natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The following invented examples illustrate cases where the coincidence in one element cannot lead to any similarity because that element is non-distinctive and the other elements, which are clearly different, allow the public to differentiate sufficiently between the marks. 
Sljedeći izmišljeni primjeri prikazuju slučajeve kad podudarnost u jednom elementu ne može dovesti ni do kakve sličnosti jer je taj element nerazlikovan, a drugi elementi koji su jasno različiti omogućuju javnosti da razlikuje znakove u dovoljnoj mjeri.
Examples from case-law 
Primjeri iz sudske prakse
According to the rules established on the beginning of signs, despite a lack of distinctive character of the elements in common, it would not be appropriate to conclude on dissimilarity, where: 
U skladu s pravilima utvrđenima u pogledu početka znakova, unatoč nedostatku razlikovnog karaktera zajedničkih elemenata, bilo bi neprikladno zaključiti da su različiti ako:
the particular combination of the elements confer some distinctiveness on the signs (i.e. the combination would be protected) 
konkretna kombinacija elemenata znakovima dodjeljuje određenu razlikovnost (tj. kombinacija bi bila zaštićena)
the other element that is supposed to distinguish between the signs is perceived as an insignificant figurative detail, or is otherwise non-distinctive (see paragraph 3.2.3.1 above) 
drugi element koji bi trebao razlikovati znakove doživljava se kao nevažan figurativni detalj ili je na drugi način nerazlikovan (vidjeti odlomak 3.2.3.1.)
the non-distinctive elements constituting (forming exclusively) the sign are entirely incorporated in the other sign 
nerazlikovni elementi koji čine (oblikuju isključivo) znak potpuno su ugrađeni u drugi znak
In summary, the finding of ‘dissimilar overall' on account of an overlap exclusively in non-distinctive elements should be limited to evident cases where the other element serves to safely distinguish between the signs. 
Ukratko, nalaz o „ukupnoj različitosti” na temelju preklapanja isključivo nerazlikovnih elemenata trebao bi biti ograničen na očite slučajeve gdje drugi element služi za sigurno razlikovanje znakova.
In less evident cases low similarity should be attributed to the marks. 
U manje očitim slučajevima žigovima treba dodijeliti manju razinu sličnosti.
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No 
Žigovi s ugledom (članak 8. stavak 5.
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.
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 The Board described the contested sign in full, but negligible elements such as '70 cl' were not included in the comparison. 
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 Vijeće je u potpunosti opisalo osporavani znak, no nije uključilo u usporedbu zanemarive elemente kao što je „70 cl”.
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 The elements other than ‘cachaça'/‘pirassununga' and ‘51', the latter written in white within a circle that is itself partially within a broad band running from one side of the sign to the other, are negligible in the overall impression created by those marks (para. 65). 
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 U cjelokupnom dojmu žigova svi su elementi zanemarivi osim sljedećih: „cachaça”/„pirassununga” i „51” koji je napisan bijelom bojom u krugu koji je djelomično unutar široke trake koja se proteže od jedne do druge strane znaka (t. 65.).
Earlier sign Contested sign and comments Case No 
Raniji znak Osporavani znak i primjedbe Predmet br.
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED It was found that ‘the signs at stake were obviously not identical', even if ‘Insurance company limited' was descriptive in English for the related services. 
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Utvrđeno je da „predmetni znakovi očito nisu istovjetni” čak i ako je „Insurance company limited” na engleskom jeziku bio opisan za povezane usluge.
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No 
Raniji znak Osporavani znak Predmet br.
31/01/2012, B 1 827 537 
31/01/2012, R 1 827 537
28/02/2013, B 2 031 741 
28/02/2013, R 2 031 741
Earlier sign Contested sign 
Raniji znak Osporavani znak
The Court considered that the fact that ‘the proprietor of a mark may use it in a colour or a combination of colours and obtain for it, as the case may be, protection under the relevant applicable provisions … does not mean … that the registration of a mark which does not designate any specific colour covers all colour combinations which are enclosed with the graphic representation' (para. 39). 
Sud je smatrao da činjenica da „nositelj žiga žig može upotrijebiti u boji ili kombinaciji boja te, ovisno o slučaju, steći zaštitu za njega u skladu s relevantnim primjenjivim odredbama [...] ne znači [...] da registracija žiga koja ne označava nikakvu posebnu boju obuhvaća sve kombinacije boja koje su sadržane u grafičkom prikazu” (t. 39.).
In this particular case, the Court considered that the Board was right in finding ‘that one difference between the mark applied for and the first and second earlier marks lay in the fact that the mark applied for consisted, in part, of a yellow background with white vertical stripes' (para. 40). 
U tom konkretnom slučaju Sud je smatrao da je vijeće dobro utvrdilo „da je jedna razlika između prijavljenog žiga te prvog i drugog ranijeg žiga u činjenici da se prijavljeni žig djelomično sastoji od žute pozadine s bijelim okomitim prugama” (t. 40.).
In the first category of Member States, consumers are liable to associate both marks with the notions of ‘fruit' and ‘sunshine'. 
U prvoj kategoriji država članica potrošači su skloni povezivati oba žiga s pojmovima „voće” i „sunce”.
There will consequently be a certain level of conceptual similarity between them. 
Uslijed toga među njima će biti određena razina konceptualne sličnosti.
In Member States of the second category, consumers will not perceive any conceptual similarity between the signs since they will not attach any particular meaning to the constituent parts of either sign (paras 21-24). 
U državama članicama iz druge kategorije potrošači neće opaziti nikakvu konceptualnu sličnost između znakova jer neće pridodati nikakvo posebno značenje sastavnicama bilo kojeg znaka (točke 21. - 24.).
Therefore, this component has only limited relevance in the perception of the signs (para. 36). 
Stoga ta sastavnica ima samo ograničenu važnost u poimanju znaka (t. 36.).
The German public understands the meaning of these two basic words as well as the combination thereof (paras 31-35). 
Njemačka javnost razumije značenje tih dviju osnovnih riječi kao i njihovu kombinaciju (točke 31. - 35.).
Furthermore, for some goods in Class 12, it must be held that that word can also designate one of their purposes. 
Nadalje, za određene proizvode iz razreda 12. treba smatrati da ta riječ može označavati i jednu od njihovih namjena.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the evidence adduced by the applicant, the word ‘force' is commonly used, on the European market, in trade marks in the domain of cycling, thus rendering it banal (paras 38-39). 
Osim toga, kao što je očito iz dokaza koje je iznio podnositelj prijave, riječ „force” obično se na europskom tržištu upotrebljava u žigovima iz područja biciklizma, što je čini banalnom (t. 38. - 39.).
Even if it is not negligible in terms of its size, the figurative element of the contested EUTM is likely to be perceived by consumers essentially as a mere decorative element, and not as an element indicating the commercial origin of the goods (para. 43). 
Čak i ako nije zanemariv u pogledu veličine, figurativni element osporavanog žiga EU-a potrošači će vjerojatno u osnovi percipirati tek kao ukrasni element, a ne kao element koji označava trgovačko podrijetlo proizvoda (t. 43.).
The marks are visually highly similar and phonetically and conceptually identical (paras 45-48). 
Žigovi su vizualno vrlo slični te fonetski i konceptualno istovjetni (t. 45. - 48.).
Sign Dominant component and reasoning Case No 
Znak Dominantna sastavnica i obrazloženje Predmet br.
RPT: ‘the dominant element of the earlier marks is the acronym RPT, in which the letter “p” predominates' (para. 33). 
RPT: „dominantni element ranijih žigova jest akronim RPT na kojem je istaknuto slovo ‚p' (t. 33.).
Free: ‘the word “free” dominates the visual impression created by the mark of which it forms part, because it is considerably larger than the other components and, in addition, is much easier to remember and pronounce than the slogan in question' (para. 39). 
Free: „riječ ‚free' (besplatno) ističe se u vizualnom dojmu koji ostavlja žig čiji je ona dio jer je ta riječ znatno veća od drugih sastavnica i usto ju je jednostavnije zapamtiti i izgovoriti od predmetnog slogana” (t. 39.).
Xtreme: ‘On the visual level, it must be concluded that in the mark applied for, the term “XTREME” occupies a central position. 
Xtreme: „Na vizualnoj razini mora se zaključiti da na žigu za koji je podnesena prijava pojam „XTREME” zauzima središnji položaj.
(by missako) GREEN by missako: ‘It must be noted, as a first point, that the representation of the sun has an important place within the mark applied for, in that it is positioned in the centre and covers almost two thirds of the area. 
(by missako) GREEN by missako: „Mora se napomenuti da je, kao prvo, prikaz sunca na žigu za koji je podnesena prijava važan jer se nalazi u središtu i obuhvaća gotovo dvije trećine cijelog žiga.
Next, the position of the word element “green” is also important within the mark, as it is portrayed in large-typeface, stylised upper case letters in black and takes up about one third of the area. 
Zatim, položaj verbalnog elementa „green” također je važan na žigu jer je element prikazan velikim crnim stiliziranim slovima i zauzima gotovo trećinu cijelog žiga.
As observed by the Board of Appeal in para. 28 of the contested decision, those two elements thus occupy the major portion of the mark applied for and are, therefore, striking in the overall impression of the mark. 
Kao što je napomenulo Žalbeno vijeće u t. 28. pobijane odluke, ta dva elementa stoga zauzimaju većinu žiga za koji je podnesena prijava zbog čega se ističu u ukupnom dojmu žiga.
Lastly, as regards the word element “by missako”, the Board of Appeal correctly held, in para. 28 of the contested decision, that those words were almost illegible because of their size and that the handwriting made them difficult to decipher. 
Konačno, u pogledu verbalnog elementa „by missako”, Žalbeno vijeće točno je utvrdilo u t. 28. pobijane odluke da su te riječi gotovo nečitljive zbog svoje veličine i da ih je zbog rukopisa teško odgonetnuti.
It follows, first, that the dominant nature of the word “green” and of the representation of the sun are thereby further reinforced and, secondly, that the word element “by missako” is negligible in nature' (paras 37-39). 
Iz toga slijedi da su, kao prvo, dominantna priroda riječi „green” i prikaza sunca time dodatno pojačani te, kao drugo, da je verbalni element „by missako” sam po sebi zanemariv.” (t. 37. - 39.).
BÜRGER: The dominant element of the mark applied for is undeniably the word element in upper case letters that stands out, simply because of its position and the very large size of its lettering, from all the other elements that make up the label (para. 38). 
BÜRGER: Dominantni element žiga za koji je podnesena prijava neosporno je riječ pisana velikim slovima koja se već zbog svojeg položaja i veličine slova ističe u odnosu na sve druge elemente koji sačinjavaju naljepnicu (t. 38.).
BABIDU babilu 31/01/2013, T66/11, EU:T:2013:48 (high) 
BABIDU babilu 31/01/2013, T66/11, EU:T:2013:48 (visoka)
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (average) 
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (prosječna)
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/20024 (high) 
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/2004 (visoka)
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401 (very high) 
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401(vrlo visoka)
MARILA MARILAN 27/01/2011, R 799/20101 (high) 
MARILA MARILAN 27/01/2011, R 799/20101 (visoka)
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (average) 
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (prosječna)
CHALOU CHABOU 16/11/2011, T323/10, EU:T:2011:678 (high) 
CHALOU CHABOU 16/11/2011, T323/10, EU:T:2011:678 (visoka)
CAPOL ARCOL 25/03/2009, T402/07, EU:T:2009:85; 04/03/2010, C193/09 P, EU:C:2010:121; 
CAPOL ARCOL 25/03/2009, T402/07, EU:T:2009:85; 04/03/2010, T193/09 P, EU:C:2010:121;
The Board held that although those marks shared the letter ‘a' and the ending ‘ol', they ‘clearly differ[ed]' visually. 
Vijeće je smatralo da iako ti žigovi imaju zajedničko slovo „a” i završetak „ol”, očito se „vizualno razlikuju”.
The General Court agreed. 
Opći je sud bio suglasan.
It held that the same number of letters in two marks is not, as such, of any particular significance for the relevant public, even for a specialised public. 
Smatrao je da jednak broj slova kod dvaju žigova sam po sebi nije posebno važan relevantnoj javnosti, pa ni stručnoj javnosti.
Since the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which, moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable that many words will have the same number of letters and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone, be regarded as visually similar. 
Budući da se abeceda sastoji od ograničenog broja slova koja se, štoviše, ne upotrebljavaju jednakom učestalošću, neizbježno je da će brojne riječi imati jednak broj slova i čak njihov udio, no samo iz tog razloga ne može ih se smatrati vizualno sličnima.
In addition, the public is not, in general, aware of the exact number of letters in a word mark and, consequently, will not notice, in the majority of cases, that two conflicting marks have the same number of letters (paras 81-82). 
Osim toga, javnost općenito nije svjesna točnog broja slova u žigu i stoga u većini slučajeva neće primijetiti da dva oprečna žiga imaju jednak broj slova (t. 81. - 82.)
The Court held that what matters in the assessment of the visual similarity of two word marks is the presence, in each of them, of several letters in the same order (para. 83). 
Sud je smatrao da je u procjeni vizualne sličnosti žigova bitna prisutnost nekoliko slova u jednakom redoslijedu u svakom od njih (t. 83.).
The ending ‘ol' of the marks at issue constituted a common element of the marks but comes at the end and is preceded by completely different groups of letters (‘arc' and ‘cap' respectively), so the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that that this commonality does not render the marks visually similar (para. 83). 
Završetak „ol” u predmetnim žigovima zajednički je element žigova no stoji na kraju i prethodi mu potpuno različita skupina slova („arc” i „cap”), stoga je Žalbeno vijeće točno zaključilo da to zajedničko obilježje ne čini žigove vizualno sličnima (t. 83.).
The Court of Justice upheld this assessment from a visual perspective (para. 74). 
Sud je podržao tu procjenu iz vizualne perspektive (t. 74.).
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (average) 
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (prosječna)
COTO DE IMAZ 04/02/2010, R 409/20091 (high) 
COTO DE IMAZ 04/02/2010, R 409/20091 (visoka)
vendus sales & communication group 15/07/2010, R 994/20094 (high) 
vendus sales & communication group 15/07/2010, R 994/20094 (visoka)
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (average) 
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (prosječna)
11/03/2009, B 1 157 769 (medium) 
11/03/2009, R 1 157 769 (srednja)
11/10/2010, B 1 572 059 
11/10/2010, R 1 572 059
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054; confirmed 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (average) 
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054; potvrđeno 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (prosječna)
16/01/2014, T383/12, EU:T:2014:12 (high) 
16/01/2014, T383/12, EU:T:2014:12 (visoka)
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 & T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (significant) 
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 i T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (znatna)
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (low) 
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (niska)
30/05/2002, B 134 900 The marks were considered visually dissimilar 
30/05/2002, B 134 900 Utvrđeno je da su žigovi vizualno različiti.
That dominant element makes an immediate impression and is remembered. 
Dominantni element trenutno ostavlja dojam i pamti se.
Conversely, the graphic differences between the trade marks in question - namely the shape of the background (oval for the trade mark applied for and square for the earlier trade mark), the position of the letter on that background (in the centre in the case of the trade mark applied for and in the lower right-hand corner in the case of the earlier trade mark), the thickness of the line used to represent that letter (the trade mark applied for uses a slightly broader line than that used in the earlier trade mark) and the calligraphic details of the letters of the respective marks - are minor and do not constitute elements that will be remembered by the relevant public as effective distinguishing features. 
S druge strane, grafičke razlike između predmetnih žigova, konkretno oblik pozadine (ovalan za prijavljeni žig i pravokutan za raniji žig), položaj slova na pozadini (u središtu u slučaju prijavljenog žiga i u donjem desnom kutu u slučaju ranijeg žiga), debljina crte kojom se prikazuje slovo (prijavljeni žig ima malo širu crtu od ranijeg žiga) i kaligrafski detalji slova na žigovima, neznatne su i ne predstavljaju elemente koje će relevantna javnost upamtiti kao djelotvorna razlikovna obilježja.
Consequently, the conflicting signs are very similar from the visual point of view. 
Stoga su suprotstavljeni znakovi vrlo slični s vizualnog aspekta.
The outcome of this case: likelihood of confusion for identical goods and services (this part of the BoA decision was not challenged before the General Court). 
Ishod ovog predmeta: vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu u pogledu istovjetnih proizvoda i usluga (ovaj dio odluke Žalbenog vijeća nije osporavan pred Općim sudom).
No likelihood of confusion for the similar and dissimilar goods and services (inter alia, electric energy emanating from wind power; plants for the production of renewable energy; leasing of wind power energy generating facilities) for which the relevant public has a high degree of attention. 
Ne postoji vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu za slične i različite proizvode i usluge (među ostalim, električna energija koja proizlazi iz vjetra; postrojenja za proizvodnju obnovljive energije, iznajmljivanje postrojenja za proizvodnju električne energije iz vjetra) na koje relevantna javnost iznimno obraća pozornost.
A phonetic comparison was not possible, as it was found that the public would most likely not pronounce the contested trade mark given the particular graphic design (para. 32). 
Fonetska usporedba nije bila moguća jer je utvrđeno da javnost vjerojatno ne bi izgovarala osporeni žig s obzirom na konkretni grafički dizajn (t. 32.).
Please note that the outcome in this case was that of no likelihood of confusion, although the Court found low visual similarity between the signs. 
Treba napomenuti da je ishod ovog slučaja bilo nepostojanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu iako je Sud utvrdio malu vizualnu sličnost između znakova.
The outcome of this case was that of no likelihood of confusion. 
Ishod je tog predmeta bilo nepostojanje vjerojatnosti zablude.
The EUTM applied for is a complex graphic device that includes a black lowercase letter ‘m' and in addition, other significant figurative elements, namely a bold curved dark line placed above a background circle in which the letter ‘m' is almost included. 
Prijavljeni žig EU-a složeni je grafički prikaz koji uključuje crno malo slovo „m” i druge značajne figurativne elemente, konkretno podebljanu zakrivljenu tamnu crtu postavljenu iznad pozadinskog kruga u koji je slovo „m” gotovo uključeno.
These additional elements are of particular importance since the heavy bold line echoes the form of the background circle and the dark shade of the letter ‘m', which is placed over the background. 
Ti su dodatni elementi posebno važni jer krupna podebljana crta odražava oblik pozadinskog kruga i tamni obris slova „m” koje je postavljeno preko pozadine.
In the earlier mark, the letter ‘m' appears in outline font with a characteristic inclination to the right and an uneven height so that the right-hand size of the letter is lower. 
U ranijem se žigu slovo „m” pojavljivalo u obrisima uz svojstveno naginjanje udesno i nejednaku visinu tako da je desna strana slova niža.
Consequently, these dissimilarities between the signs are sufficient for it to be held that they do not give the consumer the same visual impression (para. 18). 
Stoga su te različitosti između znakova dovoljne da bi se smatralo kako ti znakovi na potrošača ne ostavljaju jednak vizualni dojam (t. 18.).
04/10/2010, R 576/20102; confirmed 24/01/2012, T593/10, EU:T:2012:25 
04/10/2010, R 576/20102; potvrđeno 24/01/2012, T593/10, EU:T:2012:25
Visually, the earlier mark can be perceived as a boomerang, accompanied by the letter ‘B', which is the first letter of ‘boomerang'. 
Vizualno se raniji žig može percipirati kao bumerang uz koji stoji slovo „B”, prvo slovo riječi „bumerang”.
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, para. 19 (low) 
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, t. 19 (niska)
04/03/2010, T24/08, EU:T:2010:71 (low) 
04/03/2010, T24/08, EU:T:2010:71 (niska)
Earlier sign Contested sign Relevant territory Case No 
Raniji znak Osporavani znak Relevantno područje Predmet br.
CAMEA BALEA EU 14/01/2015, T195/13, EU:T:2015:6 (low) 
CAMEA BALEA EU 14/01/2015, T195/13, EU:T:2015:6 (niska)
PT: the part of the relevant public that has some knowledge of the English language will read and pronounce the earlier mark in the same way as the mark applied for insofar as the latter uses the English word ‘forever' (para. 70). 
PT: dio relevantne javnosti koja posjeduje određeno znanje o engleskom jeziku čitat će i izgovarati raniji znak jednako kao prijavljeni žig ako je u potonjem engleska riječ „forever” (zauvijek) (t. 70.).
16/01/2014, T528/11, EU:T:2014:10 (identity/average) 
16/01/2014, T528/11, EU:T:2014:10 (istovjetno/prosječno)
FEMARA EU 12/02/2010, R 722/20084 (above average) 
FEMARA EU 12/02/2010, R 722/20084 (iznad prosjeka)
BX 16/09/2010, R 166/20101 (identity) 
BX 16/09/2010, R 166/20101 (istovjetno)
DE 09/06/2010, R 1071/20091 (low) 
DE 09/06/2010, R 1071/20091 (niska)
OLI SONE 16/04/2010, B 1 269 549 
OLI SONE 16/04/2010, R 1 269 549
DNG 15/09/2010, R 160/20102 The ampersand ‘&' will be pronounced in most European Union languages and is recognised as the corresponding translation of the conjunction ‘and'. 
DNG 15/09/2010, R 160/20102 Znak „&” izgovara se u većini jezika Europske unije i prepoznaje kao odgovarajući prijevod veznika „i”.
VODAFONE AT HOME 30/08/2010, R 138/20102 @ will be pronounced as ‘at' or ‘arobase' in the Benelux (para. 21). 
VODAFONE AT HOME 30/08/2010, R 138/20102 @ se izgovara kao „at” ili „arobase” u Beneluksu (t. 21.).
03/02/2011, R 719/20101; dismissed 19/09/2012, T220/11, EU:T:2012:444; dismissed 14/11/2013, C524/12 P, EU:C:2013:874 The @ will be perceived as the letter ‘a' by (at least) the EN public (para. 25). 
03/02/2011, R 719/20101; odbačen 19/09/2012, T220/11, EU:T:2012:444; odbačen 14/11/2013, T524/12 P, EU:C:2013:874 (Barem) engleski potrošači smatrat će znak @ slovom „a” (t. 25.).
20/07/2016, T745/14, EU:T:2016:423 The symbol ‘@' will easily be understood by the consumer as replacing the letter ‘a' (para. 26). 
20/07/2016, T745/14, EU:T:2016:423 Potrošači će odmah razumjeti da „@” zamjenjuje slovo „a” (t. 26.).
AirPlus International 03/03/2010, T321/07, EU:T:2010:64; dismissed 25/11/2010, C216/10 P, EU:C:2010:719 
AirPlus International 03/03/2010, T321/07, EU:T:2010:64; odbačen 25/11/2010, T216/10 P, EU:C:2010:719
Sign Explanation 
Znak Obrazloženje
T593/10 In this figurative mark, the letter ‘B' can be read. 
T593/10 Slovo „B” na ovom figurativnom žigu može se pročitati.
The mark must, therefore, be assessed phonetically. 
Žig stoga mora proći fonetsku procjenu.