natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the same reason, the figures from a periodical, relating to the box office receipts generated by the film, have no bearing on the use of the sign in Germany.
Iz istega razloga podatki iz revije o filmskem blagajniškem prejemku nimajo vpliva na uporabo znaka v Nemčiji.
The remaining press articles furnished by the opponent concern subjects which cannot corroborate the use of the sign in the Member States indicated.
Drugi časopisni članki, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, se nanašajo na teme, na podlagi katerih ni mogoče ugotoviti, da se je znak uporabljal v navedenih državah članicah.
The licence agreements for merchandising do not constitute any evidence with regard to the use of the sign as a film title.
Licenčni sporazumi o trženju ne pomenijo nobenega dokaza v zvezi z uporabo znaka kot naslova filma.
Lastly, the mere fact that the film was a worldwide success cannot substitute the obligation of the opponent to file concrete evidence with regard to the Member States in which it claims protection under Article 8(4) EUTMR (para. 26).
Nazadnje pa le dejstvo, da je bil film svetovna uspešnica, ne more nadomestiti obveznosti vložnika ugovora, da predloži konkretne dokaze v zvezi z državami članicami, v katerih zahteva varstvo na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 26).
‘lucky-pet.de' (German domain name) R 275/20111
lucky-pet.de (nemško domensko ime) R 275/20111
The opponent invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR the domain name ‘lucky-pet.de' used in the course of trade in Germany for ‘mats for animals; retail services with respect to pet supplies'.
Vložnik ugovora se je na podlagi člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU skliceval na domensko ime „lucky-pet.de“, ki se je v Nemčiji v gospodarskem prometu uporabljalo za preproge za živali; maloprodajne storitve v zvezi s „podlogami za hišne živali“.
It has not been proven that the domain has been used with more than local significance for the claimed goods and services.
Ni bilo dokazano, da je bila uporaba domene za zahtevano blago in storitve več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The invoices provided and the catalogue only show the internet address www.lucky-pet.de.
Predloženi računi in katalog prikazujejo le spletni naslov www.lucky-pet.de.
However, they do not prove that the website www.lucky-pet.de has been visited and, if so, to what extent.
Vendar ne dokazujejo, če in kolikokrat je bilo spletno mesto obiskano.
It has neither been stated nor proven by any document how many people visited the website and ordered products via email (para. 31).
Niti ni bilo navedeno niti z nobenim dokumentom dokazano, koliko oseb je obiskalo spletno mesto in po elektronski pošti naročilo proizvode (točka 31).
GLADIATOR (non-registered trade mark in the Czech Republic) R 1529/20101
GLADIATOR (neregistrirana znamka na Češkem) R 1529/20101
The around 230 invoices are sufficient to conclude that the sign ‘GLADIATOR' has been used in the course of trade for ‘all terrain vehicles'.
Približno 230 računov zadostuje za ugotovitev, da se znak „GLADIATOR“ uporablja v gospodarskem prometu za „terenska vozila“.
They are issued to the opponent's clients in Czech cities such as ‘Praha', ‘Kraslice', ‘Dolnì Lánov', ‘Pelhrimov', ‘Opava', ‘Bozkov', ‘Plzen' and many other Czech cities which cover many different areas of the Czech Republic.
Izdajajo se strankam vložnika ugovora v čeških mestih, kot so „Praha“, „Kraslice“, „Dolnì Lánov“, „Pelhrimov“, „Opava“, „Bozkov“, „Plzen“ in številna druga češka mesta, ki obsegajo številna območja Češke.
Furthermore, the catalogues and the magazines ‘4X4 Style' from 2007 are written in Czech and it is very likely that they are distributed in different venues within the Czech Republic.
Poleg tega so katalogi in revije „4X4 Style“ iz leta 2007 napisani v češčini ter je zelo verjetno, da se distribuirajo na raznih dogodkih na Češkem.
The documents such as the list of distributors, catalogues and magazines support the findings that the sign has been used in the course of trade (paras 22-33).
Dokumenti, kot so seznam distributerjev, katalogi in revije, podpirajo ugotovitve, da se je znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu (točke od 22 do 33).
PORTO (Portuguese appellation of origin) B 998 510, (confirmed 12/03/2010, R 1101/20092)
PORTO (portugalska označba porekla) Ugovor B 998 510, (potrjen 12/03/2010, R 1101/20092)
The evidence filed, and the amount and content of the legislation, regulation and registration certificates indicate that Port wine has been and is being used as an appellation of origin for wine.
Iz predloženih dokazov ter obsega in vsebine zakonodaje, predpisov ter potrdil o registraciji je razvidno, da se je portovec uporabljal in se uporablja kot označba porekla za vino.
It is clear from the evidence in its totality that the significance of the appellation of origin is not merely local, but rather has an international impact, as reflected in its history and its use as a tool to attract tourists.
Iz celotnih dokazov je razvidno, da označba porekla nima le lokalnega pomena, temveč ima mednarodni vpliv, kot se kaže v njeni zgodovini in uporabi kot sredstva za privabljanje turistov.
The promotion of the appellation of origin has taken place, among others, through the establishments ‘SOLAR DO VINHO DO PORTO' in Lisbon and Oporto, as well as through the ‘PORT WINE ROUTE', in the Douro region.
Promocija označbe porekla je med drugim potekala v okviru obratov „SOLAR DO VINHO DO PORTO“ v Lizboni in Portu ter prek „VINSKE POTI PORTOVCA“ v regiji Douro.
Taking this into consideration, the Office finds that the opponent has proved that it has used its appellations of origin in the course of trade and that the use is of more than mere local significance.
Urad ob upoštevanju tega ugotavlja, da je vložnik ugovora dokazal, da je svoje označbe porekla uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu in da je uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
Generalóptica (Portuguese establishment name) T318/06 - T321/06
Generalóptica (portugalsko ime podjetja) T318/06 - T321/06
It is not apparent from the evidence provided by the opponent that the significance of the sign relied on in the present case is more than merely local within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR.
Iz dokazov, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, ni razvidno, da je znak, ki se uveljavlja v tem primeru, več kot le lokalnega pomena v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
As the Board of Appeal stated in paragraph 33 of the contested decisions, it is apparent from the documents submitted by the opponent that at the time when registration of the first two European Union trade marks was applied for, the sign in question had been used for almost 10 years merely to designate a business establishment open to the public in the Portuguese town of Vila Nova de Famalicão, which has 120 000 inhabitants.
Kot je odbor za pritožbe ugotovil v točki 33 izpodbijanih odločb, iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, ni razvidno, da se je obravnavani znak ob vložitvi zahtev za registracijo prvih dveh blagovnih znamk Evropske unije deset let uporabljal le za označevanje podjetja v portugalskem kraju Vila Nova de Famalicão, ki ima 120 000 prebivalcev.
In spite of its explanations at the hearing, the applicant did not provide any evidence of recognition of the sign by consumers or of its business relationships outside the abovementioned town.
Tožeča stranka kljub pojasnilom med obravnavo ni predložila nobenega dokaza, ki bi potrdil njeno prepoznavnost med potrošniki ali njena poslovna razmerja zunaj zgoraj navedenega kraja.
Likewise, the applicant has not shown that it had developed any advertising activity in order to ensure that its business establishment was promoted outside that town.
Tožeča stranka ni niti dokazala, da je za svoje podjetje razvila kakršno koli oglaševalsko dejavnost zunaj navedenega mesta.
It must therefore be held that the business establishment name Generalóptica is of mere local significance within the meaning of Article 8(4) EUTMR (para. 44).
Torej je treba šteti, da je ime podjetja Generalóptica le lokalnega pomena v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (točka 44).
FORTRESS FORTRESS INVESTMENTS FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP (non-registered trade marks in the UK) 01/04/2011, R 354/20092 08/03/2011, R 355/20092
FORTRESS FORTRESS INVESTMENTS FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP (neregistrirane blagovne znamke v Združenem kraljestvu) 01/04/2011, R 354/20092 08/03/2011, R 355/20092
The fact that the invalidity applicant was involved in the acquisition, lease-back and management of nationwide property portfolios of major UK institutions and companies proves that the use was of more than mere local significance.
Dejstvo, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti sodeloval pri nakupu, povratnem zakupu in upravljanju lastniških portfeljev institucij in podjetij Združenega kraljestva po vsej državi, dokazuje, da je uporaba več kot le lokalnega pomena.
The fact that use is limited to London is relevant in the sense that London is the seat of nearly all governmental institutions and bodies and home to the City of London, one of the leading financial centres of the world.
Dejstvo, da je uporaba omejena na London, je pomembno z vidika, da imajo v Londonu sedež skoraj vse vladne institucije in organi ter da je tam tako imenovani City of London (ožje mestno središče), ki je eno od vodilnih finančnih središč na svetu.
The economic dimension of the sign's significance was important since by mid 2000, the invalidity applicant had already an equity capital under management in excess of USD 1 billion.
Gospodarska razsežnost pomena znaka je bila pomembna, saj je do sredine leta 2000 vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti že upravljal lastniški kapital v vrednosti nad 1 milijardo USD.
Furthermore, the group of addressees among which the sign was known is significant since it included major players in the financial field and UK public institutions.
Poleg tega je skupina naslovnikov, ki ji je znak poznan, pomembna, saj vključuje glavne akterje na finančnem področju in javne institucije Združenega kraljestva.
The exposure given to the sign was also significant, cf. the national and specialised press coverage.
Pomembno je bilo tudi širjenje prepoznavnosti znaka; glej poročanje nacionalnih in specializiranih medijev.
Therefore, use in the course of trade was of more than mere local significance (paras 49-51).
Zato je bila uporaba v gospodarskem prometu več kot le lokalnega pomena (točke od 49 do 51).
GRAIN MILLERS (German business name) T430/08
GRAIN MILLERS (nemško poslovno ime) T430/08
The use of a business name in the context of the importation of goods from another State (in this case, documents of the transaction concluded by opponent concerning the import of wheat from Romania to Germany) is indeed use in the context of a commercial activity with a view to economic advantage, since import-export constitutes a normal, everyday activity of an undertaking, necessarily involving at least two States (para. 41).
Uporaba poslovnega imena pri uvozu blaga iz druge države (v tem primeru dokumenti o poslu, ki ga je sklenil vložnik ugovora v zvezi z uvozom pšenice iz Romunije v Nemčijo) je dejansko uporaba v smislu poslovne dejavnosti, katere cilj je gospodarska korist, saj dejavnost uvoza in izvoza pomeni običajno, vsakodnevno dejavnost podjetja, ki nujno vključuje vsaj dve državi (točka 41).
BUD (appellation of origin protected in France and Austria) 22/01/2013, T225/06 RENV, T255/06 RENV, T257/06 RENV & T309/06 RENV, EU:T:2013:31
BUD (označba porekla, zaščitena v Franciji in Avstriji) 22/01/2013, T225/06 RENV, T255/06 RENV, T257/06 RENV in T309/06 RENV, EU:T:2013:31
Four very small invoices for only three cities, without any advertisements, did not meet the requirement for use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance (para. 56).
Štirje zelo majhni računi za samo tri mesta brez kakršnega koli oglaševanja ne izpolnjujejo zahteve za uporabo znaka v gospodarskem prometu več kot le lokalnega pomena (točka 56).
The same conclusion applied to Austria since the GC found that use was limited to deliveries of 12-25 hectolitres per year, for a marginal turnover (around EUR 1 200), almost exclusively in Vienna (paras 59-61).
Enaka ugotovitev je veljala za Avstrijo, saj je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da je bila uporaba omejena na dobavo 1225 hektolitrov letno za majhen promet (približno 1 200 EUR) skoraj izključno na Dunaju (točke od 59 do 61).
BRIGHTON (non-registered mark in several MS) 30/06/2010, R 408/20094
BRIGHTON (neregistrirana znamka v več državah članicah) 30/06/2010, R 408/20094
The sales chart provided by the opponent shows that the sale activities in the Member States concerned were not consistent over time to the extent that for certain years no sales at all appear to have taken place and that for others the sales revenue was very low indeed.
Podatki z grafikona prodaje, ki ga je predložil vložnik ugovora, kažejo, da prodaja v zadevnih državah članicah v obdobju ni bila enakomerna, saj v nekaterih letih prodaje sploh ni bilo, v drugih pa je bil prihodek od prodaje dejansko zelo majhen.
Therefore, the sales figures show that the opponent was not able to maintain an intensity of use of the signs over three consecutive years.
Podatki o prodaji torej kažejo, da vložnik ugovora v treh zaporednih letih ni mogel ohraniti intenzivnosti uporabe znakov.
It is unlikely in those cases that the public was able to memorise the mark as an indication of origin.
Zato ni verjetno, da bi si lahko javnost v navedenih primerih zapomnila znamko kot označbo porekla.
The opponent did not submit any evidence relating to the advertising and promotion of the marks invested in the concerned Member States, or other material showing that the signs in question had established themselves in the marketplace to such an extent as to justify the acquisition of exclusive rights in non-registered trade marks (paras 12-21).
Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenih dokazov v zvezi z oglaševanjem in promocijo znamk, ki sta potekala v zadevnih državah članicah, niti nobenega drugega gradiva, ki bi potrjevalo, da so se zadevni znaki tako uveljavili na trgu, da bi upravičili pridobitev izključnih pravic v zvezi z neregistriranimi blagovnimi znamkami (točke od 12 do 21).
(Greek non-registered mark) 01/06/2011, R 242/20101
(neregistrirana grška znamka) 01/06/2011, R 242/20101
Although the documents confirm the geographical extent of the trade mark to Greece, the evidence regarding the extent of time of the alleged use is clearly insufficient.
Čeprav dokumenti potrjujejo geografsko razsežnost blagovne znamke v Grčiji, so dokazi o trajanju domnevne uporabe očitno nezadostna.
The last dated document is from 1997, i.e. seven years before the contested application was submitted.
Zadnji dokument je iz leta 1997, tj. sedem let pred predložitvijo izpodbijane prijave.
Moreover, the most recent documents in which the trade mark ‘ESKIMO' can be seen are the invoices dating from 1991 to 1994.
Poleg tega so najnovejši dokumenti, na katerih je mogoče opaziti znamko „ESKIMO“, računi iz obdobja 1991-1994.
They only reflect the sales of a little less than 100 units throughout these four years, which cannot be deemed sufficient to prove the use of the mark as a business identifier by the opponent (paras 27-28).
Razvidna je le prodaja nekaj manj kot 100 enot v teh štirih letih, kar se ne more šteti kot zadosten dokaz, da je vložnik ugovora znamko uporabljal kot podjetniški identifikator (točki 27 in 28).
Up Way Systems - Representaçoes Unipessoal LDA (Portuguese company name) 25/01/2013, R 274/20125
Up Way Systems - Representaçoes Unipessoal LDA (portugalsko ime podjetja) 25/01/2013, R 274/20125
Three invoices, addressed to companies in the Porto region of Portugal, for a total sales amount of EUR 16 314, are not sufficient to show that the sign was used in the course of trade, considering the price level of building materials and building services in general (paras 20-23).
Trije računi, naslovljeni na podjetja v regiji Porto na Portugalskem v celotnem znesku prodaje v višini 16 314 EUR, ne zadostujejo kot dokaz, da se je znak uporabljal v gospodarskem prometu, če se upošteva raven cen gradbenega materiala in gradbenih storitev na splošno (točke od 20 do 23).
JAMON DE HUELVA (Spanish trade name) R 1714/20104
JAMON DE HUELVA (špansko trgovsko ime) R 1714/20104
The proof furnished in order to substantiate the use of ‘Jamón de Huelva' almost exclusively relates to the designation of origin ‘Jamón de Huelva'.
Dokaz, predložen za utemeljitev uporabe imena „Jamón de Huelva“, se skoraj izključno nanaša na označbo porekla „Jamón de Huelva“.
Designations of origin are very different legal concepts from trade names, as, instead of identifying a particular commercial origin, they are geographical indications relating to an agricultural or food product of which the quality or characteristics are fundamentally or exclusively due to the geographical environment in which they are produced, processed or prepared.
Označbe porekla se kot pravni pojmi močno razlikujejo od trgovskih imen, saj namesto označevanja posameznega trgovskega porekla pomenijo geografske označbe, ki se nanašajo na kmetijske ali živilske proizvode, katerih kakovost ali značilnosti so načeloma ali izključno posledica geografskega okolja, v katerem se proizvajajo, predelujejo ali pripravljajo.
The opposition based on the use in Spain of the trade name ‘Jamón de Huelva' must be dismissed in view of the fact that the proof furnished does not relate to this legal concept and does not identify a specific commercial activity, but instead the activities relating to a designation of origin and the Supervisory Council thereof (paras 34-37).
Ugovor na podlagi uporabe trgovskega imena „Jamón de Huelva“ v Španiji je treba zavrniti z vidika dejstva, da se predloženi dokaz ne nanaša na ta pravni pojem in ne označuje posamezne poslovne dejavnosti, temveč dejavnosti, ki se nanašajo na označbo porekla in s tem povezan nadzorni svet (točke od 34 do 37).
Case No Provision involved Reasoning
Št. zadeve Zadevna določba Utemeljitev
21/10/2014, T453/11, LAGUIOLE, EU:T:2014:901 (01/06/2011, R 181/20071) Articles L 714-3 and L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code According to the Court ‘it is not disputed that the right to obtain the annulment of a subsequent trade mark based on a business name encompasses a fortiori the right to oppose the use of that trade mark' (para. 37).
21/10/2014, LAGUIOLE, T453/11, EU:T:2014:901 (01/06/2011, R 181/20071) člena L 714-3 in L 711-4 francoskega zakona o intelektualni lastnini Sodišče je odločilo, da ni sporno, da pravica do razglasitve ničnosti poznejše znamke, ki izhaja iz firme, a fortiori zajema pravico do nasprotovanja uporabi te znamke (točka 37).
07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato EU:T:2010:290 Article 12(1)(b) of the Italian Industrial Property Code The Court based its judgment on the national provision that allows ‘to oppose the registration of a sign as a trade mark' (para. 21).
07/07/2010, Carlo Roncato, T124/09, EU:T:2010:290 člen 12(1)(b) italijanskega zakona o industrijski lastnini Podlaga za sodbo Sodišča je bila nacionalna določba, ki omogoča ugovor zoper znak kot blagovno znamko (točka 21).
24/03/2015, R 619/20142, DOHRE (fig.) / DOHE, S.A. Article 9(1)(d) of the Spanish trade mark law The Board decided, that ‘although Articles 90 and 9(1)(d) of Spanish trade mark law do not perhaps expressly provide the right to prohibit use of a later mark, they do provide it implicitly'.
24/03/2015, DOHRE (fig.)/DOHE, S.A., R 619/20142, člen 9(1)(d) španskega zakona o blagovnih znamkah Odbor je odločil, da čeprav člena 90 in 9(1)(d) španskega zakona o blagovnih znamkah morda ne določata pravice do prepovedi uporabe poznejše blagovne znamke izrecno, jo določata implicitno.
It would be absurd, in the presence of the conditions required by the articles in question, that the holder of a previous trade name has the right to oppose registration of a later mark but could not prohibit its use, taking into account that confusion occurs not with the register but in the market (para. 24).
Glede na obstoj pogojev iz zadevnih členov ne bi bilo smiselno, da ima imetnik prejšnjega trgovskega imena pravico vložiti ugovor zoper registracijo poznejše znamke, vendar ne bi mogel prepovedati njene uporabe, če se upošteva, da zmeda ne nastane v registru, ampak na trgu (točka 24).
03/06/2015, R 2216/20142, Sonicell (fig.) / SONICEL et al. Article 239(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Industrial Property Code The Board based its decision on a national provision prohibiting registration of the subsequent mark.
03/06/2015, Sonicell (fig.)/SONICEL in drugi, R 2216/20142 člen 239(1) in (2) portugalskega zakona o industrijski lastnini Podlaga za odločitev odbora je bila nacionalna določba, ki prepoveduje registracijo poznejše znamke.
It stated that Portuguese law confers a right in relation to conflicting signs based on ‘a business or corporate name and other distinctive signs', and the scope of protection of this earlier right is the same as for registered trade marks.
Navedel je, da portugalski zakon podeljuje pravico glede spornih znakov na podlagi poslovnega imena ali firme in drugih znakov z razlikovalnim učinkom, obseg zaščite te prejšnje pravice pa je enak kot za registrirane blagovne znamke.
In other words, it is a ground for refusal when cited in an opposition if it concerns a reproduction, imitation or merely a characteristic part thereof, and is likely to mislead or confuse the consumer.
Z drugimi besedami, je razlog za zavrnitev, kadar se navaja v ugovoru, če zadeva reprodukcijo, imitacijo ali le značilen del in bi lahko zavajal ali zmedel potrošnike.
A confusingly similar Community trade mark application therefore falls within this definition (paras 34-35).
Prijava blagovne znamke Skupnosti, ki bi lahko povzročila zmedo, zato spada v to opredelitev (točki 34 in 35).
Trade Marks with Reputation, Article 8(5) EUTMR
Blagovne znamke z ugledom, člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
TRADE MARKS WITH REPUTATION
BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE Z UGLEDOM
(ARTICLE 8(5) EUTMR)
(ČLEN 8(5) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU)
1 Introduction 3
1 Uvod 4
1.1 Purpose of Article 8(5) EUTMR 3
1.1 Namen člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 4
1.2 Legal framework 3
1.2 Pravni okvir 4
2 Scope of Applicability 4
2 Obseg uporabe 5
2.1 Applicability to registered marks 4
2.1 Uporaba za registrirane znamke 5
2.1.1 The requirement of registration 4
2.1.1 Zahteva za registracijo 5
2.1.2 Relationship between marks with reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR) and well-known marks (Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR) 5
2.1.2 Povezava med znamkami z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) in dobro znanimi znamkami (člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) 6
2.2 Applicability to similar and identical goods and services 6
2.2 Uporaba za podobno in enako blago in storitve 8
3 Conditions of Application 7
3 Pogoji uporabe 8
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation 7
3.1 Prejšnja znamka z ugledom 8
3.1.1 Nature of reputation 7
3.1.1 Vrsta ugleda 8
3.1.2 Scope of reputation 8
3.1.2 Obseg ugleda 9
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition 8
3.1.2.1 Stopnja prepoznavnosti 9
3.1.2.2 Relevant public 9
3.1.2.2 Upoštevna javnost 10
3.1.2.3 Goods and services covered 11
3.1.2.3 Vključeno blago in storitve 12
3.1.2.4 Relevant territory 12
3.1.2.4 Upoštevno ozemlje 13
3.1.2.5 Relevant point in time 13
3.1.2.5 Upoštevni trenutek 14
3.1.2.6 Reputation acquired as part of another mark 15
3.1.2.6 Ugled, pridobljen kot del druge znamke 16
3.1.3 Assessment of reputation - relevant factors 16
3.1.3 Presoja ugleda - upoštevni dejavniki 17
3.1.3.1 Trade mark awareness 17
3.1.3.1 Poznanost znamke 18
3.1.3.2 Market share 18
3.1.3.2 Tržni delež 19
3.1.3.3 Intensity of use 20
3.1.3.3 Intenzivnost uporabe 21
3.1.3.4 Geographical extent of use 22
3.1.3.4 Geografski obseg uporabe 22
3.1.3.6 Promotional activities 23
3.1.3.6 Promocijske dejavnosti 24
3.1.3.7 Other factors 25
3.1.3.7 Drugi dejavniki 25
3.1.4 Proof of reputation 26
3.1.4 Dokaz o ugledu 27
3.1.4.1 Standard of proof 26
3.1.4.1 Dokazni standard 27
3.1.4.2 Burden of proof 27
3.1.4.2 Dokazno breme 27
3.1.4.3 Evaluation of the evidence 28
3.1.4.3 Ovrednotenje dokazov 28
3.1.4.4 Means of evidence 29
3.1.4.4 Dokazi 29
3.2 The similarity of the signs 36
3.2 Podobnost znakov 36
3.3 The link between the signs 38
3.4.1 Predmet varstva 43