natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In short, tarnishment occurs where there is an association between the earlier reputed mark, at the level of either the signs or the goods, that is injurious to the earlier trade mark's repute. 
Ukratko, do okaljanja dolazi kada postoji asocijacija između ranijeg žiga s ugledom, na razini znakova ili na razini proizvoda, koja je uvredljiva za ugled ranijeg žiga.
As with dilution by blurring, detriment to the reputation of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to 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; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35). 
Kao što je slučaj i s razblaživanjem zamagljivanjem, šteta za ugled ranijeg žiga mora se procijeniti upućivanjem 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; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of tarnishment 
Procjena okaljanja
In order to establish detriment to the repute of an earlier mark, the mere existence of a connection in the mind of the consumer between the marks is neither sufficient nor determinative. 
Kako bi se utvrdila šteta ugledu ranijeg žiga, samo postojanje veze između žigova u svijesti potrošača nije ni dovoljno ni odlučujuće.
Such a connection must certainly exist, but, in addition, either the signs or the goods/services covered by the later mark must provoke a negative or detrimental impact when associated with the reputed mark. 
Takva veza mora postojati, ali, osim toga, znakovi ili proizvodi/usluge obuhvaćeni kasnijim žigom moraju prouzročiti negativan ili štetan učinak kada ih se povezuje sa žigom s ugledom.
For example, if a mark that is associated in the minds of the public with an image of health, dynamism and youth is used for tobacco products, the negative connotation conveyed by the latter would contrast strikingly with the image of the former (see further examples below). 
Primjerice, ako se žig koji je u svijesti javnosti povezan s imidžom zdravlja, dinamičnosti i mladosti upotrebljava za duhanske proizvode, negativna konotacija koju imaju ti proizvodi bit će u velikoj suprotnosti s prethodno navedenim imidžom (pogledajte dodatne primjere u nastavku).
For tarnishment to occur, therefore, the goods/services on which the contested mark is used must have characteristics or qualities that are potentially detrimental to the reputation of the earlier mark (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 67). 
Stoga, da bi došlo do okaljanja, proizvodi/usluge na kojima se upotrebljava osporavani žig moraju imati obilježja ili kvalitete kojima se može naštetiti ugledu ranijeg žiga (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 67).
Frequently, opponents argue that the applicant's goods/services are of inferior quality or that the opponent cannot control the quality of such goods/services. 
Podnositelji prigovora često tvrde da su proizvodi/usluge podnositelja prijave lošije kvalitete ili da podnositelj prigovora ne može nadzirati kvalitetu takvih proizvoda/usluga.
The Office does not accept such an argument, per se, as a means of demonstrating detriment. 
Ured takav argument sam po sebi ne prihvaća kao način dokazivanja štete.
Proceedings before the Office do not provide for assessing the quality of goods and services, which, apart from being highly subjective, would not be feasible in cases where the goods and services are not identical or in situations where the contested sign has not yet been put to use. 
U postupcima pred Uredom ne izvršavaju se procjene kvalitete proizvoda i usluga koje, osim što su vrlo subjektivne, ne bi bile izvedive u slučajevima u kojima proizvodi i usluge nisu istovjetni ili u situacijama u kojima osporavani znak još nije stavljen u uporabu.
Therefore, when assessing whether use of the contested trade mark is likely to damage the reputation of an earlier trade mark, the Office can only consider the goods and services as indicated in the specification of each trade mark. 
Stoga, prilikom procjene može li se uporabom osporavanog žiga nanijeti šteta ugledu ranijeg žiga Ured može samo razmatrati proizvode i usluge navedene u specifikacijama svakoga žiga.
Consequently, for the purposes of the Office's analysis, the harmful effects of use of the contested sign in connection with the goods and services applied for must derive from the nature and usual characteristics of the goods at issue in general, not their quality in particular instances. 
Shodno tomu, u svrhu analize koju provodi Ured, štetni učinci uporabe osporavanog znaka u kombinaciji s proizvodima i uslugama za koje je podnesena prijava moraju općenito proizlaziti iz prirode i uobičajenih obilježja predmetnih proizvoda, a ne njihove kvalitete u određenim slučajevima.
This approach does not leave the opponent without protection, because, where a later mark is used on low-quality goods/services in a manner that calls to mind an earlier reputed mark, this would in any case normally take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark or be detrimental to its distinctiveness. 
Taj pristup ne podrazumijeva da će podnositelj prigovora ostati bez zaštite jer kada se kasniji žig upotrebljava za proizvode/usluge lošije kvalitete na način kojim se u svijest priziva neki raniji žig s ugledom, time bi se u svakom slučaju nepošteno iskorištavali razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili bi se štetilo njegovoj razlikovnosti.
Cases on dilution by tarnishing 
Slučajevi razblaživanja okaljanjem
Tarnishment established 
Utvrđeno okaljanje
Tarnishment denied 
Odbijeno okaljanje
3.4.4 Proving the risk of injury 
Dokaz rizika od povrede
3.4.4.1 Standard and burden of proof 
Norma i teret dokaza
In opposition proceedings actual detriment or unfair advantage will occur only exceptionally, since in most cases the applicant will not have effectively used its mark when the dispute arises. 
U postupcima prigovora stvarna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje nastaju samo u iznimnim slučajevima jer u većini slučajeva podnositelj prijave nije učinkovito upotrebljavao svoj žig u vrijeme nastanka spora.
Nevertheless, such a possibility should not be ruled out completely and if there is evidence of actual use or damage, it will have to be considered and given appropriate weight. 
Bez obzira na to, takvu mogućnost ne treba u potpunosti isključiti te će je, ako postoje dokazi stvarne uporabe ili štete, trebati razmotriti i odvagnuti.
The risk of detriment or unfair advantage must be serious, in the sense that it is foreseeable (i.e. not merely hypothetical) in the ordinary course of events. 
Rizik od štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja mora biti ozbiljan, u smislu da se može predvidjeti (odnosno da nije samo teorijski) u uobičajenom tijeku događaja.
Therefore, it is not enough to merely show that detriment or unfair advantage cannot be excluded in general, or that it is only remotely possible. 
Stoga nije dovoljno samo pokazati da se šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje ne mogu općenito isključiti ili da su mogući samo izdaleka.
The proprietor of the earlier mark must adduce prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage or of detriment (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53). 
Nositelj ranijeg žiga mora iznijeti dokaze prima facie o budućem riziku, koji nije hipotetski, od nepoštenog iskorištavanja ili štete (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53).
As explained below, it is insufficient for the opponent only to refer in general terms to unfair advantage being taken of, or to detriment to, the distinctive character or reputation of its earlier marks without submitting convincing evidence of actual detriment or cogent arguments establishing a serious, not merely hypothetical, potential risk of detriment. 
Kao što je objašnjeno u nastavku, nije dovoljno da podnositelj prigovora samo općenito uputi na nepošteno iskorištavanje ili štetu u pogledu razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda svojih ranijih žigova bez podnošenja uvjerljivih dokaza o stvarnoj šteti ili odlučnih argumenata kojima se utvrđuje ozbiljan, ne samo hipotetski, potencijalni rizik od nanošenja štete.
As a rule, general allegations (such as merely citing the relevant EUTMR wording) of detriment or unfair advantage will not be sufficient in themselves for proving potential detriment or unfair advantage: the opponent must adduce evidence and/or develop a cogent line of argument to demonstrate specifically how the alleged injury might occur, taking into account both marks, the goods and services in question and all the relevant circumstances. 
U pravilu opći navodi (kao što su navodi u kojima se samo citira relevantni tekst Uredbe o žigu EU-a) o šteti ili nepoštenom iskorištavanju sami po sebi neće biti dovoljni kako bi se dokazala potencijalna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje: podnositelj prigovora mora iznijeti dokaze i/ili razviti uvjerljivu argumentaciju kako bi posebno dokazao način na koji, uzimajući u obzir oba žiga, predmetne proizvode i usluge te sve relevantne okolnosti, može doći do navodne povrede.
Merely showing the reputation and good image of the earlier marks, without further substantiation by way of evidence and/or reasoning is not sufficient (15/02/2012, R 2559/20101, GALLO / GALLO (fig.) et al., § 38-39, and the Court case-law cited therein). 
Samo upućivanje na ugled i dobar imidž ranijih žigova, bez njihova dodatnog potkrjepljivanja dokazima i/ili obrazloženjima, nije dovoljno (15/02/2012, R 2559/20101, GALLO / GALLO (fig.) et al., § 38-39 i citirana sudska praksa).
This is shown in the following paragraphs. 
To je prikazano u sljedećim odlomcima.
The precise threshold of proof that must be satisfied to show that the risk of potential detriment or unfair advantage is serious and not merely hypothetical will be determined case by case, following the criteria indicated below. 
Precizan prag dokazivanja koji se mora zadovoljiti da bi se pokazalo da je rizik od potencijalne štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja ozbiljan, a ne samo hipotetski, utvrdit će se ovisno o slučaju, na temelju kriterija navedenih u nastavku.
Moreover, Article 7(2)(f) EUTMDR requires the opponent to submit evidence or arguments showing that use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. 
Osim toga, člankom 7. stavkom 2. točkom (f) Delegirane uredbe o žigu EU-a zahtijeva se da podnositelj prigovora podnese dokaze ili argumente koji pokazuju da bi se uporabom bez opravdanog razloga žiga za koji je podnesena prijava nepošteno iskoristili razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili bi im se naštetilo.
Therefore, within the period for completing the substantiation of the opposition, the opponent bears the burden of showing that actual or future use of the mark applied for has caused, or is likely to cause, detriment to the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier mark, or that themark applied for has taken, or is likely to take, unfair advantage of the earlier mark. 
Stoga, u roku za dovršetak potkrjepljivanja prigovora, podnositelj prigovora snosi teret dokazivanja da se stvarnom ili budućom uporabom žiga za koji je podnesena prijava prouzročila, ili će se vjerojatno prouzročiti, šteta razlikovnom karakteru ili ugledu ranijeg žiga, ili da ga se nepošteno iskoristilo ili će se vjerojatno nepošteno iskoristiti.
In discharging this burden of proof, the opponent cannot merely contend that detriment or unfair advantage would be a necessary consequence flowing automatically from use of the sign applied for, owing to the strong reputation of the earlier mark. 
Prilikom iznošenja tih dokaza podnositelj prigovora ne može samo tvrditi da bi šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje trebali biti nužna posljedica koja automatski proizlazi iz uporabe znaka za koji je podnesena prijava, a zbog snažnog ugleda ranijeg žiga.
Even where the earlier mark is highly reputed, unfair advantage or detriment must be properly proved and/or argued, taking into account both marks and the relevant goods and services, since, otherwise, marks with reputation would enjoy blanket protection against identical or similar signs for virtually any kind of product. 
Čak i kada je raniji žig vrlo ugledan, nepošteno iskorištavanje ili šteta moraju se propisno dokazati i/ili argumentirati uzimajući u obzir oba žiga i relevantne proizvode i usluge, jer bi u protivnom žigovi s ugledom imali opću zaštitu za istovjetne ili slične znakove za gotovo bilo koju vrstu proizvoda.
Therefore, where the opponent claims actual detriment or unfair advantage, it must submit indications and evidence of the kind of detriment suffered, or of the nature of the unfair advantage taken by the applicant. 
Stoga, kada podnositelj prigovora prijavljuje stvarnu štetu ili nepošteno iskorištavanje, mora podnijeti pokazatelje i dokaze vrste nanesene štete ili prirode nepoštenog iskorištavanja za koje je odgovoran podnositelj prijave.
The opponent must also show that this resulted from use of the sign applied for. 
Podnositelj prigovora mora također pokazati da je to rezultat uporabe znaka za koji je podnesena prijava.
In doing so, the opponent may rely on a variety of indications, depending on the kind of detriment or unfair advantage pleaded, such as a considerable decrease in sales of the goods bearing the mark, or a loss of clientele, or a decline of the degree of recognition of the earlier mark among the public. 
U tome se podnositelj prigovora može osloniti na niz pokazatelja, ovisno o vrsti štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja o kojima se izjasnio, kao što je znatan pad prodaje proizvoda koji nose taj žig ili gubitak klijenata ili smanjena razina prepoznatljivosti ranijeg žiga u javnosti.
However, in the case of potential detriment or unfair advantage, the exercise will necessarily be more abstract, as the detriment or unfair advantage in question has to be evaluated ex ante. 
Međutim, u slučaju potencijalne štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja ovaj će zadatak nužno biti apstraktniji jer se predmetna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje trebaju procijeniti ex ante.
To that end, the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark. 
U tu svrhu nositelj ranijeg žiga ne mora dokazati stvarnu ili trenutačnu štetu za svoj žig.
When it is foreseeable that such injury would ensue from the use that might be made of the EUTM application, the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to wait for it actually to occur in order to be able to prohibit registration of the EUTM application. 
Kada se može predvidjeti da će takva šteta proizaći iz potencijalne uporabe žiga EU-a za koji je podnesena prijava, nositelj ranijeg žiga nije dužan čekati da se ona doista dogodi kako bi mogao zabraniti registraciju žiga EU-a.
The proprietor of the earlier mark must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 38; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 33; 29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 61 (appeal dismissed 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300); 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 25). 
Ipak, nositelj ranijeg žiga mora dokazati da postoji ozbiljan rizik da će do takve povrede doći u budućnosti (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 38; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 33; 29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 61 (žalba odbačena u predmetu od 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300); 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 25).
Such a finding may be established, in particular, on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 54, upheld on appeal 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; 16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
Takav nalaz može se utvrditi, konkretno, na temelju logičkih zaključaka donesenih analizom vjerojatnosti i uzimajući u obzir uobičajenu praksu u relevantnom trgovačkom sektoru te sve ostale okolnosti predmeta (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 54, potvrđeno u žalbenom postupku od 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; 16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
However, considering that in such cases what has to be proved is the likelihood of a future event and that, by definition, the opponent's arguments cannot in themselves amount to evidence, it will often be necessary to base certain conclusions on legal presumptions, that is, on logical assumptions or deductions resulting from the application of the rules of probability to the facts of the specific case. 
Međutim, uzimajući u obzir da je u takvim slučajevima činjenica koja se mora dokazati vjerojatnost nekog budućeg događaja te da, prema definiciji, argumenti podnositelja prigovora ne mogu sami po sebi činiti dokaz, često će biti nužno temeljiti određene zaključke na pravnim pretpostavkama, odnosno na logičkim pretpostavkama ili zaključcima koji proizlaze iz primjene pravila vjerojatnosti na činjenice određenog slučaja.
One such presumption was mentioned by the Court, when it stated that ‘the stronger the earlier mark's distinctive character and reputation the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30). 
Jednu je takvu pretpostavku Sud spomenuo kada je naveo da „što su jači razlikovni karakter i ugled ranijeg žiga, lakše će biti prihvatiti da mu je nanesena šteta” (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
It is also clear from case-law that the more immediately and strongly the mark is brought to mind by the sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign takes, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 54; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 44; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69). 
Iz sudske je prakse također jasno da što se neposrednije i snažnije potrošač može prisjetiti žiga na temelju znaka, veća je vjerojatnost da se trenutačnom ili budućom uporabom znaka nepošteno iskorištava, ili će se iskorištavati, razlikovni karakter ili ugled žiga ili im se nanosi, ili će im se nanositi, šteta (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 54; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 44; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69).
These are rebuttable presumptions, which the applicant may contest and disprove by submitting appropriate evidence; they are not conclusive. 
Te su pretpostavke oborive pretpostavke koje podnositelj prijave može osporiti i pobiti podnošenjem odgovarajućih dokaza; to nisu konačne pretpostavke.
In addition, if the type of detriment or unfair advantage argued in the specific case is of such a nature to presuppose the fulfilment of certain particular conditions of fact (e.g. exclusive character of the earlier mark, qualitative aspects of reputation, a given image, etc.), these facts will also have to be proven by the opponent by submitting appropriate evidence. 
Osim toga, ako je vrsta štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja o kojoj se raspravlja u određenom slučaju takve prirode da se njome pretpostavlja ispunjavanje određenih uvjeta u pogledu činjenica (npr. ekskluzivni karakter ranijeg žiga, kvalitativni aspekti ugleda, određeni imidž itd.), podnositelj prigovora i te činjenice mora dokazati i podnijeti odgovarajuće dokaze.
Finally, as noted by the Court in its judgment of 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 57, 58, although likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue is not required to demonstrate that the later mark takes unfair advantage of the earlier mark, where such likelihood is established on the basis of facts, this will be taken as proof that unfair advantage has been taken or that, at least, there is a serious risk of such injury in the future. 
Naposljetku, kao što je Sud naveo u svojoj presudi od 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 57, 58, iako vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu u pogledu dvaju spornih žigova nije potrebna da bi se dokazalo da se kasnijim žigom nepošteno iskorištava raniji žig, kada se takva vjerojatnost utvrdi na temelju činjenica, uzet će se kao dokaz da je došlo do nepoštenog iskorištavanja ili da, u najmanju ruku, postoji ozbiljan rizik od takve povrede u budućnosti.
3.4.4.2 Means of evidence 
Dokazna sredstva
Where the opponent claims potential detriment or unfair advantage, it must prove any conditions of fact that might be necessary in particular cases for giving rise to a serious, non-hypothetical risk of detriment or unfair advantage, by submitting evidence of the kind mentioned in the paragraph below on proving actual detriment or unfair advantage. 
Kada podnositelj prigovora prijavljuje potencijalnu štetu ili nepošteno iskorištavanje, mora dokazati sve uvjete ili činjenice koji u određenim slučajevima mogu biti nužni kako bi nastao ozbiljan, nehipotetski rizik od štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja na način da podnese vrstu dokaza navedenu u odlomku u nastavku kojom upućuje na stvarnu štetu ili nepošteno iskorištavanje.
Conclusions as to the risk of future injury may also be established on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 82; 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
Zaključci u pogledu rizika od buduće povrede mogu se donijeti i na temelju logičkih zaključaka donesenih analizom vjerojatnosti i uzimajući u obzir uobičajenu praksu u relevantnom trgovačkom sektoru te sve ostale okolnosti predmeta (16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 82; 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
For example, it may prove an actual decrease of trade mark awareness by reference to opinion polls and other documentary evidence. 
Primjerice, može dokazati stvarno smanjenje razine svjesnosti o žigu upućivanjem na ispitivanja javnog mnijenja i ostale pisane dokaze.
3.5 Use without due cause 
Uporaba bez opravdanog razloga
However, if it is established that none of the three types of injury exists, the registration and use of the mark applied for cannot be prevented, as the existence or absence of due cause for use of the mark applied for is, in those circumstances, irrelevant (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51). 
Međutim, ako se utvrdi da ne postoji nijedna od tih triju vrsta povrede, registracija i uporaba žiga za koji je podnesena prijava ne može se spriječiti jer je postojanje ili odsutnost opravdanog razloga za uporabu žiga za koji je podnesena prijava, u tim okolnostima, nevažna (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51).
The existence of a cause justifying use of the trade mark applied for is a defence that the applicant may raise. 
Postojanje uzroka kojim se opravdava uporaba žiga za koji je podnesena prijava jest obrana koju podnositelj prijave može iznijeti.