natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, it should be noted that the above factors and principles do not call into question the principle that the examination of the similarity of trade marks must take into account the overall impression produced by them on the relevant public.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da zgornji dejavniki in načela niso v nasprotju z načelom, da je treba pri preizkusu podobnosti blagovnih znamk upoštevati celotni vtis, ki ga naredita na upoštevno javnost.
Impact of word versus figurative elements
Vpliv besednih v primerjavi z vplivom figurativnih elementov
Therefore, if the coincidences between composite signs (signs comprising word and figurative elements) lie within the verbal elements and the differences arise out of the figurative elements, the degree of visual and aural similarity is likely to be higher than average (see example below).
Če se sestavljena znaka (znaka, ki imata besedni in figurativni element) ujemata v besednih elementih, v figurativnih elementih pa razlikujeta, bo stopnja vizualne in zvočne podobnosti verjetno višja od povprečne (glej primer v nadaljevanju).
In general, the identity or similarity of the figurative component of the signs is insufficient to establish a considerable level of similarity where at least one of the signs contains a further verbal component that is not contained in the other sign.
Na splošno enakost ali podobnost figurativnega sestavnega dela znakov ne zadostuje za ugotovitev precejšnje stopnje podobnosti v primerih, pri katerih vsaj eden od znakov vsebuje dodaten besedni sestavni del, ki ga v drugem znaku ni.
However, although the word elements of a mark may have a greater impact, this is not necessarily the case where the figurative element visually dominates the overall impression made by the mark (see paragraph 3.4.6.1 above).
Čeprav imajo besedni elementi znamke lahko večji vpliv, pa ni nujno tako, če je figurativni element v okviru celotnega vtisa znamke prevladujoč (glej odstavek 3.4.6.1 zgoraj).
Beginning of signs
Začetek znakov
In principle, coincidences at the beginning of signs increase their similarity more than coincidences in the middle or at the end of signs.
Načeloma se z ujemanjem na začetku znakov njuna podobnost poveča bolj kot z ujemanjem na sredini ali na koncu znakov.
Therefore, consumers attach less importance to the end of the mark and coincidences located at the end of signs would lead to a finding of a lower degree of visual similarity than common elements at the beginning of signs (see first example below).
Za potrošnike je konec znamke manj pomemben in če se znaka ujemata na koncu, bo ugotovljena nižja stopnja vizualne podobnosti, kot če imata skupni element na začetku (glej prvi primer v nadaljevanju).
Likewise, the position of the coinciding/similar phonemes or syllables at the beginning of the conflicting signs would increase the degree of aural similarity.
Podobno je stopnja zvočne podobnosti med zadevnima znakoma višja, če so enaki ali podobni fonemi ali zlogi na začetku znakov.
However, the degree of similarity will usually be lower, despite identical beginnings, if those are the weak elements in the signs or if the remaining elements have a clearly different meaning (see second example below).
Stopnja podobnosti bo kljub enakemu začetku običajno nižja, če sta na začetku šibka elementa ali če imajo ostali elementi jasno različen pomen (glej drugi primer v nadaljevanju).
Short signs
Kratki znaki
The length of the signs may influence their overall impression and thus the effect of the differences between them.
Dolžina znakov lahko vpliva na celoten vtis in tako na učinek razlik med njimi.
In principle, the shorter a sign is, the more easily the public is able to perceive all its single elements.
Načeloma velja, da kolikor krajši je znak, lažje lahko javnost zazna vse njegove posamezne elemente.
The application of the abovementioned principles and factors should not be automatic.
Omenjena načela in dejavniki se ne bi smeli uporabljati kar samodejno.
The decision has to explain their relevance for the particular case and weigh them up.
V odločbi je treba pojasniti, zakaj so pomembni za obravnavano zadevo, in jih pretehtati.
However, the rules explained in this chapter have a general character and the particularities of a specific case may justify different findings.
Pravila, pojasnjena v tem poglavju, so splošna in zaradi posebnih značilnosti določene zadeve so lahko upravičene drugačne ugotovitve.
However, in such cases it is of even greater importance to provide a clear and thorough reasoning in the decision.
V takih primerih je še pomembnejše, da odločba vsebuje jasno in temeljito obrazložitev.
4 Dissimilarity of Signs
Različnost znakov
The similarity of signs is a necessary condition for a finding of a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU mora biti izpolnjen pogoj podobnosti med znakoma.
An assessment of the similarity between two marks must be based on the overall impression created by them, in particular, by their distinctive and dominant components (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 32 and the case-law cited).
Presoja podobnosti med znamkama mora temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata ti znamki, zlasti pa njuni razlikovalni in prevladujoči sestavni deli (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 32 and the case-law cited).
Where the overall impression is that the signs are dissimilar, this excludes the likelihood of confusion.
Kadar je celotni vtis, da sta znaka različna, je verjetnost zmede izključena.
The finding as to whether signs are similar or dissimilar overall is the result of a combined assessment of (i) the visual, phonetic, conceptual overlaps and differences and (ii) the significance of the overlaps and differences in the perception of the relevant public.
Da se doseže ugotovitev, ali sta znaka na splošno podobna ali različna, se presodijo (i) vizualna, zvočna ter pojmovna prekrivanja in razlike ter (ii) pomembnost prekrivanj in razlik v okviru zaznave upoštevne javnosti.
Where the signs at issue are dissimilar,
Kadar sta zadevna znaka različna,
the general rule is that the goods and services do not need to be compared.
blaga in storitev načeloma ni treba primerjati.
Only the signs are compared and the examination stops upon concluding on the dissimilarity of the signs.
Primerjata se samo znaka in preizkus se ustavi, ko se ugotovi, da sta različna.
Nevertheless, reasoning strategy may justify a comparison of some of the goods and services and continue the assessment of the similarity of signs for the remaining goods and services only, where the signs are otherwise dissimilar due to an overlap exclusively in a descriptive or non-distinctive element (see paragraph 4.2.5 below).
Kljub temu je zaradi pristopa k obrazložitvi lahko upravičena primerjava nekaterega blaga in storitev, presoja podobnosti znakov pa se nadaljuje samo za preostalo blago in storitve, če sta znaka sicer različna, ker se prekriva izključno opisen ali nerazlikovalen element (glej odstavek 4.2.5 v nadaljevanju).
For example, in the case of long lists of goods and services, it may prove more efficient to first rule on the dissimilarity of some of the goods and services, and continue to the comparison of the signs (including the assessment of distinctive components in several languages) only for the remaining, shorter list of goods and services.
Če je na primer seznam blaga in storitev dolg, je morda učinkoviteje najprej odločiti, da so nekatero blago in storitve različni, nato pa se postopek nadaljuje s primerjavo znakov (vključno s presojo razlikovalnih sestavnih delov v več jezikih) le za preostali, krajši seznam blaga in storitev.
Any claim of enhanced distinctiveness is not examined.
Morebitno sklicevanje na povečani razlikovalni učinek se ne preizkusi.
If the signs are dissimilar, the opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR must be rejected regardless of any enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
Če sta znaka različna, je treba ugovor v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavrniti ne glede na morebitni povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke.
Where the marks in question are not similar, there is no need to take account of the reputation of the earlier mark, since it does not fall within the scope of the test of similarity and cannot serve to increase the similarity between those marks (14/03/2011, C370/10 P, EDUCA Memory game, EU:C:2011:149, § 50-51 and the case-law cited).
Kadar zadevni znamki nista podobni, ni treba upoštevati ugleda prejšnje znamke, saj ta ne spada na področje uporabe preizkusa podobnosti, zaradi njega se ne more povečati podobnost med navedenima znamkama (14/03/2011, C370/10 P, EDUCA Memory game, EU:C:2011:149, § 50-51 ter navedena sodna praksa).
There is no global assessment of factors.
Celovita presoja dejavnikov se ne opravi.
The decision concludes that in the absence of one of the conditions, the opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR must be rejected.
V odločbi se ugotovi, da je treba, ker ni izpolnjen eden izmed pogojev, ugovor v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavrniti.
4.2 Scenarios for dissimilarity
Primeri različnosti
4.2.1 No element in common
Ni skupnega elementa
The signs are obviously dissimilar if they have nothing in common in any of the three aspects of comparison.
Če znaka v nobenem izmed treh vidikov primerjave nimata nič skupnega, sta seveda različna.
This is more a hypothetical scenario as the signs at issue in an opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR normally have something in common.
Ta primer je bolj hipotetičen, saj imata znaka, v zvezi s katerima je vložen ugovor v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, običajno kaj skupnega.
What is rather debated by the parties is the significance of the overlap in an element.
Stranke razpravljajo bolj o tem, kako pomembno je prekrivanje nekega elementa.
4.2.2 Overlap in a negligible element
Prekrivanje zanemarljivega elementa
The signs are dissimilar if the only element they have in common is negligible in one or both of the marks in the sense that, due to its size and/or position, it will be likely to go unnoticed or disregarded by the relevant public.
Znaka sta različna, če je edini skupni element pri eni ali obeh znamkah zanemarljiv, kar pomeni, da ga upoštevna javnost verjetno ne bo opazila ali upoštevala.
Negligible elements, after having duly reasoned why they are considered negligible, will not be compared (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 42).
Zanemarljivi elementi se ne primerjajo, potem ko Urad ustrezno utemelji, zakaj jih šteje za zanemarljive (12/06/2007, C334/05 P, Limoncello, EU:C:2007:333, § 42).
The notion of negligible elements should be strictly interpreted and, in the event of any doubt, the assessment should cover all the elements of the sign (see paragraph 1.5 above).
Pojem zanemarljivih elementov je treba razlagati ozko, presoja pa mora v primeru dvoma zajemati vse elemente znaka (glej odstavek 1.5 zgoraj).
Concerning the assessment as to whether an element is negligible, the test is not whether the Office can, in a meticulous side-by-side examination of the signs, decipher the element concerned.
Pri presoji, ali je neki element zanemarljiv, se ne preverja, ali lahko Urad v okviru natančnega preizkusa znakov drugega ob drugem razbere zadevni element.
The question is rather whether, in the overall impression of the sign, the element is noticeable by the average consumer who normally perceives a sign as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.
Pravo vprašanje je, ali element v okviru celotnega vtisa znaka lahko opazi povprečni potrošnik, ki običajno znak zaznava kot celoto in ne preverja posameznih podrobnosti.
4.2.3 Overlap in a verbal element not noticeable due to high stylisation
Prekrivanje besednega elementa, ki zaradi močne stilizacije ni opazen
The signs are dissimilar if the verbal element, which would give rise to similarity, is not discernible due to its high stylisation.
Znaka sta različna, če besedni element, zaradi katerega bi bila podobna, ni prepoznaven, ker je močno stiliziran.
Sometimes the way in which letters or symbols are used makes it unrealistic to assume that they will be read and pronounced, for example, when in a figurative mark a symbol or letter is repeated in order to create a pattern, is highly distorted or otherwise not clearly legible.
Včasih je zaradi načina, kako so črke ali simboli uporabljeni, nerealno domnevati, da jih bo mogoče prebrati in izgovoriti, kadar se na primer simbol ali črka v figurativni znamki ponovi zaradi oblikovanja vzorca ali pa je močno popačena ali sicer slabo berljiva.
If the verbal element is not recognisable in the overall impression of the sign, thus, not legible and not pronounceable, it will not be taken into account in the comparison.
Če besednega elementa v okviru celotnega vtisa znaka ni mogoče prepoznati ter posledično prebrati in izgovoriti, se pri primerjavi ne bo upošteval.
Again, the test is not whether the Office can, in a meticulous side-by-side examination of the signs, identify the verbal element concerned.
Še enkrat naj se poudari, da se ne preverja, ali lahko Urad v okviru natančnega preizkusa znakov drugega ob drugem prepozna zadevni besedni element.
It is irrelevant if the verbal element is recognised only with the help of the other mark, as the consumer normally does not have the opportunity to compare signs side by side.
Če se besedni element prepozna le ob pomoči druge znamke, to ni pomembno, saj potrošnik običajno ne more primerjati znakov drugega ob drugem.
Furthermore, it is irrelevant that the party refers to its mark by a particular verbal element in its submissions or if the particulars of the mark indicate a verbal element, because the consumer will not be assisted by that information on encountering the sign as registered or applied for.
Poleg tega ni pomembno, da stranka v svojih predloženih elementih imenuje znak z določenim besednim elementom ali da je besedni element naveden v podrobnem opisu znamke, saj si potrošnik ne bo mogel pomagati s temi informacijami, ko se bo srečal z znakom, kot je registriran ali je zanj vložena prijava.
The question whether the verbal element is indeed ‘lost' in the stylisation must be carefully assessed.
Vprašanje, ali se je besedni element s stilizacijo dejansko „izgubil“, je treba skrbno pretehtati.
The consumer intuitively looks for pronounceable elements in figurative signs by which the sign can be referred to.
Potrošnik v figurativnih znakih intuitivno išče izgovorljive elemente, s katerimi se lahko nanaša na znak.
The high stylisation of one or more letters of a word may not prevent the consumer from identifying the verbal element as a whole, particularly, if it suggests a concrete meaning.
Močna stilizacija ene ali več črk v besedi še ne pomeni, da potrošnik ne bo prepoznal besednega elementa kot celote, zlasti če namiguje na konkreten pomen.
It should also be emphasised that if the complex stylisation of the verbal element of a sign does not make it totally illegible, but merely lends itself to various interpretations, the comparison must take into account the different realistic interpretations.
Treba je tudi poudariti, pri primerjavi upoštevati vse različne načine razumevanja, ki so verjetni, kadar besedni element znaka zaradi zapletene stilizacije ni povsem neberljiv, temveč ga je le mogoče razumeti na več načinov.
Thus, it is only in the - rather rare - case where the legibility of the sign is truly unrealistic, without being assisted by a mark description or the other mark, that the verbal element will be disregarded in the comparison.
Besedni element se tako pri primerjavi ne upošteva le v precej redkem primeru, ko res ni verjetno pričakovati, da bo potrošnik lahko prebral znak, ne da bi si pomagal z opisom znamke ali drugo znamko.
4.2.4 Overlap in other irrelevant aspects
Prekrivanje drugih nepomembnih vidikov
The fact that there is some coincidence between the signs does not necessarily lead to a finding of similarity.
Dejstvo, da se znaka v nečem ujemata, še ne pomeni, da bo ugotovljena podobnost med njima.
This is in particular the case when the overlapping part is not perceived independently within the overall impression of the marks.
To velja zlasti, kadar se del, ki se prekriva, v okviru celotnega vtisa znamk ne zaznava neodvisno.
The Court considered the following signs dissimilar despite the overlap in a sequence of letters.
Sodišče je menilo, da so naslednji znaki različni, čeprav se prekriva zaporedje črk.
The same applies to similarities in the figurative elements that are of minor impact.
Enako velja, kadar so podobni figurativni elementi, ki imajo le majhen vpliv.
The decision must contain a thorough reasoning, in the comparison of signs, as to why the overlap in particular aspects is considered irrelevant.
Odločba mora pri primerjavi znakov vsebovati temeljito obrazložitev, zakaj se prekrivanje določenih vidikov šteje kot nepomembno.
4.2.5 Overlap in a non-distinctive element
Prekrivanje nerazlikovalnega elementa
If the signs overlap exclusively in an element that is descriptive or non-distinctive for the relevant goods and services in all parts of the relevant territory, and both contain other distinctive element(s) capable of differentiating between the signs, they can be considered dissimilar.
Če se pri znakih prekriva izključno element, ki je v zvezi z zadevnim blagom in storitvami v vseh delih upoštevnega ozemlja opisen ali nerazlikovalen, ter oba vsebujeta drug(-e) razlikovalni(-e) element(-e), po katerem(-ih) je mogoče razlikovati med znakoma, se lahko znaka štejeta kot različna.
It follows that two conditions have to be fulfilled in order to find dissimilarity in this context:
Iz tega izhaja, da morata biti za ugotovitev različnosti v takem primeru izpolnjena dva pogoja:
the coinciding element must be non-distinctive (if the coinciding element has some, even very low distinctiveness, the signs cannot be found dissimilar);
element, ki se ujema, mora biti nerazlikovalen (če ima element, ki se ujema, neki razlikovalni učinek, tudi če je ta zelo šibak, ne more biti ugotovljena različnost med znakoma),
both signs must contain other elements that are distinctive and capable of differentiating the marks.
oba znaka morata vsebovati druge elemente, ki so razlikovalni in po katerih je mogoče razlikovati med znamkama.
Therefore, two signs may be dissimilar for some of the goods and services but not for others.
Znaka sta tako lahko različna za nekatero blago in storitve, za drugo blago in storitve pa ne.
Furthermore, if in part of the relevant territory the overlapping element is not perceived as descriptive or non-distinctive (e.g. due to non-understanding of the term), the signs cannot be considered dissimilar.
Poleg tega se znaka ne moreta šteti kot različna, če se na delu upoštevnega ozemlja element, ki se prekriva, ne zaznava kot opisen ali nerazlikovalen (npr. ker tam javnost izraza ne razume).
The following invented examples illustrate cases where the coincidence in one element cannot lead to any similarity because that element is non-distinctive and the other elements, which are clearly different, allow the public to differentiate sufficiently between the marks.
V naslednjih izmišljenih primerih je navedeno, kdaj zaradi ujemanja v enem elementu ne more biti ugotovljena podobnost, ker je ta element nerazlikovalen in ker javnost lahko zadostno razlikuje med znamkama po drugih elementih, ki so jasno različni.
Examples from case-law
Primeri iz sodne prakse
According to the rules established on the beginning of signs, despite a lack of distinctive character of the elements in common, it would not be appropriate to conclude on dissimilarity, where:
V skladu s pravili, ki veljajo za začetek znakov, čeprav skupni elementi nimajo razlikovalnega učinka, ne bi bilo ustrezno ugotoviti, da sta znaka različna:
the particular combination of the elements confer some distinctiveness on the signs (i.e. the combination would be protected)
kadar imata znaka razlikovalni učinek zaradi določene kombinacije elementov (tj. kadar bi bila zaščitena kombinacija),
the other element that is supposed to distinguish between the signs is perceived as an insignificant figurative detail, or is otherwise non-distinctive (see paragraph 3.2.3.1 above)
kadar se drugi element, po katerem naj bi javnost razlikovala med znakoma, zaznava kot nepomembna figurativna podrobnost ali je drugače nerazlikovalen (glej odstavek 3.2.3.1 zgoraj),
the non-distinctive elements constituting (forming exclusively) the sign are entirely incorporated in the other sign
nerazlikovalni elementi, ki sestavljajo znak (ta ne vsebuje drugih elementov), so v celoti vključeni v drugem znaku.
In summary, the finding of ‘dissimilar overall' on account of an overlap exclusively in non-distinctive elements should be limited to evident cases where the other element serves to safely distinguish between the signs.
Skratka, ugotovitev, da sta znaka „na splošno različna“, ker se prekrivajo izključno nerazlikovalni elementi, bi morala biti omejena na primere, v katerih drugi element očitno omogoča zanesljivo razlikovanje med znamkama.
In less evident cases low similarity should be attributed to the marks.
V primerih, v katerih je to manj očitno, bi bilo treba znamkama pripisati nizko stopnjo podobnosti.
The examination will then proceed and the cases will be solved at the stage of the global assessment (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment, paragraph 6.2).
Preizkus se nato nadaljuje in zadeve se rešijo v fazi celovite presoje (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja, odstavek 6.2).
It must also be borne in mind that a finding of dissimilarity in the context of Article 8(1)(a) or (b) EUTMR is also binding for other grounds of refusal on which the opposition is based.
Treba je upoštevati tudi, da je ugotovitev različnosti v okviru člena 8(1)(a) ali (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavezujoča tudi v zvezi z drugimi razlogi za zavrnitev, na katerih temelji ugovor.
It applies especially to Article 8(5) EUTMR, with the result that if the marks are found dissimilar, the protection on this ground is excluded (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.2).
To velja zlasti za člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kar pomeni, da je zaščita na podlagi tega razloga izključena, če je ugotovljeno, da sta znamki različni (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.2).
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
(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.
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 The Board described the contested sign in full, but negligible elements such as '70 cl' were not included in the comparison.
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 Odbor je izpodbijani znak opisal v celoti, vendar zanemarljivi elementi, kot je „70 cl“, v primerjavo niso bili vključeni.
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 The elements other than ‘cachaça'/‘pirassununga' and ‘51', the latter written in white within a circle that is itself partially within a broad band running from one side of the sign to the other, are negligible in the overall impression created by those marks (para. 65).
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 Elementi, razen „cachaça/pirassununga“ in „51“, pri čemer je zadnji napisan v beli barvi v krogu, ki je delno v širokem traku, ki poteka od ene strani znaka do druge, so zanemarljivi v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata ti znamki (točka 65).
Earlier sign Contested sign and comments Case No
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak in pripombe Št. zadeve