natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards invented or fanciful words (words that do not correspond to any existing word in the EU), the relevant consumer might pronounce them not only as they would sound according to the rules of pronunciation of their mother tongue but also as they are written.
Kar zadeva izmišljene ali domišljijske besede (besede, ki ne ustrezajo nobeni obstoječi besedi v EU), bi jih upoštevni potrošnik lahko izgovarjal ne samo tako, kot bi zvenele glede na pravila izgovarjave njegovega maternega jezika, ampak tudi tako, kot so napisane.
3.4.2.4 Single letter signs
Znaki, sestavljeni iz ene same črke
Marks consisting of a single letter can be compared phonetically.
Znamke, ki so sestavljene iz ene same črke, je mogoče primerjati zvočno.
The following marks are phonetically identical insofar as they both reproduce the letter ‘A'.
Naslednji znamki sta zvočno enaki, saj je v obeh prikazana črka „A“.
3.4.3 Conceptual comparison: practical criteria
Pojmovna primerjava: praktična merila
Two signs are identical or similar conceptually when they are perceived as having the same or analogous semantic content (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24).
Znaka sta pojmovno enaka ali podobna, kadar se zaznavata kot znaka z enako ali podobno semantično vsebino (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24).
The ‘semantic content' of a mark is what it means, what it evokes or, when it is an image or shape, what it represents.
„Semantična vsebina“ znamke je to, kar pomeni, na kar spominja ali kar ponazarja (če je to slika ali oblika).
In this text the expressions ‘semantic content' and ‘concept' will be used indiscriminately.
V tem besedilu se bosta izraza „semantična vsebina“ in „pojem“ uporabljala brez razlikovanja.
If a mark consists of various elements (e.g. a word and a figurative element) the concept of each of the elements must be defined.
Če je znamka sestavljena iz različnih elementov (npr. besednega in figurativnega elementa), je treba opredeliti pojmovno vsebino vsakega od elementov.
However, if the mark is a meaningful expression (made up of two or more words), what matters is the meaning of the expression as a whole and not of each of the words in isolation.
Vendar če je znamka smiseln izraz (iz dveh ali več besed), je pomemben pomen izraza kot celote, in ne pomen vsake posamezne besede.
Not every concept has to be defined: only those concepts likely to be known by the relevant public, as defined by the relevant territory, matter.
Vsakega pojma ni treba opredeliti: pomembni so sami tisti pojmi, ki jih bo upoštevna javnost, kot je opredeljena z upoštevnim ozemljem, verjetno poznala.
For example, if the relevant territory is Spain, the fact that the word has a meaning in Polish is normally irrelevant.
Na primer, če je upoštevno ozemlje Španija, dejstvo, da ima beseda pomen v poljščini, običajno ni pomembno.
As a rule, the conceptual comparison is not influenced by the relevant goods and services.
Upoštevno blago in storitve praviloma ne vplivajo na pojmovno primerjavo.
However, if a term has many meanings, one of which is of particular significance to the relevant goods and services, the conceptual comparison may focus on this meaning.
Vendar če ima izraz več pomenov, od katerih je eden posebej pomemben za upoštevno blago in storitve, je lahko pojmovna primerjava osredotočena na ta pomen.
In any event, what matters is how the term is perceived by the relevant public.
Vsekakor je pomembno to, kako izraz zaznava upoštevna javnost.
A link between the goods and services and what the sign means, evokes or represents must not be forced or artificially constructed.
Povezava med blagom in storitvami ter tem, kaj znak pomeni, na kaj spominja ali kaj ponazarja, ne sme biti izsiljena ali umetno ustvarjena.
For example, if the relevant goods relate to lighting and the sign is or contains the element ‘LED', ‘light-emitting diode' is one of the various possible meanings of ‘LED'.
Na primer, če so upoštevno blago aparati za razsvetljavo in je znak „LED“ ali vsebuje element „LED“, je svetleča dioda eden od različnih možnih pomenov „LED“.
Therefore, the conceptual comparison may focus on this meaning.
Pojmovna primerjava je torej lahko osredotočena na ta pomen.
3.4.3.1 The semantic content of words
Semantična vsebina besed
When the mark consists of or contains a word, the first step for an examiner is to look up the explanation of that word in dictionaries and/or encyclopaedias in the language(s) of the relevant territory.
Če je znamka sestavljena iz besede ali jo vsebuje, mora preizkuševalec najprej poiskati razlago te besede v slovarjih in/ali enciklopedijah v jeziku(-ih) upoštevnega ozemlja.
If the word is in the dictionary/encyclopaedia, the described meaning will be its semantic content.
Če je beseda v slovarju/enciklopediji, bo opisan pomen njena semantična vsebina.
As a starting point, it should be noted that the relevant public in the various EU Member States mainly speak the languages predominant in their respective territories (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 27).
Na začetku je treba navesti, da upoštevna javnost v različnih državah članicah EU govori večinoma jezike, ki prevladujejo na upoštevnih ozemljih teh držav (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 27).
These languages are normally the official languages of the relevant territory.
Ti jeziki so običajno uradni jeziki upoštevnega ozemlja.
However, the Court has made equally clear that this rule only concerns the primary linguistic understanding of the public in those territories.
Ob tem je Sodišče pojasnilo še, da se to pravilo nanaša samo na osnovno jezikovno razumevanje javnosti na navedenih ozemljih.
This is not an inflexible rule.
To ni strogo pravilo.
The relevant public should not automatically be considered as having as its mother tongue the language that is predominant in the Member State concerned, or to have no particular knowledge of other languages (03/06/2009, C394/08 P, Zipcar, EU:C:2009:334, § 51).
Za upoštevno javnost se ne sme samodejno šteti, da je njen materni jezik tisti jezik, ki prevladuje v zadevni državi članici, ali da nima posebnega znanja drugih jezikov (03/06/2009, C394/08 P, Zipcar, EU:C:2009:334, § 51).
For instance, in the following scenarios, languages other than the predominant one are to be taken into account.
Tako je treba v naslednjih primerih upoštevati druge jezike, ki niso prevladujoči jezik.
When the word in another language is very close to the equivalent word in the official language of the relevant territory.
Kadar je beseda v drugem jeziku zelo podobna enakovredni besedi v uradnem jeziku upoštevnega ozemlja.
For example, the English word ‘bicycle' will be understood in Spain because it is very close to the Spanish equivalent word, ‘bicicleta'.
Na primer, angleško besedo „bicycle“ bodo v Španiji razumeli, saj je zelo podobna enakovredni španski besedi „bicicleta“.
When the word in a foreign language is commonly used in the relevant territory.
Kadar se beseda v tujem jeziku pogosto uporablja na upoštevnem ozemlju.
For example, the Spanish word ‘bravo' is commonly used as a term denoting praise, in the sense of ‘well done' in Germany.
Na primer, španska beseda „bravo“ se v Nemčiji pogosto uporablja kot izraz za pohvalo v smislu „dobro opravljeno“.
When it is known that the relevant public is familiar with a foreign language.
Kadar je splošno znano, da upoštevna javnost pozna tuji jezik.
For example, the Court has already confirmed that the general public in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Finland, has at least a basic understanding of the English language (26/11/2008, T435/07, New Look, EU:T:2008:534, § 23).
Sodišče je na primer že potrdilo, da širša javnost v skandinavskih državah, na Nizozemskem in Finskem premore vsaj osnovno razumevanje angleškega jezika (26/11/2008, T435/07, New Look, EU:T:2008:534, § 23).
When it is known that the relevant public is familiar with a certain language for certain classes of goods and/or services.
Kadar je znano, da upoštevna javnost pozna izraze za nekatere razrede blaga in/ali storitev v nekem jeziku.
For example, English IT terms are normally understood by the relevant public for IT goods and services, irrespective of territory.
Na primer, upoštevna javnost običajno razume angleške računalniške izraze za blago in storitve s področja informacijske tehnologije, ne glede na ozemlje.
Very basic words, which will be understood in all Member States because they have become internationally used, such as ‘baby', ‘love', ‘one', ‘surf', the Italian word ‘pizza', which has also entered the English language, etc.
Javnost bo v vseh državah članicah razumela zelo osnovne besede, kot so „baby“, „love“, „one“, „surf“, italijansko besedo „pizza“, ki je tudi postala del angleškega jezika, itd., ker se uporabljajo mednarodno.
Finally, when any one of the parties submits evidence that a word is known by a relevant portion of the relevant public.
Nazadnje, kadar katera koli od strank predloži prepričljiv dokaz, da besedo pozna velik del upoštevne javnosti.
The following are examples of concepts behind words.
V nadaljevanju so navedeni primeri pojmov v zvezi z besedami.
As shown in some of the examples above, it is not always necessary to give a complete dictionary definition of what a word means.
Kot je razvidno iz nekaterih zgornjih primerov, ni treba vedno nujno navesti popolne slovarske opredelitve pomena besede.
It is sufficient to use a synonym, such as Peer = Lord or Storm = Bad weather.
Zadostuje uporaba sopomenke, tako kot to velja za Peer = Lord ali Storm = slabo vreme.
Additionally, when part of the public will perceive the concept while another part either will not or will perceive a different meaning, a distinction should be made accordingly.
Kadar bo del javnosti zaznal pojem, medtem ko ga drugi del bodisi ne bo zaznal bodisi bo zaznal drugačen pomen, je treba poleg tega opraviti še ustrezno razlikovanje.
When the mark conveys a meaningful expression, the meaning of the expression as a whole, as long as it is understood as such by the relevant public, and not that of the individual words, is the one that is relevant for the conceptual comparison (however, note the exception below concerning expressions in foreign languages).
Kadar znamka predstavlja smiseln izraz, je za pojmovno primerjavo pomemben pomen izraza kot celote, če ga upoštevna javnost razume kot takega, in ne pomen posameznih besed (vendar bodite pozorni na izjemo v nadaljevanju v zvezi z izrazi v tujih jezikih).
Fictional example: ‘KING'S DOMAIN' v ‘KING SIZE'.
Izmišljen primer: „KING'S DOMAIN“ proti „KING SIZE“.
Incorrect assessment: ‘KING' means ‘a male sovereign', ‘DOMAIN' means ‘a territory over which rule or control is exercised' and ‘SIZE' means ‘the physical dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or extent of an object'.
Napačna presoja: „KING“ pomeni „moški vladar“, „DOMAIN“ pomeni „ozemlje pod vladavino ali nadzorom“ in „SIZE“ pomeni „prostorske dimenzije, mere, razsežnost ali obseg predmeta“.
The marks are conceptually similar insofar as they share the notion of ‘king'.
Znamki sta si pojmovno podobni, ker jima je skupen pojem „king“.
Correct assessment: ‘KING'S DOMAIN' means ‘a territory under the control of a king'; ‘KING SIZE' means ‘larger or longer than the usual or standard size'.
Pravilna presoja: „KING'S DOMAIN“ pomeni ozemlje pod nadzorom kralja, „KING SIZE“ pomeni večje ali daljše od običajne ali standardne velikosti.
The marks are conceptually dissimilar even though they share the word ‘KING'.
Znamki se pojmovno razlikujeta, čeprav jima je skupna beseda „KING“.
This is illustrated by the following examples where the marks were found to be conceptually dissimilar.
To je ponazorjeno z naslednjimi primeri, v katerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da se znamki pojmovno razlikujeta.
The abovementioned rule on meaningful expression has the following exception: when signs are in a foreign language, a significant part of the relevant public may have only a limited command of the relevant foreign language and, therefore, might not be able to distinguish the difference in meaning between two expressions.
Pri zgornjem pravilu o smiselnem izrazu obstaja naslednja izjema: kadar sta znaka v tujem jeziku, ima lahko velik del upoštevne javnosti le omejeno znanje zadevnega tujega jezika in zato morda ne bo mogel ugotoviti razlike v pomenu med izrazoma.
In these instances it may be that the meaning of an expression as such is not perceived; only the meanings of the individual elements.
V takšnih primerih se lahko zgodi, da javnost ne bo zaznala pomena izraza kot takega; zaznala bo samo pomene posameznih elementov.
Similar considerations apply to expressions that include a combination of technical words understood by only part of the relevant public (e.g. Latin words, words belonging to highly specialised language) and commonly used words.
Podobni razmisleki veljajo za izraze, ki vključujejo kombinacijo tehničnih besed, ki jih razume le del upoštevne javnosti (npr. latinske besede, besede iz zelo strokovnega jezika), in pogosto uporabljenih besed.
In these cases, it may be that only the meaning of the commonly used words is perceived, and not the meaning of the expression as such.
V takšnih primerih se lahko zgodi, da bo javnost zaznala samo pomen pogosto uporabljenih besed, ne pa tudi pomena izraza kot takega.
3.4.3.2 The semantic content of parts of words
Semantična vsebina delov besed
In this regard, the Court has held that, although the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details, the fact remains that, when perceiving a word sign, they will break it down into elements which, for them, suggest a specific meaning or which resemble words known to them (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57).
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem razsodilo, da čeprav povprečni potrošnik običajno dojame znamko kot celoto in ne preverja njenih posameznih podrobnosti, ostaja dejstvo, da bo, ko bo videl besedni znak, tega vseeno razstavil na elemente, ki ga spominjajo na določen pomen ali so podobni besedam, ki jih pozna (13/02/2007, T256/04, Respicur, EU:T:2007:46, § 57).
Consequently, while the rule is that marks are perceived as a whole, the exception to the rule is that, under certain circumstances, consumers could break them down into smaller parts.
Torej, čeprav se pravilo glasi, da se znamke zaznavajo kot celota, je izjema tega pravila, da bi jih lahko potrošniki v nekaterih okoliščinah razstavili na manjše dele.
Since this is an exception, it has to be applied restrictively.
Ker je to izjema, jo je treba uporabljati omejeno.
It will be applied in the following cases.
Uporabljala se bo v naslednjih primerih:
Examples of signs visually broken down
Primeri vizualno razčlenjenih znakov
Examples of cases that are not broken down visually but where all the parts suggest a concrete meaning known to the relevant public.
Primeri znakov, ki vizualno niso razčlenjeni, vendar pri katerih vsi deli namigujejo na konkreten pomen, ki je upoštevni javnosti znan:
Finally, cases where only one part has a clear meaning are usually ones where there is a common prefix or suffix, as in the examples below.
Nazadnje, primeri znakov, pri katerih ima samo en del jasen pomen, so običajno tisti, v katerih je uporabljena splošno razširjena predpona ali pripona, kot v spodnjih primerih.
As explained above, all three exceptions have to be construed narrowly; therefore, where it is not obvious that a part or parts suggest(s) a concrete meaning known to the relevant public, examiners should refrain from looking for these meanings ex officio.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, je treba vse tri izjeme razlagati ozko, zato se morajo preizkuševalci, kadar ni očitno, da del ali več delov namiguje na konkreten pomen, ki je upoštevni javnosti znan, vzdržati iskanja takšnih pomenov po uradni dolžnosti.
In the examples below, no concept was found in the signs.
V spodnjih primerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da znaki nimajo pojmovne vsebine.
3.4.3.3 The semantic content of misspelt words
Semantična vsebina napačno zapisanih besed
It is not necessary for a word to be written properly for its semantic content to be perceived by the relevant public.
Ni nujno, da je beseda napisana pravilno, da bi upoštevna javnost zaznala njeno semantično vsebino.
For example, while the written word ‘XTRA' is visually not the same as the ‘correct' word ‘EXTRA', because it is aurally identical to it, the concept of the ‘correct' word (extra) will normally be transferred to the misspelt word (xtra).
Na primer, čeprav se napisana beseda „XTRA“ vizualno razlikuje od „pravilne“ besede „EXTRA“, bo pomen pravilne besede (extra) običajno prenesen na napačno zapisano besedo (xtra), ker ji je ta zvočno enaka.
The following examples illustrate this point.
To je ponazorjeno z naslednjimi primeri:
Examiners should take care when attaching meaning to a misspelt word: the meaning is not likely to be transferable when the words are not (aurally) identical and/or when the misspelt element cannot be perceived independently.
Preizkuševalci morajo biti posebej pozorni, ko pripisujejo pomen napačno zapisani besedi: pomena verjetno ne bo mogoče prenesti, če besedi nista (zvočno) enaki in/ali če napačno zapisanega elementa ni mogoče zaznati neodvisno.
3.4.3.4 The semantic content of names and surnames
Semantična vsebina imen in priimkov
The General Court has accepted that names have a concept.
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo, da imajo imena pojmovno vsebino.
Therefore, a conceptual comparison must be made when conflicting signs are composed of names (see examples below).
Kadar sta sovpadajoča znaka sestavljena iz imen, je torej treba opraviti pojmovno primerjavo (glej spodnje primere).
Nevertheless, there are few situations where the fact that a trade mark contains a family name has conceptual significance.
Kljub temu je malo primerov, pri katerih je dejstvo, da blagovna znamka vsebuje priimek, pomembno na pojmovni ravni.
In particular, conceptual similarity cannot result from the mere fact that both trade marks contain a name, even the same kind of name (Celtic family name, Dutch name, etc.).
Pojmovna podobnost zlasti ne more izhajati iz dejstva, da obe blagovni znamki vsebujeta ime ali celo isto vrsto imena (keltski priimek, nizozemski priimek itd.).
The mere fact that two names can be grouped under a common generic term of ‘names' does not constitute conceptual similarity.
Samo dejstvo, da je mogoče imeni uvrstiti pod skupni splošni izraz „imena“, ne pomeni pojmovne podobnosti.
For example, if FRANK and MIKE are compared: the fact that both are names would not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity; this is because the public is not likely to make the conceptual link between the two words.
Na primer, če primerjamo imeni FRANK in MIKE: dejstvo, da sta obe besedi imeni, nas ne bi pripeljalo do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, ker ni verjetno, da bi javnost besedi pojmovno povezovala.
By contrast, the fact that FRANK and FRANKIE are the same name but the latter is the diminutive of the former is relevant and should lead to a finding of conceptual similarity.
V nasprotju s tem je dejstvo, da sta FRANK in FRANKIE isto ime, le da je zadnjenavedeno pomanjševalnica prvega, pomembno in bi nas moralo pripeljati do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti.
The fact that a trade mark contains a name may have an impact on conceptual comparison in the following situations.
Dejstvo, da blagovna znamka vsebuje ime, lahko vpliva na pojmovno primerjavo v naslednjih primerih:
When it is the name/surname of a well-known person (CERVANTES, MARCO POLO, PICASSO)
kadar je to ime/priimek znane osebe (CERVANTES, MARCO POLO, PICASSO):
Where the two marks represent the same name but in different versions (FRANK, with FRANKIE as a diminutive) or languages
kadar znamki ponazarjata isto ime, vendar v različnih različicah (FRANK in FRANKIE kot pomanjševalnica) ali jezikih:
When both trade marks can be understood as referring to the same person, especially when the earlier trade mark is composed solely of a family name
kadar je mogoče obe blagovni znamki razumeti tako, kot da se nanašata na isto osebo, zlasti kadar je prejšnja blagovna znamka sestavljena samo iz priimka.
This could be the case when one name is more important than the other.
To se lahko zgodi, kadar je eno ime pomembnejše od drugega:
If the name contained in the trade marks is meaningful in some languages, the coincidence in this meaning may lead to conceptual similarity
če ima ime, ki ga vsebujejo blagovne znamke, v nekaterih jezikih pomen, lahko ujemanje v tem pomenu vodi do pojmovne podobnosti:
3.4.3.5 The semantic content of figurative signs, symbols, shapes and colours
Semantična vsebina figurativnih znakov, simbolov, oblik in barv
The concepts of marks consisting of or containing figurative elements and marks consisting of shapes (three-dimensional marks) will be what those figurative elements or shapes represent, such as in the following examples.
Pojmovno vsebino znamk, ki so sestavljene iz figurativnih elementov ali jih vsebujejo, in tistih, ki so sestavljene iz oblik (tridimenzionalne znamke), določa to, kar navedeni figurativni elementi ali oblike ponazarjajo, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
Consequently, when a mark has both words and images, all concepts have to be assessed.
Kadar znamka vsebuje besede in slike, je treba torej presoditi vse pojme.
Finally, the semantic content (concept) of colour marks per se is that of the colour they reproduce.
Nazadnje, semantična vsebina (pojem) barvnih znamk je vsebina barve, ki jo prikazujejo.
3.4.3.6 The semantic content of numbers and letters
Semantična vsebina številk in črk
The concept of a word representing a number is the figure it identifies, such as in the examples below.
Pojmovna vsebina besede, ki ponazarja številko, je številka, ki jo ta vsebina opredeljuje, kot je prikazano v spodnjih primerih.
The concept of a figure is the number it identifies, unless it suggests another concept such as a specific year.
Pojmovna vsebina številke je število, ki ga ta vsebina opredeljuje, razen če ne namiguje na drug pojem, kot je določeno leto.
The Office follows the approach that single letters can have an independent conceptual meaning.
Urad uporablja pristop, v skladu s katerim lahko imajo posamezne črke samostojni pojmovni pomen.
The Court has confirmed this approach (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 56; appealed 21/03/2013, C341/12 P, G, EU:C:2013:206), finding conceptual identity where both trade marks can be seen as the same letter.
Sodišče je ta pristop potrdilo (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 56, in pritožba, obravnavana v sodbi z dne 21/03/2013, C341/12 P, G, EU:C:2013:206), pri čemer je ugotovilo pojmovno enakost, kadar je mogoče obe blagovni znamki zaznati kot isto črko.
3.4.3.7 The semantic content of geographical names
Semantična vsebina zemljepisnih imen
The names of cities, villages, regions and other geographic areas evoke a concept that may be relevant for conceptual comparison if it is likely that the relevant public will recognise them as such.
Imena mest, vasi, regij in drugih zemljepisnih območij izražajo pojem, ki je lahko upošteven za pojmovno primerjavo, če je verjetno, da bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala ta imena kot taka.
Usually, the general public in the European Union is familiar with the names of capitals and bigger cities as well as holiday or travel destinations.
Širša javnost v Evropski uniji običajno pozna imena glavnih in večjih mest ter počitniških ali turističnih krajev.
If the perception of the public in a particular Member State is relevant, knowledge of the names of small cities and towns in that country can also be assumed.
Če je pomembno zaznavanje javnosti v neki državi članici, je mogoče domnevati tudi poznavanje imen manjših mest in krajev v tej državi.
A lack of evidence or indication that the relevant public recognises the geographical name does not influence the conceptual comparison, as in the following example.
Neobstoj dokaza ali navedbe dejstva, da upoštevna javnost pozna zemljepisno ime, ne vpliva na pojmovno primerjavo, kot je to prikazano v naslednjem primeru.
3.4.3.8 The semantic content of onomatopoeias
Semantična vsebina onomatopejskih izrazov