natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A comparison of trade marks must integrate, therefore, an assessment of the distinctive character and dominance of their elements, if any, and the impact of their overall impression.
Primerjava blagovnih znamk mora torej vključevati presojo razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka njunih elementov, če obstaja, ter vpliv njunega celotnega vtisa.
A comparison of trade marks should, in principle, contain the following considerations: an assessment of the distinctive and dominant character of the coinciding and differing elements, their commonalities and differences, and a final conclusion that is reached after the assessment of the impact of distinctive/dominant elements on the overall impression of the signs.
Primerjava blagovnih znamk bi morala načeloma zajemati naslednje vidike: presojo razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka elementov, ki se ujemajo in razlikujejo, ter njihovih skupnih točk in razlik, ter končno ugotovitev, ki se sprejme po presoji vpliva, ki ga imajo razlikovalni ali prevladujoči elementi na celotni vtis znakov.
It might also be useful to tackle these issues by means of addressing the relevant arguments of the parties, if raised, in the comparison of signs.
Lahko je koristno tudi, če se Urad loti teh vprašanj tako, da obravnava ustrezne navedbe strank glede primerjave znakov, če jih ti predložita.
The order of the examination at the ‘comparison of signs' stage should not be predetermined but rather, depending on the particular context, adjusted to provide logical coherence to the decision.
Vrstni red preizkušanja v fazi „ znakov“ ne bi smel biti določen vnaprej, temveč bi moral biti prilagojen okviru posamezne zadeve, da se s tem zagotovi logična koherenca odločbe.
Nevertheless, with the aim of having a consistent decision format that follows, where possible, a similar structure, the following order is appropriate for the majority of cases.
Kljub temu v okviru prizadevanja za doslednost pri obliki odločb, pri kateri se upošteva podobna struktura, kadar je to mogoče, v večini primerov ustreza naslednji vrstni red.
i. Representation/description of the signs
Prikaz/opis znakov
As a preliminary step, the signs should be portrayed in a table, followed by a short description of the marks (if necessary).
Kot začetni korak bi bilo treba znaka prikazati v preglednici, čemur naj (po potrebi) sledi kratek opis znakov.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the type of signs (word marks, figurative marks) and their elements in order to establish a framework for comparison (‘what is there?').
Namen tega koraka je določiti vrsto znakov (besedna znamka, figurativna znamka) in njune elemente, da bi se vzpostavil okvir za primerjavo (kaj se primerja?).
How detailed the description is depends on the case.
Kako podroben je opis, je odvisno od zadeve.
However, a separate description as a preliminary point might be useful to correctly define the framework of the analysis of similarity of the marks to avoid that an element of either sign is overlooked.
Ločen opis bi bil lahko koristen kot začetna točka, s katero se pravilno opredeli okvir analize podobnosti znamk in zagotovi, da se ne prezre noben element katerega od znakov.
If elements are considered negligible (see paragraph 1.5 below) they should be identified up front, as they will not be taken into account in the assessment.
Če se nekateri elementi štejejo kot zanemarljivi (glej odstavek 1.5 v nadaljevanju), jih je treba določiti že na začetku, saj se ne bodo upoštevali pri presoji.
ii. Inherent distinctiveness/dominance of elements of both marks
Svojstveni razlikovalni/prevladujoči učinek elementov obeh znamk
As a second step, an assessment of inherent distinctiveness and dominance of the components is carried out (see paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 below).
Kot drugi korak se opravi presoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka sestavnih delov (glej odstavka 3.2 in 3.3 v nadaljevanju).
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the degree of relevance of the components for the comparison of signs, for example, whether the distinctiveness of the common element is limited.
Namen tega koraka je določiti, katero stopnjo pomembnosti imajo sestavni deli za primerjavo znakov, na primer ali je razlikovalni učinek skupnega elementa omejen.
Importantly, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole (including the issue of acquired distinctiveness) must be distinguished from the distinctiveness of the components of the marks (see paragraph 3.2 below).
Pomembno je, da je treba razlikovati med razlikovalnim učinkom prejšnje znamke kot celote (vključno z vprašanjem pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka) in razlikovalnim učinkom sestavnih delov znamk (glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju).
The assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole is addressed under a separate heading (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark).
Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote je obravnavana v ločenem poglavju (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
The third step entails the comparison of marks at a visual, aural and conceptual level, considering and integrating the previous findings on the distinctiveness/dominance of the components (see paragraph 3.4 below) and a decision as to whether the marks are similar in each of these aspects and if so, to what degree (see paragraph 3.5 below).
Tretji korak zajema primerjavo znamk na vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni ravni, pri čemer se upoštevajo in vključijo prejšnje ugotovitve glede razlikovalnega/prevladujočega učinka sestavnih delov (glej odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju), ter končno ugotovitev, ali sta znamki v teh posameznih vidikih podobni, in če sta, kolikšna je podobnost (glej odstavek 3.5 v nadaljevanju).
1.3 Three aspects: visual, aural and conceptual
Trije vidiki: vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni
If it is not possible to compare the marks at one level (e.g. the aural comparison when both marks are purely figurative), this will be stated in the decision.
Če znamk na eni od ravni ni mogoče primerjati (npr. ni mogoče opraviti zvočne primerjave, kadar sta obe znamki povsem figurativni), se to navede v odločbi.
1.4 Possible outcome of the comparison
Mogoči izid primerjave
The comparison of signs leads to the finding of one of the following three outcomes: identity, similarity or dissimilarity.
Primerjava znakov vodi do ene naslednjih treh ugotovitev: enakosti, podobnosti ali različnosti.
The result is decisive for further examination of the opposition as it has the following implications.
Rezultat je odločilen za nadaljnji preizkus ugovora, saj ima naslednje posledice.
A finding of identity between signs leads to absolute protection according to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR if the goods and/or services are also identical.
Ugotovitev enakosti znakov vodi do absolutnega varstva v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če so enaki tudi blago in/ali storitve.
A finding of similarity (or identity) leads to the opening of the examination on likelihood of confusion in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Ugotovitev podobnosti (ali enakosti) vodi do uvedbe preizkusa verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The finding of dissimilarity in all three aspects excludes the likelihood of confusion.
Ugotovitev različnosti v vseh treh vidikih izključuje verjetnost zmede.
There is no need to examine further prerequisites of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Nadaljnji preizkus predpogojev iz člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni več potreben.
If there is some degree of similarity at one or more of the three levels, then the signs cannot be declared dissimilar overall (02/12/2009, T434/07, Solvo, EU:T:2009:480, § 50-53).
Če na eni ali več izmed treh ravni obstaja neka stopnja podobnosti, znakov ni mogoče razglasiti za na splošno različna (02/12/2009, T434/07, Solvo, EU:T:2009:480, § 50-53).
The comparison has to lead to a finding on the degree of this similarity in every aspect of the comparison (visual, aural and conceptual).
S primerjavo se mora ugotoviti stopnja podobnosti v vsakem od vidikov primerjave (vizualnem, zvočnem in pojmovnem).
The finding on the level of similarity of the marks can be decisive for the outcome of the decision.
Ugotovljena stopnja podobnosti znamk je lahko odločilnega pomena za izid odločbe.
The examiner should be aware, that not ‘any similarity' can lead to likelihood of confusion, even for identical goods and/or services (interdependence principle).
Preizkuševalec bi se moral zavedati, da „vsaka podobnost“ še ne vodi do verjetnosti zmede, tudi v primeru enakega blaga in/ali storitev (načelo medsebojne odvisnosti).
The finding of the level of similarity of the marks will make the decision more understandable.
Z ugotovitvijo stopnje podobnosti znamk postane odločba razumljivejša.
For example, the final finding that there is no likelihood of confusion for identical/highly similar goods and/or services is easier to understand in the overall assessment if the marks were previously held as only ‘similar to a low degree'.
Na primer končno ugotovitev, da pri enakem/zelo podobnem blagu in/ali storitvah ni verjetnosti zmede, je v okviru celovite presoje lažje razumeti, če je za znamki Urad pred tem zapisal, da imata le „nizko stopnjo podobnosti“.
It is especially important to emphasise in each comparison the degree of similarity of marks if it is high (above average) or low (below average).
Pri vsaki primerjavi je zlasti pomembno poudariti stopnjo podobnosti znamk, če je ta visoka (nadpovprečna) ali nizka (podpovprečna).
However, even if the level of similarity is average, the decision should state this, to avoid misunderstandings.
Če je stopnja podobnosti povprečna, bi moralo biti to navedeno v odločbi, da se prepreči nesporazum.
A mere statement that ‘the marks are similar' is not clear as it can be interpreted in two ways - either in the sense that they are similar to an average degree, or just in the general sense that there is (some) similarity allowing for further examination.
Navedba, da „sta znamki podobni“, ni jasna, saj jo je mogoče razumeti na dva načina - bodisi v pomenu, da je stopnja podobnosti povprečna, bodisi v splošnem pomenu, da obstaja (neka) podobnost, zaradi katere je ustrezno nadaljnje preizkušanje.
If the word ‘similar' is used without further qualification, the meaning must be explained.
Če je beseda „podoben“ uporabljena, ne da bi bila natančneje določena, je treba pomen razložiti.
The three levels of similarity are low/average/high.
Možne so tri stopnje podobnosti: nizka, povprečna in visoka.
Synonyms can be used as far as they are clear (e.g. average = medium), however, it has to be noted that the term ‘enhanced' is not a synonym for ‘high'.
Lahko se uporabljajo sopomenke, če so jasne (npr. povprečna = srednja), treba pa je poudariti, da izraz „povečana“ ni sopomenka besedi „visoka“.
Moreover, nothing prohibits examiners from assessing the similarity further, like ‘only very low' or ‘high degree of similarity, almost identical' if this supports the outcome.
Poleg tega preizkuševalcev prav nič ne ovira, da bi podobnost presodili natančneje, npr.
The wording, however, must be as clear as possible.
„zelo nizka“ ali „visoka stopnja podobnosti, skoraj enakost“, če s tem utemeljijo izid.
This is not the case for expressions like ‘not particularly high', which can be understood in two ways - in this example not as high as ‘average' or just ‘low'.
Ubeseditev mora biti karseda jasna, kar ni izpolnjeno pri izrazih, kot je „ne ravno visoka“, ki jih je mogoče razumeti na dva načina - v tem primeru nižja kot „povprečna“ ali samo „nizka“.
The level of similarity must be established for each aspect of the comparison (visual/phonetic/conceptual), since the particular field (e.g. the visual or phonetic similarity) may be decisive for the purposes of the overall assessment, depending on how the goods are purchased (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment, paragraph 4).
Stopnjo podobnosti je treba določiti za vsak vidik primerjave (vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni), saj je eden od vidikov (npr. vizualna ali zvočna podobnost) lahko odločilna za celovito presojo, odvisno od tega, kako se blago kupuje (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja, odstavek 4).
After the level of similarity has been defined (for the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison), a conclusion can be added (if applicable), stating that ‘since the marks have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison', examination of the likelihood of confusion will proceed.
Ko je opredeljena stopnja podobnosti (pri vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni primerjavi), se lahko, če je primerno, doda ugotovitev, da se bo preizkušanje verjetnosti zmede nadaljevalo, „ker se je ugotovila podobnost med znamkama v vsaj enem vidiku primerjave“.
1.5 Signs to be compared and negligible elements
Znaki, ki jih je treba primerjati, in zanemarljivi elementi
The actual or possible use of the registered marks in another form is irrelevant when comparing signs (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199, § 38).
Dejanska ali mogoča uporaba registriranih znamk v drugi obliki pri primerjavi znakov ni pomembna (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199, § 38).
For the effect of disclaimers, see paragraph 3.2.3.3 below.
Za učinek odklonitev glej odstavek 3.2.3.3 v nadaljevanju.
The comparison should cover signs in their entirety.
Pri primerjavi je treba znaka zajeti v celoti.
Consequently, it is wrong to discard comparing elements of signs just because they are, for example, smaller than other elements in the signs (unless they are negligible as explained below) or because they are non-distinctive (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 41-42; 13/12/2011, T61/09, Schinken King, EU:T:2011:733, § 46).
Zato je napačno preskočiti primerjavo elementov znakov samo zato, ker so na primer manjši od drugih elementov v znakih (razen če so zanemarljivi, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju) ali ker so nerazlikovalni (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 41-42; 13/12/2011, T61/09, Schinken King, EU:T:2011:733, § 46).
Exceptionally, in the event of negligible elements, the Office may decide not to take such elements into consideration for the purposes of the actual comparison, after having duly reasoned why they are considered negligible (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 42).
V primeru zanemarljivih elementov se Urad lahko izjemoma odloči, da jih pri dejanski primerjavi ne bo upošteval, potem ko ustrezno utemelji, zakaj jih šteje za zanemarljive (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 42).
This is especially important where the negligible element is the common element in the signs.
To je zlasti pomembno, kadar je zanemarljivi element skupni element v znakih.
The notion of negligible elements should be interpreted strictly and, in the event of any doubt, the decision should cover the signs in their entirety.
Pojem zanemarljivih elementov je treba razlagati ozko, odločba pa mora v primeru dvoma znaka zajemati v celoti.
The Office considers that a negligible element refers to an element that, due to its size and/or position, is not noticeable at first sight or is part of a complex sign with numerous other elements (e.g. beverage labels, packaging) and, therefore, very likely to be disregarded by the relevant public.
Urad meni, da zanemarljivi element pomeni element, ki zaradi svoje velikosti in/ali položaja ni opazen na prvi pogled ali je del kompleksnega znaka s številnimi drugimi elementi (npr. etikete na pijačah, embalaža), zato je zelo verjetno, da ga bo upoštevna javnost prezrla.
It should also be noted that informative indications that the mark is registered (such as the symbols ‘™' and ‘®') are not considered part of the mark (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 2, Formalities).
Treba je omeniti tudi, da se informativne navedbe, da je znamka registrirana (kot sta simbola ™ in ®), ne štejejo kot del znamke (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 2: Formalnosti).
Consequently, such symbols will not be taken into account in the comparison of the signs.
Taki simboli se zato pri primerjavi znakov ne upoštevajo.
1.6 Relevant territory and relevant public
Upoštevno ozemlje in upoštevna javnost
Similarity must be assessed for the territory in which the earlier mark is protected.
Podobnost je treba presojati za ozemlje, na katerem je prejšnja znamka zaščitena.
The relevant territory must be indicated.
Upoštevno ozemlje mora biti navedeno.
Moreover, the perception of the relevant public plays an important role when comparing signs (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 3, Relevant Public and Degree of Attention).
Poleg tega ima pomembno vlogo pri primerjavi znakov zaznavanje upoštevne javnosti (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 3: Upoštevna javnost in stopnja pozornosti).
Where the earlier mark is a national mark, the relevant criteria must be analysed for the relevant public in that particular EU Member State (or Member States in the case of Benelux trade marks).
Če je prejšnja znamka nacionalna znamka, je treba upoštevna merila analizirati za upoštevno javnost v tej določeni državi članici EU (ali več državah članicah v primeru blagovnih znamk Beneluksa).
The perception of similarity may differ from one Member State to another because of differences in pronunciation and/or meaning/understanding.
Zaznavanje podobnosti se lahko po posameznih državah članicah razlikuje zaradi razlik v izgovarjavi in/ali pomenu/razumevanju.
When the earlier mark is an EUTM registration, the analysis must in principle extend to the whole EU.
Če je prejšnja znamka registrirana blagovna znamka EU, je treba pri analizi načeloma zajeti celotno EU.
However, in situations where there is likelihood of confusion in a part of the EU and when justifiable for reasons of economy of procedure (such as to avoid examining specific pronunciations or meanings of marks in several languages), the Office's analysis need not extend to the whole EU but may instead focus on only one part or parts where there is a likelihood of confusion.
Vendar kadar obstaja verjetnost zmede v delu EU in kadar je to upravičeno zaradi ekonomičnosti postopka (da se izognemo preizkušanju posebnih izgovarjav ali pomenov znamk v več jezikih), Uradu pri analizi ni treba zajeti celotne EU, ampak se lahko osredotoči samo na del ali dele, kjer obstaja verjetnost zmede.
The unitary character of the EUTM means that an earlier EUTM can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of an EUTM that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 56-57 and subsequent case-law; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 52 and the case-law quoted).
Enotna narava blagovne znamke EU pomeni, da se je mogoče v postopku ugovora zoper katero koli prijavo za registracijo blagovne znamke EU, ki bi škodovala varstvu prve znamke, opreti na prejšnjo blagovno znamko EU, tudi če samo v zvezi z zaznavanjem potrošnikov v delu Evropske unije (18/09/2008, C514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 56-57 in navedena sodna praksa; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 52 in navedena sodna praksa).
If the opposition is based on an international registration, the territory for which the basic mark is protected is not to be considered as the relevant territory of the earlier international registration designating or subsequently designating other relevant territories (except if the owner has protection in the whole EU - IR designating or subsequently designating the EU where the same country of the basic registration is covered).
Če ugovor temelji na mednarodni registraciji, se ozemlje, na katerem je zaščitena osnovna znamka, ne bi smelo šteti kot upoštevno ozemlje prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v kateri so imenovana ali naknadno imenovana druga upoštevna ozemlja (razen če ima imetnik zaščito v celotni EU - mednarodna registracija, v kateri je imenovana ali naknadno imenovana EU in zajeta ista država kot v osnovni prijavi).
Where the relevant public consists of both general and professional consumers, the finding of a likelihood of confusion in relation to just one part of the public is sufficient to uphold the opposition.
Kadar upoštevno javnost sestavljajo tako splošni kot strokovni potrošniki, za sprejetje ugovora zadostuje, da se ugotovi verjetnost zmede v zvezi z le enim delom javnosti.
Usually it is the general public that is more prone to confusion.
Ponavadi je zmeda verjetnejša za splošno javnost.
Consequently, if the likelihood of confusion is to be confirmed on the part of the general public, there is no need to examine it based on the perception of professionals (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 0, Introduction, paragraph 4).
Če se verjetnost zmede potrdi v zvezi s širšo javnostjo, je tako ni treba preizkusiti glede na zaznavanje strokovnjakov (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 0: Uvod, odstavek 4).
2 Identity of Signs
Enakost znakov
2.1 The concept of identity
Pojem enakosti
As indicated above, a finding of identity between signs will lead to the success of the opposition pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR if the goods and services are also identical.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, bo ugotovitev enakosti znakov pomenila uspeh ugovora v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če so enaki tudi blago in storitve.
The differences between Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR and protection in the event of likelihood of confusion, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, must be borne in mind in order to understand the concept of identity and its attached requirements.
Za razumevanje pojma enakosti in z njim povezanih zahtev je treba upoštevati razlike med členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in varstvom v primeru verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Protection pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is absolute, because registration of a later identical sign for identical goods or services would compromise the function of the earlier mark as a means of identifying commercial origin.
Varstvo v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je absolutno, ker bi registracija poznejšega enakega znaka za enako blago ali storitve ogrozila funkcijo prejšnje znamke kot sredstva za označevanje tržnega porekla.
Where identical signs or marks are registered for identical goods or services, it is impossible to conceive of circumstances in which all likelihood of confusion could be ruled out.
Če so za enako blago ali storitve registrirani enaki znaki ali znamke, si je nemogoče zamisliti okoliščine, v katerih bi lahko bila izključena vsaka verjetnost zmede.
There is no need to consider any other factors, such as the degree of attention of the public or the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark.
Upoštevati ni treba nobenih drugih dejavnikov, kot je na primer stopnja pozornosti javnosti ali razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke.
However, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the earlier trade mark is protected against the likelihood of confusion: even if the trade marks differ in some elements, their similarity - in combination with further elements that have to be assessed globally - may lead to the assumption that the relevant goods and services originate from the same or an economically linked undertaking.
V skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa je prejšnja blagovna znamka zaščitena pred verjetnostjo zmede: tudi če se blagovni znamki razlikujeta v nekaterih elementih, je mogoče na podlagi njune podobnosti - v povezavi z dodatnimi elementi, ki jih je treba celovito presoditi - domnevati, da zadevno blago in storitve izvirajo iz istega ali gospodarsko povezanega podjetja.