natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court made it clear, in its judgment of 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, that ‘in proceedings opposing the registration of a European Union trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question'.
Sud u svojoj presudi od 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41 jasno navodi da se „u postupku prigovora protiv registracije žiga Europske unije valjanost nacionalnih žigova ne smije dovoditi u pitanje”.
The Court added that ‘it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character' .
Sud je dodao da „treba napomenuti da je karakterizacija znaka kao opisnog ili generičkog jednaka negiranju njegova razlikovnog karaktera”.
[4: See also Objective 1 of the Common Practice on the impact of non-distinctive/weak components on likelihood of confusion agreed within the framework of the ETMDN.]
[4: Vidjeti i cilj 1. zajedničke prakse u pogledu utjecaja nerazlikovnih/slabih sastavnica znakova pri utvrđivanju vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu, koja je utvrđena u okviru Europske mreže žigova i dizajna.]
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness
Svojstvena i povećana razlikovnost
It is a matter of law, which must be examined by the Office even if the parties do not comment on it.
To je pravno pitanje, što znači da ga Ured mora ispitati čak i ako ga stranke ne spomenu.
In contrast, the degree of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier sign is a matter of law and fact, which the Office cannot examine unless the opponent claims and substantiates it in due time (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2, Substantiation).
Suprotno tomu, razina povećane razlikovnosti stečene uporabom ranijeg znaka pravno je i činjenično pitanje, što Ured ne može ispitati osim ako to podnositelj prigovora pravodobno ne ustvrdi i potkrijepi (vidjeti Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja, odlomak 4.2., potkrjepljenje prigovora).
The inherent distinctiveness of the contested trade mark as a whole is not examined within the framework of the opposition proceedings, as it is the scope of protection of the earlier mark that is relevant for the purposes of likelihood of confusion.
Svojstvena razlikovnost osporavanog žiga u cjelini ne razmatra se u okviru postupka prigovora jer je opseg zaštite ranijeg žiga važan za utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
Likewise, the enhanced distinctiveness of the contested sign is also irrelevant because likelihood of confusion requires a consideration of the scope of protection of the earlier mark rather than that of the mark applied for.
Isto tako, povećana razlikovnost osporavanog znaka nije važna jer vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu zahtijeva razmatranje opsega zaštite ranijeg žiga, a ne žiga za koji je podnesena prijava.
If an earlier mark is recognised as having a broader scope of protection by reason of its enhanced distinctiveness, the reputation acquired by the mark applied for is, as a matter of principle, irrelevant for the purpose of assessing likelihood of confusion (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84).
Ako se ranijem žigu priznaje da ima širi opseg zaštite zbog svoje povećane razlikovnosti, ugled koji je stekao žig za koji je podnesena prijava u načelu nije važan za potrebe procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84).
2.1.3 Relevant point in time
Relevantan trenutak
The inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark(s) should be assessed at the time of the decision.
Svojstvena razlikovnost ranijeg žiga ili žigova trebala bi se procijeniti u trenutku donošenja odluke.
The enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark(s) (if claimed) should exist (i) at the time of filing of the contested EUTM application (or any priority date) and (ii) at the time of the decision.
Povećana razlikovnost ranijeg žiga ili žigova (ako se tvrdi) mora postojati (i.) u trenutku podnošenja prijave osporavanog žiga EU-a (ili na bilo koji datum prvenstva) i (ii.) u trenutku donošenja odluke.
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services
Relevantni proizvodi i usluge
The assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only for the goods or services that have been found to be identical or similar to the contested goods and services.
Procjena svojstvene razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga provodi se samo za proizvode ili usluge za koje je ustanovljeno da su istovjetni ili slični osporavanim proizvodima i uslugama.
Assessment of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only in respect of the goods or services protected by the sign for which enhanced distinctiveness is claimed.
Procjena povećane razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga provodi se samo s obzirom na proizvod ili usluge zaštićene znakom za koji se tvrdi povećana razlikovnost.
Furthermore, it is the perception of the relevant public for these goods and services that is of relevance (e.g. whether a specialist public is involved or not).
Nadalje, važan je doživljaj relevantne javnosti za te proizvode i usluge (npr. je li uključena specijalistička javnost ili ne).
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Ispitivanje svojstvene razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga
2.2.1 General principles
Opća načela
The first step in examining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is to examine its inherent distinctiveness.
Prvi korak u ispitivanju razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga jest ispitivanje njegove svojstvene razlikovnosti.
The same rules and principles apply as those for the examination of distinctiveness of components, in terms of the relevant public and its linguistic and cultural background, relevant territory, relevant goods and services, etc. (see the Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs, paragraph 3.2).
Primjenjuju se ista pravila i načela kao i za ispitivanje razlikovnog karaktera sastavnica, u pogledu relevantne javnosti i njezina jezičnog i kulturnog podrijetla, relevantnog državnog područja, relevantnih proizvoda i usluga itd. (vidjeti Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 2., Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, poglavlje 4., Uspoređivanje znakova, odlomak 3.2.).
At the stage of determining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, distinctiveness of its various components (or its only component) has already been established in the section on comparison of signs.
U fazi utvrđivanja razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga kao cjeline, razlikovnost njegovih različitih sastavnica (ili jedine sastavnice) već je utvrđena u odjeljku o usporedbi znakova.
In principle, if an earlier mark contains a normally distinctive component, then the inherent distinctiveness of such an earlier mark as a whole is also normal, regardless of the possible presence of other non-distinctive or weak components.
U načelu, ako raniji žig sadržava sastavnicu koja ima uobičajenu razinu razlikovnosti, onda je i svojstvena razlikovnost takvog ranijeg žiga u cjelini također uobičajena, bez obzira na moguću prisutnost drugih nerazlikovnih ili slabih sastavnica.
If the most distinctive component of the earlier mark is distinctive only to a low degree, then in principle the overall inherent distinctiveness of that mark will be no more than low.
Ako sastavnica ranijeg žiga s najvišom razinom razlikovnosti ima nisku razinu razlikovnosti, onda, u načelu, razina svojstvene razlikovnost tog žiga može biti samo niska.
As mentioned above, earlier registered trade marks are presumed to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), even where persuasive evidence is submitted to challenge this presumption.
Kao što je prethodno spomenuto, pretpostavlja se da ranije registrirani žigovi imaju barem minimalnu razinu svojstvene razlikovnosti (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), čak i ako su podneseni uvjerljivi dokazi za osporavanje te pretpostavke.
If the EUTM applicant proves that it has started a cancellation action against the earlier registered mark, then it might be necessary to suspend the opposition proceedings pending the outcome of the said action.
Ako podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a dokaže da je pokrenuo postupak brisanja iz registra ranije registriranog žiga, možda će biti potrebno obustaviti postupak prigovora do konačnog ishoda prvog postupka.
The outcome of the examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole will be one of the following.
Rezultat ispitivanja svojstvene razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga bit će jedan od sljedećih.
The earlier mark has less than normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory of the characteristics of identical or similar goods or services (or because it is otherwise weak).
Raniji žig ima razinu razlikovnosti nižu od uobičajene jer u cjelini ima aluzivan (na način koji bitno utječe na razlikovnost) ili pohvalan karakter s obzirom na obilježja istovjetnih ili sličnih proizvoda ili usluga (ili zato što je slab na drugi način).
As set out above, the Office will not conclude that an earlier mark as a whole is descriptive and/or non-distinctive.
Kao što je prethodno navedeno, Ured neće zaključiti da raniji žig u cjelini ima opisni karakter i/ili da nema razlikovni karakter.
The earlier mark has normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is not descriptive, allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory (or is not otherwise weak) in relation to identical or similar goods or services.
Raniji žig ima uobičajenu razinu razlikovnosti zato što u cjelini nema opisni, aluzivni (na način koji bitno utječe na razlikovnost) ili pohvalni karakter (ili nije slab na drugi način) u odnosu na istovjetne ili slične proizvode ili usluge.
It is Office practice, when an earlier mark is not descriptive (or is not otherwise non-distinctive), to consider it as having no more than a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness.
Kada raniji žig nema opisni karakter (ili nije na drugi način nerazlikovan), praksa je Ureda smatrati da on ima najviše uobičajenu razinu svojstvene razlikovnosti.
As indicated above, this degree of distinctiveness can be further enhanced if appropriate evidence is submitted showing that a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark has been acquired through use or because it is highly original, unusual or unique (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, last alternative).
Kao što je prethodno navedeno, ta razina razlikovnosti može se dodatno povećati ako se podnesu odgovarajući dokazi koji pokazuju da je raniji žig stekao višu razinu razlikovnosti uporabom ili zato što je vrlo originalan, neobičan ili jedinstven (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, posljednja mogućnost).
It should, however, be recalled that a mark will not necessarily have a higher degree of distinctive character just because there is no conceptual link to the relevant goods and services (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H/Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
Međutim, treba podsjetiti na činjenicu da žig neće nužno imati višu razinu razlikovnosti samo zato što ne postoji konceptualna veza s relevantnim proizvodima i uslugama (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H/Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Utjecaj niske razine razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga
A finding that a trade mark has a low or even very low (minimal) degree of distinctiveness may have a different impact on the likelihood of confusion.
Utvrđivanje da žig ima nisku ili čak vrlo nisku (minimalnu) razinu razlikovnosti može različito utjecati na vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu.
In general, this finding is an argument against likelihood of confusion.
Općenito, takav je zaključak argument protiv vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
It must however be balanced with the other factors, like the degree of similarity of the signs and the goods or services, as well as the level of attention and sophistication of the relevant public.
Međutim, mora biti u ravnoteži s drugim čimbenicima, kao što je razina sličnosti znakova i proizvoda ili usluga te razina pozornosti i rafiniranosti relevantne javnosti.
The Court has emphasised on several occasions that a finding of a low distinctive character for the earlier trade mark does not prevent a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
Sud je više puta naglasio da utvrđivanje niskog razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga ne onemogućuje utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
Although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment.
Iako se razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga mora uzeti u obzir prilikom procjenjivanja vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu, on je samo jedan od čimbenika uključenih u tu procjenu.
Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a high degree of similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).
Stoga, čak i u slučaju koji uključuje raniji žig slabog razlikovnog karaktera, postoji vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, posebno zbog visoke razine sličnosti između znakova i između obuhvaćenih proizvoda ili usluga (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).
The likelihood of confusion was affirmed for similar and identical goods, when the trade marks differed only in stylisation or non-distinctive figurative elements and showed therefore a high degree of similarity.
Vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu potvrđena je za slične i istovjetne proizvode kada su se žigovi razlikovali samo u stilizaciji ili nerazlikovnim figurativnim elementima te stoga pokazivali visoku razinu sličnosti.
However, the likelihood of confusion was excluded even for identical goods in cases where the degree of similarity between the marks was low due to differences resulting from an additional fully distinctive element:
Međutim, vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu isključena je čak i za istovjetne proizvode u slučajevima kada je razina sličnosti između žigova bila niska zbog razlika koje proizlaze iz dodatnog potpuno razlikovnog elementa:
2.2.3 Specific themes
Specifične teme
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs
Znakovi od jednog slova, brojevi i kratki znakovi
The Court, in its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, held that the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks must be assessed according to an examination based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned and the same criteria that apply to other word marks (paras 33-39).
U svojoj presudi od 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, Sud Europske unije utvrdio je da se razlikovnost žiga od jednog slova mora procijeniti u skladu s ispitivanjem utemeljenim na činjenicama, pri čemu je naglasak na predmetnim proizvodima ili uslugama i istim kriterijima koji se primjenjuju na druge verbalne žigove (t. 33. - 39.).
Although that judgment deals with absolute grounds, the Office considers that the principle established by the Court (i.e. that the application of the criterion of distinctiveness must be the same for all marks) also applies in inter partes cases when it comes to determining the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks.
Iako se u toj presudi razmatraju apsolutni razlozi, Ured smatra da se načelo koje je uspostavio Sud (tj. da se pri ispitivanju razlikovnosti za sve žigove moraju primjenjivati isti kriteriji) također primjenjuje u postupcima inter partes kada je riječ o određivanju opsega zaštite žigova koji se sastoje od jednog slova.
The Court, while acknowledging that it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for marks consisting of a single letter than for other word marks, held that these circumstances do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from application of the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law.
Iako priznaje da će možda biti teže utvrditi razlikovnost žigova koji se sastoje od jednog slova nego razlikovnost drugih verbalnih žigova, Sud je utvrdio da te okolnosti ne opravdavaju određivanje posebnih kriterija koji dopunjuju kriterije ili odstupaju od primjene kriterija za utvrđivanje razlikovnosti kako se tumače u sudskoj praksi.
The Office considers the ruling to mean that, when establishing the distinctiveness of an earlier mark, it is not correct to rely on assumptions such as a priori statements that consumers are not in the habit of perceiving single letters as trade marks or on generic arguments such as that relating to the availability of signs, given the limited number of letters.
Ured smatra da ta presuda znači da pri utvrđivanju razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga nije pravilno oslanjati se na pretpostavke kao što su a priori izjave prema kojima potrošači nemaju naviku doživljavanja jednog slova kao žiga ili na generičke argumente kao što su oni vezani uz dostupnost znakova zbog ograničenog broja slova.
In its judgment of 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, the General Court dismissed the applicant's argument that single letters are generally per se devoid of distinctive character and that therefore only their graphic representation would be protected (paras 38, 49).
U svojoj presudi od 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, Opći sud odbacio je argument podnositelja prijave da jedno slovo kao takvo općenito nema razlikovni karakter i da će stoga samo njihov grafički prikaz biti zaštićen (t. 38. i 49.).
Consequently, whilst registered earlier trade marks consisting of a single letter (or numeral) represented in standard characters enjoy a presumption of validity, ultimately their degree of inherent distinctiveness will have to be assessed with reference to the goods and/or services concerned.
Slijedom toga, dok registrirani raniji žigovi od jednog slova (ili broja) prikazani standardnim znakovima uživaju pretpostavku valjanosti, a njihova razina svojstvene razlikovnosti u konačnici će se morati procijeniti u odnosu na predmetne proizvode i/ili usluge.
If the corresponding claim is made, account should be taken of evidence submitted by the opponent that demonstrates that its registered trade mark consisting of a single letter has acquired enhanced distinctiveness.
Ako se podnese odgovarajuća tvrdnja, trebali bi se uzeti u obzir dokazi koje je podnio podnositelj prigovora koji pokazuju da je njegov registrirani žig od jednog slova stekao povećanu razlikovnost.
This circumstance could lend the earlier trade mark a broader scope of protection.
Ta okolnost mogla bi omogućiti ranijem žigu širi opseg zaštite.
The above considerations apply both to single-letter/numeral trade marks represented in standard characters (i.e. word marks) and to stylised single-letter/numeral trade marks.
Prethodno navedena razmatranja primjenjuju se i na žigove od jednog slova/broja prikazane standardnim znakovima (tj. verbalne žigove) i na stilizirane žigove od jednog slova/broja.
Where the opponent has successfully proven that its single-letter trade mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through intensive use, the impact thereof on the final outcome has to be carefully assessed.
U slučajevima kada je podnositelj prigovora uspješno dokazao da je njegov žig od jednog slova intenzivnom uporabom stekao povećanu razlikovnost, utjecaj toga na konačni ishod mora se pažljivo procijeniti.
Firstly, enhanced distinctiveness on the part of the earlier single-letter trade mark cannot justify a finding of likelihood of confusion if the overall visual impression conveyed by the signs is so different as to safely set them apart.
Prvo, povećana razlikovnost ranijeg žiga koji se sastoji od jednog slova ne može opravdati utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu ako je ukupni vizualni dojam koji se prenosi znakovima toliko različit da ih se može sigurno raspoznati.
Secondly, if the evidence shows use of a single-letter trade mark that is stylised or accompanied by additional figurative elements, the benefit of the resulting broader scope of protection accrues to the form in which it was used and not to the single letter as such or any other stylised variation.
Drugo, ako dokazi pokazuju uporabu žiga od jednog slova koji je stiliziran ili popraćen dodatnim figurativnim elementima, korist šireg opsega zaštite pripada obliku u kojem se upotrebljava, a ne tom jednom slovu kao takvom ili bilo kojoj drugoj stiliziranoj varijaciji.
Furthermore, in accordance with the α judgment, as regards short signs, unless a letter combination, as such, is intrinsically non-distinctive for the goods and services (e.g. ‘S' or ‘XL' for goods in Class 25), these signs are not necessarily distinctive only to a low degree.
Nadalje, u skladu s presudom u predmetu α, kada je riječ o kratkim znakovima, osim ako kombinacija slova kao takva nije svojstveno razlikovna za proizvode i usluge (npr. „S” ili „XL” za proizvode iz razreda 25.), ti znakovi nemaju nužno nisku razinu razlikovnosti.
2.2.3.2 Collective marks
Zajednički žigovi
Where the mark on which the opposition is based is a collective mark, its inherent distinctiveness is to be assessed in the usual way.
Kada je žig na kojem se temelji prigovor zajednički žig, njegova svojstvena razlikovnost procijenit će se na uobičajen način.
The mark may have a low or even very low degree of inherent distinctiveness when it refers to the nature or other characteristics of the goods concerned.
Žig može imati nisku ili čak vrlo nisku razinu svojstvene razlikovnosti kada upućuje na prirodu ili druga obilježja predmetnih proizvoda.
The fact that the mark is a collective mark does not imply that its scope of protection is broader (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61).
Činjenica da je žig zajednički žig ne podrazumijeva da je njegov opseg zaštite širi (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61).
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness
Ispitivanje povećane razlikovnosti
After the obligatory examination of inherent distinctiveness, the second step is to check - provided the opponent has made the corresponding claim - whether the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing (or priority date) of the contested EUTM application as a consequence of the use that the opponent has made of it.
Nakon obveznog ispitivanja svojstvene razlikovnosti, drugi je korak provjera - pod uvjetom da je podnositelj prigovora podnio odgovarajuću tvrdnju - je li raniji žig stekao povećanu razlikovnost u trenutku podnošenja (ili na datum prava prvenstva) osporavane prijave žiga EU-a zato što ga je podnositelj prigovora upotrebljavao.
[5: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.]
[5: Vidjeti Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 1., Postupovna pitanja.]
The distinctiveness of the earlier mark always has to be taken into account when deciding on likelihood of confusion.
Razlikovnost ranijeg žiga uvijek se mora uzeti u obzir prilikom odlučivanja o vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
The more distinctive the earlier trade mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24).
Što raniji žig ima snažniji razlikovni karakter, to je veća vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24).
Therefore, marks with a highly distinctive character, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).
Stoga žigovi koji imaju snažan razlikovni karakter uživaju veću zaštitu od žigova koji imaju slabiji razlikovni karakter (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).