natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
An assumption of a family of marks on the part of the public requires that the common denominator of the contested application and the earlier family of marks must have a distinctive character, either per se or acquired through use, to allow a direct association between all of these signs. 
Da bi javnost pretpostavila da postoji obitelj žigova, zajednički element osporavane prijave i ranije obitelji žigova mora imati razlikovni karakter, ili sam po sebi ili stečen uporabom, koji omogućuje izravno dovođenje u vezu svih tih znakova.
Likewise, there will be no assumption of a family of marks where the further components of the earlier signs have a greater impact in the overall impression of those signs. 
Isto tako, do pretpostavke o postojanju obitelji žigova ne dolazi se kada drugi elementi ranijih znakova imaju snažniji utjecaj na ukupni dojam tih znakova.
The finding that a particular mark forms part of a family of marks requires that the common component of the signs is identical or very similar. 
Da bi se došlo do zaključka da određeni žig pripada obitelji žigova, zajednički element znakova mora biti istovjetan ili vrlo sličan.
The signs must contain the same distinctive element, and this element must play an independent role in the sign as a whole. 
Znakovi moraju sadržavati isti razlikovni element, a taj element mora imati nezavisnu ulogu u znaku kao cjelini.
Minor graphical differences in the common component may not exclude an assumption of a series of marks, when these differences may be understood by the public to be a modern presentation of the same product line. 
Manje grafičke razlike u zajedničkom elementu ne moraju isključiti pretpostavku da postoji serija žigova ako javnost te razlike doživljava kao moderni prikaz iste linije proizvoda.
In contrast, letters that are different from or additional to the common component generally do not allow an assumption of a family of marks. 
Suprotno tomu, slova koja se razlikuju od zajedničkog elementa ili su njegov dodatak općenito ne dovode do pretpostavke o postojanju obitelji žigova.
Normally, the common element that characterises the family appears in the same position within the marks. 
U pravilu se zajednički element koji karakterizira obitelj pojavljuje u istom položaju na žigovima.
Therefore, the same (or very similar) element appearing in the same position in the contested sign will be a strong indicator that the later mark could be associated with the opponent's family of marks. 
Stoga je isti (ili vrlo sličan) element koji se pojavljuje u istom položaju na osporavanom znaku dobar pokazatelj da bi se kasniji žig mogao dovesti u vezu s obitelji žigova podnositelja prigovora.
However, the common element appearing in a different position in the contested sign weighs heavily against such an association being established in the consumers' minds. 
Međutim, zajednički element koji se pojavljuje u drukčijem položaju na osporavanom znaku dosta smanjuje vjerojatnost da će se predmetni žigovi dovesti u vezu u umovima potrošača.
For example, the contested sign ISENBECK is not likely to be associated with a family of BECK- marks where the element BECK is at the beginning of the signs making up the family. 
Primjerice, osporavani znak ISENBECK vrlo se vjerojatno neće dovoditi u vezu s obitelji žigova BECK- u kojima se element BECK nalazi na početku znakova koji čine obitelj.
Examples where the Boards considered that a family of marks had been established 
Primjeri u kojima su vijeća utvrdila da postoji obitelj žigova:
3 Coexistence of Conflicting Marks on the Market in the Same Territory 
Supostojanje žigova u sukobu na tržištu na istom području
The EUTM applicant may claim that the conflicting trade marks coexist in the relevant territory. 
Podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a može tvrditi da žigovi u sukobu supostoje na relevantnom području.
Usually the coexistence argument comes up when the applicant owns a national trade mark corresponding to the EUTM application in the territory where the opposing trade mark is protected. 
Argument o supostojanju u pravilu se javlja kada je podnositelj prijave nositelj nacionalnog žiga koji odgovara prijavi žiga EU-a na području na kojem je zaštićen žig protiv kojeg se podnosi prigovor.
The applicant may also refer to coexistence with a trade mark owned by a third party. 
Podnositelj prijave može se pozvati i na supostojanje žiga čiji je nositelj treća strana.
Therefore, two different situations, both referred to as ‘coexistence' by the parties, should be distinguished: 
Stoga treba razlikovati dvije različite situacije koje se nazivaju „supostojanje”:
coexistence between the two marks involved in the opposition can be persuasive of the absence of a likelihood of confusion in the relevant public's perception (see below); 
supostojanje dvaju žigova o kojima je riječ u prigovoru može biti uvjerljiv dokaz o tome da u percepciji relevantne javnosti ne postoji vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu (pogledajte u nastavku);
where many similar marks (other than the two marks involved in the opposition) are used by competitors, the coexistence may affect the scope of protection of the earlier right. 
kada konkurenti upotrebljavaju brojne slične žigove (izuzevši dva žiga koja su predmet prigovora), supostojanje može utjecati na opseg zaštite ranijeg prava.
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark. 
Pogledajte Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 2., Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, poglavlje 5., Razlikovnost ranijeg žiga.
3.1 Coexistence between the marks involved in the opposition 
Supostojanje žigova o kojima je riječ u prigovoru
In opposition proceedings, it is most commonly argued by the EUTM applicant that the conflicting marks coexist on a national level and that the coexistence is tolerated by the opponent. 
U postupku prigovora podnositelji prijave žiga EU-a često iznose argument da žigovi u sukobu supostoje na nacionalnoj razini i da podnositelj prigovora tolerira to supostojanje.
Occasionally, it is argued that coexistence is accepted by the parties in a coexistence agreement. 
Ponekad se tvrdi da obje strane prihvaćaju supostojanje u sporazumu o supostojanju.
The possibility cannot be ruled out that the coexistence of two marks on a particular market might, together with other elements, contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82). 
Ne može se isključiti mogućnost da bi supostojanje dvaju žigova na određenom tržištu moglo, zajedno s drugim elementima, pridonijeti umanjivanju vjerojatnosti dovođenja relevantne javnosti u zabludu u pogledu tih dvaju žigova (03/09/2009, C498/07P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82).
In certain cases, the coexistence of earlier marks in the market could reduce the likelihood of confusion that the Office finds between two conflicting marks (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86). 
U određenim slučajevima supostojanje ranijih žigova na tržištu može smanjiti vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu koju Ured utvrdi za dva žiga u sukobu (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86).
However, the indicative value of coexistence should be treated with caution. 
Međutim, indikativna vrijednost supostojanja trebala bi se uzimati u obzir s oprezom.
There might be different reasons why the two signs coexist on a national level, for example, a different legal or factual situation in the past or prior rights agreements between the parties involved. 
Mogu postojati drugi razlozi za supostojanje dvaju znakova na nacionalnoj razini, npr. različite pravne ili činjenične situacije u prošlosti ili prethodni sporazumi o pravima između uključenih strana.
Therefore, whilst the impact of coexistence on the finding of likelihood of confusion is accepted in theory, the conditions for this coexistence to be persuasive of the absence of a risk of confusion are, in practice, very difficult to establish and seldom prevail. 
Stoga je u praksi vrlo teško utvrditi uvjete u kojima bi to supostojanje bilo uvjerljiv dokaz o nepostojanju rizika od dovođenja u zabludu i ti uvjeti vrlo rijetko prevladaju, iako se u teoriji priznaje da supostojanje utječe na utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
For the EUTM applicant to prove that the coexistence was based upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, certain conditions must be met. 
Da bi podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a dokazao da se supostojanje temeljilo na nepostojanju bilo kakve vjerojatnosti dovođenja relevantne javnosti u zabludu, moraju se ispuniti određeni uvjeti.
Comparable situation. 
Usporediva situacija.
The earlier (‘coexisting') marks and the marks at issue are identical to those involved in the opposition before the Office (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) and cover the same goods or services as those in conflict (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14). 
Raniji („supostojeći”) žigovi i predmetni žigovi istovjetni su onima koji su predmet prigovora pred Uredom (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) i obuhvaćaju iste proizvode ili usluge kao žigovi u sukobu (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14).
The coexistence concerns the relevant countries in the case (e.g. alleged coexistence in Denmark is irrelevant when the opposition is based on a Spanish trade mark; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85). 
Supostojanje se odnosi na relevantne zemlje u predmetu (npr. navodno supostojanje u Danskoj nevažno je kada se prigovor temelji na španjolskom žigu; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85).
If the earlier trade mark is an EUTM, the EUTM applicant must show coexistence in the entire EU. 
Ako je kod ranijeg žiga riječ o žigu EU-a, podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a mora dokazati supostojanje na cijelom području EU-a.
Only coexistence in the marketplace can be taken into account. 
Može se uzeti u obzir samo supostojanje na tržištu.
The mere fact that both trade marks exist in the national register (formal coexistence) is insufficient. 
Sama činjenica da oba žiga postoje u nacionalnom registru (formalno supostojanje) nije dovoljna.
The EUTM applicant has to prove that the trade marks were actually used (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34). 
Podnositelj prijave žiga EU-a mora dokazati stvarnu uporabu žigova (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34).
Coexistence should be understood as ‘co-use' of concurrent and supposedly conflicting marks (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE. 
Supostojanje treba shvatiti kao „istodobnu uporabu” žigova koji istodobno postoje i navodno su u sukobu (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE.
The period of coexistence must be taken into consideration: in the judgment of 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, the alleged coexistence of only 4 months was considered obviously too short. 
Mora se uzeti u obzir razdoblje supostojanja: u presudi od 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, navodno supostojanje u trajanju od samo četiri mjeseca smatralo se prekratkim.
Moreover, the coexistence of the trade marks has to relate to a period close to the filing date of the EUTM application (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39). 
Nadalje, supostojanje žigova mora se odnositi na razdoblje blisko datumu podnošenja prijave žiga EU-a (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39).
The absence of a likelihood of confusion may be only inferred from the ‘peaceful' nature of the coexistence of the marks at issue on the market concerned (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64). 
Nepostojanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu može proizaći samo iz „mirnog” supostojanja predmetnih žigova na predmetnom tržištu (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64).
This is not the case when the conflict has been an issue before the national courts or administrative bodies (infringement cases, oppositions or applications for annulment of a trade mark). 
O tome nije riječ kada je sukob predmet pred nacionalnim sudovima ili administrativnim tijelima (predmeti povrede prava, prigovori ili zahtjevi za poništaj žiga).
Moreover, the peaceful coexistence of the trade marks in the relevant national market does not outweigh the likelihood of confusion if it is based on prior rights agreements between the parties, including agreements settling disputes before national courts, since these agreements, even if based on the assessment of the legal situation made by the parties, may have purely economic or strategic reasons. 
Štoviše, mirno supostojanje žigova na relevantnom nacionalnom tržištu ne prevladava nad vjerojatnošću dovođenja u zabludu ako se temelji na prethodnim sporazumima o pravima između stranaka, uključujući sporazume o rješavanju sporova pred nacionalnim sudovima, s obzirom na to da razlozi za takve sporazume, čak i ako se temelje na procjeni pravne situacije koju su provele stranke, mogu biti potpuno gospodarske ili strateške prirode.
However, exceptional situations are possible. 
Međutim, moguće su izvanredne situacije.
In its preliminary ruling of 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, the Court of Justice ruled that two identical trade marks designating identical goods can coexist on the market to the extent that there has been a long period of honest concurrent use of those trade marks and that use neither has nor is liable to have an adverse effect on the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee consumers the origin of the goods and services. 
U svojoj preliminarnoj presudi od 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, Sud Europske unije presudio je da dva istovjetna žiga koja se odnose na istovjetne proizvode mogu supostojati na tržištu kada postoji duže razdoblje poštene istodobne uporabe tih žigova i kada ta uporaba nema i nije uzrokom negativnog učinka na osnovnu funkciju žiga, a to je jamstvo potrošačima o podrijetlu proizvoda i usluga.
As regards coexistence agreements between the parties, when assessing likelihood of confusion, the Office's policy is that these agreements may be taken into account like any other relevant factor, but they are in no way binding on the Office. 
U pogledu sporazuma o supostojanju između stranaka, politika Ureda jest da se prilikom procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu takvi sporazumi mogu uzeti u obzir kao bilo koji drugi važan čimbenik, no oni nisu ni na koji način obvezujući za Ured.
This is particularly true when the application of the relevant provisions of the EUTMR and the established case-law lead to a conclusion that is not in accordance with the content of the agreement. 
To posebno vrijedi kada se primjenom relevantnih odredbi Uredbe o žigu EU-a i utvrđene sudske prakse dolazi do zaključka koji nije sukladan sadržaju sporazuma.
If an agreement is disputed before national instances or there are pending court proceedings and the Office estimates that the outcome could be relevant for the case at issue, it may decide to suspend the proceedings. 
Ako se sporazum osporava pred nacionalnim tijelima ili ako je u tijeku sudski postupak, a Ured procijeni da bi ishod mogao biti važan za taj predmet, Ured može donijeti odluku o obustavi postupka.
In addition, as a general rule, nothing precludes the opponent from filing an opposition against an EUTM application, whether or not it previously opposed other (national) marks of the applicant. 
Nadalje, opće je pravilo da ništa ne sprječava podnositelja prigovora u podnošenju prigovora protiv prijave žiga EU-a, neovisno o tome je li u prošlosti podnesen prigovor protiv drugih (nacionalnih) žigova podnositelja prijave.
4 Incidences of Actual Confusion 
Slučajevi stvarne zablude
Likelihood of confusion means a probability of confusion on the part of the relevant consumer and does not require actual confusion. 
Vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu podrazumijeva vjerojatnost zablude među relevantnim potrošačima i nema potrebe za dokazivanjem stvarne zablude.
As expressly confirmed by the Court: ‘… it is not necessary to establish the existence of actual confusion, but the existence of a likelihood of confusion' (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69). 
Navedeno je izričito potvrdio Sud: „[...] nije potrebno utvrditi postojanje stvarne zablude već postojanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu” (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69).
In the global assessment of likelihood of confusion, all relevant factors have to be taken into consideration. 
U cjelovitoj procjeni vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu moraju se uzeti u obzir svi relevantni čimbenici.
in everyday life there are always people who confuse and misconstrue everything, and others who are extremely observant and very familiar with every trade mark. 
U svakodnevnom životu uvijek postoje pojedine osobe koje su smetene i sve pogrešno tumače te druge osobe koje su pažljive i u potpunosti upoznate sa svakim žigom.
Therefore, there is no legal value in highlighting the existence of these people since it could lead to subjective results; 
Stoga nema pravne vrijednosti u isticanju postojanja obiju vrsta osoba jer bi to moglo dovesti do subjektivnih rezultata.
insofar as the targeted consumer's perception is concerned, the assessment is normative. 
Procjena je normativna u pogledu percepcije ciljnih potrošača.
The average consumer is assumed to be ‘reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect', even though in purely factual terms some consumers are extremely observant and well informed, whilst others are careless and credulous (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32). 
Pretpostavlja se da je prosječni potrošač „relativno dobro upućen te pažljiv i oprezan” iako su u potpuno činjeničnom smislu neki potrošači iznimno pažljivi i dobro upućeni, dok su drugi nepažljivi i lakovjerni (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32).
Therefore, incidences of actual confusion can influence the finding of likelihood of confusion only if it is proven that these incidences usually accompany the existence of the conflicting trade marks in the market in the typical situation in trade involving the goods and/or services concerned. 
Stoga slučajevi stvarne zablude mogu utjecati na utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu samo ako se dokaže da uz takve slučajeve obično postoje žigovi u sukobu na tržištu u uobičajenoj trgovačkoj situaciji koja uključuje predmetne proizvode i/ili usluge.
To properly weigh evidence on the number of occasions when actual confusion has arisen, the assessment must be made in the light of the number of opportunities for confusion. 
Radi ispravne procjene dokaza o broju slučajeva u kojima je stvarno došlo do zablude, procjena se mora provesti s obzirom na broj prigoda za zabludu.
If the business transactions are voluminous but the instances of confusion are sparse, this evidence will have little weight in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. 
Ako su poslovne transakcije mnogobrojne, a slučajevi zablude rijetki, takav dokaz ima malu težinu u procjeni vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
Lack of actual confusion has been treated in the context of coexistence, in paragraph 3 above. 
Nepostojanje stvarne zablude obrađeno je u prethodnom odlomku 3. u kontekstu supostojanja.
5 Prior Decisions by EU or National Authorities Involving Conflicts Between the Same (or Similar) Trade Marks 
Prethodne odluke nadležnih tijela EU-a ili nacionalnih nadležnih tijela o sukobima između istovjetnih (ili sličnih) žigova
5.1 Prior Office decisions 
Prethodne odluke Ureda
As regards previous decisions of the Office in conflicts between identical or similar trade marks, the General Court has stated that: 
Po pitanju prethodnih odluka Ureda u pogledu sukoba istovjetnih ili sličnih žigova, Opći sud utvrdio je sljedeće:
… it is settled case-law … that the legality of the decisions of the [Office] is to be assessed purely by reference to [the EUTMR] and not the Office's practice in earlier decisions. 
[...] utvrđena je sudska praksa [...] da se zakonitost odluka [Ureda] procjenjuje isključivo upućivanjem na [Uredbu o žigu EU-a], a ne na praksu Ureda u prethodnim odlukama.
Accordingly, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions, since each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities. 
Sukladno tomu, Ured ne obvezuju njegove prethodne odluke s obzirom na to da se svaki predmet mora obraditi zasebno i s obzirom na njegove posebnosti.
Notwithstanding the fact that previous decisions of the Office are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should still be duly considered when deciding upon the case in question. 
Bez obzira na činjenicu da prethodne odluke Ureda nisu obvezujuće, i dalje bi trebalo propisno razmotriti njihovo obrazloženje i ishod prilikom odlučivanja o pojedinom predmetu.
This was reinforced in the judgment of 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75: 
To je potvrđeno presudom od 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75:
The Office is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. 
Ured je dužan ostvarivati svoje ovlasti u skladu s općim načelima zakonodavstva Europske unije, primjerice načelom ravnopravnosti i načelom dobre uprave.
In the light of those two principles, the Office must, when examining an application for registration of a European Union trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not … 
U kontekstu tih dvaju načela Ured mora, prilikom ispitivanja prijava za registraciju žiga Europske unije, uzeti u obzir već donesene odluke u pogledu sličnih prijava i razmotriti s posebnom pažnjom bi li trebao donijeti istu odluku ili ne.
That said, the way in which the principles of equal treatment and sound administration are applied must be consistent with respect for legality. 
Međutim, način na koji se primjenjuju načela ravnopravnosti i dobre uprave mora biti u skladu sa zakonitosti.
However, according to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in opposition proceedings the Office is restricted in the examination of the case to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a, Ured je u postupku prigovora u ispitivanju predmeta ograničen na činjenice, dokaze i obrazloženja koje su podnijele stranke.
For this reason, even in cases based on comparable facts and involving similar legal problems, the outcome may still vary due to the different submissions made by the parties and the evidence they present. 
Iz tog bi se razloga, čak i u predmetima koji se temelje na usporedivim činjenicama i koji se odnose na slične pravne probleme, ishod mogao razlikovati zbog različitih podnesaka stranaka i predstavljenih dokaza.
5.2 Prior national decisions and judgments 
Prethodne nacionalne odluke i presude
Decisions of national courts and of national offices in cases regarding conflicts between identical or similar trade marks on the national level do not have a binding effect on the Office. 
Odluke nacionalnih sudova i nacionalnih ureda u predmetima o sukobima između istovjetnih ili sličnih žigova na nacionalnoj razini nisu obvezujuće za Ured.
According to case-law, the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it and applies independently of any national system. 
Sukladno sudskoj praksi, režim žigova Europske unije autonomni je sustav s vlastitim skupom specifičnih ciljeva i pravila te se primjenjuje neovisno o bilo kojem nacionalnom sustavu.