natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, the national court must make an overall assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings (emphasis added).
Nacionalno sodišče mora za določitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke in posledično za presojo, ali ima močan razlikovalni učinek, splošno presoditi večjo ali manjšo sposobnost znamke, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, označuje kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, in je torej namenjena razlikovanju tega blaga ali storitev od tistih iz drugih podjetij (dodan poudarek)
Importantly, distinctive character is a matter of degree and, when analysing distinctiveness, a sliding scale applies whereby a component of a sign can lack distinctiveness entirely, be fully distinctive (to a normal degree) or be at any point in-between.
Poudariti je treba, da je pri razlikovalnem učinku pomembna stopnja, zato se pri analizi razlikovalnega učinka uporabi drseča lestvica, po kateri je lahko sestavni del znaka brez kakršnega koli razlikovalnega učinka, je povsem razlikovalen (do običajne stopnje) ali pa je nekje vmes.
At this point, it must be noted that it is not, in principle, the Office's practice to recognise a higher than average degree of inherent distinctiveness for individual components of signs.
Na tem mestu je treba omeniti, da Urad načeloma ne priznava nadpovprečne stopnje svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka posameznih sestavnih delov znakov.
Any higher degree of distinctiveness (enhanced distinctiveness, reputation) is related to actual recognition of the mark by the relevant public, and is eventually examined only with respect to the earlier mark (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark).
Morebitna višja stopnja razlikovalnega učinka (povečani razlikovalni učinek, ugled) je povezana s tem, da jo dejansko priznava upoštevna javnost, in se po potrebi preizkusi le glede na prejšnjo znamko (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
A mark or, by analogy, its components will not have a higher degree of distinctive character just because there is no conceptual link to the relevant goods and services (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H / Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
Znamka in s tem njeni sestavni deli nimajo višje stopnje razlikovalnega učinka samo zato, ker niso pojmovno povezani z zadevnim blagom in storitvami (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H / Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
An element of a sign is not distinctive if it is exclusively descriptive of the goods and services themselves or of the characteristics of those goods and services (such as their quality, value, purpose, provenance, etc.) and/or if its use in trade is common for those goods and services.
Element znaka ni razlikovalen, če le opisuje blago in storitve ali njihove značilnosti (kot so njihova kakovost, vrednost, namen, izvor itd.) in/ali če je njegova uporaba v gospodarskem prometu značilna za zadevno blago in storitve.
Similarly, an element of a sign that is generic (such as a common shape of a container or a common colour) will also lack distinctiveness.
Podobno je brez razlikovalnega učinka tudi element znaka, ki je generičen (kot na primer običajna oblika zabojnika ali običajna barva).
An element of a sign may be distinctive to a low degree (weak) if it refers to (but it is not exclusively descriptive of) characteristics of the goods and services.
Element znaka ima lahko nižjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (je šibek), če se nanaša na (vendar ne le opisuje) značilnosti blaga in storitev.
If the allusion to the goods and services is sufficiently imaginative or clever, the mere fact that there is an allusion to characteristics of the goods might not materially affect distinctiveness, as in the following examples.
Če je namigovanje na blago in storitve dovolj domiselno ali bistroumno, samo dejstvo, da namiguje na značilnosti blaga, nima nujno pomembnega vpliva na razlikovalni učinek, kot v naslednjih primerih.
‘Billionaire' for gaming services is allusive in a manner that would affect distinctiveness, because it implies, for instance, that you may become a billionaire.
Beseda „Billionaire“ za igre na srečo je namigovalna na tak način, da bi vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, saj na primer pomeni, da lahko potrošnik postane milijarder.
‘Billy O'Naire', which sounds identical to ‘billionaire' in English, would be allusive for gaming services as a clever word-play on Irish names, in a manner that would not affect distinctiveness in a material way; it would be considered to have a ‘normal' degree of distinctiveness.
Besedna zveza „Billy O'Naire“, ki se v angleščini sliši enako kot „billionaire“, pa bi na igre na srečo namigovala kot domiselna besedna igra, ki se nanaša na irska imena, ne da bi pomembno vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, zaradi česar bi se štelo, da ima običajno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
An element of a sign that is neither non-distinctive nor weakly distinctive possesses a ‘normal' degree of inherent distinctiveness.
Element znaka, ki ni ne nerazlikovalen ne šibko razlikovalen, ima „običajno“ stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
This means that the element of a sign in question is fully distinctive, in the sense that its capacity to identify the goods and services covered by the mark as coming from a particular undertaking is not in any way diminished or impaired.
To pomeni, da je zadevni element znaka v celoti razlikovalen v smislu, da njegova sposobnost označevanja blaga in storitev, ki jih znamka zajema, kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, nikakor ni zmanjšana ali oslabljena.
One of the most frequent arguments brought by applicants is that the earlier trade mark or one of its components has a low distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that consist of, or include, the element in question.
Prijavitelji najpogosteje navajajo trditev, da ima prejšnja blagovna znamka ali kateri od njenih sestavnih delov majhen razlikovalni učinek, ker je veliko blagovnih znamk, ki so sestavljene iz zadevnega elementa ali ga vključujejo.
Where this argument is supported only by the applicant referring to trade mark registrations, the Office takes the view that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market.
Če je ta trditev podprta samo s sklicevanjem prijavitelja na registracije blagovnih znamk, Urad zavzame stališče, da obstoj registracij več blagovnih znamk sam po sebi ni posebno odločilen, ker morda ne izraža stanja na trgu.
In other words, on the basis of registered data only, it cannot be assumed that all the trade marks have been effectively used.
Z drugimi besedami, samo na podlagi registriranih podatkov ni mogoče predpostavljati, da se vse blagovne znamke dejansko uporabljajo.
It follows that the evidence submitted must demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element in question in order to prove that the element in question has a low degree of distinctive character (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
Zato je treba predložiti dokaze, da so bili potrošniki izpostavljeni zelo razširjeni uporabi blagovnih znamk, ki vključujejo zadevni element, in da so se nanje navadili, s čimer bi se dokazalo, da ima zadevni element nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
3.2.2.2 Relevant point in time
Upoštevni trenutek
The inherent distinctiveness of the components should be assessed at the time of the decision.
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek sestavnih delov bi bilo treba presoditi ob izdaji odločbe.
Establishing the precise point in time for evaluating distinctiveness is important because the degree of distinctiveness of the marks is not constant, but varies depending on the perception of the public.
Natančna določitev trenutka za presojo razlikovalnega učinka je pomembna, saj stopnja razlikovalnega učinka znamk ni stalna, ampak se spreminja glede na zaznavanje javnosti.
This perception may change not only due to the nature of the use of the specific mark, but also due to other factors (all these elements can only be considered from the evidence submitted by the parties).
To zaznavanje se lahko spreminja ne samo zaradi vrste uporabe določene znamke, temveč tudi zaradi drugih dejavnikov (vse te elemente je mogoče proučiti samo na podlagi dokazov, ki jih predložijo stranke).
For instance, the public's perception may change where a mark or some component thereof has been used in the meantime in a similar way by various businesses/traders in the relevant market sector.
Na primer, zaznavanje javnosti se lahko spremeni, če so znamko ali kateri njen sestavni del medtem podobno uporabljala različna podjetja/gospodarski subjekti v upoštevnem tržnem sektorju.
This common use of a sign can erode the uniqueness of a sign and, consequently, its ability to indicate the origin of the goods and services.
Takšna splošna uporaba znaka lahko zmanjša njegovo edinstvenost in posledično njegovo zmožnost označevanja izvora blaga in storitev.
In this context, it is important to assess carefully whether the situation described exists in all the relevant geographical areas and with regard to all the relevant goods and services.
V zvezi s tem je pomembno skrbno presoditi, ali opisano stanje obstaja na vseh upoštevnih geografskih območjih ter za vse upoštevno blago in storitve.
As an example, due to technological changes in the field of IT, there has been an increased number of instances where components such as ‘I' (internet), ‘E' (electronic) and ‘M' (mobile) are used adjoined to a meaningful word.
Zaradi tehnoloških sprememb na področju informacijske tehnologije se je na primer povečalo število primerov, v katerih se poleg pomenske besede uporabljajo sestavni deli, kot so „I“ (internet), „E“ (elektronski) in „M“ (mobilni).
In the context of electronic communications, they are currently found to be descriptive (19/04/2004, R 758/20022, ITUNES, § 11), whereas previously they were considered distinctive.
Zdaj se zanje ugotavlja, da so v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijami opisni (19/04/2004, R 758/20022, ITUNES, § 11), prej pa so se šteli za razlikovalne.
3.2.2.3 Relevant goods and services
Upoštevno blago in storitve
The assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the components is carried out only for the goods or services that are identical or similar, that is:
Presoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka sestavnih delov se izvede samo za blago ali storitve, ki so enaki ali podobni, kar pomeni, da se:
the earlier mark is assessed with respect to the registered goods and services that are identical or similar to the contested goods and services;
prejšnja znamka presodi v zvezi z registriranim blagom in storitvami, ki so enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu in storitvam,
the contested trade mark is assessed with respect to the contested goods or services that are identical or similar to those of the earlier mark.
izpodbijana blagovna znamka presodi v zvezi z izpodbijanim blagom ali storitvami, ki so enaki ali podobni blagu ali storitvam prejšnje znamke.
3.2.2.4 General principles of examination of distinctiveness
Splošna načela za preizkušanje razlikovalnega učinka
The examination of inherent distinctiveness is carried out in two phases: first, it should be determined whether the relevant public recognises semantic content of the element at issue and, second, whether or not the semantic content perceived is related to and/or commonly used in trade for the identical or similar goods and services.
Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka se izvede v dveh fazah: v prvi je treba določiti, ali upoštevna javnost prepoznava semantično vsebino zadevnega sestavnega dela, v drugi pa, ali je zaznana semantična vsebina povezana z gospodarskim prometom in/ali se pri tem pogosto uporablja za enako ali podobno blago in storitve.
As regards the first phase, that is to say, whether the relevant public recognises a semantic content, the inherent distinctiveness of the components of the marks has to be evaluated by taking into account (each of) the relevant geographical area(s) and their different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Kar zadeva prvo fazo, v kateri se določi, ali upoštevna javnost prepoznava semantično vsebino, je treba svojstveni razlikovalni učinek sestavnih delov znamk presoditi tako, da se upošteva (vsako) upoštevno geografsko območje ter njihova različna jezikovna in kulturna okolja.
As such, the public in some parts of the relevant territory might not understand the descriptive content that a mark may have in other parts.
Javnost v nekaterih delih upoštevnega ozemlja morda ne razume opisne vsebine, ki jo znamka lahko ima v drugih delih.
In these cases, the distinctiveness of the mark in one area is not affected by the fact that it may be perceived differently in other areas.
V takšnih primerih na razlikovalni učinek znamke na enem območju ne vpliva drugačno zaznavanje na drugih območjih.
Below is an example of a case where linguistic considerations were vital to the issue of distinctiveness.
V nadaljevanju je naveden primer, v katerem so bili jezikovni vidiki ključni za vprašanje razlikovalnega učinka.
The second phase consists of correlating any meaning that the public perceives in the components with the identical or similar goods and services in dispute.
Druga faza obsega primerjavo vseh pomenov, ki jih javnost zaznava v sestavnih delih, z enakim ali podobnim spornim blagom in storitvami.
If the relevant public perceives this meaning as descriptive, laudatory or allusive (in a manner that materially affects distinctiveness), etc. for these goods and services, then its distinctiveness will be diminished accordingly.
Če upoštevna javnost takšen pomen zaznava kot opisen, poveličevalen ali namigovalen (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) itd. za to blago in storitve, se bo njen razlikovalni učinek ustrezno zmanjšal.
It may be necessary to distinguish between the various goods and services involved because the finding of no or limited distinctiveness might relate to only part of those goods and services.
Pri tem je morda treba razlikovati med različnim zadevnim blagom in storitvami, ker se lahko ugotovitev, da razlikovalni učinek ne obstaja ali da je omejen, nanaša samo na del navedenega blaga in storitev.
In the event that no meaning can be attributed to a verbal element, it cannot be descriptive, laudatory or allusive in any way and as such is considered distinctive.
Če besednemu elementu ni mogoče pripisati nobenega pomena, ne more nikakor biti opisen, poveličevalen ali namigovalen in se zato šteje kot razlikovalen.
The criteria applied to examining the inherent distinctiveness of a component of a sign are the same as the relevant principles applied when examining marks on absolute grounds (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination) .
Merila, ki se uporabljajo za preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka sestavnega dela znaka, so enaka ustreznim načelom, ki se uporabljajo pri preizkusu znamk glede absolutnih razlogov (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje).
However, in relative grounds disputes, the question is not merely whether a component is distinctive or not (i.e. whether it reaches the minimum distinctiveness threshold for registration), but also to what degree it is distinctive within the sliding scale previously mentioned.
Vendar se pri ugovorih zaradi relativnih razlogov ne postavlja samo vprašanje, ali je sestavni del razlikovalen ali ne (tj. ali dosega minimalni prag razlikovalnega učinka za registracijo), temveč tudi, kakšna je stopnja razlikovalnega učinka po prej navedeni drseči letvici.
Therefore, for instance, a term that is not descriptive but merely allusive for the goods or services in question might be distinctive enough to pass the absolute grounds test, but still have less than normal distinctiveness for the purposes of relative grounds.
Zato je na primer izraz, ki ni opisen, temveč le namiguje na zadevno blago ali storitve, morda dovolj razlikovalen, da uspešno opravi preizkus absolutnih razlogov, še vedno pa je njegov razlikovalni učinek manjši od običajnega v zvezi z relativnimi razlogi.
[2: See also Objective 2 of the Common Practice on the Impact of Non-Distinctive/Weak Components on Likelihood of Confusion agreed in the framework of the European Trade Mark and Design Network.]
[2: Glej tudi cilj 2 v dokumentu Common Practice on the Impact of Non-Distinctive/Weak Components on Likelihood of Confusion (Skupna praksa glede vpliva nerazlikovalnih/šibkih sestavnih delov na verjetnost zmede), dogovorjenega v okviru Evropske mreže blagovnih znamk in modelov.]
The outcome of the examination of inherent distinctiveness will be one of the following.
Izid preizkusa svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka je lahko eden od naslednjih.
The component has no distinctiveness or has less than normal distinctiveness.
Sestavni del nima razlikovalnega učinka ali ima razlikovalni učinek, ki je manjši od običajnega.
See the examples below.
Glej primere v nadaljevanju.
The component has normal distinctiveness because it is neither non-distinctive nor weak for identical or similar goods or services.
Sestavni del ima običajen razlikovalni učinek, ker glede enakega ali podobnega blaga ali storitev ni niti nerazlikovalen niti šibek.
As noted in paragraph 2.1 above, word marks consisting of a single word may still contain various components, some of which may be more distinctive than others (27/01/2010, T331/08, Solfrutta, EU:T:2010:23).
Kot je bilo navedeno v odstavku 2.1 zgoraj, lahko besedne znamke, sestavljene iz samo ene besede, še vedno vsebujejo različne sestavne dele, od katerih so lahko nekateri bolj razlikovalni od drugih (27/01/2010, T331/08, Solfrutta, EU:T:2010:23).
3.2.2.5 Examples of descriptive components
Primeri opisnih sestavnih delov
3.2.2.6 Examples of laudatory components
Primeri poveličevalnih sestavnih delov
3.2.2.7 Examples of allusive components
Primeri namigovalnih sestavnih delov
3.2.3 Specific cases
Posebni primeri
3.2.3.1 Commonplace and banal elements
Običajni in vsakdanji elementi
There are instances where signs are composed of one (or various) distinctive verbal element(s) and one (or various) figurative element(s) that are perceived by the relevant public as being commonplace or banal.
Obstajajo primeri, kadar so znaki sestavljeni iz enega ali več razlikovalnih besednih elementov in enega ali več figurativnih elementov, ki jih upoštevna javnost zaznava kot običajne ali vsakdanje.
These figurative elements frequently consist of a simple geometrical shape (e.g. frames, labels) or of colours frequently used in the market sector (e.g. red for fire extinguishers, yellow or red or orange for the postal sector depending on the Member State concerned).
Takšni figurativni elementi imajo pogosto preprosto geometrijsko obliko (na primer okviri, etikete) ali vključujejo barve, ki se pogosto uporabljajo v tržnem sektorju (na primer rdeča za gasilne aparate, rumena, rdeča ali oranžna pa za poštni sektor, kar je odvisno od zadevne države članice).
For this reason, these commonplace and banal elements are considered non-distinctive.
Zato se za takšne običajne in vsakdanje elemente šteje, da so nerazlikovalni.
3.2.3.2 Insignificant differences (quasi-identity)
Nepomembne razlike (skorajšnja enakost)
In a comparison of a word mark with a figurative mark consisting of an identical word element, it is not necessary to assess the distinctiveness of that word element if the figurative elements are not distinctive (colour, background, common typeface), not dominant and do not have any meaning.
Pri primerjavi besedne znamke s figurativno znamko, ki je sestavljena iz enakega besednega elementa, ni treba presoditi razlikovalnega učinka tega besednega elementa, če figurativni elementi (barva, ozadje, pisava) niso razlikovalni, prevladujoči in nimajo pomena.
In such cases, the fact that the coinciding word element might be non-distinctive or lowly-distinctive in relation to some goods and services in some languages is irrelevant since a likelihood of confusion cannot be dispelled even by the lowest degree of distinctiveness of that coinciding element.
Dejstvo, da besedni element, ki se ujema, ni razlikovalen ali ima nizek razlikovalni učinek v zvezi z nekaterim blagom in storitvami v nekaterih jezikih, ni pomembno, saj verjetnosti zmede ni mogoče ovreči niti, če je stopnja razlikovalnega učinka pri tem elementu, ki se ujema, najnižja.
This means, that even if the word element has limited or no distinctiveness, this applies equally to both marks, whereas the figurative elements are clearly not sufficient to distinguish the marks.
To pomeni, da tudi če je razlikovalni učinek besednega elementa omejen ali ga sploh ni, to velja enako za obe znamki, figurativni elementi pa očitno ne zadoščajo za razlikovanje med znamkama.
3.2.3.3 One-letter components, numerals and short components
Sestavni deli iz ene črke ali številk in kratki sestavni deli
In its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, the Court held that the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks must be assessed according to an examination based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned and the same criteria that apply to other word marks (paras 33-39).
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi α z dne 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, razsodilo, da je treba razlikovalni učinek blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke, presoditi s preizkusom, ki temelji na dejstvih ter je osredotočen na zadevno blago ali storitve in enaka merila, kot se uporabljajo za druge besedne znamke (točke 33-39).
Although that judgment deals with absolute grounds, the Office considers that the principle established by the Court (i.e. that the application of the criterion of distinctiveness must be the same for all marks) also applies in inter partes cases when it comes to determining the distinctiveness of single-letter components in trade marks.
Čeprav so v navedeni sodbi obravnavani absolutni razlogi, Urad meni, da se načelo, ki ga je vzpostavilo Sodišče (tj. da mora biti uporaba merila razlikovalnega učinka enaka pri vseh znamkah), uporablja tudi v primerih inter partes za določitev razlikovalnega učinka sestavnih delov blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke.
The Court, although acknowledging that it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for marks consisting of a single letter than for other word marks, held that these circumstances do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from application of the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law.
Sodišče je kljub priznavanju, da se lahko izkaže, da je ugotavljanje razlikovalnega učinka težje za znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, kot za druge besedne znamke, razsodilo, da te okoliščine ne upravičujejo določitve meril, ki bi dopolnjevala uporabo merila razlikovalnega učinka, kot se to razlaga v sodni praksi, ali od njega odstopala.