natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
G&S: Class 18 Territory: Spain, EU Assessment: the figurative elements of the earlier EUTM - namely, the oval and the geometric shape vaguely recalling a five-point star superimposed thereon - do not convey any identifiable conceptual content.
Blago in storitve: Razred 18 Ozemlje: Španija, EU Presoja: Figurativna elementa prejšnje blagovne znamke EU, in sicer ovalno ozadje ter geometrijska oblika, ki nejasno spominja na peterokrako zvezdo na tem ozadju, ne ustvarjata prepoznavne pojmovne vsebine.
Consequently, it is highly unlikely that these figurative elements will hold the attention of the relevant consumer.
Zato je malo verjetno, da bosta pritegnila pozornost upoštevnega potrošnika.
By contrast, although the verbal element does not convey any conceptual content either, the fact remains that it may be read and pronounced and that it is, therefore, likely to be remembered by consumers.
Nasprotno pa, čeprav tudi besedni element ne izraža pojmovne vsebine, ostaja dejstvo, da ga je mogoče prebrati in izgovoriti, torej je verjetno, da si ga potrošniki zapomnijo.
Therefore, the verbal element of the earlier EUTM must be considered to dominate the visual impression made by that mark (para. 47).
Zato je treba šteti, da besedni element prejšnje blagovne znamke EU prevlada nad vizualnim vtisom, ki ga navedena znamka ustvarja (točka 47).
G&S: Class 29 Territory: EU Assessment: visual similarity results from the fact that both have a unique verbal element very similar only differing in the final letter.
Blago in storitve: Razred 29 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Obstaja vizualna podobnost zaradi dejstva, da imata obe znamki zelo podobna edinstvena besedna elementa, ki se razlikujeta le v zadnji črki.
Both figurative signs had the representation of a bird, an element that added to the similarity of the signs.
Oba figurativna znaka vsebujeta prikaz ptice, kar še povečuje podobnost med znakoma.
The signs have little and minor differences only.
Znaka imata le malo razlik, ki so majhne.
On the aural comparison both signs have a high degree of aural similarity having only one final letter difference.
Znaka imata visoko stopnjo zvočne podobnosti, saj se razlikujeta le v eni, zadnji črki.
The conceptual comparison is not relevant as the verbal element of the signs had no meaning in some parts of the European Union (para. 38).
Pojmovna primerjava ni pomembna, saj besedni element znakov v nekaterih delih Evropske unije nima pomena (točka 38).
G&S: Class 9 Territory: EU Assessment: ‘In respect of the figurative elements of which the sign is comprised, the Board considers that there is nothing in these elements that adds anything different to the contested sign other than some elements of decoration.
Blago in storitve: Razred 9 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: „V zvezi s figurativnimi elementi, iz katerih je sestavljen znak, odbor meni, da pri njih ni ničesar, kar bi izpodbijanemu znaku dodalo kakšno razliko, razen nekaj okrasnih elementov.
The mere addition of banal figurative elements will not affect the perception of the sign by the relevant public' (para. 12).
Samo z dodajanjem vsakdanjih figurativnih elementov upoštevna javnost znaka ne bo zaznavala drugače“ (točka 12).
22/05/2012, T60/11, EU:T:2012:252 (low visual and phonetic and average conceptual similarity)
22/05/2012, T60/11, EU:T:2012:252 (nizka stopnja vizualne in zvočne podobnosti ter povprečna stopnja pojmovne podobnosti)
G&S: Classes 30, 31, 42 Territory: EU Assessment: the similarity of the marks is based solely on a word that has no distinctive character and would not be remembered by consumers as the key element of the marks at issue (para. 53).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 30, 31 in 42 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Podobnost znamk temelji le na eni besedi, ki nima razlikovalnega učinka in si je potrošniki ne bi zapomnili kot ključno besedo zadevnih znamk (točka 53).
18/04/2011, R 1357/20092 (no visual or conceptual similarity, remote phonetic similarity)
18/04/2011, R 1357/20092 (brez vizualne in pojmovne podobnosti, šibka zvočna podobnost)
G&S: Classes 5, 29, 30, 32 Territory: EU Assessment: the BoA took into account the non-distinctive and descriptive character of the word ‘Lactofree' for the relevant goods.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 5, 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Odbor za pritožbe je upošteval nerazlikovalni in opisni učinek besede „Lactofree“ za upoštevno blago.
The Board found the notable visual and conceptual differences between the signs (para. 98).
Odbor je ugotovil precejšnje vizualne in pojmovne razlike med znakoma (točka 98).
(IBIZA REPUBLIC) 02/07/2009, T311/08, EU:T:2009:244 (low visual similarity, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarity)
(IBIZA REPUBLIC) 02/07/2009, T311/08, EU:T:2009:244 (nizka stopnja vizualne podobnosti, zvočna in pojmovna različnost)
G&S: Classes 25, 41, 43 Territory: France Assessment: taking into account the dominant character of the verbal element in the mark applied for, there is no phonetic and conceptual similarity and only a low degree of visual similarity between the signs (para. 58) - no likelihood of confusion.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 25, 41 in 43 Ozemlje: Francija Presoja: Ob upoštevanju prevladujočega učinka besednega elementa v znamki, za katero je vložena prijava, ne obstaja zvočna in pojmovna podobnost, obstaja le nizka stopnja vizualne podobnosti med znakoma (točka 58) - ni verjetnosti zmede.
08/01/2010, R 280/20094 (visual, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarity)
08/01/2010, R 280/20094 (vizualna, zvočna in pojmovna različnost)
Even in the area in question, ‘charitable fundraising; education, periodicals; medical services' (Classes 16, 36, 41, 45), the specific Maltese cross shape is not used exclusively by the appellant.
„zbiranje dobrodelnih prispevkov; poučevanje; periodični tisk; zdravstvene storitve“ (razredi 16, 36, 41 in 45), ni edini, ki uporablja posebno obliko malteškega križa.
The EUTM application contains the unreservedly distinctive word sequence ‘Pro concordatia populorum' and cannot be reduced to its figurative element.
Prijava blagovne znamke EU vsebuje popolnoma razlikovalno besedno zvezo „Pro concordatia populorim“, ki je ni mogoče skrčiti na figurativni element.
The signs are also dissimilar phonetically, as the opposing sign has no verbal elements.
Znaka sta tudi zvočno različna, ker v izpodbijanemu znaku ni besednih elementov.
There is no conceptual similarity, as the EUTM application means ‘for the understanding of the peoples', a phrase that has nothing in common with the earlier sign.
Ni pojmovne podobnosti, ker prijava blagovne znamke EU pomeni „za razumevanje ljudi“, ta stavek pa nima nič skupnega s prejšnjim znakom.
Therefore, there can be no likelihood of confusion, even in the case of the identical goods found only in Class 16.
Zato ne more biti verjetnosti zmede, tudi če gre za enako blago, ki je le v razredu 16.
27/02/2002, R 68/20014 & R 285/20014 (high visual similarity)
27/02/2002, R 68/20014 & R 285/20014 (visoka stopnja vizualne podobnosti)
G&S: Classes 18, 24, 25, 28 Territory: Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Austria Assessment: the wording ‘La Maison de la Fausse Fourrure' is not sufficient to reduce the impression of similarity between the conflicting marks.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 18, 24, 25 in 28 Ozemlje: Beneluks, Nemčija, Španija, Francija, Italija, Avstrija Presoja: Ubeseditev „La Maison de la Fausse Fourrure“ ne zadošča za to, da bi se zmanjšal vtis podobnosti med sovpadajočima znamkama.
In addition to its possibly descriptive nature, the Board notes that the wording is given, relative to the footprint device, a secondary position (it is placed under the device), a relatively limited size (four times smaller) and a conventional writing style (para. 22).
Poleg tega, da je ubeseditev morda opisna, odbor ugotavlja, da ima v primerjavi z elementom odtisa stopinje drugoten položaj (postavljena je pod ta element), da je relativno omejene velikosti (štirikrat manjša) in da je zapisana v običajnem stilu pisave (točka 22).
G&S: Class 3 Territory: Germany, Spain Assessment: the figure of a moon, present in both signs, made the equivalence between the Spanish and English words ‘LUNA' and ‘MOON' clearer to Spanish consumers.
Blago in storitve: Razred 3 Ozemlje: Nemčija, Španija Presoja: S podobo lune, ki je prisotna v obeh znakih, se je španskim potrošnikom še jasneje pokazala enakovrednost med špansko besedo „LUNA“ in angleško besedo „MOON“.
G&S: Classes 18, 25, 35 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, the trade marks are highly similar.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 18, 25 in 35 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Vizualno sta si blagovni znamki zelo podobni.
An aural comparison is not possible.
Zvočna primerjava ni mogoča.
G&S: Class 42 Territory: Spain Assessment: while both marks do not have any meaning and, thus, no conceptual comparison can be made, the trade marks are visually and phonetically highly similar, in particular because they coincide in their first four letters ‘ALEN'.
Blago in storitve: Razred 42 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: čeprav sta obe znamki brez pomena in tako ni mogoča pojmovna primerjava, sta blagovni znamki vizualno in zvočno zelo podobni, zlasti ker se ujemata v prvih štirih črkah, „ALEN“.
It is generally accepted that people pay more attention to the first part of a trade mark, at least when they perceive the mark visually (para. 33).
Splošno je sprejeto, da ljudje namenijo več pozornosti prvemu delu blagovne znamke, vsaj če znamko zaznavajo vizualno (točka 33).
G&S: Class 5 Territory: Greece Assessment: the signs share five of their six letters and the first two syllables are identical.
Blago in storitve: Razred 5 Ozemlje: Grčija Presoja: Znaka imata pet črk od šestih enakih in enaka prva dva zloga.
There is a certain degree of visual similarity.
Obstaja določena stopnja vizualne podobnosti.
Aurally the signs are highly similar as the initial part, which is normally the most important, is identical.
Zvočno sta znaka zelo podobna, ker imata enak začetek, ki je navadno najpomembnejši.
Neither sign has a meaning in Greek (paras 35-36).
V grščini sta oba znaka brez pomena (točki 35 in 36).
G&S: Class 5 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, the marks share some similarity due to the coinciding letters ‘C', ‘A', ‘L', ‘S' and ‘R' placed in the same order.
Blago in storitve: Razred 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Vizualno sta si znamki nekoliko podobni, saj se ujemajo črke „C“, „A“, „L“, „S“ in „R“, ki so postavljene v enakem vrstnem redu.
Aurally, there is a low degree of similarity.
Stopnja zvočne podobnosti je nizka.
Conceptually, the marks are similar insofar as they both contain the component ‘CAL'.
Pojmovno sta znamki podobni, saj obe vsebujeta sestavni del „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.
Ker pa ta element jasno namiguje na vrsto blaga (vsebuje „kalcij“), ta pojmovna podobnost ni zelo pomembna (točke 21-23) - ni verjetnosti zmede.
G&S: Class 30 Territory: Denmark, Finland, Sweden Assessment: the signs differ in the fifth letter and in their ending.
Blago in storitve: Razred 30 Ozemlje: Danska, Finska, Švedska Presoja: Znaka se razlikujeta v peti črki in končnicah.
They are visually similar to an average degree.
Vizualno sta si povprečno podobna.
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.
Glede na dolžino prijave blagovne znamke EU se znaka razlikujeta po ritmu ter intonaciji in sta si torej malo zvočno podobna.
The distinctive character is below average.
Razlikovalni učinek je podpovprečen.
G&S: Class 5 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, phonetically and conceptually the signs are similar insofar as they have the prefix ‘ALBU' (abbreviation of ‘albumin' or ‘albumen') in common.
Blago in storitve: Razred 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno sta si znaka podobna, ker imata enako predpono „ALBU“ (krajšava za „albumin“).
But this similarity is of little significance because the prefix is generic and so devoid of distinctiveness.
Vendar ta podobnost ni pomembna, ker je predpona splošna in zato nima razlikovalnega učinka.
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 prejšnje znamke „MAN“ se vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno popolnoma razlikuje od drugega elementa „NORM“ v izpodbijani znamki.
G&S: Class 36 Territory: Spain Assessment: the overall visual impression of the conflicting marks is that they consist of two letters in an arbitrary figurative design that conveys the same impression.
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Celoten vizualni vtis sovpadajočih znamk je, da sta sestavljeni iz dveh črk v poljubnem figurativnem oblikovanju, ki ustvarjata enak vtis.
The trade marks are considered similar.
Blagovni znamki se štejeta kot podobni.
G&S: Classes 6, 7, 9. 11, 17 Territory: UK Assessment: it cannot be excluded that part of the relevant public will interpret the contested mark as the letter combination ‘GE' (paras 33-35).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 6, 7, 9, 11 in 17 Ozemlje: Združeno kraljestvo Presoja: Ni mogoče izključiti, da bo del upoštevne javnosti izpodbijano znamko razumel kot kombinacijo črk „GE“ (točke 33-35).
The marks are phonetically identical and visually similar to a medium degree.
Znamki sta zvočno enaki in imata srednjo stopnjo vizualne podobnosti.
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'.
Kar zadeva pojmovno primerjavo, ni mogoče izključiti, da bo del upoštevne javnosti izpodbijano znamko razumel kot kombinacijo črk „GE“.
G&S: Class 33 Territory: EU Assessment: from a visual point of view, the graphic stylisation of the earlier marks is very different compared with the contested mark.
Blago in storitve: Razred 33 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Z vizualnega vidika je grafična stilizacija prejšnjih znamk zelo drugačna kot pri izpodbijani znamki.
The mere fact that one or both letters of the marks are identical is not enough to render the marks visually similar.
Dejstvo, da sta ena ali obe črki znamk enaki, ni dovolj, da bi bile znamke vizualno podobne.
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.
Če se bo izpodbijana znamka izgovorila kot „B“ ali „PB“, ne bo zvočne podobnosti, saj imajo pri kratkih znakih razlike večji vpliv na celotni vtis kot pri daljših znamkah.
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).
Pojmovno izpodbijana znamka in prejšnji znamki, ki poleg kombinacije črk „AB“ nimajo dodatnih elementov, nimajo pomena v nobenem izmed upoštevnih jezikov, tako da je rezultat pojmovne primerjave nevtralen (točke 17-19).
G&S: Class 7 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, the initial letters ‘K' and ‘C' show a clearly different shape and can be considered only visually similar to a low degree.
Blago in storitve: Razred 7 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Vizualno imata začetni črki „K“ in „C“ jasno različno obliko in imata le nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti.
The same degree of similarity - low - applies for the phonetic comparison.
Enaka, tj. nizka stopnja podobnosti velja tudi za zvočno primerjavo.
Aurally, the signs will be pronounced ‘K-X' and ‘C-X' respectively, and not as words.
Zvočno se bosta znaka izgovorila kot „K-X“ in „C-X“, ne kot besedi.
Neither of the marks has a conceptual meaning (paras 25-27).
Nobena od znamk nima pojmovnega pomena (točke 25-27).
G&S: Classes 9, 11, 12 Territory: EU Assessment: it must be concluded that, for each of the possible perceptions by the relevant public of the mark applied for, that public will perceive significant visual differences for each of the earlier marks (para. 65).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 11 in 12 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Ugotoviti je treba, da bo upoštevna javnost pri vsaki izmed možnih zaznav znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, zaznala precejšnje vizualne razlike glede na vsako izmed prejšnjih znamk (točka 65).
Some degree of phonetic similarity between the marks at issue must be recognised, but it is not very high.
Treba je priznati določeno stopnjo zvočne podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama, ki pa ni zelo 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).
Odbor za pritožbe je tako brez napake ugotovil, da zvočna podobnost med zadevnima znamkama ni „opazna“ (točka 71).
As both marks have no meaning, no conceptual comparison can be made (para. 72).
Ker nobena od znamk nima pomena, pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča (točka 72).
G&S: Classes 16, 35, 41 Territory: Germany Assessment: two of the three letters are identical and in the same sequence; the difference in a single letter does not constitute a significant visual and aural difference.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 16, 35 in 41 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Dve od treh črk sta enaki in v istem zaporedju; razlika v eni črki ne zadostuje za večjo vizualno in zvočno razliko.
The letters ‘E' and ‘I' in Germany are pronounced similarly (paras 66-71).
Črki „E“ in „I“ se v nemščini podobno izgovarjata (točke 66-71).
G&S: Classes 35, 38, 42 Territory: EU, Germany Assessment: the Court held that the signs in the mind of the relevant consumer, having a good command of the English language, are visually, aurally and conceptually similar (para. 55).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 35, 38 in 42 Ozemlje: EU, Nemčija Presoja: Sodišče je menilo, da sta znaka za upoštevnega potrošnika, ki ima dobro znanje angleškega jezika, vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobna (točka 55).
These letters are also visually dissimilar.
Ti črki sta tudi vizualno različni.
Furthermore, the figurative elements of the compared marks do not resemble each other (paras 17-18).
Poleg tega si figurativni elementi primerjanih znamk med seboj niso podobni (točki 17 in 18).
G&S: Class 3 Territory: Germany Assessment: the GC considered that the signs were only aurally similar to a low degree (paras 47, 50).
Blago in storitve: Razred 3 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Splošno sodišče je menilo, da sta znaka le nekoliko zvočno podobna (točki 47 in 50).
The relevant public in Germany will certainly notice the differences in the beginning of the signs.
Upoštevna javnost v Nemčiji bo zagotovo opazila razlike v začetku znakov.
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (likelihood of confusion)
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (verjetnost zmede)
G&S: Classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 Territory: EU Assessment: the Court found the signs visually highly similar, and identical phonetically and conceptually (paras 86, 88, 91 and 93).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 35, 39, 41, 42 in 43 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Sodišče je ugotovilo, da sta znaka vizualno zelo podobna, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaka (točke 86, 88, 91 in 93).
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 (ni verjetnosti zmede)
G&S: Class 30 Territory: inter alia EU Assessment: with respect to the first earlier right, the Court established a low degree of visual similarity given that the coinciding element ‘PURE', despite being descriptive for part of the public, was not on its own sufficient to conclude that the word is negligible in the overall impression produced by the mark (para. 70).
Blago in storitve: Razred 30 Ozemlje: med drugim EU Presoja: Kar zadeva prvo prejšnjo pravico, je Sodišče ugotovilo nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti, saj element „PURE“, ki se ujema, čeprav je za del javnosti opisen, ni sam po sebi zadoščal za ugotovitev, da je beseda v okviru celotnega vtisa, ki ga ustvarja znamka, zanemarljiva (točka 70).
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.
Za tiste, ki so „PURE“ razumeli, je bila ugotovljena nizka stopnja zvočne podobnosti med znakoma, za preostali del javnosti pa povprečna.
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).
Na pojmovni ravni sta bila znaka za tiste, ki „PURE“ razumejo kot nanašanje na čistost zadevnega blaga in svežino daha, podobna (točka 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.
Sodišče je navedlo še, da dejstvo, da beseda „pure“ opisuje značilnosti zadevnega blaga, ne vpliva na pojmovno vsebino navedenih znamk.
With respect to the remaining earlier rights the degree of similarity was no greater.
Kar zadeva preostale prejšnje pravice, stopnja podobnosti ni bila nič večja.
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (likelihood of confusion)
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (verjetnost zmede)
G&S: Class 9 Territory: Spain Assessment: the signs were found visually highly similar and phonetically identical, notwithstanding the descriptive character of the element ‘MICRO' (paras 54-55, 60) and taking into account that the differences were limited to banal graphical elements.
Blago in storitve: Razred 9 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Ugotovljeno je bilo, da sta znaka vizualno zelo podobna in zvočno enaka, ne glede na opisno naravo elementa „MICRO“ (točke 54, 55 in 60) in ob upoštevanju, da se razlikujeta le v vsakdanjih grafičnih elementih.
G&S: Class 5 Territory: EU Assessment: the signs were found visually similar to a low degree due to the descriptive character of the suffix ‘GESIC', given that it refers to painkillers (paras 35, 47), as well as the different beginnings (para. 49).
Blago in storitve: Razred 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Ugotovljena je bila nizka stopnja podobnosti med znakoma, ker je pripona „-GESIC“ opisna, saj se nanaša na zdravila proti bolečinam (točki 35 in 47) in ker sta začetka različna (točka 49).
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.
Ugotovljena je bila povprečna stopnja zvočne podobnosti med znakoma (točka 51) in pojmovna različnost, slednja zaradi opisnega značaja pripone „-GESIC“ in različnih asociacij, ki jih vzbujata predponi znakov („OXY-“ se nanaša na kisik ali oksikodon, „MAXI-“ pa na maksimum (točka 53)), zaradi česar je bila verjetnost zmede izključena.
Phonetically, the signs were found similar to an average degree due to the identical pronunciation of the first two syllables (para. 34).
Zvočno je bila ugotovljena povprečna stopnja podobnosti, saj se prva dva zloga izgovorita enako (točka 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).
Pojmovno sta znaka za precejšnji del javnosti, za katerega ima skupni element bonus enak pomen, vsaj nekoliko podobna (točka 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 Besedi „by missako“ sta skoraj neberljivi: zaradi velikosti in pisave ju je težko razbrati.
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.“ se je štel za zanemarljivega.
The conflicting signs are dissimilar (para. 87).
Zadevna znaka sta različna (točka 87).