natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is not contrary to Article 95(1) EUTMR, which is binding on the Office only as regards the facts, evidence and arguments and does not extend to the legal evaluation of the same.
To ni v nasprotju s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki je za Urad zavezujoč le v zvezi z dejstvi, dokazi in navedbami, ne zajema pa njihove pravne presoje.
Therefore, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proven or not, but they may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish the respective legal concepts, such as similarity of goods/services, similarity of the signs, and likelihood of confusion.
Zato lahko stranke soglašajo, katera dejstva so bila dokazana, ne morejo pa določiti, ali zadoščajo za opredelitev zadevnih pravnih pojmov, kot so podobnost blaga ali storitev, podobnost znakov in verjetnost zmede.
Article 95(1) EUTMR does not prevent the Office from taking into consideration, on its own initiative, facts that are already notorious or well known or that may be learnt from generally accessible sources, for example, that PICASSO will be recognised by EU consumers as a famous Spanish painter (22/06/2004, T185/02, Picaro, EU:T:2004:189; 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25).
Člen 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Uradu ne preprečuje, da na svojo pobudo obravnava dejstva, ki so že splošno razširjena ali znana ali jih je mogoče izvedeti iz splošno dostopnih virov, na primer, da bodo potrošniki EU besedo PICASSO prepoznali kot besedo, ki označuje znanega španskega slikarja (22/06/2004, T185/02, Picaro, EU:T:2004:189; 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25).
However, the Office cannot quote ex officio new facts or arguments (e.g. reputation or degree of knowledge of the earlier mark).
Vendar se Urad po uradni dolžnosti ne more sklicevati na nova dejstva ali navedbe (npr. ugled ali stopnjo poznavanja prejšnje blagovne znamke).
Moreover, even though certain trade marks are sometimes used in daily life as generic terms for the goods and services that they cover, this should never be taken as fact by the Office.
Poleg tega, tudi če se nekatere blagovne znamke včasih uporabljajo v vsakdanjem življenju kot splošni izrazi za blago in storitve, ki jih označujejo, Urad tega ne sme nikoli sprejeti kot dejstvo.
In other words, trade marks should never be referred to (or interpreted) as if they were a generic term or a category of goods or services.
Z drugimi besedami, blagovnih znamk se ne sme nikoli navajati (ali jih razlagati), kot da so splošen izraz ali kategorija blaga ali storitev.
For instance, the fact that in daily life part of the public refers to ‘X' when talking about yoghurts (‘X' being a trade mark for yoghurts) should not lead to using ‘X' as a generic term for yoghurts.
Tako na primer dejstvo, da del javnosti v vsakdanjem življenju uporablja ime X, kadar govori o jogurtih (X je blagovna znamka jogurtov), ne sme povzročiti, da se ime X uporablja kot splošen izraz za jogurte.
4 Evaluation of the Relevant Factors for Establishing a Likelihood of Confusion
Presoja zadevnih dejavnikov za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede
4.1 The relevant point in time
Zadevni trenutek
The relevant moment in time for assessing a likelihood of confusion is the date the opposition decision is taken.
Zadevni trenutek za presojo verjetnosti zmede je datum sprejetja odločitve o ugovoru.
Where the opponent relies on enhanced distinctiveness of an earlier trade mark, the conditions for this must have been met on or before the filing date of the EUTM application (or any priority date) and must still be fulfilled at the point in time the decision is taken.
Kadar se vložnik ugovora sklicuje na povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke, so morali biti pred datumom ali na datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU (ali kateri koli datum prednostne pravice) izpolnjeni ustrezni pogoji, ki pa morajo biti izpolnjeni tudi ob sprejetju odločitve.
Office practice is to assume that this is the case, unless there are indications to the contrary.
Praksa Urada je domnevati, da je ta pogoj izpolnjen, razen če ne obstajajo navedbe o nasprotnem.
Where the EUTM applicant relies on a reduced scope of protection (weakness) of the earlier trade mark, only the date of the decision is relevant.
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU kot razlog navaja zmanjšan obseg varstva (pomanjkljivost) prejšnje blagovne znamke, se upošteva le datum sprejetja odločitve.
4.2 List of factors for assessing the likelihood of confusion
Seznam dejavnikov za presojo verjetnosti zmede
The likelihood of confusion is assessed in the following steps, taking into account multiple factors.
Verjetnost zmede se presoja v naslednjih korakih ob upoštevanju več dejavnikov:
Comparison of goods and services
primerjava blaga in storitev,
Relevant public and degree of attention
zadevna javnost in stopnja pozornosti,
Comparison of signs
primerjava znakov,
Distinctiveness of the earlier mark
razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke,
Any other factors
vsi drugi dejavniki,
Global assessment of likelihood of confusion.
celovita presoja verjetnosti zmede.
A separate chapter of the Guidelines is dedicated to each of the above factors and its specifics.
Vsakemu od zgoraj navedenih dejavnikov in njegovim podrobnostim je namenjeno posebno poglavje Smernic.
Annex
Priloga
General principles coming from case-law (these are not direct citations).
Splošna načela, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse (to niso dobesedni citati).
The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (para. 22).
Verjetnost zmede je treba presojati celovito, pri čemer se upoštevajo vsi dejavniki, ki so pomembni za okoliščine zadeve (točka 22).
The appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, on the association that the public might make between the two marks and on the degree of similarity between the signs and the goods (para. 22).
Presoja verjetnosti zmede je odvisna od številnih elementov, zlasti od prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke na trgu, povezovanja med zadevnima dvema blagovnima znamkama, kar se lahko zgodi v javnosti, in stopnje podobnosti med znaki in blagom (točka 22).
The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components (para. 23).
Celovita presoja vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti zadevnih blagovnih znamk mora temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, ki ga ti ustvarjata, pri čemer je treba upoštevati njune razlikovalne in prevladujoče elemente (točka 23).
The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details (para. 23).
Povprečni potrošnik navadno zaznava blagovno znamko kot celoto in ne preverja njenih posameznih podrobnosti (točka 23).
The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (para. 24).
Verjetnost zmede je toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (točka 24).
It is not impossible that the conceptual similarity resulting from the fact that two marks use images with analogous semantic content may give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character (para. 24).
Ni izključeno, da lahko pojmovna podobnost, ki je posledica dejstva, da blagovni znamki uporabljata znaka, ki se ujemata v semantični vsebini, povzroči verjetnost zmede, če ima prejšnja blagovna znamka posebni razlikovalni učinek (točka 24).
However, where the earlier mark is not especially well known to the public and consists of an image with little imaginative content, the mere fact that the two marks are conceptually similar is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (para. 25).
Vendar kadar prejšnja blagovna znamka v javnosti ne uživa posebnega ugleda in je sestavljena iz slike, na kateri ni veliko domišljijskih elementov, sama podobnost med blagovnima znamkama ni dovolj, da bi povzročila verjetnost zmede (točka 25).
The concept of likelihood of association is not an alternative to likelihood of confusion, but serves to define its scope (para. 18).
Pojem verjetnost povezovanja ni nadomestna možnost za pojem verjetnost zmede, temveč se uporablja za opredelitev njegovega obsega (točka 18).
The mere association that the public might make between two marks as a result of their analogous semantic content is not in itself a sufficient ground for concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion (para. 26).
Preprosto povezovanje med dvema blagovnima znamkama, kar se lahko v javnosti zgodi zaradi ujemanja njunih pomenskih vsebin, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja verjetnosti zmede (točka 26).
The risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion (para. 29).
Verjetnost zmede pomeni verjetnost, da bi javnost mislila, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (točka 29).
By contrast, there can be no such likelihood where the public does not think that the goods come from the same undertaking (or from economically linked undertakings) (para. 30).
V nasprotju s tem takšna verjetnost ne more obstajati, če javnost ne misli, da blago izvira iz istega podjetja (ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij) (točka 30).
In assessing the similarity of the goods and services, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account (para. 23).
Pri presoji podobnosti med blagom in storitvami je treba upoštevati vse zadevne dejavnike, ki so značilni za razmerje med tem blagom ali storitvami (točka 23).
Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, the purpose for which they are used (the translation ‘end users' in the official English language version is not correct) and their method of use, and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (para. 23).
Ti dejavniki med drugim vključujejo naravo, namen, za katerega se uporabljajo (prevod končni uporabniki v uradni angleški jezikovni različici ni pravilen), in uporabo tega blaga ali storitev ter tudi to, ali gre za konkurenčno ali dopolnjujoče se blago ali storitve (točka.
A lesser degree of similarity between the goods may be offset by a greater degree of similarities between the marks and vice versa (para. 17).
Nizka stopnja podobnosti med blagom se lahko izravna z visoko stopnjo podobnosti med blagovnimi znamkami in obratno (točka 17).
Marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (para. 18).
Blagovne znamke, ki imajo same po sebi ali zaradi svojega ugleda na trgu močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom (točka 18).
Registration of a trade mark may have to be refused, despite a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services covered, where the marks are very similar and the earlier mark, in particular its reputation, is highly distinctive (para. 19).
Registracija blagovne znamke se lahko zavrne kljub nižji stopnji podobnosti med označenim blagom ali storitvami, kadar je podobnost med blagovnima znamkama velika ter kadar je razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke močan in zlasti njen ugled velik (točka 19).
The distinctive character of the earlier mark and in particular its reputation must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods and services is enough to give rise to the likelihood of confusion (para. 24).
Pri ugotavljanju, ali podobnost med blagom in storitvami zadošča za povzročitev verjetnosti zmede, je treba upoštevati razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke in zlasti njen ugled (točka 24).
There may be a likelihood of confusion, even if the public thinks that these goods have different places of production (para. 30).
Verjetnost zmede lahko obstaja tudi, če javnost misli, da to blago prihaja iz različnih krajev proizvodnje (točka 30).
The level of attention of the average consumer, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, varies according to the category of the goods and services in question (para. 26).
Stopnja pozornosti povprečnega potrošnika, za katerega se šteje, da je razumno obveščen, pozoren in pazljiv, se razlikuje glede na kategorijo zadevnega blaga in storitev (točka 26).
However, account should be taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks and must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (para. 26).
Vendar je treba upoštevati, da imajo povprečni potrošniki redko možnost neposredno primerjati različne blagovne znamke, zato se morajo zanesti na njihovo nepopolno podobo, ki so jo ohranili v spominu (točka 26).
When assessing the degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity it can be appropriate to evaluate the importance attached to each by reference to the category of goods and the way they are marketed (para. 27).
Pri presoji vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti je morda ustrezno ovrednotiti pomen, ki se pripisuje posamezni blagovni znamki z upoštevanjem kategorije blaga in načina trženja (točka 27).
It is possible that mere aural similarity could lead to a likelihood of confusion (para. 28).
Tudi le zvočna podobnost bi lahko povzročila verjetnost zmede (točka 28).
In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, an overall assessment needs to be made of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods and services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking (para. 22).
Pri opredelitvi razlikovalnega učinka blagovne znamke in posledično pri presoji, ali ima velik razlikovalni učinek, je treba izvesti celovito presojo večje ali manjše sposobnosti blagovne znamke, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, identificira kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja (točka 22).
In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered; the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public who, because of the mark, identifies the goods and services as originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations (para. 23).
Pri tej presoji je treba upoštevati zlasti bistvene lastnosti blagovne znamke, vključno z dejstvom, da je ali ni brez vsakršnega opisnega elementa blaga ali storitev, za katere je bila registrirana, njen tržni delež, intenzivnost, ozemeljsko razsežnost in dolžino uporabe te blagovne znamke, višino naložb, ki so jih podjetja namenila njeni promociji, obseg zainteresiranega okolja, ki zaradi blagovne znamke blago in storitve identificira kot izvirajoče iz določenega podjetja, ter izjave gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih panožnih in poklicnih združenj (točka 23).
It is not possible to state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive character (para. 24).
Na splošno ni mogoče navesti, na primer s sklicevanjem na določen odstotek zadevne javnosti, ki pozna blagovno znamko, da ima blagovna znamka velik razlikovalni učinek (točka 24).
The reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming the existence of a likelihood of confusion simply because of the existence of a likelihood of association in the strict sense (para. 41).
Ugled blagovne znamke ne omogoča domneve obstoja verjetnosti zmede samo zaradi obstoja verjetnosti povezovanja v strogem pomenu besede (točka 41).
Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive cannot be interpreted as meaning that where: a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or services that are identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is registered, a sign that so closely corresponds to the mark as to give the possibility of its being associated with that mark, the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to confusion cannot be ruled out (emphasis added) (para. 42).
Člena 5(1)(b) direktive ni mogoče razlagati, kot da: ima blagovna znamka poseben razlikovalni učinek, bodisi sama po sebi bodisi zaradi ugleda v javnosti, in kadar tretja oseba brez soglasja imetnika blagovne znamke v gospodarskem prometu z blagom ali storitvami, ki so enaki ali podobni tistim, za katere je bila blagovna znamka registrirana, uporablja znak, ki je tako podoben blagovni znamki, da bi ga bilo mogoče povezati z navedeno blagovno znamko, imetniku njegova izključna pravica omogoča, da prepreči uporabo tega znaka tretji osebi, če je razlikovalni učinek blagovne znamke takšen, da ni mogoče izključiti možnosti takšnega povezovanja, ki povzroča zmedo (dodan poudarek) (točka 42).
Where the goods or services are identical there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark that has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein (para. 37).
V javnosti lahko obstaja verjetnost zmede v primeru enakega blaga ali storitev, ko je izpodbijani znak sestavljen iz dveh elementov, postavljenih drug ob drugem, na eni strani oznake družbe tretje osebe in na drugi strani registrirane blagovne znamke z normalno razlikovalno močjo, in kadar ta, ne da bi sama ustvarjala celotni vtis sestavljenega znaka, v tem znaku ohrani avtonomni razlikovalni položaj (točka 37).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 2
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 12
DOUBLE IDENTITY AND
DVOJNA ENAKOST
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
IN VERJETNOST ZMEDE
COMPARISON OF
PRIMERJAVA
GOODS AND SERVICES
BLAGA IN STORITEV
1.1 Relevance 5
1.1 Ustreznost 6
1.2 Nice Classification: a starting point 6
1.2 Nicejska klasifikacija: izhodiščna točka 7
1.2.1 Its nature as a classification tool 6
1.2.1 Njena narava kot orodje za razvrščanje 7
1.2.2 Its structure and methodology 6
1.2.2 Njena struktura in metodologija 7
1.2.3 Conclusions to be drawn from the structure of the Nice Classification 7
1.2.3 Končne ugotovitve glede strukture Nicejske klasifikacije 8
1.2.4 Changes in the classification of goods/services 7
1.2.4 Spremembe v razvrstitvi blaga ali storitev 8
1.3 The Similarity Tool (EUIPN) for the comparison of goods/services 8
1.3 Orodje za ugotavljanje podobnosti (EUIPN) za primerjavo blaga ali storitev 9
1.4 Definition of goods and services (terminology) 8
1.4 Opredelitev blaga in storitev (terminologija) 9
1.4.1 Goods 8
1.4.1 Blago 9
1.4.2 Services 9
1.4.2 Storitve 10
1.5 Determining the goods/services 10
1.5 Določitev blaga ali storitev 11
1.5.1 The correct wording 10
1.5.1 Ustrezno besedilo 11
1.5.2 The relevant scope 11
1.5.2 Zadevni obseg 12
1.5.3 The meaning of goods/services 13
1.5.3 Pomen blaga ali storitev 14
1.6 Objective approach 14
1.6 Nepristranski pristop 15
1.7 Statement of reasons 15
1.7 Obrazložitev 15
2 Identity 15
2 Enakost 16
2.1 General principles 15
2.1 Splošna načela 16
2.2 Identical terms or synonyms 15
2.2 Enaki izrazi ali sinonimi 16
2.3 Terms included in the general indication or broad category 16
2.3 Izrazi, vključeni v splošno označbo ali široko kategorijo 17
2.4 Overlap 18
2.4 Prekrivanje 19
2.5 Practice on the use of general indications of the class headings 19
2.5 Praksa na področju uporabe splošnih označb naslovov razredov 20
3 Similarity of Goods and Services 21
3 Podobnost blaga in storitev 22
3.1 General principles 21
3.1 Splošna načela 22
3.1.1 Similarity factors 21
3.1.1 Dejavniki podobnosti 22
3.1.2 Defining relevant factors 22
3.1.2 Opredelitev upoštevnih dejavnikov 23
3.2 The specific similarity factors 23
3.2 Posebni dejavniki podobnosti 23
3.2.1 Nature 23
3.2.1 Narava 24
3.2.2 Intended purpose 25
3.2.2 Predvideni namen 26
3.2.4 Complementarity 26
3.2.4 Dopolnjevanje 27
3.2.5 In competition 29
3.2.5 Medsebojna konkurenčnost 30
3.2.6 Distribution channel 30
3.2.6 Distribucijska pot 30
3.2.7 Relevant public 31
3.2.7 Upoštevna javnost 31
3.2.8 Usual origin (producer/provider) 32
3.2.8 Običajni izvor (proizvajalec/izvajalec) 32
3.3 Relation between different factors 34
3.3 Povezava med različnimi dejavniki 34
3.3.1 Interrelation of factors 34
3.3.1 Medsebojna povezanost dejavnikov 34
3.3.2 Importance of each factor 35
3.3.2 Pomen posameznih dejavnikov 35
3.3.3 Different types of comparisons: goods versus goods, services versus services and goods versus services 36
3.3.3 Različne vrste primerjav: blago z blagom, storitve s storitvami in blago s storitvami 36
3.3.4 Degree of similarity 36
3.3.4 Stopnja podobnosti 36
Annex I 38
Priloga I 38
1 Parts, Components and Fittings 38
1 Sestavni deli, komponente in spojni elementi 38
2 Raw Materials and Semi-Processed Goods 38
2 Surovine in polizdelki 38
3 Accessories 39
3 Dodatki 39
4 Installation, Maintenance and Repair Services 40
4 Montaža, vzdrževanje in popravila 40
5 Advisory Services 40
5 Svetovalne storitve 40
6 Rental and Leasing 41
6 Najem in zakup 41
6.1 Rental/leasing versus related services 42
6.1 Najem/zakup v primerjavi s povezanimi storitvami 42
6.2 Rental/leasing versus goods 42
6.2 Najem/zakup v primerjavi z blagom 42
Annex II 43
Priloga II 43
1 Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics 43
1 Kemikalije, farmacevtski proizvodi in kozmetični izdelki 43
1.1 Chemicals (Class 1) versus chemical products (Classes 3 and 5) 43
1.1 Kemikalije (razred 1) v primerjavi s kemičnimi proizvodi (razreda 3 in 5) 43
1.2 Pharmaceuticals versus pharmaceuticals 43
1.2 Farmacevtski proizvodi v primerjavi z drugimi farmacevtskimi proizvodi 43
1.3 Pharmaceuticals versus dietetic substances adapted for medical use 45
1.3 Farmacevtski proizvodi v primerjavi z dietetičnimi snovmi za medicinsko uporabo 44
1.4 Pharmaceuticals versus cosmetics 45
1.4 Farmacevtski proizvodi v primerjavi s kozmetičnimi izdelki 45
1.5 Pharmaceuticals versus services 45
1.5 Farmacevtski proizvodi v primerjavi s storitvami 45
2 Automobile Industry 45
2 Avtomobilska industrija 45
3 Electric Apparatus/Instruments 46
3 Električne naprave/instrumenti 46
4 Fashion and Textile Industries 46
4 Modna in tekstilna industrija 46
4.1 Raw or semi-processed materials versus finished goods 46
4.1 Surovine ali polpredelano blago v primerjavi s končnim blagom 46
4.2 Textile goods (Class 24) versus clothing (Class 25) 47
4.2 Tekstilni izdelki (razred 24) v primerjavi z oblačili (razred 25) 47
4.3 Clothing, footwear and headgear (Class 25) 47
4.3 Oblačila, obutev in pokrivala (razred 25) 47
4.4 Fashion accessories 48
4.4 Modni dodatki 47
4.5 Sports clothing, footwear and headgear (Class 25) versus sporting and gymnastic articles (Class 28) 49
4.5 Športna oblačila, obutev in pokrivala (razred 25) v primerjavi z gimnastičnimi in športnimi potrebščinami (razred 28) 48
4.6 Fashion design (Class 42) and tailoring services (Class 40) versus clothing (Class 25) 49
4.6 Modno oblikovanje oblačil (razred 42) in izdelava oblačil po meri (razred 40) v primerjavi z oblačili (razred 25) 49
5 Food, Beverages and Restaurant Services 49
5 Hrana, pijača in storitve restavracij 49
5.1 Ingredients of prepared food 49
5.1 Sestavine pripravljene hrane 49