natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The examination of inherent distinctiveness is carried out in two phases: first, it should be determined whether the relevant public recognises semantic content of the element at issue and, second, whether or not the semantic content perceived is related to and/or commonly used in trade for the identical or similar goods and services. 
Ispitivanje svojstvene razlikovnosti provodi se u dvije faze: prvo treba utvrditi prepoznaje li relevantna javnost semantički sadržaj predmetnog elementa i drugo, je li uočeni semantički sadržaj povezan s trgovinom i/ili se često upotrebljava u trgovini u odnosu na istovjetne ili slične proizvode i usluge.
As regards the first phase, that is to say, whether the relevant public recognises a semantic content, the inherent distinctiveness of the components of the marks has to be evaluated by taking into account (each of) the relevant geographical area(s) and their different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. 
Kad je riječ o prvoj fazi, tj. prepoznaje li relevantna javnost semantički sadržaj, mora se ocijeniti svojstvena razlikovnost sastavnica žiga uzimanjem u obzir (svakog) relevantnog zemljopisnog područja i njegovih različitih jezičnih i kulturnih pozadina.
As such, the public in some parts of the relevant territory might not understand the descriptive content that a mark may have in other parts. 
Javnost u nekim dijelovima odgovarajućeg državnog područja možda neće razumjeti opisni sadržaj koji žig može imati u drugim dijelovima.
In these cases, the distinctiveness of the mark in one area is not affected by the fact that it may be perceived differently in other areas. 
U takvim slučajevima, na razlikovnost žiga u jednom području ne utječe činjenica da ga se može drukčije percipirati u drugim područjima.
Below is an example of a case where linguistic considerations were vital to the issue of distinctiveness. 
U nastavku se nalazi primjer slučaja gdje su jezična razmatranja bila ključna za pitanje razlikovnosti.
The second phase consists of correlating any meaning that the public perceives in the components with the identical or similar goods and services in dispute. 
Drugu fazu čini povezivanje bilo kojeg značenja koje javnost vidi u sastavnicama s istovjetnim ili sličnim osporavanim proizvodima i uslugama.
If the relevant public perceives this meaning as descriptive, laudatory or allusive (in a manner that materially affects distinctiveness), etc. for these goods and services, then its distinctiveness will be diminished accordingly. 
Ako relevantna javnost za te proizvode i usluge značenje shvati opisno, pohvalno ili aluzivno (na način koji bitno utječe na razlikovnost) itd., njegova će se razlikovnost smanjiti u skladu s tim.
It may be necessary to distinguish between the various goods and services involved because the finding of no or limited distinctiveness might relate to only part of those goods and services. 
Moglo bi biti potrebno razlikovati različite uključene proizvode i usluge jer se pronalazak nikakve ili ograničene razlikovnosti može odnositi samo na dio tih proizvoda i usluga.
In the event that no meaning can be attributed to a verbal element, it cannot be descriptive, laudatory or allusive in any way and as such is considered distinctive. 
U slučaju da se verbalnom elementu ne može pripisati nikakvo značenje, on ni na koji način ne može biti opisan, pohvalan ni aluzivan te se stoga smatra razlikovnim.
The criteria applied to examining the inherent distinctiveness of a component of a sign are the same as the relevant principles applied when examining marks on absolute grounds (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination) . 
Kriteriji koji se primjenjuju za ispitivanje svojstvene razlikovnosti sastavnice znaka ista su kao relevantna načela koja se primjenjuju prilikom ispitivanja žigova na temelju apsolutnih razloga (vidjeti Smjernice, dio B, Ispitivanje) .
However, in relative grounds disputes, the question is not merely whether a component is distinctive or not (i.e. whether it reaches the minimum distinctiveness threshold for registration), but also to what degree it is distinctive within the sliding scale previously mentioned. 
Međutim, u sporovima o relativnim razlozima pitanje nije samo je li sastavnica razlikovna (tj. doseže li minimalni prag razlikovnosti za registraciju), nego i u kojoj je mjeri razlikovna unutar prethodno spomenute klizne ljestvice.
Therefore, for instance, a term that is not descriptive but merely allusive for the goods or services in question might be distinctive enough to pass the absolute grounds test, but still have less than normal distinctiveness for the purposes of relative grounds. 
Stoga, primjerice, pojam koji nije opisan već samo aluzivan za predmetne proizvode ili usluge mogao bi biti dovoljno razlikovan da prođe ispitivanje apsolutnih razloga, ali još uvijek može imati manju razlikovnost od normalne za potrebe relativnih razloga.
The outcome of the examination of inherent distinctiveness will be one of the following. 
Rezultat ispitivanja svojstvene razlikovnosti bit će jedan od sljedećih.
The component has no distinctiveness or has less than normal distinctiveness. 
Sastavnica nema razlikovni karakter ili ima razlikovni karakter manji od normalnog.
See the examples below. 
Vidjeti primjere u nastavku.
The component has normal distinctiveness because it is neither non-distinctive nor weak for identical or similar goods or services. 
Sastavnica ima normalan razlikovni karakter jer nije ni nerazlikovna ni slaba za istovjetne ili slične proizvode i usluge.
As noted in paragraph 2.1 above, word marks consisting of a single word may still contain various components, some of which may be more distinctive than others (27/01/2010, T331/08, Solfrutta, EU:T:2010:23). 
Kao što je navedeno u stavku 2.1., verbalni žigovi koji se sastoje od jedne riječi mogu i dalje sadržavati različite sastavnice, od kojih bi neke mogle biti više razlikovne od drugih (27/01/2010, T331/08 Solfrutta, EU:T:2010:23).
3.2.2.5 Examples of descriptive components 
Primjeri opisnih sastavnica
3.2.2.6 Examples of laudatory components 
Primjeri pohvalnih sastavnica
3.2.2.7 Examples of allusive components 
Primjeri aluzivnih sastavnica
3.2.3 Specific cases 
Konkretni slučajevi
3.2.3.1 Commonplace and banal elements 
Uobičajeni i banalni slučajevi
There are instances where signs are composed of one (or various) distinctive verbal element(s) and one (or various) figurative element(s) that are perceived by the relevant public as being commonplace or banal. 
Postoje slučajevi u kojima su znakovi sastavljeni od jednog (ili raznih) razlikovnih verbalnih elemenata i jednog (ili raznih) figurativnih elemenata koje relevantna javnost smatra uobičajenima ili banalnima.
These figurative elements frequently consist of a simple geometrical shape (e.g. frames, labels) or of colours frequently used in the market sector (e.g. red for fire extinguishers, yellow or red or orange for the postal sector depending on the Member State concerned). 
Takvi se figurativni elementi često sastoje od jednostavnog geometrijskog oblika (npr. okvira, etiketa) ili od često upotrebljavanih boja u tržišnom sektoru (npr. crvena za aparate za gašenje požara, žuta ili crvena ili narančasta za poštanski sektor ovisno o predmetnoj državi članici).
For this reason, these commonplace and banal elements are considered non-distinctive. 
Iz tog razloga, smatra se da takvi uobičajeni i banalni elementi nisu razlikovni.
3.2.3.2 Insignificant differences (quasi-identity) 
Neznatne razlike (prividna istovjetnost)
In a comparison of a word mark with a figurative mark consisting of an identical word element, it is not necessary to assess the distinctiveness of that word element if the figurative elements are not distinctive (colour, background, common typeface), not dominant and do not have any meaning. 
U usporedbi verbalnog žiga s figurativnim žigom koji se sastoji od istovjetnog verbalnog elementa nije potrebno procijeniti razlikovnost tog verbalnog elementa ako figurativni elementi nisu razlikovni (boja, pozadina, uobičajeni oblik pisma), nisu dominantni i nemaju nikakvo značenje.
In such cases, the fact that the coinciding word element might be non-distinctive or lowly-distinctive in relation to some goods and services in some languages is irrelevant since a likelihood of confusion cannot be dispelled even by the lowest degree of distinctiveness of that coinciding element. 
U takvim je slučajevima nebitna činjenica da su verbalni elementi koji se podudaraju na nekim jezicima možda nerazlikovni ili niske razlikovnosti u odnosu na određene proizvode i usluge jer vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu nije moguće otkloniti ni najnižom razinom razlikovnosti tog podudarnog elementa.
This means, that even if the word element has limited or no distinctiveness, this applies equally to both marks, whereas the figurative elements are clearly not sufficient to distinguish the marks. 
To znači da čak i ako verbalni element ima ograničenu ili nikakvu razlikovnost, to se jednako primjenjuje na oba žiga, dok figurativni elementi očito nisu dovoljni za razlikovanje žigova.
3.2.3.3 One-letter components, numerals and short components 
Sastavnice od jednog slova, brojevi i kratke sastavnice
In its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, the Court held that the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks must be assessed according to an examination based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned and the same criteria that apply to other word marks (paras 33-39). 
U svojoj presudi od 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, Sud je smatrao da se razlikovnost žiga od jednog slova mora procijeniti u skladu s ispitivanjem koje se temelji na činjenicama, s naglaskom na predmetne proizvode ili usluge i jednake kriterije koji se primjenjuju i na druge verbalne žigove (t. 33. - 39.).
Although that judgment deals with absolute grounds, the Office considers that the principle established by the Court (i.e. that the application of the criterion of distinctiveness must be the same for all marks) also applies in inter partes cases when it comes to determining the distinctiveness of single-letter components in trade marks. 
Iako se ta presuda bavi apsolutnim razlozima, Ured smatra da se načelo koje je utvrdio Sud (tj. da primjena kriterija razlikovnosti mora biti jednaka za sve žigove) primjenjuje i na postupke inter partes kad je riječ o utvrđivanju razlikovnosti sastavnica od jednog slova u žigovima.
The Court, although acknowledging that it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for marks consisting of a single letter than for other word marks, held that these circumstances do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from application of the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law. 
Iako priznaje da će možda biti teže utvrditi razlikovnost za žigove od jednog slova nego za druge verbalne žigove, Sud je utvrdio da te okolnosti ne opravdavaju određivanje konkretnih kriterija koji nadopunjuju primjenu kriterija razlikovnosti ili odstupaju od nje kao što se tumači u sudskoj praksi.
In the context of analysis of distinctiveness of components of signs, the Office considers the ruling to mean that, when establishing the distinctiveness of a single letter, being a component of a sign, it is not correct to rely on assumptions such as a priori statements that consumers are not in the habit of perceiving single letters as trade marks or on generic arguments such as that relating to the availability of signs, given the limited number of letters. 
U kontekstu analize razlikovnosti sastavnica znaka Ured smatra da presuda znači da se tijekom utvrđivanja razlikovnosti jednog slova kao sastavnice žiga nije ispravno osloniti na pretpostavke kao što su a priori izjave da potrošači nisu navikli percipirati jedno slovo kao žig ili na generičke tvrdnje kao što su one koje se odnose na dostupnost znakova, s obzirom na ograničeni broj slova.
The General Court has since stated in a number of cases that a trade mark containing a single letter or a single numeral may indeed be inherently distinctive (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 50; 06/10/2011, T176/10, Seven for all mankind, EU:T:2011:577, § 36; 05/11/2013, T378/12, X, EU:T:2013:574, § 37-51). 
Opći sud odonda je u brojnim predmetima naveo da žig koji se sastoji od jednog slova ili jednog broja zaista može imati svojstven razlikovni karakter (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 50; 06/10/2011, T176/10, Seven for all mankind, EU:T:2011:577, § 36; 05/11/2013, T378/12, X, EU:T:2013:574, § 37-51).
In its judgment of 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, the General Court dismissed the applicant's argument that single letters are generally per se devoid of distinctive character and that, therefore, only their graphic representation would be protected (paras 38-49). 
U svojoj presudi od 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, Opći sud odbacio je tvrdnju podnositelja prijave da jedno slovo nema razlikovni karakter i da će se, stoga, zaštititi samo njihov grafički prikaz (t. 38. - 49.).
The above considerations apply both to single-letter/numeral trade marks depicted in standard characters (i.e. word marks) and to stylised single-letter/numeral trade marks. 
Prethodno navedena razmatranja primjenjuju se i na žigove od jednog slova/broja prikazanog standardnim znakovima (tj. verbalni žigovi) i na stilizirane žigove od jednog slova/broja.
Furthermore, in accordance with the α judgment, as regards these components, unless the letter combination itself is descriptive or otherwise related to the goods and services (e.g. ‘S', ‘M', ‘XL' for goods in Class 25), these components are not necessarily limited in their distinctiveness. 
Nadalje, u skladu s presudom u predmetu α u pogledu tih sastavnica, one se ne ograničavaju nužno u svojoj razlikovnosti osim ako je sama kombinacija opisna ili drukčije povezana s proizvodima i uslugama (npr. S, M, XL za proizvode u razredu 25.).
The same rules apply to numerals. 
Jednaka se pravila primjenjuju na brojeve.
3.2.3.4 Disclaimers 
Odricanje od prava
The Office also accepted disclaimers entered voluntarily. 
Ured prihvaća i dobrovoljno unesena odricanja od prava.
Some national trade mark systems also provide for disclaimers. 
Neki nacionalni sustavi žigova predviđaju i odricanje od prava.
Following the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, the Office is no longer able to request disclaimers; similarly, no requests for disclaimers entered by the EUTM applicant will be accepted. 
Stupanjem na snagu Uredbe o izmjeni (EU) 2015/2424 Ured više ne može zahtijevati odricanje od prava; isto tako, neće se prihvaćati zahtjevi za odricanje od prava u prijavama žiga EU-a.
However, disclaimers in marks registered by the Office before the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 and in earlier national marks will still be binding on the Office and must be taken into account even if the element might appear distinctive when analysed independently. 
Međutim, odricanje od prava u žigovima koje je Ured registrirao prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe o izmjeni (EU) 2015/2424 i ranijih nacionalnih žigova i dalje će biti obvezno za Ured i morat će se uzimati u obzir čak i ako se elementi mogu činiti razlikovnima tijekom neovisne analize.
The effect of a disclaimer is: 
Učinak odricanja od prava jest:
if the earlier mark contains a disclaimer, that the proprietor is prevented from successfully invoking rights in the disclaimed element. 
Ako raniji žig sadržava odricanje od prava, nositelj se ne može uspješno pozvati na prava za element za koji se odriče pravo.
Therefore, similarity between two signs cannot be induced or increased because of coincidence or similarity in the disclaimed element (06/10/2008, R 21/20084, AUTENTICO JABUGO / FLOR SIERRA DE JABUGO JABUGO (fig.) et al., § 17, where JABUGO was disclaimed). 
Stoga, sličnost između dvaju znakova ne može potaknuti ili povećati podudaranje ili sličnost u elementu čijih se prava odriče (06/10/2008, R 21/20084, AUTENTICO JABUGO / FLOR SIERRA DE JABUGO JABUGO (fig.) et al., § 17, gdje se odriče od prava za JABUGO).
that if the earlier figurative mark contains two words and both are disclaimed, the scope of protection is reduced to the precise manner and sequence in which the two words are combined. 
Ako raniji figurativni žig sadržava dvije riječi i ako je došlo do odricanja od prava za obje, opseg zaštite smanjen je na točan način i redoslijed u kojem su dvije riječi kombinirane.
Disclaimers in the contested EUTM application (irrespective of whether they were requested by the Office or entered voluntarily by the applicant before the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)) cannot bind the owner of the earlier mark, that is to say, the applicant cannot unilaterally reduce the scope of protection of the earlier mark (11/02/2010, R 229/20092, DOUGHNUT THEATER / DONUT et al., § 58; 29/03/2012, R 2499/20101, ACETAT Silicon 101E (fig.) / 101 et al., § 18-19). 
Odricanje od prava u osporavanoj prijavi žiga EU-a (neovisno o tome je li ga zatražio Ured ili ga je podnositelj dobrovoljno unio prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe o izmjeni (EU) 2015/2424) ne može obvezivati nositelja ranijeg žiga, tj. podnositelj prijave ne može jednostrano smanjiti opseg zaštite ranijeg žiga (11/02/2010, R 229/20092, DOUGHNUT THEATER / DONUT et al., § 58; 29/03/2012, R 2499/20101, ACETAT Silicon 101E (fig.) / 101 et al., § 18-19).
3.2.3.5 Earlier marks, the distinctiveness of which is called into question 
Raniji žigovi čija se razlikovnost dovodi u pitanje
If the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is questioned, the Office applies the practice clarified in the F1-Live judgment (24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), namely that in proceedings opposing the registration of an EUTM, the validity of earlier trade marks may not be called into question. 
Ako se razlikovnost ranijeg žiga dovodi u pitanje, Ured primjenjuje praksu razjašnjenu u presudi F1-Live (24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), konkretno da se u postupku kojim se osporava registracija žiga EU-a valjanost ranijeg žiga ne smije dovoditi u pitanje.
Consequently, the elements corresponding to the earlier mark cannot be considered as devoid of distinctive character in the trade mark comparison, but must be deemed to be endowed with some (low/minimal) degree of distinctiveness. 
Stoga se ne može smatrati da elementi koji odgovaraju ranijem žigu nemaju razlikovni karakter u usporedbi žigova, nego se mora smatrati da posjeduju određenu (malu/najmanju) razinu razlikovnosti.
3.3 Dominant elements of the marks 
Dominantni elementi žigova
It is the Office's practice to restrict the notion of dominant element to the visual impact of the elements of a sign, that is, to use it exclusively to mean ‘visually outstanding'. 
Prema praksi Ureda uobičajeno je ograničiti pojam dominantnog elementa na vizualni učinak elemenata znaka, tj. upotrebljavati ga isključivo u značenju „vizualno istaknut”.
For a finding that there is a dominant element within a sign, the sign should have at least two identifiable components . 
Kako bi se utvrdio dominantni element na znaku, znak mora sadržavati barem dvije prepoznatljive sastavnice.
The rules explained in paragraph 3.2.1 above apply accordingly. 
Pravila objašnjena u prethodnom stavku 3.2.1. primjenjuju se u skladu s tim.
[3: In this text the words ‘component' and ‘element' are used interchangeably.] 
[3: U ovom su tekstu pojmovi „sastavnica” i „element” istoznačnice.]
The decision should establish whether there is a dominant element or codominant elements and identify them. 
Odlukom bi trebalo utvrditi postoje li dominantan element ili sudominantni elementi te bi ih trebalo prepoznati.
Even though, according to the established case-law of the Court, aspects other than the visual one (such as a possible semantic meaning of part of a one-word sign) may come into play when defining the notion of the dominant element of a sign, it is the practice of the Office to restrict the notion of dominant element to the visual impact of the elements of a sign, that is, to use it exclusively to mean ‘visually outstanding' and to leave any other considerations for the overall assessment. 
Iako bi prema utvrđenoj praksi Suda aspekti osim onog vizualnog (primjerice moguće semantičko značenje dijela znaka od jedne riječi) mogli imati ulogu u utvrđivanju pojma dominantnog elementa znaka, praksa je Suda ograničiti pojam dominantnog elementa na vizualni učinak elemenata znaka, tj. upotrebljavati ga isključivo u značenju „vizualno istaknut” i ostaviti sva druga razmatranja za opću procjenu.
As a result, the Office's practice is that the dominant character of a component of a sign is mainly determined by its position, size, dimensions and/or use of colours, to the extent that they affect its visual impact. 
Uslijed toga, praksa Ureda jest da se dominantni karakter sastavnice znaka uglavnom utvrđuje njegovim položajem, veličinom, dimenzijama i/ili uporabom boja u mjeri u kojoj oni utječu na vizualni učinak.
As stated by the Court: 
Kao što je Sud naveo:
With regard to the assessment of the dominant character of one or more given components of a complex trade mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the intrinsic qualities of each of those components by comparing them with those of other components. 
U pogledu procjene dominantnog karaktera jedne ili više danih sastavnica složenog žiga, moraju se osobito uzeti u obzir bitne značajke svake pojedine sastavnice tako da ih se uspoređuje s istim značajkama drugih sastavnica.
In addition and accessorily, account may be taken of the relative position of the various components within the arrangement of the complex mark. 
Usto se dodatno mora uzeti u obzir relativni položaj raznih sastavnica na prikazu složenog žiga.
In addition, the Court has held that: 
Usto je Sud utvrdio sljedeće:
… the weak distinctive character of an element of a complex mark does not necessarily imply that that element cannot constitute a dominant element since, because, in particular, of its position in the sign or its size, it may make an impression on consumers and be remembered by them. 
... slabi razlikovni karakter elementa složenog žiga ne ukazuje nužno na to da element ne može sadržavati dominantan element s obzirom na to da osobito zbog svojega položaja na znaku ili svoje veličine može ostaviti dojam na potrošače koji ga potom pamte.
Consequently, the fact that a component of a mark may or may not be considered non-distinctive (or as having a low degree of distinctiveness) has no bearing on the assessment of dominant character. 
Posljedično, činjenica da bi se sastavnica žiga mogla smatrati razlikovnom ili nerazlikovnom (odnosno imati nisku razinu razlikovnosti) ne utječe na procjenu dominantnog karaktera.
As a rule of thumb, the following should be considered. 
Trebalo bi uzeti u obzir sljedeća pravila:
The assessment of dominant character applies to both the signs under comparison. 
procjena dominantnog karaktera primjenjuje se na oba znaka koji se uspoređuju;
For a finding that there is a dominant component, the sign should have at least two identifiable components. 
da bi se utvrdila dominantna sastavnica, znak mora sadržavati barem dvije prepoznatljive sastavnice;
Word marks have no dominant elements because by definition they are written in standard typeface. 
verbalni žigovi nemaju dominantnih elemenata jer ih se po prirodi piše standardnim oblikom pisma.
Figurative elements may be dominant in signs where word elements are also present. 
figurativni elementi mogu biti dominantni na znakovima na kojima se nalaze i verbalni elementi;
Lastly, if it is difficult to decide which of the (at least) two components is dominant, this may be an indication that there is no dominant element or that no element is more dominant than the other (which includes cases of codominance). 
konačno, ako je teško odlučiti koja je od (najmanje) dviju sastavnica dominantna, to može značiti da nema dominantnog elementa ili da nijedan element nije dominantniji od drugog (što uključuje primjere sudominantnosti).