natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Phonetically, they were found similar to an average degree (para. 51) and conceptually dissimilar, the latter again due to the descriptive content of ‘GESIC' and the differing associations that could be made with the respective prefixes of the signs (‘OXY' refers to oxygen/oxycodon and ‘MAXI' to maximum (para. 53)), with the result that a likelihood of confusion was excluded.
Utvrđeno je da su fonetski slični u prosječnoj mjeri (t. 51.) i konceptualno različiti, potonji opet zbog opisnog sadržaja „GESIC” i različitih asocijacija koje bi se mogle potaknuti s obzirom na predmetke znakova („OXY” se odnosi na oxygen/oxycodon (kisik/oksikodon), a „MAXI” na maksimum (t. 53.)), iz čega je proizašlo isključenje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
G&S: Class 35, 36 and 42.
Proizvodi i usluge: razredi 35., 36. i 42.
Territory: Austria, Benelux, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Područje: Austrija, Beneluks, Bugarska, Češka Republika, Cipar, Danska, Estonija, Finska, Francuska, Njemačka, Grčka, Mađarska, Italija, Latvija, Litva, Poljska, Portugal, Slovačka, Slovenija, Španjolska, Švedska i Ujedinjena Kraljevina.
Assessment: visually, the signs were deemed to have at least a certain degree of visual similarity, even if the coincidence in ‘bonus' related to an element of a weak distinctive character (paras 32, 41).
Procjena: smatra se da znakovi imaju barem određenu razinu vizualne sličnosti, čak i ako se podudarnost u riječi „bonus” odnosi na element slaba razlikovnog karaktera (t. 32., 41.).
Phonetically, the signs were found similar to an average degree due to the identical pronunciation of the first two syllables (para. 34).
Utvrđeno je da su znakovi fonetski slični u prosječnoj mjeri zbog istovjetnog izgovora prvih dvaju slogova (t. 34.).
Conceptually, there is at least a certain degree of similarity for a significant part of the public for whom the common element ‘bonus' conveys an identical meaning (para. 42).
Konceptualno postoji barem određena razina sličnosti za znatan dio javnosti kojoj zajednički element „bonus” prenosi istovjetno značenje (t. 42.).
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 The words ‘by missako' are almost illegible: the size and script make them difficult to decipher
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 Riječi „by missako” gotovo su nečitljive: veličina i pismo otežavaju njihovo čitanje
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 The element ‘Rótulos Luna S.A.' was considered negligible
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 Element „Rótulos Luna S.A.” smatrao se zanemarivim
The conflicting signs are dissimilar (para. 87).
Suprotstavljeni su znakovi različiti (t. 87.).
In the visual impression created by the marks, the beginnings ‘sto' and ‘cre' and the endings ‘tec' and ‘o' play a more important role than the syllables ‘cre' and ‘te', which are placed in the middle of the signs and are less perceived by the relevant public.
Prema vizualnom dojmu koji ostavljaju žigovi, počeci „sto” i „cre” te završeci „tec” i „o” imaju važniju ulogu nego slogovi „cre” i „te” koji su smješteni u sredini znakova i slabije ih opaža relevantna javnost.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no visual similarity between the signs (para. 71).
Stoga se zaključuje da nema vizualne sličnosti između znakova (t. 71.).
The marks are not phonetically similar, in particular on account of their different beginnings and endings (para. 72).
Žigovi nisu fonetski slični, posebno zbog njihovih različitih početaka i završetaka (t. 72.).
The conceptual comparison remains neutral, as ‘StoCretec' and ‘CRETEO' are coined terms without any meaning in German (para. 73).
Konceptualna usporedba ostaje neutralna jer su „StoCretec” i „CRETEO” izvedeni pojmovi bez ikakva značenja na njemačkom jeziku (t. 73.).
The figurative elements and the additional word ‘foods' must not be disregarded when comparing the signs (paras 54-55).
Figurativni elementi i dodatna riječ „foods” (hrana) ne smiju se zanemariti pri uspoređivanju znakova (t. 54. - 55.).
The overall visual impression of the conflicting signs is clearly dissimilar (paras 59-61).
Ukupni vizualni dojam suprotstavljenih znakova jasno je različit (t. 59. - 61.).
The signs are not phonetically similar bearing in mind, in particular, the additional element ‘foods' of the contested mark (paras 65-66).
Znakovi nisu fonetski slični uzme li se u obzir konkretno dodatni element „foods” osporavanog žiga (t. 65. - 66.).
Finally, the marks are also conceptually not similar (para. 73).
Konačno, žigovi nisu ni konceptualno slični (t. 73.).
The figurative elements of the earlier figurative marks further distinguish those marks from the mark applied for (para. 36).
Figurativni elementi ranijeg figurativnog žiga dodatno razlikuju te žigove od prijavljenog žiga (t. 36.).
The signs at issue have a different rhythm of pronunciation (paras 43-44).
Predmetni znakovi imaju različit ritam izgovora (t. 43. - 44.).
The words have no meaning; it is not possible to carry out a conceptual comparison (para. 54).
Riječi nemaju značenje; nije moguće provesti konceptualnu usporedbu (t. 54.).
The figurative elements of the signs have the same outline, but will be perceived as different by the relevant public (paras 45-47).
Figurativni elementi znakova imaju isti obris, no relevantna će ih javnost doživjeti drukčije (t. 45. - 47.).
The word elements are visually different since they have only two letters in common, which are also placed in distinct positions.
Verbalni su elementi vizualno različiti jer imaju samo dva zajednička slova koja su smještena na različitim mjestima.
22/03/2012, B 1 837 106
22/03/2012, R 1 837 106
The marks coincide only in that the verbal elements are written in white on a contrasting grey background and the white frame that separates the verbal and the landscape elements in equal parts.
Žigovi se podudaraju samo u tome što su verbalni elementi ispisani bijelom bojom na kontrastnoj sivoj pozadini i s bijelim okvirom koji razdvaja verbalne i pejzažne elemente na jednakim dijelovima.
These are commonplace figurative elements, omnipresent in marks in virtually all fields of trade.
To su uobičajeni figurativni elementi koji su prisutni u žigovima u gotovo svim područjima trgovine.
The consumer's attention is not caught by any of these details, but rather by the fanciful term ‘tukaş' in the earlier mark and by the word ‘Ekonomik' in the contested mark.
Pozornost potrošača ne zaokuplja nijedan od tih detalja nego izmišljeni pojam „tukaş” u ranijem žigu i riječ „Ekonomik” u osporavanom žigu.
As the signs visually overlap only in irrelevant aspects and have nothing in common aurally and conceptually, they are dissimilar overall.
Budući da se znakovi preklapaju samo u nevažnim aspektima i nemaju ništa zajedničko sa zvučnog i konceptualnog aspekta, ukupno su različiti.
G&S: provision of accommodation Territory: EU
Proizvodi i usluge: pružanje smještaja Područje: EU
G&S: provision of restaurant services Territory: Spain (where ‘casa' has also the meaning ‘bar', ‘restaurant')
Proizvodi i usluge: pružanje usluga restorana Područje: Španjolska (gdje „casa” znači i „bar”, „restaurant” (restoran))
G&S: telecommunications services Territory: EU
Proizvodi i usluge: telekomunikacijske usluge Područje: EU
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (paras 39-61)
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (t. 39. - 61.)
The earlier mark consists of two elements that are non-distinctive for the goods in question - the image of a corn (descriptive for bakery products) and the laudatory word element ‘PREMIUM'.
Raniji se žig sastoji od dvaju elemenata koji su nerazlikovni za predmetne proizvode - slike klasa (opisna za pekarske proizvode) i pohvalnog verbalnog elementa „PREMIUM”.
The combination of these elements is arbitrary (unlike the word combination ‘Capital markets' in the example above, which is an established expression).
Kombinacija je tih elemenata nasumična (za razliku od kombinacije riječi „Capital markets” u prethodnom primjeru, što je ustaljeni izraz).
The coincidences between the marks are therefore not limited to non-distinctive elements but extend to their particular combination.
Podudarnosti između znakova stoga nisu ograničene na nerazlikovne elemente nego obuhvaćaju njihovu konkretnu kombinaciju.
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (paras 39-61)
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (t. 39. - 61.)
The elements ‘aqua' and ‘water' also have a weak distinctive character owing to the fact that they will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning ‘water' and the goods covered all involve, in one way or another, water (para. 42).
Elementi „aqua” i „water” (voda) također imaju razlikovni karakter zahvaljujući činjenici da će ih relevantna javnost doživljavati kao da znače „voda”, a svi obuhvaćeni proizvodi na ovaj ili onaj način uključuju vodu (t. 42.).
The signs were found visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to an average degree.
Utvrđeno je da su znakovi u prosječnoj mjeri vizualno, fonetski i konceptualno slični.
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: although the element ‘post' as such is non-distinctive for postal services, it corresponds to the earlier mark, which should be attributed with a minimum degree of distinctiveness (para. 43).
Proizvodi i usluge: razred 39. i drugi proizvodi i usluge povezani s poštanskim uslugama Područje: Njemačka, EU Procjena: iako je element „post” (pošta) nerazlikovan za poštanske usluge, odgovara ranijem žigu kojem treba dodijeliti minimalnu razinu razlikovnosti (t. 43.).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 1
Smjernice za ispitivanje u Uredu, dio C, Prigovor Stranica 88.
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark
Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu - Razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga
CHAPTER 5
POGLAVLJE 5.
DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE EARLIER MARK
RAZLIKOVNI KARAKTER RANIJEG ŽIGA
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 4
2 Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 4
2.1 General issues 4
2.1 Opća pitanja 4
2.1.1 Distinctiveness 4
2.1.1 Razlikovnost 4
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness 6
2.1.2 Svojstvena i povećana razlikovnost 6
2.1.3 Relevant point in time 6
2.1.3 Relevantan trenutak 6
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services 6
2.1.4 Relevantni proizvodi i usluge 7
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 7
2.2 Ispitivanje svojstvene razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 7
2.2.1 General principles 7
2.2.1 Opća načela 7
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark 8
2.2.2 Utjecaj niske razine razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 8
2.2.3 Specific themes 9
2.2.3 Specifične teme 9
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs 9
2.2.3.1 Znakovi od jednog slova, brojevi i kratki znakovi 9
2.2.3.2 Collective marks 10
2.2.3.2 Zajednički žigovi 11
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness 11
2.3 Ispitivanje povećane razlikovnosti 11
… marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character.
[...] žigovi koji imaju snažan razlikovni karakter sami po sebi ili zbog svojeg ugleda na tržištu uživaju veću zaštitu od žigova koji imaju slabiji razlikovni karakter.
… the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion.
[...] razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga, a posebno njegov ugled, moraju se uzeti u obzir prilikom utvrđivanja je li sličnost proizvoda ili usluga obuhvaćenih dvama žigovima dostatna za utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
The assessment of the distinctiveness of an earlier mark is especially important in cases, when there is only a low degree of similarity between the signs, as it must be assessed, whether this low degree can be compensated by the high degree of similarity between the products (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) and vice versa.
Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga posebno je važna u slučajevima kada postoji samo niska razina sličnosti između znakova jer se mora procijeniti može li se ta niska razina nadoknaditi visokom razinom sličnosti između proizvoda (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) i obratno.
According to the case-law, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion of the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which determines the protection afforded to that mark, and the notion of the distinctive character which an element of a composite mark possesses, which determines its ability to dominate the overall impression created by the mark (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
U skladu sa sudskom praksom, nužno je razlikovati pojam razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga, koji određuje zaštitu koja se pruža tom žigu, i pojam razlikovnog karaktera koji posjeduje element složenog žiga, a koji određuje njegovu sposobnost da dominira ukupnim dojmom koji ostavlja taj žig (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
While it is true that it is necessary to examine the distinctiveness of an element of a composite mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (…), the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark is an element to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Iako je istina da je nužno ispitati razlikovnost nekog sastavnog elementa složenog znaka u fazi ispitivanja sličnosti znakova [...], razina razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga element je koji treba uzeti u obzir u kontekstu cjelovite procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
It is therefore not appropriate to take account of what may be a low degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
Stoga nije primjereno uzeti u obzir ono što bi se moglo smatrati niskom razinom razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga u fazi procjene sličnosti znakova (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
The Office therefore distinguishes between (i) the analysis of the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole, which determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark and is one of the factors in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and (ii) the analysis of the distinctive character of a component of the marks within their comparison .
Ured stoga razlikuje (i.) analizu razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga u cjelini, kojom se određuje opseg zaštite koja se pruža tom žigu i jedan je od čimbenika u cjelovitoj procjeni vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu i (ii.) analizu razlikovnog karaktera sastavnica znakova u okviru njihova uspoređivanja.
[2: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.]
[2: Vidjeti Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 2., Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, poglavlje 4., Uspoređivanje znakova.]
Whereas distinctive character must be assessed for the components of both the earlier mark and the contested mark, distinctiveness of the mark as a whole is assessed only in respect of the earlier mark .
Dok se razlikovni karakter sastavnica mora procijeniti i za raniji žig i za osporavani žig, razlikovnost žiga u cjelini procjenjuje se samo u pogledu ranijeg žiga.
Therefore, any reference below to the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole refers exclusively to the earlier mark.
Stoga se sve upute u nastavku o razlikovnosti žiga u cjelini odnose isključivo na raniji žig.
[3: 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 European Trade Mark and Design Network (ETMDN).]
[3: 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 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark
Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga
The Canon judgment makes clear that (i) the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion and (ii) earlier marks with a highly distinctive character because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character.
U presudi u predmetu Canon jasno se navodi da (i.) što je razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga snažniji, to će biti veća vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu i (ii.) raniji žigovi koji imaju snažan razlikovni karakter zbog svojeg ugleda na tržištu uživaju veću zaštitu od žigova koji imaju slabiji razlikovni karakter.
Consequently, the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole determines the strength and breadth of its protection and must be taken into consideration for the purposes of assessing likelihood of confusion.
Slijedom toga, razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga u cjelini određuje snagu i opseg njegove zaštite i mora se uzeti u obzir u svrhu procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
2.1 General issues
Opća pitanja
2.1.1 Distinctiveness
Razlikovnost
Importantly, distinctive character is a matter of degree and, when analysing distinctiveness, a sliding scale applies, whereby a sign can lack distinctiveness entirely, be highly distinctive or be at any point in-between.
Međutim, razlikovni karakter pitanje je razine, pa se prilikom analize razlikovnosti primjenjuje klizna ljestvica na kojoj znak može u potpunosti biti bez razlikovnosti, biti vrlo razlikovan ili se nalaziti na bilo kojoj točki između.
A sign is not distinctive if it is descriptive of the goods and services themselves or of the characteristics of those goods and services (such as their quality, value, purpose, provenance, etc.), laudatory and/or if its use in trade is common for those goods and services.
Znak nema razlikovni karakter ako opisuje same proizvode i usluge ili obilježja tih proizvoda i usluga (kao što je njihova kvaliteta, vrijednost, svrha, podrijetlo itd.), ako ima pohvalni karakter i/ili ako je njegova uporaba na tržištu česta za te proizvode i usluge.
Similarly, a sign that is generic (such as a common shape of a container or a common colour) will also lack distinctiveness.
Slično tomu, generički znak (kao što je uobičajeni oblik spremnika ili uobičajena boja) isto tako nije razlikovan.
The rules for the assessment of distinctive character follow those established by examination on absolute grounds.
Pravila za procjenu razlikovnog karaktera slijede pravila utvrđena ispitivanjem apsolutnih razloga.
A sign may be distinctive to a low degree if it alludes to (but is not exclusively descriptive of) characteristics of the goods and services.
Znak ima nisku razinu razlikovnosti ako aludira na (ali ne opisuje samo) obilježja proizvoda i usluga.
If the allusion to the goods and services is sufficiently imaginative or clever, the mere fact that there is an allusion to characteristics of the goods and/or services might not materially affect distinctiveness.
Ako je aluzija na proizvode i usluge dovoljno maštovita ili pametna, sama činjenica da postoji aluzija na obilježja proizvoda i/ili usluga možda neće bitno utjecati na razlikovni karakter.
A sign is deemed to possess a ‘normal' degree of inherent distinctiveness if there is no indication for a limitation thereof (e.g. due to a descriptive character, laudatory meaning, etc.).
Smatra se da znak ima „uobičajenu” razinu svojstvene razlikovnosti ako ne postoje naznake za njegovo ograničenje (npr. zbog opisnog karaktera, pohvalnog značenja itd.).
This means that the sign in question is fully distinctive, in the sense that its capacity to identify the goods and services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking is not in any way diminished or impaired.
To znači da predmetni znak ima potpuno razlikovan karakter u smislu da njegova sposobnost da se prepozna da proizvodi i usluge za koje je registriran potječu od određenog poduzeća nije ni na koji način umanjena ili narušena.
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).
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).
However, an EUTM applicant may argue that the earlier sign is distinctive to a low degree.
Međutim, podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a može tvrditi da raniji znak ima nisku razinu razlikovnosti.
One of the most frequent arguments brought by applicants is that the earlier trade mark or one of its components has low distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that consist of, or include, the element in question.
Jedan od najčešćih argumenata podnositelja prijava jest da raniji žig ili jedna od njegovih sastavnica ima nisku razinu razlikovnosti zato što postoji mnogo žigova koji se sastoje od predmetnog elementa ili ga uključuju.
Where this argument is supported only by the applicant's referring to trade mark registrations, the Office takes the view that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market.
Ako tom argumentu u prilog ide samo upućivanje podnositelja prijave na registracije žigova, Ured zauzima stav da postojanje nekoliko registracija žigova nije samo po sebi dostatno za donošenje takve odluke jer ne odražava nužno stanje na tržištu.
In other words, on the basis of register data only, it cannot be assumed that all the trade marks have been effectively used (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
Drugim riječima, ne može se pretpostaviti da su se svi žigovi doista upotrebljavali samo na temelju podataka o registraciji (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
It follows that the evidence filed must demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element in question in order to prove that this element has a low degree of distinctive character.
Iz toga proizlazi da podneseni dokazi moraju dokazati da su potrošači bili izloženi raširenoj uporabi žigova i da su se naviknuli na žigove koji uključuju predmetni element kako bi se dokazalo da taj element ima nisku razinu razlikovnosti.
When dealing with the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, the latter should always be considered to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness.
Prilikom razmatranja pitanja razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga u cjelini, za potonji bi se uvijek trebalo smatrati da ima barem minimalnu razinu svojstvene razlikovnosti.
Earlier marks, whether EUTMs or national marks, enjoy a ‘presumption of validity'.
Raniji žigovi, bez obzira je li riječ o žigovima EU-a ili nacionalnim žigovima, uživaju „pretpostavku valjanosti”.