natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Aurally the signs are highly similar as the initial part, which is normally the most important, is identical. 
Znakovi su zvučno vrlo slični jer je njihov početni dio, koji je obično najvažniji, istovjetan.
Neither sign has a meaning in Greek (paras 35-36). 
Nijedan znak nema značenje na grčkom (t. 35. - 36.).
Aurally, there is a low degree of similarity. 
Razina zvučne sličnosti niska je.
Conceptually, the marks are similar insofar as they both contain the component ‘CAL'. 
Žigovi su konceptualno slični jer oba sadržavaju sastavnicu „CAL”.
However, since this element clearly alludes to the kind of goods (containing ‘calcium'), not much weight can be given to this conceptual similarity (paras 21-23) - no likelihood of confusion. 
Međutim, budući da taj element jasno aludira na vrstu proizvoda (koji sadržavaju „kalcij”), ne može se pridati puno važnosti toj konceptualnoj sličnosti (t. 21. - 23.) - nema vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
They are visually similar to an average degree. 
U prosječnoj su mjeri vizualno slični.
In view of the length of the EUTM application, the signs differ in rhythm and intonation and are thus aurally similar to a low degree. 
U pogledu dužine prijave žiga EU-a, znakovi se razlikuju u ritmu i intonaciji te su stoga u slaboj mjeri zvučno slični.
The earlier signs ‘NOBLESSE' do have a clear connotation in both Finland and Sweden. 
Raniji znakovi „NOBLESSE” imaju jasne konotacije u Finskoj i Švedskoj.
In these territories, the word ‘NOBLISSIMA' lacks any meaning. 
U tim područjima riječ „NOBLISSIMA” nema značenje.
They are, therefore, conceptually dissimilar. 
Stoga su u konceptualnom smislu različiti.
The earlier marks are laudatory in nature and to a certain extent descriptive of the characteristics of the goods ‘chocolate', namely describing their superior character. 
Raniji su žigovi po prirodi pohvalni te u određenoj mjeri opisuju obilježja proizvoda „čokolada”, konkretno opisuju njezine vrhunske odlike.
The distinctive character is below average. 
Razlikovni karakter je ispodprosječan.
But this similarity is of little significance because the prefix is generic and so devoid of distinctiveness. 
Međutim, ta sličnost nije značajna jer je prefiks generički i nema razlikovni karakter.
The second element of the earlier mark, ‘MAN', is visually, phonetically and conceptually completely different from the second element, ‘NORM', of the contested mark. 
Drugi element ranijeg žiga „MAN” vizualno je, fonetski i konceptualno potpuno različit od drugog elementa „NORM” osporavanog žiga.
The trade marks are considered similar. 
Žigovi se smatraju vizualno sličnima.
The marks are phonetically identical and visually similar to a medium degree. 
Žigovi su fonetski istovjetni i u srednjoj mjeri vizualno slični.
As regards the conceptual comparison, it cannot be excluded that part of the relevant public will interpret the contested mark as the letter combination ‘GE'. 
Kad je riječ o konceptualnoj usporedbi, ne može se isključiti da će dio relevantne javnosti osporavani žig protumačiti kao kombinaciju slova „GE”.
The mere fact that one or both letters of the marks are identical is not enough to render the marks visually similar. 
Sama činjenica da su jedno ili oba slova znaka istovjetna nije dovoljna da bi žigovi bili vizualno slični.
There is no aural similarity if the contested mark will be pronounced as ‘B' or ‘PB' as in short signs differences have a higher impact on the overall impression than in longer marks. 
Zvučna sličnost ne postoji ako se osporavani žig izgovara kao „B” ili „PB” s obzirom na to da razlike u kratkim znakovima imaju veći utjecaj na ukupni dojam nego u dužim znakovima.
Conceptually, the contested mark and the earlier marks with no additional elements to the letter combination ‘AB' do not have a meaning in any of the relevant languages: the conceptual comparison remains thus neutral (paras 17-19). 
U konceptualnom smislu osporavani žig i raniji žig bez dodatnih elemenata u kombinaciji slova „AB” nemaju značenje ni u jednom od relevantnih jezika: stoga konceptualna usporedba ostaje neutralna (t. 17. - 19.).
The same degree of similarity - low - applies for the phonetic comparison. 
Ista razina sličnosti, konkretno niska, odnosi se na fonetsku usporedbu.
Aurally, the signs will be pronounced ‘K-X' and ‘C-X' respectively, and not as words. 
Zvučno se znakovi izgovaraju „K-X” i „C-X”, a ne kao riječi.
Neither of the marks has a conceptual meaning (paras 25-27). 
Nijedan od znakova nema konceptualno značenje (t. 25. - 27.).
Some degree of phonetic similarity between the marks at issue must be recognised, but it is not very high. 
Mora se priznati određena razina fonetske sličnosti između predmetnih žigova, no ona nije vrlo visoka.
Without making an error, the Board of Appeal, therefore, could find that the phonetic similarity between the marks at issue was not ‘notable' (para. 71). 
Stoga Žalbeno vijeće nije pogriješilo kad je utvrdilo da fonetska sličnost između predmetnih žigova nije „znatna” (t. 71.).
The letters ‘E' and ‘I' in Germany are pronounced similarly (paras 66-71). 
Slova „E” i „I” se u Njemačkoj izgovaraju na sličan način (t. 66. - 71.).
These letters are also visually dissimilar. 
Ta su slova također vizualno različita.
Furthermore, the figurative elements of the compared marks do not resemble each other (paras 17-18). 
Nadalje, figurativni elementi uspoređenih žigova ne nalikuju jedan drugome (t. 17. - 18.).
The relevant public in Germany will certainly notice the differences in the beginning of the signs. 
Relevantna javnost u Njemačkoj zasigurno će primijetiti razlike na početku znakova.
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (likelihood of confusion) 
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu)
TRIDENT PURE 16/12/2015, T491/13, EU:T:2015:979 (No likelihood of confusion) 
TRIDENT PURE 16/12/2015, T491/13, EU:T:2015:979 (nema vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu)
They were deemed phonetically similar to a low degree for those who understood ‘PURE' but aurally similar to an average degree for the remaining part of the public. 
Smatrali su se fonetski sličnima u manjoj mjeri za one koji razumiju „PURE” (čisto), ali zvučno sličnima u prosječnoj mjeri za preostali dio javnosti.
On a conceptual level, they were similar for those understanding ‘PURE' as a reference to the purity of the goods at issue and to the purity of breath' (para. 93). 
U konceptualnom smislu bili su slični onima koji razumiju „PURE” kao upućivanje na čistoću predmetnih proizvoda i na čistoću daha (t. 93.).
It was also stated that the fact that the word ‘pure' is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods in question does not alter the conceptual content of those marks. 
Istaknuto je i da činjenica da riječ „pure” opisuje obilježja predmetnih proizvoda ne mijenja konceptualni sadržaj tih žigova.
With respect to the remaining earlier rights the degree of similarity was no greater. 
S obzirom na preostala ranija prava razina sličnosti nije bila veća.
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (likelihood of confusion) 
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu)
Phonetically, they were found similar to an average degree (para. 51) and conceptually dissimilar, the latter again due to the descriptive content of ‘GESIC' and the differing associations that could be made with the respective prefixes of the signs (‘OXY' refers to oxygen/oxycodon and ‘MAXI' to maximum (para. 53)), with the result that a likelihood of confusion was excluded. 
Utvrđeno je da su fonetski slični u prosječnoj mjeri (t. 51.) i konceptualno različiti, potonji opet zbog opisnog sadržaja „GESIC” i različitih asocijacija koje bi se mogle potaknuti s obzirom na predmetke znakova („OXY” se odnosi na oxygen/oxycodon (kisik/oksikodon), a „MAXI” na maksimum (t. 53.)), iz čega je proizašlo isključenje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
G&S: Class 35, 36 and 42. 
Proizvodi i usluge: razredi 35., 36. i 42.
Territory: Austria, Benelux, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
Područje: Austrija, Beneluks, Bugarska, Češka Republika, Cipar, Danska, Estonija, Finska, Francuska, Njemačka, Grčka, Mađarska, Italija, Latvija, Litva, Poljska, Portugal, Slovačka, Slovenija, Španjolska, Švedska i Ujedinjena Kraljevina.
Assessment: visually, the signs were deemed to have at least a certain degree of visual similarity, even if the coincidence in ‘bonus' related to an element of a weak distinctive character (paras 32, 41). 
Procjena: smatra se da znakovi imaju barem određenu razinu vizualne sličnosti, čak i ako se podudarnost u riječi „bonus” odnosi na element slaba razlikovnog karaktera (t. 32., 41.).
Phonetically, the signs were found similar to an average degree due to the identical pronunciation of the first two syllables (para. 34). 
Utvrđeno je da su znakovi fonetski slični u prosječnoj mjeri zbog istovjetnog izgovora prvih dvaju slogova (t. 34.).
Conceptually, there is at least a certain degree of similarity for a significant part of the public for whom the common element ‘bonus' conveys an identical meaning (para. 42). 
Konceptualno postoji barem određena razina sličnosti za znatan dio javnosti kojoj zajednički element „bonus” prenosi istovjetno značenje (t. 42.).
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 The words ‘by missako' are almost illegible: the size and script make them difficult to decipher 
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 Riječi „by missako” gotovo su nečitljive: veličina i pismo otežavaju njihovo čitanje
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 The element ‘Rótulos Luna S.A.' was considered negligible 
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 Element „Rótulos Luna S.A.” smatrao se zanemarivim
The conflicting signs are dissimilar (para. 87). 
Suprotstavljeni su znakovi različiti (t. 87.).
In the visual impression created by the marks, the beginnings ‘sto' and ‘cre' and the endings ‘tec' and ‘o' play a more important role than the syllables ‘cre' and ‘te', which are placed in the middle of the signs and are less perceived by the relevant public. 
Prema vizualnom dojmu koji ostavljaju žigovi, počeci „sto” i „cre” te završeci „tec” i „o” imaju važniju ulogu nego slogovi „cre” i „te” koji su smješteni u sredini znakova i slabije ih opaža relevantna javnost.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no visual similarity between the signs (para. 71). 
Stoga se zaključuje da nema vizualne sličnosti između znakova (t. 71.).
The marks are not phonetically similar, in particular on account of their different beginnings and endings (para. 72). 
Žigovi nisu fonetski slični, posebno zbog njihovih različitih početaka i završetaka (t. 72.).
The conceptual comparison remains neutral, as ‘StoCretec' and ‘CRETEO' are coined terms without any meaning in German (para. 73). 
Konceptualna usporedba ostaje neutralna jer su „StoCretec” i „CRETEO” izvedeni pojmovi bez ikakva značenja na njemačkom jeziku (t. 73.).
The figurative elements and the additional word ‘foods' must not be disregarded when comparing the signs (paras 54-55). 
Figurativni elementi i dodatna riječ „foods” (hrana) ne smiju se zanemariti pri uspoređivanju znakova (t. 54. - 55.).
The overall visual impression of the conflicting signs is clearly dissimilar (paras 59-61). 
Ukupni vizualni dojam suprotstavljenih znakova jasno je različit (t. 59. - 61.).
The signs are not phonetically similar bearing in mind, in particular, the additional element ‘foods' of the contested mark (paras 65-66). 
Znakovi nisu fonetski slični uzme li se u obzir konkretno dodatni element „foods” osporavanog žiga (t. 65. - 66.).
Finally, the marks are also conceptually not similar (para. 73). 
Konačno, žigovi nisu ni konceptualno slični (t. 73.).
The figurative elements of the earlier figurative marks further distinguish those marks from the mark applied for (para. 36). 
Figurativni elementi ranijeg figurativnog žiga dodatno razlikuju te žigove od prijavljenog žiga (t. 36.).
The signs at issue have a different rhythm of pronunciation (paras 43-44). 
Predmetni znakovi imaju različit ritam izgovora (t. 43. - 44.).
The words have no meaning; it is not possible to carry out a conceptual comparison (para. 54). 
Riječi nemaju značenje; nije moguće provesti konceptualnu usporedbu (t. 54.).
The figurative elements of the signs have the same outline, but will be perceived as different by the relevant public (paras 45-47). 
Figurativni elementi znakova imaju isti obris, no relevantna će ih javnost doživjeti drukčije (t. 45. - 47.).
The word elements are visually different since they have only two letters in common, which are also placed in distinct positions. 
Verbalni su elementi vizualno različiti jer imaju samo dva zajednička slova koja su smještena na različitim mjestima.
22/03/2012, B 1 837 106 
22/03/2012, R 1 837 106
The marks coincide only in that the verbal elements are written in white on a contrasting grey background and the white frame that separates the verbal and the landscape elements in equal parts. 
Žigovi se podudaraju samo u tome što su verbalni elementi ispisani bijelom bojom na kontrastnoj sivoj pozadini i s bijelim okvirom koji razdvaja verbalne i pejzažne elemente na jednakim dijelovima.
These are commonplace figurative elements, omnipresent in marks in virtually all fields of trade. 
To su uobičajeni figurativni elementi koji su prisutni u žigovima u gotovo svim područjima trgovine.
The consumer's attention is not caught by any of these details, but rather by the fanciful term ‘tukaş' in the earlier mark and by the word ‘Ekonomik' in the contested mark. 
Pozornost potrošača ne zaokuplja nijedan od tih detalja nego izmišljeni pojam „tukaş” u ranijem žigu i riječ „Ekonomik” u osporavanom žigu.
As the signs visually overlap only in irrelevant aspects and have nothing in common aurally and conceptually, they are dissimilar overall. 
Budući da se znakovi preklapaju samo u nevažnim aspektima i nemaju ništa zajedničko sa zvučnog i konceptualnog aspekta, ukupno su različiti.
G&S: provision of accommodation Territory: EU 
Proizvodi i usluge: pružanje smještaja Područje: EU
G&S: provision of restaurant services Territory: Spain (where ‘casa' has also the meaning ‘bar', ‘restaurant') 
Proizvodi i usluge: pružanje usluga restorana Područje: Španjolska (gdje „casa” znači i „bar”, „restaurant” (restoran))
G&S: telecommunications services Territory: EU 
Proizvodi i usluge: telekomunikacijske usluge Područje: EU
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (paras 39-61) 
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (t. 39. - 61.)
The earlier mark consists of two elements that are non-distinctive for the goods in question - the image of a corn (descriptive for bakery products) and the laudatory word element ‘PREMIUM'. 
Raniji se žig sastoji od dvaju elemenata koji su nerazlikovni za predmetne proizvode - slike klasa (opisna za pekarske proizvode) i pohvalnog verbalnog elementa „PREMIUM”.
The combination of these elements is arbitrary (unlike the word combination ‘Capital markets' in the example above, which is an established expression). 
Kombinacija je tih elemenata nasumična (za razliku od kombinacije riječi „Capital markets” u prethodnom primjeru, što je ustaljeni izraz).
The coincidences between the marks are therefore not limited to non-distinctive elements but extend to their particular combination. 
Podudarnosti između znakova stoga nisu ograničene na nerazlikovne elemente nego obuhvaćaju njihovu konkretnu kombinaciju.
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (paras 39-61) 
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (t. 39. - 61.)
The elements ‘aqua' and ‘water' also have a weak distinctive character owing to the fact that they will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning ‘water' and the goods covered all involve, in one way or another, water (para. 42). 
Elementi „aqua” i „water” (voda) također imaju razlikovni karakter zahvaljujući činjenici da će ih relevantna javnost doživljavati kao da znače „voda”, a svi obuhvaćeni proizvodi na ovaj ili onaj način uključuju vodu (t. 42.).
The signs were found visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to an average degree. 
Utvrđeno je da su znakovi u prosječnoj mjeri vizualno, fonetski i konceptualno slični.
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: although the element ‘post' as such is non-distinctive for postal services, it corresponds to the earlier mark, which should be attributed with a minimum degree of distinctiveness (para. 43). 
Proizvodi i usluge: razred 39. i drugi proizvodi i usluge povezani s poštanskim uslugama Područje: Njemačka, EU Procjena: iako je element „post” (pošta) nerazlikovan za poštanske usluge, odgovara ranijem žigu kojem treba dodijeliti minimalnu razinu razlikovnosti (t. 43.).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 1 
Smjernice za ispitivanje u Uredu, dio C, Prigovor Stranica 88.
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 
Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu - Razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga
CHAPTER 5 
POGLAVLJE 5.
DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE EARLIER MARK 
RAZLIKOVNI KARAKTER RANIJEG ŽIGA
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 4 
2 Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 4
2.1 General issues 4 
2.1 Opća pitanja 4
2.1.1 Distinctiveness 4 
2.1.1 Razlikovnost 4
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness 6 
2.1.2 Svojstvena i povećana razlikovnost 6
2.1.3 Relevant point in time 6 
2.1.3 Relevantan trenutak 6
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services 6 
2.1.4 Relevantni proizvodi i usluge 7
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 7 
2.2 Ispitivanje svojstvene razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 7
2.2.1 General principles 7 
2.2.1 Opća načela 7
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark 8 
2.2.2 Utjecaj niske razine razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga 8
2.2.3 Specific themes 9 
2.2.3 Specifične teme 9
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs 9 
2.2.3.1 Znakovi od jednog slova, brojevi i kratki znakovi 9
2.2.3.2 Collective marks 10 
2.2.3.2 Zajednički žigovi 11
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness 11 
2.3 Ispitivanje povećane razlikovnosti 11
… marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character. 
[...] žigovi koji imaju snažan razlikovni karakter sami po sebi ili zbog svojeg ugleda na tržištu uživaju veću zaštitu od žigova koji imaju slabiji razlikovni karakter.
… the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion. 
[...] razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga, a posebno njegov ugled, moraju se uzeti u obzir prilikom utvrđivanja je li sličnost proizvoda ili usluga obuhvaćenih dvama žigovima dostatna za utvrđivanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
The assessment of the distinctiveness of an earlier mark is especially important in cases, when there is only a low degree of similarity between the signs, as it must be assessed, whether this low degree can be compensated by the high degree of similarity between the products (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) and vice versa. 
Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga posebno je važna u slučajevima kada postoji samo niska razina sličnosti između znakova jer se mora procijeniti može li se ta niska razina nadoknaditi visokom razinom sličnosti između proizvoda (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) i obratno.
According to the case-law, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion of the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which determines the protection afforded to that mark, and the notion of the distinctive character which an element of a composite mark possesses, which determines its ability to dominate the overall impression created by the mark (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43). 
U skladu sa sudskom praksom, nužno je razlikovati pojam razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga, koji određuje zaštitu koja se pruža tom žigu, i pojam razlikovnog karaktera koji posjeduje element složenog žiga, a koji određuje njegovu sposobnost da dominira ukupnim dojmom koji ostavlja taj žig (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
While it is true that it is necessary to examine the distinctiveness of an element of a composite mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (…), the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark is an element to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. 
Iako je istina da je nužno ispitati razlikovnost nekog sastavnog elementa složenog znaka u fazi ispitivanja sličnosti znakova [...], razina razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga element je koji treba uzeti u obzir u kontekstu cjelovite procjene vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu.
It is therefore not appropriate to take account of what may be a low degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27). 
Stoga nije primjereno uzeti u obzir ono što bi se moglo smatrati niskom razinom razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga u fazi procjene sličnosti znakova (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
The Office therefore distinguishes between (i) the analysis of the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole, which determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark and is one of the factors in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and (ii) the analysis of the distinctive character of a component of the marks within their comparison . 
Ured stoga razlikuje (i.) analizu razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga u cjelini, kojom se određuje opseg zaštite koja se pruža tom žigu i jedan je od čimbenika u cjelovitoj procjeni vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu i (ii.) analizu razlikovnog karaktera sastavnica znakova u okviru njihova uspoređivanja.
[2: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.] 
[2: Vidjeti Smjernice, dio C, Prigovor, odjeljak 2., Istovjetnost i vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu, poglavlje 4., Uspoređivanje znakova.]
Whereas distinctive character must be assessed for the components of both the earlier mark and the contested mark, distinctiveness of the mark as a whole is assessed only in respect of the earlier mark . 
Dok se razlikovni karakter sastavnica mora procijeniti i za raniji žig i za osporavani žig, razlikovnost žiga u cjelini procjenjuje se samo u pogledu ranijeg žiga.
Therefore, any reference below to the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole refers exclusively to the earlier mark. 
Stoga se sve upute u nastavku o razlikovnosti žiga u cjelini odnose isključivo na raniji žig.
[3: See also Objective 1 of the Common Practice on the impact of non-distinctive/weak components on likelihood of confusion agreed within the framework of the European Trade Mark and Design Network (ETMDN).] 
[3: Vidjeti i cilj 1. zajedničke prakse u pogledu utjecaja nerazlikovnih/slabih sastavnica znakova pri utvrđivanju vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu, koja je utvrđena u okviru Europske mreže žigova i dizajna.]
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 
Procjena razlikovnosti ranijeg žiga