natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the context of analysis of distinctiveness of components of signs, the Office considers the ruling to mean that, when establishing the distinctiveness of a single letter, being a component of a sign, it is not correct to rely on assumptions such as a priori statements that consumers are not in the habit of perceiving single letters as trade marks or on generic arguments such as that relating to the availability of signs, given the limited number of letters.
V okviru analize razlikovalnega učinka sestavnih delov znakov Urad meni, da ta sodba pomeni, da se pri določanju razlikovalnega učinka ene same črke, ki je sestavni del znaka, ni pravilno zanašati na predpostavke, kot so neutemeljene (a priori) trditve, da potrošniki navadno ne zaznavajo ene same črke kot blagovno znamko, ali splošne trditve, kot je trditev v zvezi z razpoložljivostjo znakov, glede na omejeno število črk.
The General Court has since stated in a number of cases that a trade mark containing a single letter or a single numeral may indeed be inherently distinctive (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 50; 06/10/2011, T176/10, Seven for all mankind, EU:T:2011:577, § 36; 05/11/2013, T378/12, X, EU:T:2013:574, § 37-51).
Splošno sodišče je medtem v več zadevah navedlo, da je lahko blagovna znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke ali ene same številke, dejansko svojstveno razlikovalna (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 50; 06/10/2011, T176/10, Seven for all mankind, EU:T:2011:577, § 36; 05/11/2013, T378/12, X, EU:T:2013:574, § 37-51).
In its judgment of 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, the General Court dismissed the applicant's argument that single letters are generally per se devoid of distinctive character and that, therefore, only their graphic representation would be protected (paras 38-49).
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, zavrnilo trditev prijavitelja, da so posamične črke na splošno same po sebi brez razlikovalnega učinka in da naj se zato zaščiti samo njihov grafični prikaz (točke 38-49).
The above considerations apply both to single-letter/numeral trade marks depicted in standard characters (i.e. word marks) and to stylised single-letter/numeral trade marks.
Zgoraj navedeno velja za blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke/številke, prikazane v standardnih znakih (tj. besedne znamke), ter stilizirane blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke/številke.
The same rules apply to numerals.
Enaka pravila se uporabljajo za številke.
3.2.3.4 Disclaimers
Odklonitve
Pursuant to former Article 37(2) CTMR (deleted by Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424), the Office could impose a disclaimer if the mark contained an element that was not distinctive and if inclusion of that element would have led to doubts as to the scope of protection.
V skladu s prejšnjim členom 37(2) Uredbe o znamki Skupnosti (ki se je izbrisal z Uredbo (EU) 2015/2424 o spremembi) je lahko Urad zahteval odklonitev, če je znamka vsebovala element, ki ni bil razlikovalen, in če bi vključitev navedenega elementa povzročila dvome glede obsega varstva.
The Office also accepted disclaimers entered voluntarily.
Urad je sprejemal tudi prostovoljno predložene odklonitve.
Some national trade mark systems also provide for disclaimers.
Odklonitve predvidevajo tudi nekateri nacionalni sistemi blagovnih znamk.
Following the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424, the Office is no longer able to request disclaimers; similarly, no requests for disclaimers entered by the EUTM applicant will be accepted.
Odkar je začela veljati Uredba (EU) 2015/2424, Urad ne more več zahtevati odklonitev niti ne sprejema zahtev za odklonitev, ki jih predloži prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU.
However, disclaimers in marks registered by the Office before the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 and in earlier national marks will still be binding on the Office and must be taken into account even if the element might appear distinctive when analysed independently.
Odklonitve v zvezi z znamkami, ki jih je Urad registriral pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) 2015/2424, in prejšnjimi nacionalnimi znamkami, pa so za Urad še vedno zavezujoče in jih mora upoštevati, tudi če je element ob ločeni analizi videti razlikovalen.
The effect of a disclaimer is:
Učinek odklonitve je naslednji:
if the earlier mark contains a disclaimer, that the proprietor is prevented from successfully invoking rights in the disclaimed element.
če prejšnja znamka vsebuje odklonitev, se imetniku prepreči uspešno uveljavljanje pravic na odklonjenem elementu.
Therefore, similarity between two signs cannot be induced or increased because of coincidence or similarity in the disclaimed element (06/10/2008, R 21/20084, AUTENTICO JABUGO / FLOR SIERRA DE JABUGO JABUGO (fig.) et al., § 17, where JABUGO was disclaimed).
Podobnost med znakoma tako ne more nastati ali se povečati, ker se odklonjeni element ujema ali je podoben (06/10/2008, R 21/20084, AUTENTICO JABUGO / FLOR SIERRA DE JABUGO JABUGO (fig.) et al., § 17, v kateri je bil odklonjen element JABUGO),
that if the earlier figurative mark contains two words and both are disclaimed, the scope of protection is reduced to the precise manner and sequence in which the two words are combined.
če prejšnja figurativna znamka vsebuje dve besedi in sta bili obe odklonjeni, se obseg varstva zmanjša na točen način in zaporedje kombinacije obeh besed.
Disclaimers in the contested EUTM application (irrespective of whether they were requested by the Office or entered voluntarily by the applicant before the entry into force of Amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)) cannot bind the owner of the earlier mark, that is to say, the applicant cannot unilaterally reduce the scope of protection of the earlier mark (11/02/2010, R 229/20092, DOUGHNUT THEATER / DONUT et al., § 58; 29/03/2012, R 2499/20101, ACETAT Silicon 101E (fig.) / 101 et al., § 18-19).
Odklonitve v izpodbijani prijavi blagovne znamke EU (ne glede na to, ali jih je zahteval Urad ali pa jih je prijavitelj predložil prostovoljno, preden je začela veljati Uredba (EU) 2015/2424) za imetnika prejšnje znamke ne morejo biti zavezujoče, prijavitelj ne more enostransko zmanjšati obsega varstva prejšnje znamke (11/02/2010, R 229/20092, DOUGHNUT THEATER / DONUT et al., § 58; 29/03/2012, R 2499/20101, ACETAT Silicon 101E (fig.) / 101 et al., § 18-19).
3.2.3.5 Earlier marks, the distinctiveness of which is called into question
Prejšnje znamke, pri katerih se izpodbija razlikovalni učinek
If the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is questioned, the Office applies the practice clarified in the F1-Live judgment (24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), namely that in proceedings opposing the registration of an EUTM, the validity of earlier trade marks may not be called into question.
Če se izpodbija razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, Urad uporablja prakso, pojasnjeno v sodbi v zadevi F1-Live (24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), in sicer da v postopkih ugovarjanja registraciji blagovne znamke EU veljavnosti prejšnjih blagovnih znamk ni mogoče izpodbijati.
Consequently, the elements corresponding to the earlier mark cannot be considered as devoid of distinctive character in the trade mark comparison, but must be deemed to be endowed with some (low/minimal) degree of distinctiveness.
Elementi, povezani s prejšnjo znamko, tako v primerjavi blagovnih znamk ne morejo šteti za elemente brez razlikovalnega učinka, temveč morajo šteti za elemente z neko (nizko/minimalno) stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
3.3 Dominant elements of the marks
Prevladujoči elementi znamk
It is the Office's practice to restrict the notion of dominant element to the visual impact of the elements of a sign, that is, to use it exclusively to mean ‘visually outstanding'.
Praksa Urada je, da pojem prevladujočega elementa omejuje na vizualni učinek elementov znaka, tj. da se uporablja tako, da izključno pomeni samo vidno izstopajoč.
For a finding that there is a dominant element within a sign, the sign should have at least two identifiable components .
Za ugotovitev, da ima prevladujoči element, mora znak imeti vsaj dva prepoznavna sestavna dela.
The rules explained in paragraph 3.2.1 above apply accordingly.
Pri tem se ustrezno uporabljajo pravila iz odstavka 3.2.1 zgoraj.
[3: In this text the words ‘component' and ‘element' are used interchangeably.]
[3: V tem besedilu se izraza sestavni del in element uporabljata tako, da sta med seboj zamenljiva.]
The decision should establish whether there is a dominant element or codominant elements and identify them.
V odločbi bi moralo biti določeno, ali obstaja prevladujoči element ali soprevladujoči elementi, ter navedeno, kateri elementi so to.
Even though, according to the established case-law of the Court, aspects other than the visual one (such as a possible semantic meaning of part of a one-word sign) may come into play when defining the notion of the dominant element of a sign, it is the practice of the Office to restrict the notion of dominant element to the visual impact of the elements of a sign, that is, to use it exclusively to mean ‘visually outstanding' and to leave any other considerations for the overall assessment.
Čeprav se lahko v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča pri opredelitvi pojma prevladujočega elementa znaka upoštevajo tudi drugi vidiki poleg vizualnega (kot je na primer morebitni semantični pomen dela enobesednega znaka), je praksa Urada, da omejuje pojem prevladujočega elementa na vizualni učinek elementov znaka, tj. da se uporablja tako, da pomeni samo vidno izstopajoč, vse druge vidike pa prepušča celoviti presoji.
As a result, the Office's practice is that the dominant character of a component of a sign is mainly determined by its position, size, dimensions and/or use of colours, to the extent that they affect its visual impact.
Zato je praksa Urada takšna, da se prevladujoči učinek sestavnega dela znaka v glavnem določa z njegovo postavitvijo, velikostjo, dimenzijami in/ali uporabo barv v obsegu, v katerem vplivajo na njegov vizualni učinek.
As stated by the Court:
Kot je navedlo Sodišče:
With regard to the assessment of the dominant character of one or more given components of a complex trade mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the intrinsic qualities of each of those components by comparing them with those of other components.
Pri presoji prevladujočega učinka enega ali več sestavnih delov sestavljene blagovne znamke je treba zlasti upoštevati značilnosti, lastne posameznemu sestavnemu delu, tako da se primerjajo med seboj.
In addition and accessorily, account may be taken of the relative position of the various components within the arrangement of the complex mark.
Poleg tega se lahko upošteva relativni položaj posameznih sestavnih delov v postavitvi sestavljene znamke
(23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 35; confirmed 28/04/2004, C3/03 P, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:C:2004:233).
(23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 35; potrjena z 28/04/2004, C3/03 P, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:C:2004:233).
In addition, the Court has held that:
Poleg tega je Sodišče menilo:
… the weak distinctive character of an element of a complex mark does not necessarily imply that that element cannot constitute a dominant element since, because, in particular, of its position in the sign or its size, it may make an impression on consumers and be remembered by them.
[…] šibek razlikovalni učinek enega elementa sestavljene znamke ne pomeni nujno, da ta ne more biti prevladujoči element, zlasti kadar lahko njegova postavitev v znaku ali velikosti naredi vtis na potrošnike, pri čemer si ti nato zapomnijo znak
Consequently, the fact that a component of a mark may or may not be considered non-distinctive (or as having a low degree of distinctiveness) has no bearing on the assessment of dominant character.
Dejstvo, da se sestavni del znamke šteje za nerazlikovalen (ali da ima nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka), posledično ne vpliva na presojo prevladujočega učinka.
As a rule of thumb, the following should be considered.
Na splošno je treba upoštevati naslednje.
The assessment of dominant character applies to both the signs under comparison.
Presoja prevladujočega učinka se uporablja za oba znaka, ki se primerjata.
For a finding that there is a dominant component, the sign should have at least two identifiable components.
Znak mora za ugotovitev, da ima prevladujoči element, imeti vsaj dva prepoznavna sestavna dela.
Word marks have no dominant elements because by definition they are written in standard typeface.
Besedne znamke nimajo prevladujočih elementov, ker so glede na opredelitev zapisane v standardni pisavi.
The length of the words or the number of letters is not an issue of dominance but of overall impression (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment).
Dolžina besed ali število črk ni vprašanje prevladujočega učinka, temveč vprašanje celovite presoje (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja).
Figurative elements may be dominant in signs where word elements are also present.
Figurativni elementi lahko prevladujejo v znakih, ki vsebujejo tudi besedne elemente.
Whether or not an element is visually outstanding may be determined in the visual comparison of the signs; if that is the case, it must be consistent with an evaluation of dominant character.
Dejstvo, ali je element vidno izstopajoč ali ne, se lahko ugotovi z vizualno primerjavo znakov; v tem primeru mora biti to skladno z vrednotenjem prevladujočega učinka.
Lastly, if it is difficult to decide which of the (at least) two components is dominant, this may be an indication that there is no dominant element or that no element is more dominant than the other (which includes cases of codominance).
Nazadnje, če se je težko odločiti, kateri od (vsaj) dveh sestavnih delov je prevladujoč, je to lahko znak, da ni prevladujočega elementa ali da noben element ni bolj prevladujoč od drugih (kar vključuje primere soprevladujočih elementov).
The establishment of dominant character implies that one component is visually outstanding compared to the other component(s) in the mark.
Če se ugotovi prevladujoči učinek, to pomeni, da je en sestavni del vidno izstopajoč v primerjavi z drugimi sestavnimi deli znamke.
If this applies to two or more components, they are codominant.
Če to velja za dva ali več sestavnih delov, so ti sestavni deli soprevladujoči.
If that assessment is difficult to make, it is because there is no dominant or codominant element(s).
Če je o tem težko presoditi, je to zato, ker ni prevladujočega elementa oz. soprevladujočih elementov.
Examples of cases
Primeri
3.4 Comparison of signs
Primerjava znakov
In the following paragraphs the application of the principles explained above will be explained with regard to the visual (see paragraph 3.4.1 below), phonetic (see paragraph 3.4.2 below) and conceptual comparison (see paragraphs 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 below).
V naslednjih odstavkih je pojasnjena uporaba zgornjih načel pri vizualni (glej odstavek 3.4.1 v nadaljevanju), zvočni (glej odstavek 3.4.2 v nadaljevanju) in pojmovni primerjavi (glej odstavka 3.4.3 in 3.4.4 v nadaljevanju).
Thereafter, the impact of distinctiveness and dominant character of the common and differing elements (see paragraph 3.4.5 below) and other principles to be taken into account in the comparison of signs (see paragraph 3.4.6 below) will be presented.
Zatem so navedeni vpliv razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka skupnih in različnih elementov (glej odstavek 3.4.5 v nadaljevanju) ter druga načela, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri primerjavi znakov (glej odstavek 3.4.6 v nadaljevanju).
3.4.1 Visual comparison
Vizualna primerjava
Within the visual comparison it is important to note first that the public perceives word elements of a mark in a different way from other elements.
V okviru vizualne primerjave je treba najprej poudariti, da javnost besedne elemente znamke zaznava drugače kot druge elemente.
Word elements can be read or associated with a sequence of letters.
Besedne elemente je mogoče prebrati ali jih povezati z zaporedjem črk.
Other elements are just assessed as to their graphical or figurative characteristics.
Drugi elementi se presodijo le glede na njihove grafične ali figurativne značilnosti.
In the following, the principles of visual comparison will be presented depending on the type of trade marks involved.
V nadaljevanju so navedena načela vizualne primerjave, in sicer po vrstah zadevnih blagovnih znamk.
3.4.1.1 Word mark versus word mark
Besedna znamka proti besedni znamki
When at least one word mark is involved, the word as such is protected, not its written form.
V primeru vsaj ene besedne znamke je zaščitena beseda kot taka in ne njena pisna oblika.
According to the case-law, a word mark is a mark consisting entirely of letters, of words or of associations of words, written in printed characters in normal font, without any specific graphic element (20/04/2005, T211/03, Faber, EU:T:2005:135, § 33; 13/02/2007, T353/04, Curon, EU:T:2007:47, § 74).
V skladu s sodno prakso je besedna znamka tista znamka, ki je sestavljena izključno iz črk, besed ali besednih zvez, napisanih s tiskanimi črkami v običajni pisavi, brez posebnega grafičnega elementa (20/04/2005, T211/03, Faber, EU:T:2005:135, § 33; 13/02/2007, T353/04, Curon, EU:T:2007:47, § 74).
The protection offered by the registration of a word mark applies to the word stated in the application for registration and not to the individual graphic or stylistic characteristics which that mark might possess (22/05/2008, T254/06, RadioCom, EU:T:2008:165, § 43).
Varstvo, ki izhaja iz registracije besedne znamke, se nanaša na besedo, navedeno v prijavi za registracijo, in ne na posamezne grafične ali stilistične značilnosti, ki bi jih ta znamka lahko imela (22/05/2008, T254/06, RadioCom, EU:T:2008:165, § 43).
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the word mark is depicted in lower or upper case letters.
Zato ni pomembno, ali je besedna znamka prikazana z malimi ali velikimi črkami.
For word marks, the visual comparison is based on an analysis of the number and sequence of the letters/characters, the position of the coinciding letters/characters, the number of words and the structure of the signs (e.g. whether word elements are separated or hyphenated).
Vizualna primerjava pri besednih znamkah temelji na analizi števila in zaporedja črk/znakov, položaja ujemajočih se črk/znakov, števila besed in strukture znakov (npr. ali so besedni elementi ločeni ali pisani z vezajem).
However, the average consumer normally perceives a sign as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.
Vendar povprečni potrošnik navadno zaznava znak kot celoto in ne preverja posameznih podrobnosti.
Therefore, small differences in the (number of) letters are often not sufficient to exclude a finding of visual similarity, particularly when the signs have a common structure.
Zato majhne razlike v črkah (številu črk) pogosto ne zadostujejo za izključitev ugotovitve vizualne podobnosti, zlasti kadar imajo znaki enako strukturo.
In the following cases the marks were held to be visually similar.
V naslednjih primerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da so si znamke vizualno podobne.
The following word marks are visually dissimilar.
Naslednji besedni znamki se vizualno razlikujeta.
3.4.1.2 Word mark versus figurative mark with word elements
Besedna znamka proti figurativni znamki z besednimi elementi
When figurative marks with word elements and word marks are compared visually, what matters is whether the signs share a significant number of letters in the same position and whether the word element in the figurative sign is highly stylised.
Pri vizualni primerjavi figurativne znamke z besednimi elementi in besedne znamke je pomembno, ali je znakoma skupno precejšnje število črk na istem mestu in ali je besedni element v figurativnem znaku močno stiliziran.
Similarity may be found despite the fact that the letters are graphically portrayed in different typefaces, in italics or bold, in upper or lower case or in colour.
Podobnost se lahko ugotovi kljub dejstvu, da so črke grafično prikazane v različnih pisavah, poševnem ali krepkem tisku, z velikimi ali malimi črkami ali v barvi.
In principle, when the same letters are depicted in the same sequence, any variation in stylisation has to be high in order to find visual dissimilarity.
Kadar se iste črke pojavijo v enakem zaporedju, mora biti razlika pri stilizaciji načeloma velika, da se lahko ugotovi vizualna različnost.
The following marks were considered visually similar because there was no high variation in the stylisation of the word elements in the figurative marks and the word element was easily recognisable and legible.
Naslednje znamke so se štele za vizualno podobne, ker pri stilizaciji besednih elementov v figurativnih znamkah ni bilo velike razlike ter je bil besedni element zlahka razpoznaven in berljiv.
However, where the word in the figurative mark is highly stylised, the marks should be found visually dissimilar, as in the following examples.
Kadar je beseda v figurativni znamki močno stilizirana, je treba ugotoviti, da se znamki vizualno razlikujeta, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
3.4.1.3 Purely figurative versus purely figurative signs
Povsem figurativni znak proti povsem figurativnemu znaku
When comparing signs in conflict in terms of their purely figurative elements, the Office considers the latter as images: if they match in one, separately recognisable, element or have the same or a similar contour, it is likely that some visual similarity will be found.
Urad pri primerjavi sovpadajočih znakov v smislu njunih povsem figurativnih elementov zadnjenavedene šteje za slike: če se ujemata v enem, ločeno prepoznavnem elementu ali imata enak ali podoben obris, bo verjetno ugotovljena določena vizualna podobnost.
The following purely figurative signs were found to be visually similar.
Za naslednje povsem figurativne znake je bilo ugotovljeno, da so si vizualno podobni.
The following purely figurative signs were deemed to be visually dissimilar.
Za naslednja povsem figurativna znaka se je štelo, da se vizualno razlikujeta.
3.4.1.4 Stylised mark versus stylised mark
Stilizirana znamka proti stilizirani znamki
When comparing signs in terms of their word elements, the Office considers signs similar insofar as they share a significant number of letters in the same position and when they are not highly stylised or when they are stylised in the same or a similar manner.
Urad pri primerjavi znakov v smislu njunih besednih elementov ta znaka šteje za podobna, če jima je skupno precejšnje število črk na istem mestu in če nista močno stilizirana ali če sta stilizirana enako ali podobno.
Similarity may be found despite the fact that the letters are graphically portrayed in different typefaces, in italics or bold, in upper or lower case or in colour (18/06/2009, T418/07, LiBRO, EU:T:2009:208; 15/11/2011, T434/10, Alpine Pro Sportswear & Equipment, EU:T:2011:663; 29/11/2012, C42/12 P, Alpine Pro Sportswear & Equipment, EU:C:2012:765, appeal dismissed).
Podobnost se lahko ugotovi kljub dejstvu, da so črke grafično prikazane v različnih pisavah, poševnem ali krepkem tisku, z velikimi ali malimi črkami ali v barvi (18/06/2009, T418/07, LiBRO, EU:T:2009:208; 15/11/2011, T434/10, Alpine Pro Sportswear & Equipment, EU:T:2011:663; 29/11/2012, C42/12 P, Alpine Pro Sportswear & Equipment, EU:C:2012:765, pritožba zavrnjena).
In the following examples, the marks were considered visually similar because they share some words or sequences of letters and the typeface was deemed not to be highly stylised.
V naslednjih primerih so se znamke štele za vizualno podobne, ker so jim skupne nekatere besede ali zaporedja črk in ker se pisava ni štela za močno stilizirano.