natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It would be absurd, in the presence of the conditions required by the articles in question, that the holder of a previous trade name has the right to oppose registration of a later mark but could not prohibit its use, taking into account that confusion occurs not with the register but in the market (para. 24). 
S obzirom na postojanje uvjeta iz predmetnih članaka bilo bi apsurdno da nositelj prethodnog trgovačkog naziva ima pravo prigovora na registraciju kasnijeg žiga, a ne može zabraniti njegovu uporabu, uzimajući u obzir da do zabune dolazi na tržištu, a ne u registru (t. 24.).
Article 7(1)(g) of the Czech trade mark law The Board based its decision on a national provision stating that holders of unregistered trade marks acquired through use have the right to ‘prohibit subsequent trade marks', with the reasoning that unregistered trade marks acquired through use in the course of trade prior to the filing date of application for registration enjoy identical protection to that of a Czech registered mark (paras 40-41). 
Članak 7. stavak 1. točka (g) češkog Zakona o žigu Vijeće je temeljilo svoju odluku na nacionalnoj odredbi u kojoj se navodi da nositelji neregistriranih žigova stečenih uporabom imaju pravo „zabraniti kasnije žigove” uz obrazloženje da neregistrirani žigovi stečeni uporabom u trgovačkom prometu prije datuma podnošenja prijave za registraciju imaju istovjetnu zaštitu kao češki registrirani žigovi (t. 40. - 41.).
03/06/2015, R 2216/20142, Sonicell (fig.) / SONICEL et al. Article 239(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Industrial Property Code The Board based its decision on a national provision prohibiting registration of the subsequent mark. 
03/06/2015, R 2216/20142, Sonicell (fig.) / SONICEL et al. Članak 239. stavci 1. i 2. portugalskog Zakonika o industrijskom vlasništvu Vijeće je temeljilo svoju odluku na nacionalnoj odredbi kojom se zabranjuje registracija kasnijeg žiga.
It stated that Portuguese law confers a right in relation to conflicting signs based on ‘a business or corporate name and other distinctive signs', and the scope of protection of this earlier right is the same as for registered trade marks. 
Navelo je da se portugalskim zakonodavstvom dodjeljuje pravo povezano sa suprotstavljenim znakovima na temelju „poslovnog ili trgovačkog naziva i drugih znakova koji imaju razlikovni karakter”, a opseg zaštite ranijeg prava jednak je za registrirane žigove.
In other words, it is a ground for refusal when cited in an opposition if it concerns a reproduction, imitation or merely a characteristic part thereof, and is likely to mislead or confuse the consumer. 
Dakle, razlog je za odbijanje kada se navodi u prigovoru i ako se odnosi na reprodukciju, imitaciju ili samo na svojstveni dio te će vjerojatno dovesti u zabludu ili zbuniti potrošača.
A confusingly similar Community trade mark application therefore falls within this definition (paras 34-35). 
Stoga toj definiciji pripada zbunjujuće slična prijava žiga Zajednice (t. 34. - 35.).
07/05/2013, R 1027/20122, RECICLALIA Article 9(1)(d) of the Spanish trade mark law The Board based its decision on the provisions of the Spanish Trade Mark Act, for which protection conferred on an unregistered Spanish trade name and the company name of a legal person entitles the proprietor thereof to oppose the registration of, or seek a declaration of invalidity for any subsequent Spanish trade names or trade marks (para. 37). 
07/05/2013, R 1027/20122, RECICLALIA Članak 9. stavak 1. točka (d) španjolskog Zakona o žigu Vijeće je temeljilo svoju odluku na odredbama španjolskog Zakona o žigu prema kojemu se zaštitom dodijeljenom neregistriranom španjolskom trgovačkom nazivu i nazivu trgovačkog društva pravne osobe daje pravo nositelju žiga da se usprotivi registraciji bilo kojeg kasnijeg španjolskog trgovačkog naziva ili žiga ili da zatraži proglašenje ništavosti (t. 37.).
Trade Marks with Reputation, Article 8(5) EUTMR 
Žigovi s ugledom, članak 8. stavak 5.
TRADE MARKS WITH REPUTATION 
ŽIGOVI S UGLEDOM
1.1 Purpose of Article 8(5) EUTMR 3 
1.1 Svrha članka 8. stavka 5.
1.2 Legal framework 3 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a 4
2 Scope of Applicability 4 
1.2 Pravni okvir 4
2.1 Applicability to registered marks 4 
2 Područje primjenjivosti 5
2.1.1 The requirement of registration 4 
2.1 Primjenjivost na registrirane žigove 5
2.2 Applicability to similar and identical goods and services 6 
2.2 Primjenjivost na slične i istovjetne proizvode i usluge 7
3 Conditions of Application 7 
3 Uvjeti primjene 8
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation 7 
3.1 Raniji žig s ugledom 8
3.1.1 Nature of reputation 7 
3.1.1 Priroda ugleda 8
3.1.2 Scope of reputation 8 
3.1.2 Opseg ugleda 9
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition 8 
3.1.2.1 Razina prepoznatljivosti 9
3.1.2.2 Relevant public 9 
3.1.2.2 Relevantna javnost 10
3.1.2.3 Goods and services covered 11 
3.1.2.3 Obuhvaćeni proizvodi i usluge 11
3.1.2.4 Relevant territory 12 
3.1.2.4 Relevantno državno područje 12
3.1.2.5 Relevant point in time 13 
3.1.2.5 Relevantan trenutak 14
3.1.2.6 Reputation acquired as part of another mark 15 
3.1.2.6 Ugled stečen kao dio drugog žiga 16
3.1.3 Assessment of reputation - relevant factors 16 
3.1.3 Procjena ugleda - relevantni čimbenici 17
3.1.3.1 Trade mark awareness 17 
3.1.3.1 Svjesnost o žigu 18
3.1.3.2 Market share 18 
3.1.3.2 Tržišni udjel 19
3.1.3.3 Intensity of use 20 
3.1.3.3 Intenzitet uporabe 20
3.1.3.4 Geographical extent of use 22 
3.1.3.4 Zemljopisni opseg uporabe 22
3.1.3.5 Duration of use 22 
3.1.3.5 Trajanje uporabe 23
3.1.3.6 Promotional activities 23 
3.1.3.6 Promidžbene aktivnosti 23
3.1.3.7 Other factors 25 
3.1.3.7 Ostali čimbenici 25
3.1.4 Proof of reputation 26 
3.1.4 Dokaz ugleda 26
3.1.4.1 Standard of proof 26 
3.1.4.1 Standard u pogledu dokaza 26
3.1.4.2 Burden of proof 27 
3.1.4.2 Teret dokaza 27
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of the evidence 28 
3.1.4.3 Procjena dokaza 28
3.2 The similarity of the signs 36 
3.2.1 Pojam „sličnost” u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 5.
3.2.1 Notion of ‘similarity' pursuant to Article 8(5) EUTMR compared with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR 37 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a u usporedbi s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a 37
3.3 The link between the signs 38 
3.3 Veza između znakova 38
3.4 The risk of injury 44 
3.4 Rizik od povrede 43
3.4.1 Protected subject matter 44 
3.4.1 Zaštićeni sadržaj 43
3.4.3 Types of injury 46 
3.4.3.1 Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnosti ili ugleda 46
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness 53 
3.4.4 Dokaz rizika od povrede 62
3.4.3.3 Detriment to repute 59 
3.4.4.1 Norma i teret dokaza 62
3.4.4 Proving the risk of injury 64 
3.4.4.2 Dokazna sredstva 64
3.4.4.2 Means of evidence 66 
3.5.1.1 Opravdani je razlog prihvaćen 66
3.5 Use without due cause 67 
3.5.1.2 Opravdani razlog nije prihvaćen 67
Whereas, under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR, double identity of signs and goods/services and, under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, a likelihood of confusion are the necessary preconditions for the protection of a registered trade mark, Article 8(5) EUTMR requires neither identity/similarity of goods/services nor a likelihood of confusion. 
Dok su u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (a) Uredbe o žigu EU-a istovjetnost znakova i proizvoda/usluga te u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu nužni preduvjeti za zaštitu registriranog žiga, člankom 8. stavkom 5.
A trade mark can also convey messages other than an indication of the origin of the goods and services, such as a promise or reassurance of quality or a certain image of, for example, luxury, lifestyle, exclusivity, etc. (‘advertising function') (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378). 
Žigom se mogu prenositi i poruke koje nisu oznake podrijetla proizvoda i usluga kao što su obećanja ili uvjerenja o kvaliteti ili određeni imidž, primjerice, luksuza, životnog stila, ekskluzivnosti itd. („promidžbena funkcija”) (18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378).
Trade mark owners frequently invest large sums of money and effort in creating a certain brand image associated with their trade mark. 
Nositelji žigova često ulažu velike količine novca i mnogo truda kako bi stvorili određeni imidž robne marke povezane s njihovim žigom.
Article 8(5) EUTMR aims at protecting this advertising function and the investment made in creating a certain brand image by granting protection to reputed trade marks, irrespective of the similarity of the goods or services or of a likelihood of confusion, provided it can be demonstrated that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a zaštita te promidžbene funkcije i ulaganje u stvaranje određenog imidža robne marke tako da se prizna zaštita žigovima s ugledom bez obzira na sličnost proizvoda ili usluga ili vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, uz uvjet da se može dokazati da bi se uporabom osporavane prijave bez opravdanog razloga nepošteno iskoristili razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili bi im se naštetilo.
1.2 Legal framework 
Pravni okvir
where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier EU trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned, and where the 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. 
kada je istovjetan ili sličan ranijem žigu, neovisno o tome jesu li proizvodi ili usluge iz prijave istovjetni, slični ili nisu slični onima za koje je registriran raniji žig, kada, u slučaju ranijeg žiga EU-a, žig ima ugled u Uniji ili kada, u slučaju ranijeg nacionalnog žiga, žig ima ugled u dotičnoj državi članici i kada bi uporaba žiga za koji je podnesena prijava bez opravdanog razloga nepošteno iskoristila razlikovni karakter ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili im naštetila.
The same wording is used in the parallel provision of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘TMD'), namely Article 5(3)(a) TMD. 
Isti tekst upotrebljava se u usporednoj odredbi Direktive (EU) 2015/2436 o usklađivanju zakona država članica o žigovima („Direktiva o žigu”), odnosno u članku 5. stavku 3. točki (a) Direktive o žigu.
The impact of this difference on the kind of evidence required for proving detriment in either case is discussed in paragraph 3.4 below. 
O učinku ove razlike na vrstu potrebnih dokaza za dokazivanje štetnosti u oba slučaja riječ je u odlomku 3.4.
2.1 Applicability to registered marks 
Primjenjivost na registrirane žigove
2.1.1 The requirement of registration 
Zahtjev u pogledu registracije
The requirement of registration serves to mark the border between Article 8(5) EUTMR and Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR. 
Zahtjev u pogledu registracije služi za označavanje granice između članka 8. stavka 5.
As regards the EUTMR, the purpose was to close a legal gap as Article 8(5) EUTMR protects only registered EUTMs. 
Kada je riječ o Uredbi o žigu EU-a, svrha je bila otkloniti pravni vakuum s obzirom na to da se člankom 8. stavkom 5.
Without Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, reputed non-registered trade marks would have remained without protection (apart from that of Article 8(4) EUTMR). 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a štite samo registrirani žigovi EU-a.
Consequently, on the one hand, well-known marks that are not registered in the relevant territory cannot be protected under Article 8(5) EUTMR against dissimilar goods. 
Kako bi se otklonio taj pravni vakuum, Uredbom o žigu EU-a predviđena je zaštita dobro poznatih žigova u smislu članka 6.
However, this is without prejudice to the fact that well-known marks, to the extent that they are not registered, may also be protected under Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Međutim, time se ne dovodi u pitanje činjenica da dobro poznati žigovi, ako nisu registrirani, jednako tako mogu biti zaštićeni u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 4 Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
In practical terms, the threshold for establishing whether a trade mark is well known or enjoys reputation will usually be the same. 
U praktičnom smislu, prag za utvrđivanje je li neki žig dobro poznat ili ima ugled najčešće će biti isti.
Therefore, it will not be unusual for a mark that has acquired well-known character to have also reached the threshold laid down by the Court in Chevy (General Motors) for marks with reputation, given that in both cases the assessment is principally based on quantitative considerations regarding the degree of knowledge of the mark among the public, and that the thresholds required for each case are expressed in quite similar terms (‘known …' or ‘well known in at least one relevant sector of the public ' for well-known marks, and ‘known by a significant part of the public concerned' for marks with reputation). 
Stoga nije neobično da žig koji je dobro poznat dosegne i prag koji je odredio Sud u presudi Chevy (General Motors) za žigove s ugledom, s obzirom na to da se u oba slučaja procjena prije svega temelji na kvantitativnim razmatranjima u pogledu razine poznavanja žiga u javnosti te da je za svaki slučaj potrebni prag izrečen uporabom vrlo sličnih pojmova („poznat [...]” ili „dobro poznat u relevantnom sektoru javnosti” za dobro poznate žigove, te „poznat znatnom dijelu javnosti” za žigove s ugledom).
[2: Article 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks.] 
[2: Članak 2. stavak 2. točka (b) i članak 2. stavak 2. točka (c) Zajedničke preporuke WIPO-a o odredbama o zaštiti dobro poznatih žigova.]
This has also been confirmed by case-law. 
To je potvrđeno i sudskom praksom.
In its judgment of 22/11/2007, C328/06, Fincas Tarragona, EU:C:2007:704, the Court qualified the notions of ‘reputation' and ‘well known' as kindred concepts, underlining in this way the substantial overlap and relationship between them (para. 17). 
U svojoj presudi od 22/11/2007, C328/06, FincasTarragona, EU:C:2007:704, Sud je odredio pojmove „ugled” i „dobro poznat” kao srodne pojmove te tako naglasio njihovo znatno preklapanje i odnos između njih (t. 17.).
See also the judgment of 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 56-57. 
Vidjeti i presudu od 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 56-57.
For this reason, the terminology used must be carefully scrutinised, especially where the grounds of the opposition are not clearly explained, and a flexible approach should be taken where appropriate. 
Zbog toga se upotrijebljena terminologija mora pomno analizirati, posebno ako razlozi za prigovor nisu jasno objašnjeni te bi se, kada je to primjenjivo, trebao primijeniti fleksibilan pristup.
However, while, according to Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, a well-known mark can serve as an earlier right and, thus, as the basis of an opposition, the grounds for an opposition under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR are (solely) Article 8(1)(a) or (b) EUTMR. 
Primjerice, ako podnositelj prigovora temelji prigovor na i. ranijoj registraciji pozivajući se na članak 8. stavak 1. točku (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a i članak 8. stavak 5.
For example, if the opponent bases the opposition on (i) an earlier registration invoking Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and Article 8(5) EUTMR and (ii) an identical earlier well-known mark in the same territory under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, the earlier right must be examined: 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a te na ii. istovjetnom ranijem dobro poznatom žigu na istom državnom području u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 2. točkom (c) Uredbe o žigu EU-a, ranije se pravo mora ispitati:
This is a codification of the case-law of the Court of Justice, interpreting the previous version of the provision. 
Ovdje je riječ o kodifikaciji sudske prakse Suda, pri čemu se tumači prethodna verzija odredbe.
[3: Judgment of 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.] 
[3: Presuda od 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.]
3 Conditions of Application 
Uvjeti primjene
1. earlier registered mark with reputation in the relevant territory; 
raniji registrirani žig s ugledom na relevantnom državnom području;
2. identity or similarity between the contested EUTM application and the earlier mark; 
istovjetnost ili sličnost između osporavane prijave za žig EU-a i ranijeg žiga;
3. use of the sign applied for must be capable of taking an unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier mark; 
uporabom znaka za koji je podnesena prijava mora se moći nepošteno iskoristiti razlikovnost i ili ugled ranijeg žiga ili mu naštetiti;
4. such use must be without due cause. 
takva uporaba mora biti bez opravdanog razloga.
These conditions are cumulative and failure to satisfy any one of them is sufficient to render that provision inapplicable (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). 
Ti su uvjeti kumulativni, a neispunjenje jednoga od njih dovoljno je kako bi se ta odredba smatrala neprimjenjivom (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41).
The order in which these requirements are examined may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. 
Redoslijed kojim se ti zahtjevi ispituju može se razlikovati ovisno o okolnostima svakog slučaja.
For instance, the examination may start by assessing the similarities between the signs, especially where there is little or nothing to say on the subject, either because the marks are identical or because they are patently similar or dissimilar. 
Primjerice, ispitivanje može započeti procjenom sličnosti između znakova, posebno kada se o njima može malo toga ili ne može ništa reći jer su žigovi istovjetni ili jer su očito slični ili različiti.
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation 
Raniji žig s ugledom
3.1.1 Nature of reputation 
Priroda ugleda
The nature and scope of reputation are not defined by either the EUTMR or the TMD. 
Priroda i opseg ugleda nisu definirani ni Uredbom o žigu EU-a ni Direktivom o žigovima.
Furthermore, the terms used in the different language versions of these texts are not fully equivalent, which has led to considerable confusion as to the true meaning of the term ‘reputation', as admitted by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion of 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36. 
Nadalje, pojmovi koji se upotrebljavaju u različitim jezičnim inačicama tih tekstova nisu u potpunosti istovrijedni, što je dovelo do velike zabune u pogledu pravog značenja pojma „ugled”, kao što je priznao nezavisni odvjetnik Jacobs u svojem mišljenju od 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36.
Given the lack of statutory definition, the Court defined the nature of reputation by reference to the purpose of the relevant provisions. 
Zbog nedostatka pravne definicije, Sud je definirao prirodu ugleda upućivanjem na svrhu relevantnih odredbi.
In view of these considerations, the Court concluded that reputation is a knowledge threshold requirement, implying that it must be principally assessed on the basis of quantitative criteria. 
S obzirom na ta razmatranja Sud je zaključio da je ugled zahtjev u pogledu praga poznavanja, podrazumijevajući da ga se prije svega mora procijeniti na temelju kvantitativnih kriterija.
In order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, the earlier mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34). 
Kako bi se ispunio zahtjev u pogledu ugleda, raniji žig mora biti poznat znatnom dijelu javnosti kojoj su namijenjeni proizvodi ili usluge obuhvaćene tim žigom (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34).
A sign does not enjoy any reputation inherently, for example, simply because it refers to a renowned person or event, but only for the goods and services it designates and the use that has been made of it. 
Znak ne uživa ugled sam po sebi, primjerice samo zato što se odnosi na poznatu osobu ili događaj, već samo zbog proizvoda i usluga koje označava te njihove uporabe.
3.1.2 Scope of reputation 
Opseg ugleda
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition 
Razina prepoznatljivosti
Having defined reputation as a knowledge threshold requirement, the question that necessarily follows is how much awareness the earlier mark must attain among the public in order to pass this threshold. 
Nakon definiranja ugleda kao zahtjeva u pogledu praga poznavanja, pitanje koje nužno slijedi jest kolika mora biti svjesnost o ranijem žigu u javnosti kako bi žig prošao taj prag.
By refraining from defining in more detail the meaning of the term ‘significant' and by stating that the trade mark does not have to be known by a given percentage of the public, the Court in substance advised against the use of fixed criteria of general applicability, since a predetermined degree of recognition may not be appropriate for a realistic assessment of reputation if taken alone. 
Suzdržavajući se od detaljnijeg definiranja značenja pojma „znatan” te izjavljujući da žig ne treba biti poznat određenom postotku javnosti, Sud je u biti preporučio da se izbjegava uporaba fiksnih kriterija opće primjenjivosti zato što prethodno određena razina prepoznatljivosti sama po sebi ne bi bila prikladna za stvarnu procjenu ugleda.
Hence, in determining whether the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public, account must be taken not only of the degree of awareness of the mark, but also of any other factor relevant to the specific case. 
Stoga se pri utvrđivanju činjenice prepoznaje li znatan dio javnosti raniji žig mora uzeti u obzir ne samo razina svjesnosti o žigu, već i bilo koji drugi čimbenik relevantan za određeni slučaj.
For more about the relevant factors and their interplay, see paragraph 3.1.3 below. 
Dodatne informacije o relevantnim čimbenicima i njihovu uzajamnom djelovanju potražite u odlomku 3.1.3.
Even though both terms are concerned with the recognition of the mark among the relevant public, in the case of reputation a threshold exists below which extended protection cannot be granted, whereas in the case of enhanced distinctiveness there is no threshold. 
Iako su oba pojma povezana s prepoznatljivošću žiga u relevantnoj javnosti, u slučaju ugleda postoji prag ispod kojega se ne može osigurati proširena zaštita, dok u slučaju naglašenog razlikovnog karaktera nema praga.
Therefore, a finding of ‘enhanced distinctiveness' under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR will not necessarily be conclusive for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Stoga nalaz u pogledu „naglašenog razlikovnog karaktera” u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a neće nužno biti odlučujući u smislu članka 8. stavka 5.
3.1.2.2 Relevant public 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a.
Hence, if the goods and services covered by the mark are mass consumption products, the relevant public will be the public at large, whereas if the designated goods have a very specific application or exclusively target professional or industrial users, the relevant public will be limited to the specific purchasers of the products in question. 
Stoga, ako su proizvodi i usluge obuhvaćeni žigom proizvodi široke potrošnje, relevantna javnost bit će šira javnost, no ako predmetni proizvodi imaju posebnu primjenu ili su isključivo namijenjeni profesionalnim ili industrijskim korisnicima, relevantna će javnost biti ograničena na posebne kupce predmetnih proizvoda.