natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In principle, prohibition of the imitation of an emblem applies only to imitations of it from a heraldic perspective, that is to say, those that contain heraldic connotations that distinguish the emblem from other signs.
U načelu, zabrana imitacije amblema primjenjuje samo na njegove imitacije s heraldičkog gledišta, tj. na one koje sadržavaju heraldičke konotacije kojima se amblem razlikuje od ostalih znakova.
Therefore, protection against any imitation from a heraldic point of view refers not to the image itself, but to its heraldic expression.
Stoga se zaštita od imitacije s heraldičkog gledišta ne odnosi na samu reprodukciju, već na njezin heraldički izraz.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the heraldic description of the emblem at issue to determine whether the trade mark contains an imitation from a heraldic point of view, (16/07/2009, C202/08 P & C208/08 P, RW feuille d'érable, EU:C:2009:477, § 48; 05/05/2011, T41/10, esf école du ski français (fig.), EU:T:2011:200, § 25).
Stoga je potrebno razmotriti heraldički opis predmetnog amblema kako bi se utvrdilo sadržava li žig imitaciju s heraldičkog gledišta (16/07/2009, C202/08 P & C208/08 P, RW feuille d'érable, EU:C:2009:477, § 48; 05/05/2011, T41/10, esf école du ski français (fig.), EU:T:2011:200, § 25).
It follows from the above that, in the course of trade mark examination, as a first step, both the protected ‘emblem' and the sign applied for must be considered from a heraldic perspective.
Iz prethodno navedenog slijedi da se tijekom ispitivanja žiga zaštićeni „amblem” i znak za koji je podnesena prijava moraju, kao prvi korak, razmotriti s heraldičkog stajališta.
Nonetheless, the Court ruled that as far as ‘imitation from a heraldic point of view' is concerned, a difference detected by a specialist in heraldic art between the trade mark applied for and the state emblem will not necessarily be perceived by the average consumer and, therefore, in spite of differences at the level of certain heraldic details, the contested trade mark may be an imitation of the emblem in question within the meaning of Article 6ter PC (16/07/2009, C202/08 P & C208/08 P, RW feuille d'érable, EU:C:2009:477, § 50 et seq.; 25/05/2011, T397/09, Suscipere et finire, EU:T:2011:246, § 24-25).
Međutim, Sud je presudio da, što se tiče „imitacije s heraldičkog gledišta”, razliku koju stručnjak za heraldičku umjetnost uoči između žiga za koji je podnesena prijava i državnog amblema neće nužno uočiti prosječan potrošač te stoga, usprkos razlikama na razini određenih heraldičkih detalja, osporavani žig može biti imitacija predmetnog amblema u smislu članka 6.ter Pariške konvencije (16/07/2009, C202/08 P & C208/08 P, RW feuille d'érable, EU:C:2009:477, § 50 et seq.; 25/05/2011, T397/09, Suscipere et finire, EU:T:2011:246, § 24-25).
To apply Article 7(1)(h) EUTMR, it can therefore be sufficient that the average consumer, despite some differences in heraldic details, can see in the mark an imitation of the ‘emblem'.
Slijedom toga, za primjenu članka 7. stavka 1. točke (h) Uredbe o žigu EU-a može biti dovoljno da prosječan potrošač, usprkos određenim razlikama u heraldičkim detaljima, žig shvati kao imitaciju „amblema”.
There may, for example, be imitation when the mark contains the main element of, or part of, the ‘emblem' protected under Article 6ter PC.
Primjerice, može biti riječ o imitaciji kada žig sadržava glavni element ili dio „amblema” zaštićenog na temelju članka 6.ter Pariške konvencije.
That element need not necessarily be identical to the emblem in question.
Taj element ne mora nužno biti istovjetan dotičnom amblemu.
The fact that the emblem in question is stylised or that only part of the emblem is used does not necessarily mean that there is no imitation from a heraldic point of view (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
Činjenica da je dotični amblem stiliziran ili da se upotrebljava samo dio amblema ne znači nužno da žig nije imitacija s heraldičkog gledišta (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
The EUTM applied for contains a protected ‘emblem'
Žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava sadržava zaštićeni „amblem”
As a first step, it is important that the examiner identifies the various elements of the EUTM applied for and establishes the part that is considered to be the reproduction or heraldic imitation of an ‘emblem' protected under Article 6ter PC.
Kao prvi korak, važno je da ispitivač utvrdi različite elemente žiga EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava i ustanovi koji se dio smatra reprodukcijom ili heraldičkom imitacijom „amblema” zaštićenog na temelju članka 6.ter Pariške konvencije.
The size of the protected emblem contained in the EUTM is irrelevant, as long as it is legible and perceivable.
Veličina zaštićenog amblema sadržanog u žigu EU-a nevažna je sve dok je on čitljiv i vidljiv.
The fact that the EUTM applied for also contains word elements does not in itself preclude application of Article 6ter PC (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
Činjenica da žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava sadržava i verbalne elemente sama po sebi ne isključuje primjenu članka 6.ter Pariške konvencije (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
On the contrary, such a word element may even strengthen the link between the EUTM application and an emblem (13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120, § 66 et seq.; 28/10/2014, R 1577/20144, SWISS CONCEPT, § 33).
Upravo suprotno, takav verbalni element čak može ojačati vezu između prijave žiga EU-a i amblema (13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120, § 66 et seq.; 28/10/2014, R 1577/20144, SWISS CONCEPT, § 33).
Heraldic imitation found
Utvrđena heraldička imitacija
Heraldic imitation not found
Nije utvrđena heraldička imitacija
The fact that the EUTM applied for contains only part of the protected ‘emblem' does not mean that there may not be an imitation from a heraldic point of view (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
Činjenica da žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava sadržava samo dio zaštićenog „amblema” ne znači da žig ne može biti imitacija s heraldičkog gledišta (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 41).
As regards the flag of the European Union, its essential element is the circle of twelve golden mullets (stars) (14/07/2011, R 1903/20101, A (fig.), § 17).
Kada je riječ o zastavi Europske unije, njezin je najvažniji element krug od dvanaest zlatnih zvjezdica s pet krakova (14/07/2011, R 1903/20101, A (fig.), § 17).
However, to qualify as a heraldic imitation, it is not necessary for all the stars to be present in the EUTM applied for (13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120).
Međutim, žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava ne mora sadržavati sve zvjezdice da bi se smatrao heraldičkom imitacijom (13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120).
The exact orientation of the stars is irrelevant (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12).
Točna usmjerenost zvjezdica nevažna je (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12).
The same is true with respect to their colour (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 43 for silver; 13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120, § 48 for red; 14/07/2011, R 1903/20101 A (fig.), § 17 for blue).
Isto vrijedi i za njihovu boju (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 43 za srebrnu; 13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing, EU:T:2014:120, § 48 za crvenu; 14/07/2011, R 1903/20101 A (fig.), § 17 za plavu).
Main characteristics/part of the emblem incorporated in the trade mark
Glavne značajke / dio amblema koji žig sadržava
Main characteristics/part of the protected emblem not incorporated in the trade mark
Glavne značajke / dio zaštićenog amblema koji žig ne sadržava
Black and white representations of the protected emblem
Crno-bijeli prikazi zaštićenog amblema
Flags are often reproduced in black and white; therefore, a black and white depiction of a protected emblem (or vice versa) may still be considered a heraldic imitation (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 45; 28/02/2008, T215/06, RW feuille d'érable, EU:T:2008:55, § 68).
Crno-bijele reprodukcije zastava česte su; stoga se crno-bijeli prikaz zaštićenog amblema (ili obratno) i dalje može smatrati heraldičkom imitacijom (21/04/2004, T127/02, ECA, EU:T:2004:110, § 45; 28/02/2008, T215/06, RW feuille d'érable, EU:T:2008:55, § 68).
However, if the black and white depiction does not allow recognition of a specific flag, there is no heraldic imitation.
Međutim, ako crno-bijeli prikaz ne omogućuje prepoznavanje određene zastave, nema heraldičke imitacije.
Changes in colour
Promjene boje
The use of silver v gold is important in heraldry.
U heraldici je važna uporaba srebrne u odnosu na zlatnu boju.
However, average consumers will not necessarily recognise this difference in colour; indeed, they will not even give it any importance (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 43).
Međutim, prosječni potrošači neće nužno prepoznati tu razliku u boji; štoviše, tome neće pridavati nikakvu važnost (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 43).
Slight differences in the actual colour are irrelevant (light blue v dark blue).
Male razlike u stvarnoj boji nevažne su (svjetloplava nasuprot tamnoplavoj).
Heraldry does not normally distinguish between different tones of the same colour (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 42).
U heraldici se obično ne radi razlika između različitih tonova iste boje (15/01/2013, T413/11, European Driveshaft Services, EU:T:2013:12, § 43).
Furthermore, gold is often reproduced as yellow (20/05/2009, R 1041/20081, kultur IN DEUTSCHLAND + EUROPA (fig.), § 33); consequently, this difference has no impact on the assessment.
Članak 7. stavak 1. točka (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a - Amblemi koji nisu zaštićeni na temelju članka 6.ter Pariške konvencije
3 Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR - Emblems not Protected under Article 6ter PC
Cilj članka 7. stavka 1. točke (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a
have not been communicated in accordance with Article 6ter(3)(a) PC, regardless of whether they are the emblems of a state or international intergovernmental organisation within the meaning of Article 6ter(1)(a) or (b) PC, or of public bodies or administrations other than those covered by Article 6ter PC, such as provinces or municipalities
nisu uvršteni na popis u skladu s člankom 6.ter stavkom 3. točkom (a) Pariške konvencije, neovisno o tome radi li se o amblemima države ili međunarodne međuvladine organizacije u smislu članka 6.ter stavka 1. točaka (a) ili (b) Pariške konvencije ili javnih tijela ili uprava, osim onih obuhvaćenih člankom 6.ter Pariške konvencije, kao što su provincije ili općine
are of particular public interest,
su od posebnog javnog interesa,
unless the competent authority has consented to their registration.
osim ako je nadležno tijelo odobrilo njihovu registraciju.
Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR does not define symbols of ‘particular public interest'.
Člankom 7. stavkom 1. točkom (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a nisu definirani simboli „od posebnog javnog interesa”.
The nature of these symbols could vary and could include, for example, symbols of public bodies or administrations, such as provinces or municipalities.
Priroda tih simbola mogla bi se razlikovati i mogla bi uključivati, primjerice, simbole javnih tijela ili uprava, kao što su provincije ili općine.
In any case, the ‘particular public interest' involved must be reflected in a public document, for example a national or international legal instrument, regulation or other normative act.
U svakom slučaju, taj „posebni javni interes” mora se odražavati u javnoj ispravi, primjerice u nacionalnom ili međunarodnom pravnom instrumentu, uredbi ili drugom normativnom aktu.
The General Court stated that a ‘particular public interest' existed when the emblem had a particular link with one of the activities carried out by an international intergovernmental organisation (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364, § 44).
Opći je sud utvrdio da „posebni javni interes” postoji kad amblem ima posebnu vezu s jednom od aktivnosti kojom se bavi međunarodna međuvladina organizacija (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364, § 44).
In particular, the Court specified that Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR also applied when the emblem merely related to one of the areas of activity of the European Union, even if that activity concerned only certain EU Member States (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364, § 45-46).
Sud je posebno naveo da se članak 7. stavak 1. točka (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a primjenjuje i kad je amblem tek povezan s jednim od područja djelatnosti Europske unije, čak i ako se ta djelatnost odnosi samo na neke države članice EU-a (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364, § 45-46).
According to the case-law, Article 7(1)(i) and (h) EUTMR both have a similar scope of application and grant equivalent levels of protection.
U skladu sa sudskom praksom, članak 7. stavak 1. točke (i) i (h) Uredbe o žigu EU-a imaju slično područje primjene i dodjeljuju istovjetne razine zaštite.
Therefore, Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR covers identical reproduction (full or partial) in a trade mark of the abovementioned symbols, as well as their heraldic imitation.
Stoga je člankom 7. stavkom 1. točkom (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a obuhvaćena istovjetna reprodukcija (potpuna ili djelomična) prethodno navedenih simbola u okviru žiga te njihova heraldička imitacija.
Following the same line of reasoning, Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR applies where the mark is liable to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the owner of the trade mark and the body to which the abovementioned symbols refer.
Slijedeći jednak način razmišljanja, članak 7. stavak 1. točka (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a primjenjuje se kad bi žig mogao dovesti javnost u zabludu o postojanju veze između nositelja žiga i tijela na koje se prethodno navedeni simbol odnosi.
In other words, the protection afforded by Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR is conditional on a link between the mark and the symbol (no absolute protection).
Drugim riječima, zaštita dodijeljena člankom 7. stavkom 1. točkom (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a uvjetovana je vezom između žiga i simbola (nema apsolutne zaštite).
Otherwise, trade marks to which Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR applies would obtain broader protection than under Article 7(1)(h) EUTMR (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364).
U suprotnom bi žigovi na koje se primjenjuje članak 7. stavak 1. točka (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a imali širi opseg zaštite od onog na temelju članka 7. stavka 1. točke (h) Uredbe o žigu EU-a (10/07/2013, T3/12, Member of €e euro experts, EU:T:2013:364).
3.2 Protected symbols
Zaštićeni simboli
The following signs (not covered by Article 6ter PC) enjoy special protection under Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR:
Sljedeći znakovi (koji nisu obuhvaćeni člankom 6.ter Pariške konvencije) uživaju posebnu zaštitu u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1. točkom (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a:
the symbols protected under the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, that is to say, the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal emblems and their names (https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/emblem);
simboli zaštićeni Ženevskom konvencijom i njezinim dodatnim protokolima, odnosno crveni križ, crveni polumjesec i crveni kristal te njihovi nazivi (https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/emblem);
However, a number of well-known red crosses have traditionally been used and are still in use, the incorporation of which in a mark would not be considered a reproduction/heraldic imitation of the ‘Red Cross'.
Međutim, brojni dobro poznati crveni križevi tradicionalno su se upotrebljavali te se i dalje upotrebljavaju, a njihovo se ugrađivanje u žig ne bi smatralo reprodukcijom/heraldičkom imitacijom „Crvenog križa”.
Examples of these crosses include the following:
Primjeri tih križeva uključuju sljedeće:
the Olympic Symbol protected under the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=287432)
olimpijski simbol zaštićen Nairobijskim ugovorom o zaštiti olimpijskog simbola (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=287432).
The same rules as set out above concerning the heraldic imitation and authorisations also apply with respect to Article 7(1)(i) EUTMR.
Prethodno navedena pravila u pogledu heraldičke imitacije i odobrenja jednako se primjenjuju i u smislu članka 7. stavka 1. točke (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
Reproduction/heraldic imitation found
Utvrđena reprodukcija / heraldička imitacija
Reproduction/heraldic imitation not found
Nije utvrđena reprodukcija / heraldička imitacija
4 Exceptions
Iznimke
The EUTM applied for can be registered despite Article 7(1)(h) and (i) EUTMR if the applicant provides the Office with the authorisation to include the protected emblem or parts of it in its trade mark.
Žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava može biti registriran unatoč članku 7. stavku 1. točkama (h) i (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a ako podnositelj prijave Uredu dostavi odobrenje da njegov žig smije sadržavati zaštićeni amblem ili njegove dijelove.
The authorisation must cover registration as a trade mark or as a part thereof.
Odobrenje mora obuhvaćati registraciju u svojstvu žiga ili njegova dijela.
Authorisation to use the protected emblem is not sufficient.
Odobrenje za uporabu zaštićenog amblema nije dovoljno.
It is up to the applicant to submit the authorisation.
Podnositelj prijave mora dostaviti odobrenje.
The Office cannot enquire as to whether an authorisation exists, either on an individual or general level.
Ured ne može istraživati postoji li odobrenje, bilo na pojedinačnoj ili općoj razini.
Even in cases where general announcements or authorisations are rendered by competent authorities under national law to use a protected emblem in trade, and these are submitted by the applicant, it should be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis whether such authorisations specifically authorise the use of an emblem in a trade mark (26/02/2015, R 1166/20141, ALPENBAUER BAYERISCHE BONBONLUTSCHKULTUR (fig.), § 23-29).
Čak i u slučajevima kada su nadležna tijela u skladu s nacionalnim pravom izdala opće objave ili odobrenja za uporabu zaštićenog amblema u trgovačkom prometu te ih je podnositelj prijave dostavio, potrebno je u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju pažljivo ispitati dopušta li se tim odobrenjima izričito uporaba amblema na žigu (26/02/2015, R 1166/20141, ALPENBAUER BAYERISCHE BONBONLUTSCHKULTUR (fig.), § 23-29).
It is also important to mention that the provisions of Article 7(1)(h) and (i) EUTMR are not applicable to trade marks that were registered either before receipt of the notification from WIPO or less than 2 months after receipt of said notification.
Važno je napomenuti i da se odredbe članka 7. stavka 1. točaka (h) i (i) Uredbe o žigu EU-a ne primjenjuju na žigove registrirane prije primitka obavijesti WIPO-a ili manje od dva mjeseca nakon primitka te obavijesti.
State flags that are not submitted to WIPO enjoy protection only against trade marks that were registered after 06/11/1925.
Državne zastave koje nisu podnesene WIPO-u uživaju zaštitu samo u odnosu na žigove registrirane nakon 6. studenoga 1925.
If an EUTM applied for contains or consists of the heraldic imitation of emblems of two or more states, which are similar, it is sufficient to present authorisation from one of them (Article 6ter(8) PC).
Ako žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava sadržava ili se sastoji od heraldičke imitacije amblema dviju ili više država koji su slični, dovoljno je dostaviti odobrenje jedne od njih (članak 6.ter stavak 8.
Protected under ES5.
Pariške konvencije).
Protected under NL48.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom NL48.
Protected under US1.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom US1.
Protected under BR6 for tourism; national and international promotion and advertising; marketing studies; business management; business administration; and office functions.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom JP3 za proizvode i prehrambene, poljoprivredne, šumarske i ribarske proizvode.
Protected under JP3 for agricultural, forestry and fishery products and foodstuffs.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom CZ35 za platinu.
Protected under QO60.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom QO60.
Protected under QO1.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom QO1.
Protected under QO1248.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom QO1248.
Protected under QO884 for the AFRICAN UNION.
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom QO884 za AFRIČKU UNIJU
Flag Sign applied for
Zastava Znak za koji je podnesena prijava
The flags of Norway, France, Austria, Germany, Sweden, France, Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and Finland (from the top in a clockwise circle).
Zastave Norveške, Francuske, Austrije, Njemačke, Švedske, Francuske, Češke, Belgije, Danske, Irske, Italije i Finske (od vrha kružno u smjeru kazaljke na satu).
The colours are recognisable and follow the structure of the flags.
Boje su prepoznatljive i slijede strukturu zastava.
Flag of the United Kingdom EUTM application No 13 169 313
Zastava Ujedinjene Kraljevine Prijava žiga EU-a br.
The slight degree of stylisation does not take it outside the scope of heraldic imitation.
Unatoč blagom stupnju stilizacije, žig nije izvan obuhvata heraldičke imitacije.
The French flag is incorporated into the trade mark.
Unatoč tome što je mala, odmah je prepoznatljiva.
Although it is small, it is immediately recognisable.
Amblem (Bavarska) zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom DE26.
As regards the emblem protected under GB3, it concluded that since central elements such as the quartered shield and the supporters were largely identical, this was in this respect an imitation in the heraldic sense.
U pogledu amblema zaštićenog pod referentnom oznakom GB3 zaključilo je da je, s obzirom na to da su središnji elementi, kao što su štit podijeljen na četvrtine i nosači, u velikoj mjeri istovjetni, amblem u tom pogledu imitacija u heraldičkom smislu.
The differences were not sufficient to give the EUTM application new meaning from a heraldic point of view.
Razlike nisu bile dovoljne da bi prijava žiga EU-a dobila novo značenje s heraldičkog gledišta.
As regards the emblem protected under GB4, it concluded that the only difference between the supporters was the representation of the crowns, which would go unnoticed by the general public.
Kada je riječ o amblemu zaštićenom pod referentnom oznakom GB4, vijeće je zaključilo da je jedina razlika između nosača u prikazu kruna, a tu razliku opća javnost ne bi primijetila.
Flag Sign applied for
Zastava Francuske Žig EU-a br.
French flag EUTM No 4 624 987, 05/05/2011, T41/10, esf école du ski français (fig.)
4 624 987, 05/05/2011, T41/10, esf école du ski français (fig.)
The mark is acceptable under Article 7(1)(h) EUTMR.
Žig je prihvatljiv na temelju članka 7. stavka 1. točke (h) Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
The dimensions of the stripes and also the overall shape of the figurative element are different from that of the Peruvian flag.
Dimenzije traka kao i cjelokupni oblik figurativnog elementa razlikuju se od onog peruanske zastave.
Protected ‘emblem' Sign applied for
Prijava žiga EU-a br.
Protected under QO188 EUTM application No 6 697 916; 01/03/2012, R 1211/20111, DIRO.net Lawyers for Europe (fig.); 13/03/2014, T430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing
6 697 916; 01/03/2012, R 1211/2011 1, DIRO.net Lawyers for Europe (fig.); 13/03/2014, T 430/12, European Network Rapid Manufacturing
The EUTM applied for consists of a circle of 12 stars, of which three are covered.
Žig EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava sastoji se od kruga od 12 zvjezdica, od kojih su tri pokrivene.
Protected ‘emblem' Sign applied for
Zaštićen pod referentnom oznakom IE11.
It must also be taken into consideration that the graphic element of the sign applied for has a colour configuration that is clearly different from the Irish national symbols.
U obzir se mora uzeti i činjenica da grafički element znaka za koji je podnesena prijava ima konfiguraciju boja koja se jasno razlikuje od irskih nacionalnih simbola.
Flag Sign applied for
Zaštićena pod referentnom oznakom QO188. 21. 4. 2004.,