natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2. Where the degree of similarity between the signs at issue is high. 
kada je razina sličnosti između predmetnih znakova visoka.
The more similar the marks are, the more likely it is that the later mark will bring the earlier mark with a reputation to the mind of the relevant public (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44). 
Što su žigovi sličniji, to je vjerojatnije da će se na temelju kasnijeg žiga relevantna javnosti prisjetiti ranijeg žiga s ugledom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44);
3. Where there is a special connection between the goods/services, which allows for some of the qualities of the opponent's goods/services to be attributed to those of the applicant. 
kada postoji posebna veza između proizvoda/usluga koja omogućuje da neke od kvaliteta proizvoda/usluga podnositelja prigovora budu pripisane onima podnositelja prijave.
Similarly, the Court has held that certain drinks (Classes 32 and 33) commercialised as improving sexual performance were linked to the properties of the goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and veterinary products and substances) for which the earlier mark, Viagra, was registered (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74). 
Slično tomu, Sud smatra da su određena pića (iz razreda 32. i 33.) koja se prodaju kao pića koja poboljšavaju seksualnu izvedbu bila povezana s obilježjima proizvoda iz razreda 5. (farmaceutski i veterinarski proizvodi i tvari) za koje je registriran raniji znak „Viagra” (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Conversely, such a link was not found between credit card services and cosmetics, as it was thought that the image of the former is not transferable to the latter, even though their respective users largely coincide. 
S druge strane, takva veza nije pronađena između usluga kreditnih kartica i kozmetičkih proizvoda jer se smatralo da se imidž kreditnih kartica ne može prenijeti na kozmetičke proizvode iako su njihovi korisnici uglavnom isti;
4. Where, in view of its special attractiveness and prestige, the earlier mark may be exploited even outside its natural market sector, for example, by licensing or merchandising. 
kada se, zbog njegove posebne privlačnosti i prestiža, raniji žig može iskorištavati i izvan svojeg prirodnog tržišnog sektora, primjerice licenciranjem ili prodajom.
In this case, if the applicant uses a sign that is identical or similar to the earlier mark for goods for which the latter is already exploited, it will obviously profit from its de facto value in that sector (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER). 
U tom slučaju, ako podnositelj prijave upotrebljava znak koji je istovjetan s ranijim žigom ili njemu sličan za proizvode za koje se taj žig već iskorištava, očito je da će ostvariti korist od njegove de facto vrijednosti u tom sektoru (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
The applicant's intention is not a material factor. 
Namjera podnositelja prijave nije materijalni čimbenik.
Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or repute of a trade mark may be a deliberate decision, for example where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark, or an attempt to trade upon the reputation of a famous mark. 
Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda žiga može biti namjerna odluka, primjerice kada postoji jasno iskorištavanje i ubacivanje u područje djelovanja poznatog žiga ili pokušaj trgovanja ugledom poznatog žiga.
However, taking unfair advantage does not necessarily require a deliberate intention to exploit the goodwill attached to someone else's trade mark. 
Međutim, nepošteno iskorištavanje ne zahtijeva nužno smišljenu namjeru iskorištavanja dobrog ugleda povezanog s nečijim žigom.
The concept of taking unfair advantage ‘concerns the risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with a reputation' (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46). 
Pojam nepoštenog iskorištavanja „odnosi se na rizik da imidž žiga s ugledom ili obilježja koja on projicira budu prenesena na proizvode obuhvaćene žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, čime se olakšava oglašavanje tih proizvoda zbog njihove asocijacije s ranijim žigom s ugledom” (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
However, where the evidence shows that the applicant is clearly acting in bad faith, there will be a strong indication of unfair advantage. 
Ipak, kada dokazi pokazuju da je podnositelj prijave jasno postupao u zloj vjeri, to će biti snažan pokazatelj nepoštenog iskorištavanja.
The existence of bad faith may be inferred from various factors, such as an obvious attempt by the applicant to imitate an earlier sign of great distinctiveness as closely as possible, or where there is no apparent reason why it chose for its goods a mark that includes such a sign. 
O postojanju zle vjere može se zaključiti na temelju niza čimbenika kao što je očiti pokušaj podnositelja prijave da što više imitira raniji znak snažne razlikovnosti ili kada ne postoji očiti razlog zbog kojeg je za svoje proizvode odabrao žig koji obuhvaća takav znak.
Accordingly, advantage taken by a third party of the distinctive character or repute of the mark may be unfair even if the use of the identical or similar sign is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor. 
Shodno tomu, iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda žiga za koje je odgovorna treća strana može biti nepošteno, čak i ako se uporabom istovjetnog ili sličnog znaka ne šteti razlikovnom karakteru ili ugledu žiga ili, općenitije, njegovu nositelju.
It is, therefore, not necessary for the opponent to show that the applicant's benefit is detrimental to its economic interests or to the image of its mark (unlike with tarnishing, see below), as in most cases the ‘borrowed' distinctiveness/prestige of the sign will principally affect the applicant's competitors, that is, traders dealing in identical/similar/neighbouring markets, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage. 
Stoga podnositelj prigovora ne treba dokazati da je korist podnositelja prijave štetna za njegov gospodarski interes ili za imidž njegova žiga (za razliku od okaljanja, pogledajte u nastavku) jer će u većini slučajeva „posuđena” razlikovnost/prestiž znaka ponajprije utjecati na konkurenciju podnositelja prigovora, odnosno trgovce koji djeluju na istovjetnom/sličnom/susjednom tržištu jer će ih se time dovesti u nepovoljan položaj.
However, the possibility of simultaneous detriment to the opponent's interests should not be ruled out completely, especially in instances where use of the sign applied for could affect the opponent's merchandising schemes, or would hinder its plans to penetrate a new market sector. 
Međutim, mogućnost istodobnog nanošenja štete interesima podnositelja prigovora ne smije se u potpunosti isključiti, posebno u slučajevima u kojima uporaba znaka za koji je podnesena prijava može utjecati na plan prodaje podnositelja prigovora ili se njome mogu omesti njegovi planovi prodiranja u novi tržišni sektor.
Cases on unfair advantage 
Slučajevi nepoštenog iskorištavanja
Risk of unfair advantage established 
Utvrđen rizik od nepoštenog iskorištavanja
Risk of unfair advantage denied 
Odbijen rizik od nepoštenog iskorištavanja
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness 
Šteta razlikovnosti
Article 8(5) EUTMR states that a proprietor of a reputed mark may oppose EUTM applications that, without due cause, would be detrimental to the distinctive character of earlier reputed marks. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a navodi se da se nositelj žiga s ugledom može usprotiviti prijavama za žig EU-a kojima bi se, bez opravdanog razloga, naštetilo razlikovnom karakteru ranijih žigova s ugledom.
Clearly, therefore, the object of protection is the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark. 
Stoga je jasno da je predmet zaštite razlikovnost ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
For example, if Rolls Royce were used on restaurants, pants, candy, plastic pens, yard brushes, etc., its distinctiveness would eventually be dispersed and its special hold upon the public would be reduced - even in relation to cars, for which it is reputed. 
Primjerice, ako se žig „Rolls Royce” upotrebljava za restorane, hlače, slatkiše, plastične kemijske olovke, dvorišne metle itd., njegova će se razlikovnost u konačnici raspršiti, a njegov poseban utjecaj na svijest javnosti smanjiti, čak i u pogledu automobila za koje ima ugled.
Consequently, the Rolls Royce mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor would be weakened in the sense that consumers of the goods for which the reputed mark is protected and reputed will be less inclined to associate it immediately with the owner that has built up the trade mark's reputation. 
Zbog toga, sposobnost žiga „Rolls Royce” da se njime utvrde proizvodi/usluge za koje je registriran i za koje se upotrebljava kao oznaka da potječe od svoga nositelja bila bi oslabljena u smislu da bi potrošači proizvoda za koje je žig s ugledom zaštićen i poznat bili manje skloni neposredno ga povezati s nositeljem koji je izgradio ugled žiga.
This is because, for those consumers, the mark now has several or many ‘other' associations, where it previously had only one. 
To je zbog toga što za te potrošače žig sada ima nekoliko ili mnogo „drugih” asocijacija, a prethodno je imao samo jednu.
Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier reputed mark must be assessed by reference to the average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35). 
Šteta za razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga s ugledom mora se procijeniti u odnosu na prosječne potrošače proizvoda i usluga za koje je taj žig registriran, a koji su razumno dobro informirani te razumno pažljivi i obazrivi (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
The assessment of detriment to distinctiveness 
Procjena štete za razlikovnost
Detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark occurs where use of a later similar mark reduces the distinctive quality of the earlier reputed mark. 
Šteta za razlikovnost ranijeg žiga s ugledom nastaje kada se uporabom kasnijeg sličnog žiga smanji razlikovna kvaliteta ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
However, this cannot be found to occur merely because the earlier mark has a reputation and is identical with or similar to the mark applied for - such an approach would apply an automatic and indiscriminate finding of likelihood of dilution against all marks that are similar to reputed trade marks and would negate the requirement of proving detriment. 
Međutim, to se ne može dogoditi samo zato što raniji žig ima ugled i istovjetan je sa žigom za koji je podnesena prijava, ili njemu sličan; u okviru takvog pristupa primijenio bi se automatski i sveobuhvatni nalaz o vjerojatnosti razblaživanja za sve žigove koji su slični žigovima s ugledom te bi se negirao uvjet dokazivanja štetnosti.
The Court has further elaborated on the concept of ‘change in the economic behaviour of the average consumers' in its judgment of 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741. 
Sud je pobliže pojasnio pojam „promjena gospodarskog ponašanja prosječnih potrošača” u svojoj presudi od 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
It indicated that it is an autonomous objective condition, which cannot be deduced solely from subjective elements such as how consumers perceive the dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity. 
Istaknuo je da je riječ o autonomnom objektivnom uvjetu o kojem se ne može zaključiti samo na temelju subjektivnih elemenata kao što je način na koji potrošači shvaćaju raspršivanje imidža i istovjetnosti žiga s ugledom.
The mere fact that consumers note the presence of a new similar sign that is likely to undermine the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods for which it is registered as coming from the mark's proprietor, is not sufficient by itself to establish the existence of detriment or a risk of detriment to the distinctive character of the reputed mark (paras 35 to 40). 
Činjenica da potrošači zamjećuju novi slični znak kojim će se vjerojatno narušiti sposobnost ranijeg žiga da se njime proizvodi za koje je registriran povežu s nositeljem žiga nije sama po sebi dovoljna kako bi se utvrdilo postojanje štete ili rizika od štete za razlikovni karakter žiga s ugledom (t. 35. - 40.).
The Court insists on a ‘higher standard' for establishing dilution. 
Sud inzistira na „normi više razine” kako bi se utvrdilo razblaživanje.
The following two autonomous conditions must be substantiated by the opponent and reasoned by the Office. 
Sljedeća dva autonomna uvjeta mora potkrijepiti podnositelj prigovora, a obrazložiti Ured.
Dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity in the relevant public's perception (subjective condition). 
Raspršivanje imidža i istovjetnosti žiga s ugledom prema predodžbi relevantne javnosti (subjektivni uvjet).
A change in the economic behaviour of this public (objective condition). 
Promjena gospodarskog ponašanja te javnosti (objektivni uvjet).
Whilst the opponent does not need to submit evidence of actual detriment, it must convince the Office by adducing evidence of a serious future risk - which is not merely hypothetical - of detriment. 
Iako podnositelj prigovora ne treba podnijeti dokaze o stvarnoj šteti, mora uvjeriti Ured iznošenjem dokaza u pogledu ozbiljnog budućeg rizika od štete, koji nije samo hipotetski.
The opponent may do this by submitting evidence that proves a likelihood of detriment on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities (and not mere suppositions), and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, as cited in 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; confirmed 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
Podnositelj prigovora to može učiniti tako da dostavi dokaze kojima upućuje na vjerojatnost štete na temelju logičkih zaključaka donesenih analizom vjerojatnosti (a ne samo pretpostavki) i tako da uzme u obzir uobičajenu praksu u relevantnom trgovačkom sektoru te sve ostale okolnosti predmeta (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, kako se citira u predmetu 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; potvrđeno 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
First use 
Prva uporaba
Detriment to distinctive character is characterised by an ‘avalanche effect', meaning that the first use of a similar mark in a distinct market may not, in itself, dilute the identity or ‘uniqueness' of the reputed mark but, over time, this would be the result, because this first use may trigger further acts of use by different operators, thus leading to its dilution or detriment to its distinctive character. 
Štetu za razlikovni karakter obilježava „učinak lavine”, što znači da se prvom uporabom sličnog žiga na različitom tržištu samom po sebi ne mora razblažiti istovjetnost ili „jedinstvenost” žiga s ugledom, ali će s vremenom do toga doći jer se prvom uporabom može potaknuti njegova daljnja uporaba među različitim subjektima, što može dovesti do njegova razblaživanja ili štete za njegov razlikovni karakter.
The Court has held that the first use of an identical or similar mark may suffice, in some circumstances, to cause actual and present detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark or to give rise to a serious likelihood that such detriment will occur in the future (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75). 
Sud je utvrdio da prva uporaba istovjetnog ili sličnog žiga u određenim okolnostima može biti dovoljna da se njome prouzroči stvarna i trenutačna šteta za razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga ili potakne ozbiljna vjerojatnost da će do takve štete doći u budućnosti (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 75).
In opposition proceedings before the Office, use of the contested sign may not have occurred at all. 
U postupcima prigovora pred Uredom do uporabe osporavanog znaka možda nije ni došlo.
In this regard, the Office takes into account that future use of the contested sign, even if it were first use, may trigger further acts of use by different operators, under particular circumstances that are to be provided by the opponent, therefore leading to dilution by blurring. 
U tom smislu Ured uzima u obzir činjenicu da bi se budućom uporabom osporavanog znaka, čak i ako bi to bila prva uporaba, različite gospodarske subjekte u određenim okolnostima koje treba dokazati podnositelj prigovora potaknulo na daljnju uporabu, što bi dovelo do razblaživanja zamagljivanjem.
Nevertheless, as set out above, the opponent bears the burden of showing that actual or future use causes, or is likely to cause, detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark. 
Bez obzira na to, kao što je prethodno navedeno, podnositelj prigovora dužan je dokazati da se stvarnom ili budućom uporabom prouzročilo, ili će se vjerojatno prouzročiti, šteta razlikovnom karakteru ranijeg žiga s ugledom.
Inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
Svojstvena razlikovnost ranijeg žiga
The Court has stated that ‘the more “unique” the earlier mark appears, the greater the likelihood that the use of a later identical or similar mark will be detrimental to its distinctive character' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458). 
Sud je utvrdio da „što se raniji žig čini „jedinstvenijim”, to je veća vjerojatnost da će se uporabom kasnijeg istovjetnog ili sličnog žiga naštetiti njegovu razlikovnom karakteru” (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 74; 28/10/2010, T131/09, Botumax, EU:T:2010:458).
Indeed, the earlier mark must possess an exclusive character in the sense that it should be associated by the consumers with a single source of origin - since it is only in this case that a likelihood of detriment to distinctiveness may be envisaged. 
Zaista, raniji žig mora imati ekskluzivni karakter u smislu da bi ga potrošači trebali povezivati s jednim podrijetlom, jer se samo u tom slučaju vjerojatnost nanošenja štete razlikovnosti može predvidjeti.
If the same sign, or a variation thereof, is already in use in connection with a range of different goods, there can be no immediate link with any of the goods it distinguishes and, thus, there will be little or no room for further dilution. 
Ako je isti znak, ili njegova varijanta, već u uporabi u vezi s nizom različitih proizvoda, ne može postojati izravna veza ni s jednim od proizvoda koje on označava te bi stoga ostalo malo ili nimalo prostora za daljnje razblaživanje.
Accordingly, ‘… the risk of dilution appears, in principle, to be lower if the earlier mark consists of a term which, because of a meaning inherent in it, is very common and frequently used, irrespective of the earlier mark consisting of the term at issue. 
U skladu s time „[…] rizik od razblaživanja u načelu je manji ako se raniji žig sastoji od pojma koji je zbog svojeg svojstvenog značenja vrlo uobičajen i često se upotrebljava, bez obzira na to sastoji li se raniji žig od predmetnog pojma.
In such a case, reuse of the term in question by the mark applied for is less likely to result in a dilution of the earlier mark' (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38). 
U tom je slučaju manje vjerojatno da će se ponovnom uporabom predmetnog pojma u osporavanom žigu razblažiti raniji žig” (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 38).
If, therefore, the mark is suggestive of a characteristic shared by a wide range of goods, the consumer is more likely to associate it with the specific feature of the product that it alludes to rather than with another mark. 
Stoga, ako se žigom upućuje na obilježje koje dijeli niz proizvoda, potrošač će ga prije povezati s posebnom značajkom proizvoda na koji se njime upućuje, a ne s drugim žigom.
Thus, if the applicant shows that the earlier sign or the element that gives rise to similarity is commonplace and is already used by different undertakings in various sectors of the market, it may successfully refute the existence of a likelihood of dilution, because it will be difficult to accept that the attractiveness of the earlier mark risks being diluted if it is not particularly unique. 
Zbog toga, ako podnositelj prijave dokaže da je raniji znak ili element kojim se potiče sličnost uobičajen te se već upotrebljava u različitim poduzećima u raznim sektorima tržišta, može uspješno opovrgnuti postojanje vjerojatnosti razblaživanja jer će biti teško prihvatiti da je privlačnost ranijeg žiga izložena riziku od razblaživanja ako nije osobito jedinstvena.
Cases on dilution by blurring 
Slučajevi razblaživanja zamagljivanjem
Dilution established 
Utvrđeno razblaživanje
Dilution denied 
Odbijeno razblaživanje
3.4.3.3 Detriment to repute 
Šteta ugledu
It can be seen as a step beyond blurring in that the mark is not merely weakened but actually degraded by the link that the public makes with the later mark. 
To se može smatrati korakom dalje od zamagljivanja u smislu da žig nije samo oslabljen, već je i narušen vezom koju javnost uspostavlja s kasnijim žigom.
Detriment to repute, also often referred to as ‘dilution by tarnishing' or simply as ‘tarnishing', relates to situations where use of the contested mark without due cause is likely to devalue the image or the prestige that a mark with reputation has acquired among the public. 
Šteta za ugled koja se često naziva i „razblaživanje okaljanjem” ili samo „okaljanje” odnosi se na situacije u kojima postoji vjerojatnost da će se uporabom osporavanog žiga bez opravdanog razloga obezvrijediti imidž ili prestiž koji je taj žig s ugledom stekao u javnosti.
The reputation of the earlier trade mark may be tainted or debased in this way, either when it is reproduced in an obscene, degrading or inappropriate context, or in a context that is not inherently unpleasant but that proves to be incompatible with a particular image the earlier trade mark has acquired in the eyes of the public due to the promotional efforts of its owner. 
Na taj način ugled ranijeg žiga može biti okaljan ili narušen, bilo da se reproducira u opscenom, omalovažavajućem ili neprikladnom kontekstu, ili u kontekstu koji nije sam po sebi nelagodan, ali koji nije u skladu s određenim imidžom koji je raniji žig stekao u očima javnosti zbog promidžbenih napora njegova nositelja.
The likelihood of such detriment may arise in particular from the fact that the goods or services offered by the third party possess a characteristic or a quality that is liable to have a negative impact on the image of the mark (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40). 
Vjerojatnost takve štete može proizlaziti iz činjenice da proizvodi ili usluge koje pruža treća strana sadržavaju obilježje ili kvalitetu koja može negativno utjecati na imidž žiga (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 40).
For example, if a reputed mark for gin were used by a third party on liquid detergent, this would reverberate negatively on the reputed mark in a way that makes it less attractive. 
Primjerice, ako žig s ugledom za džin treća strana upotrebljava na tekućim deterdžentima, to će se negativno odraziti na žig s ugledom na način da će ga učiniti manje privlačnim.