natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
There may also be likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical.
Verjetnost zmede lahko obstaja tudi, če je splošen vtis znamk zelo podoben ali enak.
No likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples.
V naslednjih primerih verjetnost zmede ni bila ugotovljena.
In the following example there was a likelihood of confusion because other components are of a lower (or equally low) degree of distinctiveness or are of insignificant visual impact and the overall impression of the marks is similar.
V naslednjem primeru je obstajala verjetnost zmede, ker imajo drugi sestavni deli šibkejši (ali enako šibek) razlikovalni učinek ali nepomemben vizualni vpliv, splošen vtis znamk pa je podoben.
Common components with no distinctiveness
Skupni sestavni deli brez razlikovalnega učinka
According to the Common Practice, when marks share an element with no distinctiveness, the assessment will focus on the impact of the non-coinciding components on the overall impression of the marks.
V skladu s skupno prakso bo presoja, kadar je znamkam skupen element brez razlikovalnega učinka, osredotočena na vpliv neujemajočih se sestavnih delov na splošen vtis znamk.
The assessment will take into account the similarities/differences and distinctiveness of the non-coinciding components.
Pri tej presoji se bodo upoštevali podobnosti/razlike in razlikovalni učinek neujemajočih se sestavnih delov.
A coincidence only in non-distinctive components does not lead to likelihood of confusion.
Ujemanje le nerazlikovalnih sestavnih delov ne vodi k verjetnosti zmede.
However, when marks also contain other figurative and/or word elements that are similar, there will be likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical.
Kadar pa znamke vsebujejo tudi druge figurativne in/ali besedne elemente, ki so si podobni, verjetnost zmede obstaja, če je splošen vtis znamk zelo podoben ali enak.
No likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples, as the signs coincide solely in a non-distinctive element.
V naslednjih primerih ni bila ugotovljena verjetnost zmede, saj se znaki ujemajo samo v nerazlikovalnem elementu.
Likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples because the marks also contain other figurative and/or word elements that are similar, and the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical.
Verjetnost zmede je bila ugotovljena v naslednjih primerih, saj znamke vsebujejo tudi druge figurativne in/ali besedne elemente, ki so si podobni, splošen vtis pa je, da so si znamke zelo podobne ali enake.
The abovementioned examples concern the coincidence in a weakly distinctive or non-distinctive element of the marks.
Zgoraj navedeni primeri se nanašajo na ujemanje v šibkem razlikovalnem ali nerazlikovalnem elementu znamk.
The distinctiveness of an element of the mark is a separate question from the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, paragraph 2).
Razlikovalni učinek elementa znamke je ločeno vprašanje v presoji razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, odstavek 2).
However, when the earlier trade mark is entirely contained in the contested EUTM application and recognisable as such, its degree of distinctiveness naturally equals that of the coinciding element, with the following consequences.
Vendar če je prejšnja blagovna znamka v celoti vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in je kot taka prepoznavna, je njen razlikovalni učinek po naravi enak razlikovalnemu učinku ujemajočega se elementa z naslednjimi posledicami.
The analysis of the cases where the earlier mark is entirely contained in the contested EUTM application cannot follow the principles established in paragraph 6.2 above (Common components with no distinctiveness) but rather those established in paragraph 6.1 (Common components with a low degree of distinctiveness).
Analiza primerov, v katerih je prejšnja znamka v celoti vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, ne more upoštevati načel, določenih v zgornjem odstavku 6.2 (Skupni sestavni deli brez razlikovalnega učinka), temveč lahko upošteva tista, ki so določena v odstavku 6.1 (Skupni sestavni deli s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom).
This is because the Office applies the practice clarified in the judgment of 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-LIVE, EU:C:2012:314, namely that in proceedings opposing the registration of an EUTM application, the validity of earlier trade marks may not be called into question.
Razlog za to je, da Urad uporablja prakso, pojasnjeno v sodbi z dne 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-LIVE, EU:C:2012:314, in sicer da v postopkih ugovarjanja registraciji prijave blagovne znamke EU veljavnosti prejšnjih blagovnih znamk ni mogoče izpodbijati.
Consequently, the elements corresponding to the earlier mark cannot be considered as devoid of distinctive character in the trade mark comparison, but must be deemed to be endowed with some (low/minimal) degree of distinctiveness (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs, paragraph 3.2.3.5 (Earlier marks, the distinctiveness of which is called into question)).
Zato se ne more šteti, da elementi, ki se ujemajo s prejšnjo znamko, nimajo razlikovalnega značaja pri primerjavi blagovnih znamk, temveč je treba upoštevati, da imajo neki (šibek/minimalni) razlikovalni učinek (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov, odstavek 3.2.3.5 Prejšnje znamke, pri katerih se izpodbija razlikovalni učinek).
If the earlier mark contained in the contested EUTM application enjoys enhanced distinctiveness through use despite low inherent distinctiveness, the common element corresponding to that mark cannot be considered distinctive to a low degree and the principles of the Common Practice mentioned in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 above do not apply.
Če ima prejšnja znamka, ki je vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, povečan razlikovalni učinek z uporabo, in to kljub šibkemu svojstvenemu razlikovalnemu učinku, se ne more šteti, da ima skupni element, ki se ujema s to znamko, šibek razlikovalni učinek, in načela skupne prakse, navedena v odstavkih 6.1 in 6.2 zgoraj, se ne uporabljajo.
7 Specific Cases
Posebni primeri
7.1 Short signs
Kratki znaki
As indicated before, the Courts have not exactly defined what a short sign is.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, sodišča niso natančno opredelila, kaj je kratek znak.
However, signs with three or fewer letters/numbers are considered by the Office as short signs.
Vendar Urad šteje, da je znak kratek, če je sestavljen iz treh ali manj črk/številk.
The General Court held that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion between signs consisting of a single letter (or a combination of letters not recognisable as a word) follows the same rules as that in respect of word signs comprising a word, a name or an invented term (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 & T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 47-48; 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 49).
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da za celovito presojo verjetnosti zmede med znaki z eno samo črko (ali kombinacijo črk, ki ni prepoznavna kot beseda), veljajo enaka pravila kot za besedne znake, ki obsegajo besedo, ime ali fantazijsko sestavino (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 in T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 47-48; 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 49).
In the assessment of the likelihood of confusion it is important to establish the degree of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark, and therefore its scope of protection.
Pri presoji verjetnosti zmede je pomembno ugotoviti stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke in s tem njen obseg zaščite.
See in this respect the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, paragraph 2.2.3.1.
Glej v zvezi s tem Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, odstavek 2.2.3.1.
As to the overall assessment of likelihood of confusion, the Court made it clear that the fact that two trade marks consisting of the same letter (or of the same sequence of letters) are found to be identical from an aural and a conceptual point of view is relevant when it comes to assessing the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
Sodišče je v zvezi s celostno presojo verjetnosti zmede jasno opredelilo, da je ugotovitev, da sta dve blagovni znamki, sestavljeni iz iste črke (ali istega zaporedja črk), enaki z zvočnega in pojmovnega vidika, pomembna pri presoji obstoja verjetnosti zmede.
In such cases, it is only when the later trade mark causes a sufficiently different visual impression that a likelihood of confusion can be safely ruled out (T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 60).
V takšnih primerih je mogoče verjetnost zmede zanesljivo izključiti le, če poznejša blagovna znamka ustvari dovolj različen vizualni vtis (T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 60).
Consequently, a likelihood of confusion can be safely excluded when two conflicting signs, albeit containing or consisting of the same single letter or a combination of letters not recognisable as a word, are stylised in a sufficiently different way or contain a sufficiently different figurative element, so that their different overall graphical representation eclipses the common verbal element.
Zato je mogoče verjetnost zmede zanesljivo izključiti, kadar sta sporna znaka, čeprav vsebujeta isto črko ali kombinacijo črk ali sta sestavljena iz nje, pri čemer ta ni prepoznavna kot beseda, stilizirana dovolj različno ali vsebujeta dovolj različen figurativni element, da njun različen splošen grafični prikaz prevlada nad skupnim besednim elementom.
Where the opponent has successfully proven that its earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through intensive use or reputation, the impact thereof on the final outcome has to be carefully assessed.
Če vložnik ugovora uspešno dokaže, da je njegova prejšnja znamka z intenzivno uporabo ali ugledom pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek, je treba skrbno pretehtati njegov vpliv na končni izid.
Firstly, enhanced distinctiveness on the part of an earlier mark containing or consisting of a single letter or a combination of letters cannot justify a finding of a likelihood of confusion if the overall visual impression of the signs is so different as to safely set them apart.
Prvič, zaradi povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, ki vsebuje eno samo črko ali je sestavljena iz nje, ni upravičeno ugotoviti verjetnost zmede, če je celotni vizualni vtis znakov tako različen, da ju je mogoče zanesljivo ločiti.
Secondly, if the evidence shows use of a single letter or combination of letters stylised or accompanied by additional figurative elements, the benefit of the resulting broader scope of protection accrues to the form in which it was used and not to the single letter as such or any other stylised variation.
Drugič, če se dokazi nanašajo na uporabo ene same črke ali kombinacije črk, ki so stilizirane ali jih spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, širši obseg varstva uživa oblika, v kateri se je uporabljala, ne pa črka kot taka ali katera koli druga stilizirana različica.
7.2 Name/Surnames
Imena/priimki
In principle, there are no specific criteria to be taken into account when likelihood of confusion between names is assessed.
Načeloma ni posebnih meril, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji verjetnosti zmede med imeni.
However, because of the very nature of names and surnames, there are certain aspects that come into play (as will be seen below) that have to be carefully considered and balanced, such as whether a given name and/or surname is common or not in the relevant territory.
Zaradi narave imen in priimkov pa imajo vlogo nekateri vidiki (ti bodo prikazani v nadaljevanju), ki jih je treba skrbno upoštevati in uskladiti: na primer ali je neko ime in/ali priimek na upoštevnem ozemlju običajen ali ne.
7.2.2 Business names in combination with other components
Imena podjetij v povezavi z drugimi sestavnimi deli
When assessing likelihood of confusion in relation to composite signs that contain several verbal elements, one of which might be seen as being a business name, that is to say, indicating the company ‘behind' the trade mark, an overall assessment must be done in order to identify which element functions as the trade mark of the goods and services concerned.
Pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede v povezavi s sestavljenimi znaki, ki vsebujejo več besednih elementov, od katerih bi lahko enega šteli za ime podjetja, tj. da označuje podjetje za blagovno znamko, je treba izvesti celostno presojo za opredelitev, kateri element deluje kot blagovna znamka zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
Factors to be taken into account include the distinctiveness of each element as well as the size and/or space they occupy in a figurative mark, which determine the dominant element of the conflicting signs.
Dejavniki, ki jih je treba upoštevati, vključujejo razlikovalni učinek posameznega elementa ter velikost in/ali mesto v figurativni znamki, ki določa prevladujoči element spornih znakov.
Where the business name is not the dominant element, although each of the elements making up the sign might have their own independent distinctive role, consumers are likely to focus more on the element that would be seen as identifying the specific product line rather than on the element that would be perceived (because it is preceded by ‘by' or another equivalent term) as identifying either the company that has control of the products concerned or the designer who created the product line.
Kadar ime podjetja ni prevladujoči element, čeprav ima lahko vsak element, ki sestavlja znak, svoj avtonomni razlikovalni učinek, je verjetneje, da se potrošniki osredotočijo na element, ki po njihovem opredeljuje posebno družino izdelkov, in ne na element, ki po njihovem (ker pred njimi stoji beseda „by“ ali drug ustrezen element) opredeljuje podjetje, ki obvladuje zadevno blago, ali oblikovalca, ki je ustvaril proizvodni program.
Therefore, whenever there is a sufficient degree of similarity between the component that would be perceived as the trade mark and a conflicting sign, in principle there will be likelihood of confusion (provided the other relevant factors are met).
Zato bo načeloma vedno, kadar je med sestavnim delom, ki bi ga bilo mogoče zaznati kot blagovno znamko, in izpodbijanim znakom zadostna podobnost, obstajala verjetnost zmede (če so izpolnjeni drugi upoštevni dejavniki).
7.2.3 First and family names
Imena in priimki
The perception of signs made up of personal names may vary from country to country within the European Union.
Zaznavanje znakov, ki jih sestavljajo imena oseb, je lahko v različnih državah Evropske unije različno.
Family names have, in principle, a higher intrinsic value as indicators of the origin of goods or services than first names.
Priimki imajo načeloma višjo dejansko vrednost kot kazalniki izvora blaga ali storitev kot imena.
This is because common experience shows that the same first names may belong to a great number of people who have nothing in common, whereas the presence of the same surname (provided it is not common in the relevant territory) could imply the existence of some link between them (identity of the persons or a family link).
Izkušnje namreč kažejo, da ima lahko enako ime veliko ljudi, ki nimajo med seboj nič skupnega, isti priimek (če na upoštevnem ozemlju ni običajen) pa bi lahko pomenil, da obstaja neko razmerje med njimi (identiteta oseb ali družinsko razmerje).
In determining whether, in a particular country, the relevant public generally attributes greater distinctiveness to the surname than the forename, the case-law of that country, although not binding on the Office or the EU courts, may provide useful guidelines (01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, § 52).
Pri ugotavljanju, ali v neki državi upoštevna javnost navadno pripisuje večji razlikovalni učinek imenu ali priimku, je mogoče poiskati koristne smernice v sodni praksi te države, čeprav za Urad ali sodišča EU ni zavezujoča (01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, § 52).
There are instances where the applicants invoke, as a defence, their right to use their name.
Obstajajo primeri, v katerih se prijavitelji v obrambi sklicujejo na pravico do uporabe svojega imena.
However, such arguments are not valid in opposition proceedings, since it does not influence the issue of whether there will be likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
Vendar takšne trditve ne veljajo v postopkih ugovora, ker ne vplivajo na vprašanje, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede pri delu javnosti.
Furthermore, the registration of trade marks does not hinder the use of names of natural persons, due to the special protection provided by Article 14(1)(a) EUTMR and the relevant national trade mark laws according to Article 14(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive.
Poleg tega registracija blagovnih znamk ne ovira uporabo imen fizičnih oseb zaradi posebnega varstva, ki ga določata člen 14(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ustrezna nacionalna zakonodaja o blagovnih znamkah v skladu s členom 14(1)(a) Direktive o blagovnih znamkah.
First name against the same first name or slight variations thereof
Ime proti enakemu imenu ali majhni razliki v imenu
The rule of thumb is that when two conflicting signs consist exclusively of the same first name, consumers are likely to perceive the similar/identical goods/services marketed under those marks as coming from the same source.
Praviloma velja, da če sta sporna znaka sestavljena le iz istega imena, je verjetno, da bodo potrošniki za podobno/enako blago/storitve, ki se tržijo pod navedenimi znamkami, menili, da izvirajo iz istega vira.
It is clear that in the absence of any differentiating element, likelihood of confusion is the necessary conclusion.
Če torej ni nobenega razlikovalnega elementa, je seveda treba ugotoviti, da obstaja verjetnost zmede.
First name against identical first name plus surname
Ime proti enakemu imenu in priimku
Whenever two signs share the same first name and one of the two also contains a surname, and when the first name is likely to be perceived as a common (let alone very common) name in the relevant territory, the rule of thumb is that there will be no likelihood of confusion, since consumers will be aware that there are many people with that name.
Kadar koli imata dva znaka enako ime, eden od njiju pa vsebuje tudi priimek in če je verjetno, da se na upoštevnem ozemlju ime zaznava kot običajno (ali celo zelo običajno), na splošno velja, da ni verjetnosti zmede, ker se potrošniki zavedajo, da ima navedeno ime veliko ljudi.
An exception applies when a given first name is likely to be perceived as uncommon in the relevant territory.
Izjema pri tem pravilu je, kadar je verjetno, da se neko ime na upoštevnem ozemlju zaznava kot neobičajno.
In such cases, the presence of this uncommon element is likely to focus the consumers' attention and they could be misled into attributing a common origin to the goods/services concerned.
V takšnih primerih je verjetno, da bodo potrošniki pozornost osredotočili na ta neobičajni element, kar jih lahko zavede, da bodo zadevnemu blagu/storitvam pripisali skupni izvor.
First name plus surname against identical first name plus different surname
Ime in priimek proti enakemu imenu in različnemu priimku
When two conflicting signs contain the same first name but are followed by clearly different surnames, the rule of thumb is that there is no likelihood of confusion.
Če sporna znaka vsebujeta enako ime, ki pa mu sledita popolnoma drugačna priimka, načeloma velja, da ni verjetnosti zmede.
Consumers will realise that they distinguish goods/services of different, unconnected undertakings.
Potrošniki bodo zaznali, da gre za blago/storitve različnih, nepovezanih podjetij.
Invented example: ‘Michael Schumacher' / ‘Michael Ballack' (no likelihood of confusion).
Izmišljen primer: „Michael Schumacher“ / „Michael Ballack“ (ni verjetnosti zmede).
However, when the overall impression created by the signs is one of clear similarity, that is to say, the differences between the signs are lost in the overall impression created by the signs, then, applying the normal criteria, the outcome will be that there is likelihood of confusion.
Če pa znaka ustvarita celoten vtis, da sta si zelo podobna, tj. da se razlike med njima izgubijo v njunem celotnem vtisu, bo na podlagi običajnih meril sprejeta ugotovitev, da obstaja verjetnost zmede.
First name plus surname against different first name plus identical surname
Ime in priimek proti različnemu imenu in enakemu priimku
When the conflicting signs contain the same surname preceded by different first names, the outcome will very much depend on the perception of the surname in the relevant territory.
Če sporna znaka vsebujeta enaka priimka, pred katerima stojita različni imeni, bo izid zelo odvisen od zaznavanja priimka na upoštevnem ozemlju.
The less common a surname is, the more likely it is that it will attract the consumers' attention (regardless of whether the first names are common or not).
Kolikor manj običajen je priimek, toliko večja je verjetnost, da bo pritegnil pozornost potrošnikov (ne glede na to, ali je ime običajno ali ne).
In contrast, when two marks have the same surname and this is likely to be perceived as common (let alone very common) in the relevant territory, consumers will not normally be misled into attributing a common origin to the goods/services concerned (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 82-83; 24/06/2010, C51/09 P, Barbara Becker, EU:C:2010:368, § 36).
Če pa znamki vsebujeta enak priimek, ki ga bo javnost na upoštevnem ozemlju verjetno zaznala kot običajnega (ali celo zelo običajnega), potrošniki po drugi strani navadno ne bodo zavedeni, da bi zadevnemu blagu/storitvam pripisali skupni izvor (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 82-83; 24/06/2010, C51/09 P, Barbara Becker, EU:C:2010:368, § 36).
Consumers are used to trade marks that contain common surnames and will not blindly assume that every time a common surname occurs in two conflicting signs the goods/services in question all emanate from the same source.
Potrošniki so navajeni na blagovne znamke, ki vsebujejo običajne priimke, in ne bodo slepo domnevali, da je vsakokrat, ko se običajni priimek pojavi v dveh spornih znakih, vse zadevno blago/storitve izvira iz istega vira.
First name plus surname against different first name plus identical surname conjoined in a single word
Ime in priimek proti različnemu imenu in enakemu priimku, povezanima v eno besedo
In cases where one of the conflicting signs consists of a name and surname and the other of a single word that will, however, be broken down into separate components by at least part of the relevant public, due to the recognisable presence of a name and surname combined to form the one word making up that sign, the result will be one of likelihood of confusion whenever the overall impression created by the marks is one of similarity.
V primerih, v katerih je eden od spornih znakov sestavljen iz imena in priimka, drugi znak pa iz ene besede, ki pa jo bo vsaj del upoštevne javnosti razstavil v dva ločena sestavna dela, ker v znaku prepozna ime in priimek, povezana v eno besedo, bo izid ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede, vsakokrat ko je celoten vtis, ki ga ustvarjata znamki, podoben.
Surname against first name plus identical surname
Priimek proti imenu in enakemu priimku
When two signs contain the same surname but only one of them also contains a given first name, the rule of thumb is that normally there will be likelihood of confusion.
Če dva znaka vsebujeta enak priimek, vendar samo eden od njiju vsebuje osebno ime, na splošno velja, da bo navadno obstajala verjetnost zmede.