi ili usluge obuhvaćeni tim žigom.
In view of the facts of the particular case, the territory of the Member State in question (Austria) was considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the EU (paras 29 and 30).
Imajući na umu činjenice ovog konkretnog predmeta, za državno područje predmetne države članice (Austrije) smatralo se da tvori znatan dio državnog područja EU-a (t. 29. i 30.).
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Although the evidence submitted showed use of the mark in 17 restaurants in France in 2002, this figure was considered rather low for a country of 65 million inhabitants.
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Iako su dostavljeni dokazi upućivali na uporabu žiga u 17 restorana u Francuskoj 2002., ta se brojka smatrala relativno niskom za zemlju od 65 milijuna stanovnika.
Therefore, the reputation was not proven (para. 22).
Stoga ugled nije dokazan (t. 22.).
Consequently, the opponent cannot successfully claim to hold a well-known mark in the EU (para. 53).
Stoga podnositelj prigovora ne može s uspjehom tvrditi da posjeduje dobro poznati žig u EU-u (t. 53.).
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (appeal dismissed in 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent maintained in the notice of cancellation that reputation was claimed for the territory of the UK.
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (žalba odbačena 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Tuženik je u obavijesti o brisanju tvrdio da se ugled traži za državno područje Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
However, the international registration only designated Spain, France and Portugal and, therefore, did not extend to the territory of the UK.
Međutim u međunarodnoj registraciji navedene su samo Španjolska, Francuska i Portugal, stoga njome nije bilo obuhvaćeno državno područje Ujedinjene Kraljevine.
In addition, the respondent did not file any evidence of a reputation in the Member States designated by the international registration (para. 45).
Osim toga, tuženik nije podnio nikakve dokaze o ugledu u državama članicama naznačenima međunarodnom registracijom (t. 45.).
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA The evidence showed that the mark ‘BRAVIA/BRAVIA' was used for LCD televisions in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey.
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA Dokazi su pokazali da se žig „BRAVIA/BRAVIA” upotrebljavao za televizijske prijemnike sa zaslonom s tekućim kristalima u Austriji, Češkoj, Francuskoj, Njemačkoj, Mađarskoj, Italiji, Nizozemskoj, Poljskoj, Portugalu, Slovačkoj i Turskoj.
However, none of the documents were dated.
Međutim, nijedan dokument nije bio označen datumom.
The opponent failed to submit any information regarding duration.
Podnositelj prigovora nije podnio nikakve informacije o trajanju.
Therefore, the evidence, taken as whole, was insufficient to prove reputation in the European Union (paras 27 and 28).
Stoga dokazi, ukupno gledajući, nisu bili dovoljni za dokazivanje ugleda u Europskoj uniji (t. 27. i 28.).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe In the Board's view, a judgment from 1972 was not able to prove enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing the mark, that is, 20/10/2006.
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Prema mišljenju Vijeća, presudom iz 1972. nije dokazana naglašena razlikovnost u vrijeme podnošenja žiga, odnosno 20. 10. 2006.
Furthermore, ‘it follows from the decision of the [Court] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] that the reputation of the earlier mark has been assessed as from 13 June 1996, i.e. more than ten years before the reputation date to be taken into consideration' (para. 31).
Nadalje, „iz odluke [Suda] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] slijedi da je ugled ranijeg žiga procijenjen od 13. lipnja 1996., odnosno više od deset godina prije datuma od kojega se ugled uzima u obzir” (t. 31.).
The appellant failed to prove that its earlier mark was already well known on the application date of the contested mark.
Podnositelj žalbe nije uspio dokazati da je njegov raniji žig bio već dobro poznat na datum prijave osporavanog žiga EU-a.
The certificates regarding the reputation of the ‘Mustang designation' refer neither to the ‘Calzados Mustang' figurative mark asserted by the applicant nor to the time when reputation must be determined (para. 28).
Potvrde o ugledu „oznake Mustang” ne odnose se ni na figurativni žig „Calzados Mustang” koji navodi podnositelj žalbe ni na vrijeme za koje bi se ugled morao utvrditi (t. 28.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Although the reputation of an earlier mark must be established at the filing date of the contested mark, documents bearing a later date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date (para. 52).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potvrđeno 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Iako se ugled ranijeg žiga mora utvrditi na datum podnošenja prijave osporavanog žiga, dokumentima na kojima je naznačen kasniji datum ne može se odbiti dokazna vrijednost ako se njima omogućuje donošenje zaključaka u odnosu na stanje kakvo je bilo na taj datum (t. 52.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed by 10/05/2012, C100/11 P The press articles submitted proved that there was significant media coverage of the products marketed under the trade mark BOTOX on the filing date of the disputed marks (para. 53).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potvrđeno 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Priloženim novinskim člancima dokazalo se da su mediji znatno pratili proizvode stavljene na tržište koji nose žig „BOTOX” na dan podnošenja prijave za osporavani žig (t. 53.).
The word element occupies a central position in the complex sign, and therefore plays a ‘distinct and predominant' role.
Verbalni element zauzima središnje mjesto u okviru složenog znaka te stoga ima „različitu i prevladavajuću ulogu”.
Without its particular logotype the text ‘Formula 1' and its abbreviation ‘F1' are perceived as descriptive elements for a category of racing cars or races involving those cars.
Bez svojeg posebnog logotipa, tekst „Formula 1” i njegova kratica „F1” shvaćaju se kao opisni elementi za kategoriju trkaćih automobila ili utrka s tim automobilima.
The reputation was not proven for the word marks (see paras 53, 54 and 67).
Za verbalne žigove ugled nije dokazan (vidjeti t. 53., 54. i 67.).
In case T55/13, the Court held that the reputation with which the complex sign ‘F1' is associated did not benefit the word element alone, which does not play a ‘predominant or even significant' role in the earlier figurative mark (see para. 47).
U predmetu T55/13 Sud je utvrdio da ugled s kojim je povezan složeni znak „F1” nije bio od koristi zasebno verbalnom elementu koji nema „prevladavajuću ulogu ili čak znatnu ulogu” u ranijem figurativnom žigu (pogledajte t. 47.).
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 The same conclusion applies to a ‘winged hourglass' figurative element used in a complex mark in association with the word ‘Longines'.
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 Isti se zaključak primjenjuje na „pješčani sat s krilima”, figurativni element koji se upotrebljava u složenom žigu u kombinaciji s riječju „Longines”.
The figurative element remains clearly ancillary and in the background in the overall impression conveyed by the complex mark (paras 104 to 106).
U smislu ukupnog dojma koji se stvara na temelju složenog žiga figurativni element ima jasnu pomoćnu ulogu u pozadini (t. 104. - 106.).
The Court found that the opponent had failed to submit opinion polls showing the recognition of the ‘winged hourglass' logo independently of the word element, and the use of this figurative element alone in a limited number of documents was found insufficient from both a quantitative and qualitative point of view (paras 91 to 93 and para. 112).
Sud je utvrdio da podnositelj prigovora nije podnio ispitivanja javnog mnijenja kojima bi dokazao prepoznatljivost „pješčanog sata s krilima” neovisno o verbalnom elementu, a sama uporaba tog figurativnog elementa u ograničenom broju dokumenata nije bila dovoljna ni s kvantitativnog ni kvalitativnog gledišta (t. 91. - 93. i t. 112.).
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The opponent provided detailed evidence relating to the intensity, geographical extent and duration of use of its trade mark, Nasdaq, as well as to the amount spent in promoting it, demonstrating that it was known by a significant part of the relevant public.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Podnositelj prigovora dostavio je podrobne dokaze o intenzitetu, zemljopisnom opsegu i trajanju uporabe svojeg žiga „Nasdaq” te o iznosu potrošenom na njegovu promidžbu, čime je dokazao da je žig bio poznat znatnom dijelu relevantne javnosti.
The Court considered that the fact that it did not produce figures regarding market share did not call this finding into question (para. 51).
Sud je smatrao da činjenica da nisu dostavljeni brojčani podatci o tržišnom udjelu ne dovodi u pitanje taj nalaz (t. 51.).
The Court concluded that, first, the factors to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the reputation of an earlier mark only serve as examples, as all relevant evidence in the case must be taken into consideration and, second, the other detailed and verifiable evidence produced by the intervener is already sufficient in itself to conclusively prove the reputation of its mark, Nasdaq (para. 52).
Sud je ponajprije zaključio da popis čimbenika koje treba uzeti u obzir kako bi se utvrdio ugled ranijeg žiga služi samo kao primjer jer se moraju uzeti u obzir svi relevantni dokazi u predmetu te da su, osim toga, ostali podrobni i provjerljivi dokazi koje je posrednik iznio dovoljni sami po sebi kako bi se definitivno dokazao ugled njegova žiga „Nasdaq” (t. 52.).
24/02/2010, R 765/20091, Bob the Builder (fig.) / BOB et al. The evidence submitted proved that the earlier mark enjoyed a very significant reputation in Sweden for jellies, jams, fruit stews, fruit drinks, concentrates for production of drinks and juice'.
24/02/2010, R 765/20091, Bob the Builder (fig.) / BOB et al. Podneseni dokazi upućivali su na to da je raniji žig imao vrlo velik ugled u Švedskoj za „želee, džemove, dinstano voće, voćne napitke, koncentrate za proizvodnju napitaka i voćnih sokova”.
According to the survey conducted by TNS Gallup, spontaneous awareness (answers by telephone to the question ‘What brands for - ‘the relevant group of products is mentioned' - have you heard about or do you know about?') of the trade mark ‘BOB' varied between 25 % and 71 %, depending on the goods: apple sauces, jams, marmalades, soft drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices.
Prema istraživanju koje je provelo društvo TNS Gallup, spontana svjesnost (telefonski odgovori na pitanje „Za koje ste robne marke - spominje se relevantna skupina proizvoda - čuli ili koje poznajete?”) o žigu „BOB” kretala se od 25 do 71 % ovisno o proizvodu: umaci od jabuka, džemovi, marmelade, negazirana pića, voćni napitci i voćni sokovi.
Supported awareness (answers to a questionnaire showing the products bearing the mark) varied between 49 % and 90 %, depending on the goods.
Podržana svjesnost (odgovori na upitnik u kojem se pokazuju proizvodi koji nose žig) kretala se od 49 do 90 % ovisno o proizvodu.
Furthermore, the market share for 2001 to 2006 averaged 30-35 % in the above product groups (para. 34).
Nadalje, tržišni udjel za razdoblje od 2001. do 2006. iznosio je u prosjeku 30 - 35 % za prethodno navedenu skupinu proizvoda (t. 34.).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P ‘… the size of the market share of BOTOX in the United Kingdom, 74.3 % in 2003, like the degree of awareness of the trade mark of 75 % among the specialised public accustomed to pharmaceutical treatments against wrinkles, is sufficient to substantiate the existence of a considerable degree of recognition on the market' (para. 76).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potvrđeno 10/05/2012, C100/11 P „[...] veličina tržišnog udjela žiga „BOTOX” u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini od 74,3 % 2003. godine, kao i razina svjesnosti o žigu od 75 % u specijaliziranoj javnosti naviknutoj na farmaceutske tretmane protiv bora dovoljna je da bi se dokazalo postojanje znatne razine prepoznatljivosti na tržištu” (t. 76.).
13/12/2004, T08/03, Emilio Pucci, EU:T:2004:358 The Court considered that the opponent failed to prove the enhanced distinctiveness or reputation of its earlier trade marks, since the evidence submitted (advertisements, seven letters from a number of advertising directors and a video cassette) did not include adequately substantiated or verifiable objective evidence to make it possible to assess the market share held by the marks Emilio Pucci in Spain, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the marks had been, or the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting them (para. 73).
13/12/2004, T08/03, Emilio Pucci, EU:T:2004:358 Sud je smatrao da podnositelj prigovora nije uspio dokazati naglašenu razlikovnost ili ugled svojih ranijih žigova jer podneseni dokazi (reklame, sedam pisama reklamnih direktora i videokaseta) nisu obuhvaćali prikladno potkrijepljene ili provjerljive objektivne dokaze kako bi se mogao procijeniti tržišni udjel koji imaju žigovi „Emilio Pucci” u Španjolskoj, intenzivnost, zemljopisni opseg i trajanje uporabe ili iznos koji je poduzeće uložilo u njihovu promidžbu (t. 73.).
29/05/2012, R 1659/20112, KENZO / KENZO KENZO identifies, in the eyes of the European public, a pre-eminent provider of recognised fashion and luxury items in the form of perfumes, cosmetics and clothing.
29/05/2012, R 1659/20112, KENZO / KENZO „KENZO” u očima europske javnosti predstavlja uglednog dobavljača poznatih modnih i luksuznih proizvoda u obliku parfema, kozmetike i odjeće.
The relevant public however was considered to be the general public (para. 29).
Međutim, relevantnom javnošću smatrala se šira javnost (t. 29.).
12/01/2011, R 446/20101, TURBOMANIA / TURBOMANIA The limited presence of the product on the market by no means prevented it from becoming well known by the relevant public.
12/01/2011, R 446/20101, TURBOMANIA / TURBOMANIA Ograničena prisutnost proizvoda na tržištu nikako nije onemogućila da proizvod bude vrlo dobro poznat relevantnoj javnosti.
The evidence clearly showed that the trade mark appeared continuously in specialist magazines for the market from December 2003 to March 2007 (the date of the EUTM application).
Dokazi su jasno pokazivali da se žig stalno pojavljivao u specijaliziranim časopisima za to tržište od prosinca 2003. do ožujka 2007. (datum podnošenja prijave za žig EU-a).
That meant that the public targeted by the magazines had constant, ongoing exposure to the opponent's trade mark over a long period covering more than 3 years prior to the relevant date.
To je značilo da je ciljana javnost toga časopisa bila stalno i neprekidno izložena žigu podnositelja prigovora tijekom dugog razdoblja koje je obuhvaćalo više od tri godine prije relevantnog datuma.
Such a huge presence in the press specifically targeting the relevant public was more than sufficient evidence that the relevant public was aware of the trade mark (para. 31).
Takva intenzivna prisutnost u tiskovinama posebno namijenjenima relevantnoj javnosti bila je sasvim dovoljan dokaz da je relevantna javnost svjesna žiga (t. 31.).
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark Nasdaq appeared almost daily, particularly with reference to the Nasdaq indices, in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq Podnositelj prigovora podnio je dokaze kojima pokazuje da se žig „Nasdaq” pojavljuje gotovo svakodnevno, posebno u vezi s Nasdaq indeksima, u brojnim novinama i na mnogim televizijskim kanalima koji se mogu čitati/gledati diljem Europe.
The opponent also submitted evidence of substantial investments in advertising.
Podnositelj prigovora podnio je i dokaze u pogledu znatnih ulaganja u oglašavanje.
The Court found reputation proven, even though the opponent did not submit any market share figures (paras 47 to 52).
Sud je zaključio da je ugled dokazan, iako podnositelj prigovora nije podnio nikakve brojčane podatke o tržišnom udjelu (t. 47. - 52.).