natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The goods or services may be so dissimilar that the later mark is unlikely to bring the earlier mark to the mind of the relevant public (Intel, paragraph 49). 
Proizvodi i usluge mogu biti toliko različiti da je malo vjerojatno da će se relevantna javnost na temelju kasnijeg žiga prisjetiti ranijeg žiga („Intel”, t. 49.).
The strength of the earlier mark's reputation. 
Snaga ugleda ranijeg žiga.
The degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use. 
Razina razlikovnog karaktera ranijeg žiga, svojstvena ili stečena uporabom.
The more inherently distinctive the prior mark, the more likely it will be brought to a consumer's mind when encountering a similar (or identical) later mark. 
Što je razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga svojstveniji, to je veća vjerojatnost da će ga se potrošač prisjetiti pri susretu sa sličnim (ili istovjetnim) kasnijim žigom.
The existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. 
Postojanje vjerojatnosti dovođenja javnosti u zabludu.
This list is not exhaustive, and a link between the marks at issue may be established or excluded on the basis of only some of those criteria. 
Ovaj popis nije konačan, a veza između predmetnih žigova može se uspostaviti ili isključiti na temelju samo nekih od tih kriterija.
The question of whether the relevant public will establish a link between the marks at issue is a question of fact, which must be answered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 
Pitanje hoće li relevantna javnost uspostaviti vezu između predmetnih žigova činjenično je pitanje na koje se mora odgovoriti s obzirom na činjenice i okolnosti svakog pojedinog slučaja.
The assessment of whether a ‘link' will be established must take into account all the relevant factors that will then need to be balanced. 
Pri procjeni hoće li se „veza” uspostaviti moraju se uzeti u obzir svi relevantni čimbenici koje zatim treba uskladiti.
Therefore, even a faint or remote degree of similarity between the signs (which might not be sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR) still justifies assessing all the relevant factors to determine if it is likely that a link between the signs will be established in the mind of the relevant public. 
Stoga čak i slaba ili neznatna razina sličnosti između znakova (koja možda nije dovoljna za donošenje nalaza o vjerojatnosti dovođenja u zabludu u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe o žigu EU-a) opravdava procjenu svih relevantnih čimbenika kako bi se utvrdilo postoji li vjerojatnost uspostave veze između znakova u svijesti relevantne javnosti.
In this respect, in its judgment of 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, the Court stated the following: 
U tom smislu u svojoj presudi od 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, Sud je iznio sljedeće:
Although that global assessment implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and a low degree of similarity between the marks may therefore be offset by the strong distinctive character of the earlier mark … the fact remains that where there is no similarity between the earlier mark and the challenged mark, the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark and the fact that the goods or services respectively covered are identical or similar are not sufficient for it to be found that … the relevant public makes a link between them ... 
Iako opća procjena podrazumijeva određenu međuovisnost relevantnih čimbenika i nisku razinu sličnosti između žigova, može se neutralizirati jakim razlikovnim karakterom ranijeg žiga [...] ostaje činjenica da u nedostatku sličnosti između ranijeg žiga i osporavanog žiga, ugled ili prepoznatljivost ranijeg žiga te činjenica da su obuhvaćeni proizvodi ili usluge istovjetni ili slični nije dovoljna za donošenje zaključka [...] da će relevantna javnost između njih uspostaviti vezu [...].
The General Court also found that the existence of a family of marks was a factor to be taken into account in assessing the establishment, on the part of the relevant public, of a link between the marks at issue (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73). 
Opći je sud utvrdio i da je postojanje obitelji žigova bilo čimbenik koji je trebalo uzeti u obzir pri procjeni, u relevantnoj javnosti, uspostave veze između predmetnih žigova (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73.).
Examples where a link was found between the signs 
Primjeri u kojima je utvrđena veza između znakova
The following are examples where it was found that the degree of similarity between the signs (together with further factors) was sufficient to conclude that consumers would establish a link between them. 
Slijede primjeri u kojima je utvrđeno da je razina sličnosti između znakova (uz ostale čimbenike) dovoljna za donošenje zaključka da bi potrošači uspostavili vezu između njih.
Examples where no link was found between the signs 
Primjeri u kojima nije utvrđena veza između znakova
The following are examples where an overall assessment of all of the relevant factors showed that it was unlikely that a link would be established between the signs. 
Slijede primjeri u kojima je sveobuhvatna procjena svih relevantnih čimbenika pokazala da vjerojatno neće biti moguće uspostaviti vezu između znakova.
3.4 The risk of injury 
Rizik od povrede
3.4.1 Protected subject matter 
Člankom 8. stavkom 5.
Article 8(5) EUTMR does not protect the reputation of the earlier mark as such, in the sense that it does not intend to prevent the registration of all marks identical with or similar to a mark with reputation. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a ne štiti se ugled ranijeg žiga kao takvog, u smislu da se ne namjerava spriječiti registracija svih žigova koji su istovjetni sa žigom s ugledom ili njemu slični.
In addition, there must be a likelihood that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. 
Osim toga, mora postojati vjerojatnost da bi se uporabom osporavane prijave bez opravdanog razloga nepošteno iskoristilo ili naštetilo razlikovnom karakteru ili ugledu ranijeg žiga.
The Court confirmed this by stating that once the condition as to the existence of reputation is fulfilled, the examination has to proceed regarding the condition that the earlier mark must be detrimentally affected without due cause (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30). 
Sud je to potvrdio i naveo da, kada se ispuni uvjet u pogledu postojanja ugleda, treba nastaviti ispitivanje s obzirom na uvjet da će ranijem žigu biti nanesena šteta bez opravdanog razloga (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
However, in a series of previous decisions, the Court stated that apart from indicating origin, a trade mark may also fulfil other functions worthy of protection. 
Međutim, u nizu prethodnih odluka Sud je iznio da, osim oznake podrijetla, žig može imati i druge funkcije koje treba zaštititi.
More particularly, it confirmed that a trade mark can offer a guarantee that all the goods coming from a single undertaking have the same quality (guarantee function) and that it can serve as an advertising instrument by reflecting back the goodwill and prestige it has acquired in the market (advertising function) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 & C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82). 
Konkretnije, potvrdio je da se žigom može jamčiti da su svi proizvodi koji potječu od jednog poduzeća iste kvalitete (jamstvena funkcija) i da žig može služiti kao sredstvo promidžbe jer odražava dobar ugled i prestiž koji je stekao na tržištu (promidžbena funkcija) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 & C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82)).
It follows that trade marks serve not only to indicate the origin of a product, but also to convey a certain message or image to the consumer, which is incorporated in the sign mostly through use and, once acquired, forms part of its distinctiveness and repute. 
Iz toga slijedi da žigovi ne služe samo kao oznake podrijetla proizvoda, već i potrošaču prenose određenu poruku ili imidž koji su ugrađeni u znak ponajviše uporabom i, jednom kada se stekne, čini dio njegova razlikovnog karaktera i ugleda.
In most cases of reputation these features of the trade mark will be particularly developed, as the commercial success of a brand is usually based on product quality, successful promotion, or both, and, for this reason, will be especially valuable to the trade mark owner. 
U većini slučajeva povezanih s ugledom te značajke žiga posebno su razvijene jer se tržišni uspjeh robne marke obično temelji na kvaliteti proizvoda, uspješnoj promidžbi ili oba ta čimbenika te je, stoga, posebno važan nositelju žiga.
Given also that a very strong reputation is both easier to harm and more tempting to take advantage of, owing to its great value, the Court underlined that ‘the stronger the earlier mark's distinctive character and reputation the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41). 
Imajući u vidu da je vrlo snažnom ugledu lakše nanijeti štetu i da ga je, zbog njegove velike vrijednosti, primamljivije iskoristiti, Sud je naglasio da „što su snažniji razlikovni karakter i ugled ranijeg žiga, to će lakše biti prihvatiti da mu je nanesena šteta” (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Even though the Court did not say so expressly, the same must be accepted as regards the unfair advantage that the applicant might enjoy at the expense of the earlier mark. 
Iako Sud to nije izričito izjavio, isto treba prihvatiti i kada je riječ o nepoštenom iskorištavanju koje podnositelj prijave može učiniti na štetu ranijeg žiga.
3.4.2 Assessment of the risk of injury 
Procjena rizika od povrede
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court did not deal with the assessment of detriment and unfair advantage in great detail, as this issue was not part of the question referred to it. 
U predmetu Chevy (General Motors) Sud se nije detaljno bavio procjenom nanesene štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja jer taj problem nije bio dio upita koji mu je upućen.
It only stated that it ‘is only where there is a sufficient degree of knowledge of that mark that the public, when confronted by the later trade mark, may possibly make an association between the two trade marks … and that the earlier trade mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23). 
Sud je samo utvrdio da „kada postoji dovoljna razina poznavanja toga žiga, javnost može, kada je suočena s kasnijim žigom, napraviti određenu asocijaciju između dvaju žigova… te da, shodno tome, ranijem žigu može biti nanesena šteta” (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Even though this statement is too limited to serve as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of the existence of a risk of injury, it gives at least a significant indication, namely that detriment or unfair advantage must be the consequence of an association between the conflicting marks in the minds of the public, made possible by the similarities between the marks, their distinctiveness, the reputation and other factors (see paragraph 3.3 above). 
Iako je ova izjava previše ograničena da bi bila temelj sveobuhvatne analize postojanja rizika od povrede, ona je barem bitan pokazatelj činjenice da šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje moraju biti posljedica asocijacije između suprotstavljenih žigova u svijesti javnosti, a koja je omogućena sličnostima između žigova, njihovim razlikovnim karakterom, ugledom i drugim čimbenicima (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.3.).
Thus, if the alleged detriment or unfair advantage is not the result of an association between the marks, but is due to other, extraneous reasons, it is not actionable under Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Stoga, ako navodna šteta ili nepošteno iskorištavanje nisu posljedica asocijacije između žigova, već su prouzročeni drugim, vanjskim razlozima, nisu podložni radnjama u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 5.
This will be easier to establish where the earlier mark is known to the public at large, or where the consumers of the respective goods and services largely overlap. 
To će se moći lakše utvrditi kada je raniji žig poznat široj javnosti ili kada se potrošači predmetnih proizvoda i usluga u velikoj mjeri preklapaju.
However, in cases where the goods and services are significantly different from each other and such a connection between the respective publics is not obvious, the opponent must justify why the marks will be associated, by reference to some other link between its activities and those of the applicant, for example where the earlier mark is exploited outside its natural market sector, for instance, by licensing or merchandising (see paragraph 3.3 above). 
Međutim, u slučajevima u kojima se proizvodi i usluge znatno razlikuju, a takva veza između odgovarajućih javnosti nije jasna, podnositelj prigovora mora opravdati zašto će žigovi biti povezani upućivanjem na neku drugu vezu između svojih aktivnosti i aktivnosti podnositelja prijave, primjerice kada se raniji žig iskorištava i izvan svojeg prirodnog sektora tržišta licenciranjem ili prodajom (pogledajte prethodni odlomak 3.3.).
The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or is, or will be, detrimental to it (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43). 
Što se neposrednije i snažnije potrošač može prisjetiti ranijeg žiga na temelju kasnijeg žiga, veća je vjerojatnost da se trenutačnom ili budućom uporabom znaka nepošteno iskorištava, ili će se iskorištavati, razlikovni karakter ili ugled žiga ili im se nanosi, ili će im se nanositi, šteta (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Therefore, the evaluation of detriment or unfair advantage must be based on an overall assessment of all the factors relevant to the case (including in particular the similarity of signs, the reputation of the earlier mark, and the respective consumer groups and market sectors), with a view to determining whether the marks may be associated in a way that may adversely affect the earlier trade mark. 
Stoga se procjena nanošenja štete ili nepoštenog iskorištavanja mora temeljiti na sveobuhvatnoj procjeni svih čimbenika relevantnih za određeni slučaj (posebno uključujući sličnost znakova, ugled ranijeg žiga, odgovarajuće potrošačke skupine i tržišne sektore) kako bi se utvrdilo mogu li se žigovi povezati na način kojim se može ugroziti raniji žig.
In MacCoffee/McDonald's, the General Court found that the existence of a ‘Mc' family of marks was a key factor to take into account when assessing whether there was an unfair advantage. 
U presudi MacCoffee/McDonald's, Opći sud utvrdio je da je postojanje obitelji žigova „Mc” bio ključan čimbenik koji je trebalo uzeti u obzir pri procjeni je li postojalo nepošteno iskorištavanje.
3.4.3 Types of injury 
Vrste povrede
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR applies if any of the following three alternative requirements is fulfilled, namely if use of the contested mark would: 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a primjenjuje ako se ispuni bilo koji od sljedećih triju alternativnih uvjeta, odnosno ako bi se uporabom osporavanog žiga:
take unfair advantage of the distinctiveness, or the repute of the earlier mark; 
nepošteno iskoristilo razlikovnost ili ugled ranijeg žiga;
cause detriment to the distinctiveness; 
nanijela šteta razlikovnosti;
cause detriment to the repute. 
nanijela šteta ugledu.
For the sake of completeness, both aspects of the same injury will be dealt with under paragraph 3.4.3.1 below. 
Uredbe o žigu EU-a (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47).
There is a rich lexicon of vocabulary that is used in relation to this area of trade mark law. 
Postoji bogat rječnik izraza koji se upotrebljavaju u vezi s ovim područjem zakonodavstva o žigovima.
The most common terms are set out below. 
U nastavku su opisani najčešći pojmovi.
3.4.3.1 Taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute 
Nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnosti ili ugleda
The nature of the injury 
Priroda povrede
The notion of taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute covers cases where the applicant benefits from the attractiveness of the earlier right by affixing on its goods/services a sign that is similar (or identical) to one widely known in the market and, thus, misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value or exploiting its reputation, image and prestige. 
Pojmom nepoštenog iskorištavanja razlikovnosti ili ugleda obuhvaćeni su slučajevi u kojima podnositelj prijave iskorištava privlačnost ranijeg prava tako da svoje proizvode/usluge označuje znakom koji je sličan znaku koji je općepoznat na tržištu (ili istovjetan s njime) te na taj način zloupotrebljava njegovu snagu privlačnosti i promidžbenu vrijednost ili iskorištava njegov ugled, imidž i prestiž.
This may lead to unacceptable situations of commercial parasitism, where the applicant is allowed to take a ‘free ride' on the investment of the opponent in promoting and building up goodwill for its mark, as it may stimulate sales of the applicant's products to an extent that is disproportionately high in comparison with the size of its promotional investment. 
To može dovesti do neprihvatljivih situacija trgovačkog nametništva u kojem je podnositelju prijave dopušteno „provlačiti se” na temelju ulaganja podnositelja prigovora pri promidžbi i stvaranju ugleda za svoj žig, što može potaknuti prodaju proizvoda podnositelja prijave u omjeru koji je nerazmjerno visok u usporedbi s veličinom njegovih promidžbenih ulaganja.
In its judgment of 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, the Court indicated that unfair advantage exists where there is a transfer of the image of the mark or of the characteristics that it projects to the goods identified by the identical or similar sign. 
U svojoj presudi od 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, Sud je naveo da postoji nepošteno iskorištavanje kada dođe do prijenosa imidža žiga ili obilježja koja se tim žigom projiciraju na proizvode označene istovjetnim ili sličnim znakom.
By riding on the coat-tails of the reputed mark, the applicant benefits from the power of attraction, reputation and prestige of the reputed mark. 
Ubacivanjem u područje djelovanja žiga s ugledom, podnositelj prijave iskorištava snagu privlačnosti, ugled i prestiž žiga s ugledom.
The applicant also exploits, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark (§ 41, 49). 
Podnositelj prijave, bez plaćanja ikakve financijske naknade, iskorištava i nastojanja u području oglašavanja nositelja žiga kako bi stvorio i održao imidž žiga (t. 41., 49.).
Relevant consumer 
Relevantni potrošač
The concept of ‘unfair advantage' focuses on benefit to the later mark rather than harm to the earlier mark; what is prohibited is the exploitation of the earlier mark by the proprietor of the later mark. 
Pojam „nepoštenog iskorištavanja” usmjeren je na koristi za kasniji žig, a ne na štetu za raniji žig; zabranjeno je da nositelj kasnijeg žiga iskorištava raniji žig.
Accordingly, the existence of the injury consisting of unfair advantage obtained from the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is applied for (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35). 
U skladu s time, postojanje povrede koju čini nepošteno iskorištavanje razlikovnog karaktera ili ugleda ranijeg žiga mora se procijeniti u odnosu na prosječne potrošače proizvoda ili usluga za koje je podnesena prijava za kasniji žig (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of unfair advantage 
Procjena nepoštenog iskorištavanja
In order to determine whether the use of a sign takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment, which takes into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, confirmed 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53). 
Kako bi se procijenilo iskorištava li se nepošteno razlikovni karakter ili ugled žiga, nužno je provesti sveobuhvatnu procjenu u kojoj će se u obzir uzeti svi čimbenici relevantni za okolnosti predmeta (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, potvrđeno 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; pogledajte i 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
The misappropriation of the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark presupposes an association between the respective marks, which makes possible the transfer of attractiveness and prestige to the sign applied for. 
Nezakonito prisvajanje razlikovnosti i ugleda ranijeg žiga podrazumijeva asocijaciju između odgovarajućih žigova, čime se omogućuje prijenos privlačnosti i prestiža na znak za koji je podnesena prijava.
An association of this kind will be more likely in the following circumstances. 
Takva asocijacija vjerojatnija je u sljedećim okolnostima:
1. Where the earlier mark possesses a strong reputation or a very strong (inherent) distinctive character, because in such a case it will be both more tempting for the applicant to try to benefit from its value and easier to associate it with the sign applied for. 
kada raniji žig ima snažan ugled ili vrlo snažan (svojstven) razlikovni karakter jer će u tom slučaju podnositelj prijave biti u većem iskušenju da pokuša iskoristiti njegovu vrijednost i bit će ga lakše povezati sa znakom za koji je podnesena prijava.
Such marks will be recognised in almost any context, exactly because of their outstanding distinctiveness or ‘good' or ‘special' reputation, in the sense that it reflects an image of excellence, reliability or quality, or some other positive message, which could positively influence the choice of the consumer as regards goods of other producers (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44). 
Takvi žigovi prepoznatljivi su u gotovo svakom kontekstu upravo zbog svojeg iznimne razlikovnosti ili „dobrog” ili „posebnog” ugleda, u smislu da oni odražavaju imidž izvrsnosti, pouzdanosti ili kvalitete, ili neku drugu pozitivnu poruku koja može pozitivno utjecati na odabir potrošača u pogledu proizvoda drugih proizvođača (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
The stronger the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the more likely it is that, when encountering a later identical or similar mark, the relevant public will associate it with that earlier mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27). 
Što je razlikovni karakter ranijeg žiga snažniji, vjerojatnije je da će ga, pri susretu s kasnijim istovjetnim ili sličnim žigom, relevantna javnost povezati s ranijim žigom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27);