natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Detriment to distinctiveness Dilution by blurring, dilution, blurring, watering down, debilitating, whittling away
Nepošteno iskorištavanje Provlačenje, ubacivanje u područje djelovanja
Detriment to repute Dilution by tarnishing, tarnishment, degradation
Šteta razlikovnosti Razblaživanje zamagljivanjem, razblaživanje, zamagljivanje, razvodnjavanje, oslabljivanje, slabljenje
Earlier reputed sign EUTM application Case No
Šteta ugledu Razblaživanje okaljanjem, okaljanje, degradacija
Spa Les Thermes de Spa Spa-Finders 25/05/2005, T67/04
Raniji znak s ugledom Prijava za žig EU-a Broj predmeta
The unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark consists in the fact that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics that it projects will be transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods can be made easier by the association with the earlier mark with a reputation (para. 48).
Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda ranijeg žiga sastoji se u tome da će imidž žiga s ugledom ili obilježja koja se njime projiciraju biti prenesena na proizvode obuhvaćene žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, čime se olakšava oglašavanje tih proizvoda zbog njihove asocijacije s ranijim žigom s ugledom (t. 48.).
In her opinion in the Intel preliminary ruling, Advocate General Sharpston referred to unfair advantage as follows: ‘The concepts of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark in contrast must be intended to encompass “instances where there is clear exploitation and free-riding on the coattails of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation”.
U svojem mišljenju u preliminarnoj presudi Intel nezavisna odvjetnica Sharpston na nepošteno se iskorištavanje osvrnula na sljedeći način: „Pojmom nepoštenog iskorištavanja razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda žiga moraju se obuhvatiti i situacije u kojima postoji jasno iskorištavanje i ubacivanje u područje djelovanja poznatog žiga ili pokušaj trgovanja njegovim ugledom.
Thus by way of example Rolls Royce would be entitled to prevent a manufacturer of whisky from exploiting the reputation of the Rolls Royce mark in order to promote his brand.
Na taj bi način, primjerice, društvo Rolls Royce imalo pravo spriječiti proizvođača viskija da iskorištava ugled žiga „Rolls Royce” da bi promicao svoju robnu marku.
It is not obvious that there is any real difference between taking advantage of a mark's distinctive character and taking advantage of its repute; since however nothing turns on any such difference in the present case, I shall refer to both as free-riding' (para. 33).
Nije očito da postoji stvarna razlika između iskorištavanja razlikovnog karaktera žiga i iskorištavanja njegova ugleda; s obzirom na to da ipak nijedan čimbenik ne upućuje na takvu razliku u ovom predmetu, oboje ću smatrati provlačenjem” (t. 33.).
‘… the reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK in the European Community in regard to banking services is not disputed.
„[…] ugled žiga ‚CITIBANK' u Europskoj zajednici u vezi s bankarskim uslugama ne dovodi se u pitanje.
That reputation is associated with features of the banking sector, namely, solvency, probity and financial support to private and commercial clients in their professional and investment activities.
Taj se ugled povezuje sa značajkama bankarskog sektora, odnosno solventnošću, poštenošću i financijskom potporom privatnim i komercijalnim klijentima u njihovim profesionalnim i ulagačkim aktivnostima”.
' ‘…there is a clear relationship … between the services of customs agencies and the financial services offered by banks such as the applicants, in that clients who are involved in international trade and in the import and export of goods also use the financial and banking services, which such transactions require.
„[…] postoji jasna veza... između usluga carinskih agencija i financijskih usluga koje pružaju banke kao što je ona podnositelja prijave, u smislu da klijenti koji su uključeni u međunarodnu trgovinu te u uvoz i izvoz proizvoda isto tako upotrebljavaju financijske i bankarske usluge koje takve transakcije zahtijevaju.
It follows that there is a probability that such clients will be familiar with the applicants' bank given its extensive reputation at international level.'
Iz toga slijedi da postoji mogućnost da će takvi klijenti biti upoznati s bankom podnositelja prijave zbog njezina velikog ugleda na međunarodnoj razini”.
‘In those circumstances, the Court holds that there is a high probability that the use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, by customs agencies, and therefore for financial agency activities in the management of money and real estate for clients, may lead to free-riding, that is to say, it would take unfair advantage of the well-established reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK and the considerable investments undertaken by the applicants to achieve that reputation.
„U tim okolnostima Sud smatra da postoji velika mogućnost da uporaba žiga ‚CITI', za koji je podnesena prijava, među carinskim agencijama te stoga i za aktivnosti financijske agencije u upravljanju novcem i nekretninama klijenata, može dovesti do provlačenja odnosno nepoštenog iskorištavanja afirmiranog ugleda žiga ‚CITIBANK' i znatnih ulaganja podnositelja prijave u stjecanje takvog ugleda.
That use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, could also lead to the perception that the intervener is associated with or belongs to the applicants and, therefore, could facilitate the marketing of services covered by the trade mark applied for.
Uporaba žiga ‚CITI' za koji je podnesena prijava može dovesti i do shvaćanja da se podnositelja prigovora povezuje s posrednikom ili da on njima pripada te se njome, stoga, može olakšati oglašavanje usluga obuhvaćenih žigom za koji je podnesena prijava.
That risk is further increased because the applicants are the holders of several trade marks containing the component “citi”' (paras 81 to 83).
Rizik je dodatno uvećan jer su podnositelji prijave nositelji nekoliko žigova koji sadržavaju element ‚citi'” (t. 81. - 83.).
MINERAL SPA (for soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, dentifrices in Class 3) could take unfair advantage of the image of the earlier trade mark SPA and the message conveyed by it in that the goods covered by the contested application would be perceived by the relevant public as supplying health, beauty and purity.
Žigom ‚MINERAL SPA' (za sapune, parfeme, esencijalna ulja, pripravke za njegu tijela i ljepotu, pripravke za kosu, paste za zube razreda 3.) može se nepošteno iskoristiti imidž ranijeg žiga ‚SPA' i poruke koju on prenosi, odnosno da relevantna javnost proizvode obuhvaćene osporavanom prijavom može smatrati proizvodima kojima se pružaju usluge u području zdravlja, ljepote i čistoće.
It is not a question of whether toothpaste and perfume contain mineral water, but whether the public may think that the goods concerned are produced from or with mineral water (paras 43 and 44).
Nije pitanje sadržavaju li pasta za zube i parfem mineralnu vodu, već može li javnost pomisliti da su predmetni proizvodi proizvedeni od mineralne vode ili s mineralnom vodom (t. 43. i 44.).
Earlier reputed sign Case No
Raniji znak s ugledom Broj predmeta
L'Oréal et al. 12/07/2011, C324/09 (preliminary ruling)
L'Oréal et al. 12/07/2011, C324/09 (preliminarna presuda)
According to L'Oréal et al., the defendants manufactured and imported perfume that was a ‘smellalike' of L'Oréal's fragrances but sold at a considerably lower price, using packaging that was reminiscent of the get-up covered by L'Oréal's marks.
U skladu s predmetom L'Oréal et al., tužene su strane proizvodile i uvozile parfeme koji su „mirisom nalikovali” mirisima društva L'Oréal, ali su se prodavali po znatno nižim cijenama u ambalaži koja je podsjećala na izgled žigova društva L'Oréal.
The defendants used comparison lists to present the perfumes, which they marketed as being imitations or replicas of goods bearing a trade mark with repute.
Tužene strane upotrebljavale su usporedne popise kako bi predstavile parfeme koje su stavljale na tržište kao imitacije ili replike proizvoda koji su nosili žig s ugledom.
Under Council Directive 84/450/EEC, comparative advertising that presents the advertiser's products as an imitation of a product bearing a trade mark is inconsistent with fair competition and thus unlawful.
Prema Direktivi Vijeća 84/450 usporedno oglašavanje u okviru kojeg se proizvode oglašivača predstavlja kao imitaciju proizvoda sa žigom nije u skladu s poštenim tržišnim natjecanjem te je stoga nezakonito.
Therefore, any advantage gained by the advertiser through such advertising will have been achieved as a result of unfair competition and must be regarded as taking unfair advantage of the reputation of that mark).
Stoga će se za bilo kakvu prednost dobivenu oglašavanjem putem takvih oglasa smatrati da je postignuta nepoštenim tržišnim natjecanjem i mora se smatrati nepoštenim iskorištavanjem ugleda toga žiga.
‘Taking account of the fact that the financial and stock market listing services supplied by the intervener under its trade mark Nasdaq and, therefore, the trade mark Nasdaq itself, undeniably present a certain image of modernity [the link between the signs] enables the transfer of that image to sports equipment and, in particular, to the high-tech composite materials which would be marketed by the applicant under the mark applied for, which the applicant appears to recognise implicitly by stating that the word ‘nasdaq' is descriptive of its main activities.
„Uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da financijske i burzovne usluge koje pruža posrednik pod svojim žigom ‚Nasdaq' te stoga i sam žig ‚Nasdaq' zasigurno čine određeni imidž suvremenosti koji se [vezom između znakova] može prenijeti na sportsku opremu, posebno na visokotehnološke materijale koje bi podnositelj prijave stavio na tržište pod žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, a koji on implicitno prepoznaje tvrdeći da riječ ‚nasdaq' opisuje njegove glavne aktivnosti.
Therefore, in light of that evidence, and taking account of the similarity of the marks at issue, the importance of the reputation and the highly distinctive character of the trade mark Nasdaq, it must be held that the intervener has established prima facie the existence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage being drawn by the applicant, by the use of the mark applied for, from the reputation of the trade mark Nasdaq.
Stoga, uzimajući u obzir te dokaze te imajući na umu sličnost predmetnih žigova, važnost ugleda i visoku razinu razlikovnog karaktera žiga ‚Nasdaq', mora se zaključiti da je posrednik utvrdio prima facie postojanje budućeg rizika, koji nije hipotetski, od nepoštenog iskorištavanja ugleda žiga ‚Nasdaq' uporabom žiga za koji je podnesena prijava.
There is therefore no need to set aside the contested decision on that point' (paras 60 and 61).
Shodno tomu, osporavanu odluku o tom pitanju ne treba ukinuti” (t. 60. i 61.).
There is a certain proximity and link between entertainment services and beer, even a certain similarity due to their complementarity.
Postoji određena bliskost i veza između usluga zabave i piva, čak i određena sličnost zbog njihove komplementarnosti.
The public in the United Kingdom would be able to make a link with the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) when seeing a beer with the contested mark Royal Shakespeare in a supermarket or in a bar.
Javnost u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini mogla bi povezati osporavani žig „Royal Shakespeare” s kazališnim ansamblom Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) kada vidi pivo u supermarketu ili baru.
The contested mark would benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of the earlier mark for its own goods and services, which would attract the consumers' attention thanks to the association with RSC, thereby gaining a commercial advantage over its competitors' goods.
Osporavani žig imao bi koristi od snage privlačnosti, ugleda i prestiža ranijeg žiga za vlastite proizvode i usluge kojima bi se privukla pozornost potrošača zahvaljujući asocijaciji s RSC-om te bi se za njih na taj način osigurala trgovačka prednost pred konkurentskim proizvodima.
The economic advantage would consist of exploiting the effort expended by RSC to establish the reputation and the image of its earlier mark without paying any compensation in exchange.
Gospodarska prednost sastojala bi se od iskorištavanja nastojanja RSC-a u pogledu uspostave ugleda i imidža svojeg ranijeg žiga bez plaćanja ikakve naknade u zamjenu.
That equates to an unfair advantage (para. 61).
To je jednako nepoštenom iskorištavanju (t. 61.).
While recognising that the primary function of a trade mark was as an indicator of origin, the General Court held that a mark could also serve to transmit other messages, concerning particular qualities or characteristics of the designated goods or services, or the images and sensations projected by the mark itself, such as luxury, lifestyle, exclusivity, adventure or youth.
Uvažavajući činjenicu da je primarna funkcija žiga bila oznaka podrijetla, Opći sud utvrdio je da žig može služiti i za prijenos drugih poruka o određenim kvalitetama ili obilježjima predmetnih proizvoda ili usluga ili predodžbi i doživljaja koje projicira sam žig, npr. luksuza, životnog stila, ekskluzivnosti, avanture ili mladosti.
In this sense, a trade mark possessed an intrinsic economic value that was autonomous and distinct to that of the goods or services for which it was registered (para. 57).
U tom smislu, žig ima vlastitu gospodarsku vrijednost koja je bila autonomna i razlikovna u odnosu na proizvode ili usluge za koje je registriran (t. 57.).
The risk of taking unfair advantage encompasses cases of manifest exploitation or parasitism of a mark with reputation, namely the risk of transferring the image of the mark with reputation or the characteristics projected by it to the goods covered by the mark applied for, thus facilitating the marketing of those goods through association with the earlier mark with reputation (para. 59).
Rizikom od nepoštenog iskorištavanja obuhvaćeni su slučajevi očitog iskorištavanja ili parazitizma žiga s ugledom, odnosno rizik od prijenosa imidža žiga s ugledom ili obilježja koja se njime projiciraju na proizvode obuhvaćene žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, čime se olakšava oglašavanje tih proizvoda putem asocijacije s ranijim žigom s ugledom (t. 59.).
The Court concluded that, even if the drinks claimed by the mark applied for would not in reality produce the same benefit as the ‘immensely well-known' pharmaceutical for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, what was important was that the consumer, because of the transfer of positive associations projected by the image of the earlier mark, would be inclined to purchase such drinks in the expectation of finding similar qualities, such as an increase in libido (paras 52 and 67).
Sud je zaključio da je, čak i kad se pićima obuhvaćenima žigom za koji je podnesena prijava u stvarnosti ne bi osigurala ista korist koja se osigurava „vrlo dobro poznatim” farmaceutskim proizvodom za tretiranje erektilne disfunkcije, bila važna činjenica da bi potrošač, zbog prijenosa pozitivnih asocijacija koje se projiciraju imidžom ranijeg žiga, bio sklon kupiti takva pića u očekivanju da će naići na slične kvalitete, kao što je povećanje libida (t. 52. i 67.).
Although the applicant's cosmetic products are dissimilar to the opponent's clothes, they both fall squarely within the realm of products that are often sold as luxury items under famous marks of well-known designers and manufacturers.
Iako se kozmetički proizvodi podnositelja prijave razlikuju od odjeće podnositelja prigovora, oba proizvoda jasno pripadaju skupini proizvoda koji se često prodaju kao luksuzni predmeti pod poznatim žigovima dobro poznatih dizajnera i proizvođača.
BoA concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant could exploit the reputation of the opponent's mark for its own benefit.
Žalbeno vijeće zaključilo je da postoji velika vjerojatnost da će podnositelj prijave iskoristiti ugled žiga podnositelja prigovora za svoju korist.
The use of the mark applied for in connection with the goods and services mentioned above will almost certainly draw the relevant consumer's attention to the opponent's highly similar and very well-known mark.
Uporaba žiga za koji je podnesena prijava u vezi s prethodnim proizvodima i uslugama gotovo će sigurno privući pozornost relevantnih potrošača na vrlo sličan i vrlo poznat žig podnositelja prigovora.
The applicant will become associated with the aura of luxury that surrounds the ‘EMILIO PUCCI' brand.
Podnositelj prijave povezivat će se s aurom luksuza koja okružuje robnu marku „EMILIO PUCCI”.
Many consumers are likely to think that there is a direct connection between the applicant's goods on the one hand, and the famous Italian fashion house on the other, perhaps in the form of a licensing agreement.
Mnogi će potrošači pomisliti da postoji izravna veza između proizvoda podnositelja prijave s jedne strane i poznate talijanske modne kuće s druge strane, možda u obliku sporazuma o licenciranju.
The applicant could take unfair advantage of the fact that the public knows the trade mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI' well in order to introduce its own highly similar trade mark without incurring any great risk or the costs of introducing a totally unknown trade mark onto the market (BoA para. 130).
Podnositelj prijave mogao bi nepošteno iskoristiti činjenicu da javnost dobro poznaje robnu marku „EMILIO PUCCI” kako bi uveo svoj vrlo sličan žig bez izlaganja riziku ili bez troškova uvođenja potpuno nepoznatog žiga na tržište (žalbeno vijeće, t. 130.).
The General Court confirmed the BoA findings.
Opći sud potvrdio je nalaze žalbenog vijeća.
The Board of Appeal found that (1) the marks have very limited similarities and are dissimilar overall; (2) use of the common designation ‘O2' is descriptive in the mark applied for; and (3) given the completely different areas of use - and the descriptive use of the common element - there can be no possibility of the applicant benefiting from the distinctive character of the earlier mark, even if there may be an overlap in the relevant public (para. 55).
Žalbeno vijeće zaključilo je da 1. žigovi imaju vrlo ograničene sličnosti i da su sveukupno različiti; 2. uporaba zajedničkog naziva „O2” opisna je za žig za koji je podnesena prijava; te 3. uzimajući u obzir potpuno različito područje uporabe - i opisnu uporabu zajedničkog elementa - ne može postojati mogućnost da podnositelj prijave iskoristi razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga, čak ni ako postoji određeno preklapanje relevantne javnosti (t. 55.).
The earlier mark Vips has a reputation for restaurants, in particular fast-food chains.
Raniji žig „Vips” ima ugled za restorane, posebno lance brze prehrane.
However, it was not proven that it also enjoys any particular prestige.
Međutim, nije dokazano da ga prati poseban prestiž.
The term Vips is laudatory in itself and extensively used in this manner.
Pojam „Vips” sam je po sebi pohvalan te se intenzivno upotrebljava na taj način.
There is no explanation as to how the sales of software products under the mark Vips could possibly benefit from their association with a fast-food chain, even if a link were made.
Nema objašnjenja u pogledu načina na koji bi prodaja softverskih proizvoda pod žigom „Vips” mogla imati koristi od povezivanja s lancem brze prehrane, čak ni kada bi se ta veza uspostavila.
Therefore, the Court rules out the risk that use of the mark applied for would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark.
Stoga je Sud isključio rizik u pogledu toga da bi se uporabom žiga za koji je podnesena prijava nepošteno iskoristili razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga.
Spa has a reputation for mineral water in the Benelux.
Žig „SPA” u zemljama Beneluksa ima ugled za mineralnu vodu.
The contested mark, Spa-Finders, covers publications, catalogues, magazines, newsletters, travel agency services.
Osporavani žig, „Spa-Finders” obuhvaća izdanja, kataloge, časopise, biltene, usluge putničke agencije.
The General Court declared that there was no detrimental link between the signs.
Opći sud izjavio je da ne postoji štetna veza između znakova.
The sign Spa is also used to denote the town of Spa and the racing circuit of the same name.
Znak „Spa” upotrebljava se i za označavanje grada Spa, kao i trkaće staze istoga imena.
There is no evidence of unfair advantage or any kind of exploitation of the fame of the earlier mark.
Nema dokaza o nepoštenom iskorištavanju ili bilo kakvoj vrsti iskorištavanja slave ranijeg žiga.
The word Spa in the mark applied for only denotes the kind of publication concerned.
Riječ „Spa” u žigu za koji je podnesena prijava označava samo predmetnu vrstu publikacije.
The earlier mark ‘TDK' has a reputation within the European Union for ‘audio and videotape goods'.
Raniji žig „TDK” ima ugled u Europskoj uniji za „audio i videoproizvode”.
The opponent argued that ‘[b]uilding and construction is a specific commercial area in which use of a TDK could diminish a reputation of the sort and nature of a company such as the opponent'.
Podnositelj prigovora tvrdio je da je „građevinski sektor posebno komercijalno područje u kojem bi se uporabom žiga „TDK” mogao narušiti ugled društva vrste i prirode kao što je društvo podnositelja prigovora”.
The Board found that this argument, which seems to be a mixture of allegations that there is detriment to the reputation and detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark, is no more than a mere statement, which is not corroborated by any evidence that would demonstrate prima facie a serious risk of change in economic behaviour or of a reduction in the trade mark's power of attraction.
Vijeće je utvrdilo da je taj argument, za koji se čini da se temelji na kombinaciji navoda da postoji šteta za ugled i šteta za razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga, tek puka tvrdnja koja nije potkrijepljena dokazima kojima bi se dokazao prima facie ozbiljan rizik u pogledu promjene gospodarskog ponašanja ili smanjenja snage privlačnosti žiga.
Reputed for tobacco products Foodstuffs in Classes 29, 30 and 32
Ugled za duhanske proizvode Prehrambeni proizvodi iz razreda 29., 30. i 32.
First of all, taking into account the very high similarity between the conflicting marks and the high reputation of the earlier mark, there is a risk that the public will be led to believe that the CAMEL food products originate from, or that the mark is used with the consent of, the opponent.
Ponajprije, uzimajući u obzir vrlo visoku razinu sličnosti između osporavanih žigova i veliki ugled ranijeg žiga, postoji rizik da bi javnost bila navedena na to da povjeruje da prehrambeni proizvodi „CAMEL” potječu od podnositelja prigovora ili da se žig upotrebljava uz njegov pristanak.
Moreover, the capacity of the reputed CAMEL mark to arouse immediate association with the opponent's business will be diminished by the use of the contested mark.
Nadalje, sposobnost žiga s ugledom „CAMEL” da se njime potakne izravna asocijacija s poduzećem podnositelja prigovora umanjit će se uporabom osporavanog žiga.
The use of a highly similar mark for food products would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the reputed CAMEL trade mark for tobacco products, making this mark ordinary, which is in essence a diminution of the power of attraction of the mark.
Uporabom vrlo sličnog žiga za prehrambene proizvode naštetilo bi se razlikovnom karakteru žiga s ugledom „CAMEL” za duhanske proizvode čime bi taj žig postao uobičajen, a to u suštini znači smanjenje snage privlačnosti žiga.
This will lead to dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public's mind of the earlier mark.
To bi dovelo do raspršivanja istovjetnosti ranijeg žiga i njegova utjecaja na svijest javnosti.
The earlier mark, used to arouse immediate association with the goods for which it is registered, will no longer be capable of doing so.
Ranijim žigom koji se upotrebljavao kako bi se potaknula izravna asocijacija s proizvodima za koje je registriran takvu asocijaciju više neće biti moguće potaknuti.
Earlier reputed sign EUTM application Case No
Vips Vips 22/03/2007, T215/03