natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that the evidence filed 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 this element has a low degree of distinctive character.
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 ta element nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
When dealing with the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, the latter should always be considered to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness.
Pri obravnavanju razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote se mora za to znamko vselej šteti, da ima vsaj minimalno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
Earlier marks, whether EUTMs or national marks, enjoy a ‘presumption of validity'.
Za prejšnje znamke, tako blagovne znamke EU kot nacionalne znamke, velja „domneva veljavnosti“.
The Court made it clear, in its judgment of 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, that ‘in proceedings opposing the registration of a European Union trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question'.
Sodišče EU je v sodbi z dne 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, jasno določilo, da veljavnosti nacionalnih blagovnih znamk ni mogoče izpodbijati v postopku z ugovorom zoper zahtevo za registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije.
The Court added that ‘it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character' .
Dodalo je, da je treba ugotoviti, da opredelitev znaka kot opisnega ali generičnega pomeni zanikanje njegovega razlikovalnega učinka.
[4: See also Objective 1 of the Common Practice on the impact of non-distinctive/weak components on likelihood of confusion agreed within the framework of the ETMDN.]
[4: Glej tudi cilj 1 iz dokumenta 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.]
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness
Svojstveni in povečani razlikovalni učinek
The Office must consider, as a first step, the overall inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark (see paragraph 2.2 below) and, as a second step, if claimed and relevant to the outcome, whether the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness as a consequence of the use the opponent has made of it (see paragraph 2.3 below).
Urad mora v prvem koraku upoštevati splošni svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke (glej odstavek 2.2 v nadaljevanju), v drugem koraku pa, če vložnik ugovora to uveljavlja in če je to pomembno za izid, vprašanje, ali je prejšnja znamka pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek zaradi uporabe s strani vložnika ugovora (glej odstavek 2.3 v nadaljevanju).
The degree of distinctiveness of the earlier sign is one of the factors to be taken into account in the overall assessment (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).
Stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnjega znaka je eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri celoviti presoji (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).
It is a matter of law, which must be examined by the Office even if the parties do not comment on it.
Urad mora proučiti pravni vidik tudi, če stranki v zvezi s tem ne predložita pripomb.
In contrast, the degree of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier sign is a matter of law and fact, which the Office cannot examine unless the opponent claims and substantiates it in due time (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2, Substantiation).
Nasprotno pa je stopnja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljena z uporabo prejšnjega znaka, pravno in dejansko vprašanje, ki ga Urad ne more proučiti, če vložnik ugovora tega pravočasno ne zahteva in utemelji (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2: Utemeljitev).
The inherent distinctiveness of the contested trade mark as a whole is not examined within the framework of the opposition proceedings, as it is the scope of protection of the earlier mark that is relevant for the purposes of likelihood of confusion.
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek izpodbijane blagovne znamke kot celote se v okviru postopka ugovora ne preizkusi, saj je za verjetnost zmede pomemben le obseg varstva prejšnje znamke.
Likewise, the enhanced distinctiveness of the contested sign is also irrelevant because likelihood of confusion requires a consideration of the scope of protection of the earlier mark rather than that of the mark applied for.
Tudi povečani razlikovalni učinek izpodbijanega znaka ni pomemben, ker se za verjetnost zmede zahteva proučitev obsega varstva prejšnje znamke, in ne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
If an earlier mark is recognised as having a broader scope of protection by reason of its enhanced distinctiveness, the reputation acquired by the mark applied for is, as a matter of principle, irrelevant for the purpose of assessing likelihood of confusion (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84).
Če se za prejšnjo znamko ugotovi, da ima zaradi svojega povečanega razlikovalnega učinka širši obseg varstva, je ugled, ki ga je pridobila znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, načeloma nepomemben za presojo verjetnosti zmede (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84).
2.1.3 Relevant point in time
Upoštevni trenutek
The inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark(s) should be assessed at the time of the decision.
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje(-ih) znamke (znamk) bi bilo treba presoditi ob izdaji odločbe.
The enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark(s) (if claimed) should exist (i) at the time of filing of the contested EUTM application (or any priority date) and (ii) at the time of the decision.
Povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje(-ih) blagovne(-ih) znamke (znamk) (če se uveljavlja), bi moral obstajati (i) ob vložitvi prijave izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU (ali na kateri koli datum prednostne pravice) in (ii) ob izdaji odločbe.
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services
Upoštevno blago in storitve
The assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only for the goods or services that have been found to be identical or similar to the contested goods and services.
Presoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke se izvede samo za blago ali storitve, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu ali storitvam.
Assessment of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only in respect of the goods or services protected by the sign for which enhanced distinctiveness is claimed.
Presoja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke se izvede samo v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, zaščitenimi z znakom, za katerega se uveljavlja povečani razlikovalni učinek.
Furthermore, it is the perception of the relevant public for these goods and services that is of relevance (e.g. whether a specialist public is involved or not).
Poleg tega je za to blago in storitve pomembno zaznavanje v upoštevni javnosti (na primer, ali je vključena specializirana javnost ali ne).
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke
2.2.1 General principles
Splošna načela
The first step in examining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is to examine its inherent distinctiveness.
Prvi korak preizkusa razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke je preizkus njenega svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
At the stage of determining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, distinctiveness of its various components (or its only component) has already been established in the section on comparison of signs.
Ko se določa razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke kot celote, je bil razlikovalni učinek njenih posameznih sestavnih delov (ali edinega sestavnega dela) že ugotovljen v fazi primerjave znakov.
In principle, if an earlier mark contains a normally distinctive component, then the inherent distinctiveness of such an earlier mark as a whole is also normal, regardless of the possible presence of other non-distinctive or weak components.
Če prejšnja znamka vsebuje sestavni del z običajnim razlikovalnim učinkom, je načeloma tudi svojstveni razlikovalni učinek take prejšnje znamke običajen, ne glede na morebitne druge nerazlikovalne ali šibke sestavne dele.
If the most distinctive component of the earlier mark is distinctive only to a low degree, then in principle the overall inherent distinctiveness of that mark will be no more than low.
Če ima najbolj razlikovalni sestavni del prejšnje znamke le nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, načeloma stopnja splošnega svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka te znamke ne more biti višja kot nizka.
As mentioned above, earlier registered trade marks are presumed to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), even where persuasive evidence is submitted to challenge this presumption.
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, se domneva, da imajo prejšnje registrirane blagovne znamke vsaj minimalno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), tudi če se predložijo prepričljiva dokazi, s katerimi se izpodbija ta domneva.
If the EUTM applicant proves that it has started a cancellation action against the earlier registered mark, then it might be necessary to suspend the opposition proceedings pending the outcome of the said action.
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU dokaže, da je zoper prejšnjo registrirano znamko vložil zahtevo za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti, je morda treba postopek ugovora začasno ustaviti do izida navedenega postopka.
The outcome of the examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole will be one of the following.
Izid preizkusa svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote je lahko eden od naslednjih.
The earlier mark has less than normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory of the characteristics of identical or similar goods or services (or because it is otherwise weak).
Prejšnja znamka ima razlikovalni učinek, ki je manjši od običajnega, ker je kot celota namigovalna (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) ali poveličevalna glede na značilnosti enakega ali podobnega blaga ali storitev (ali ker je drugače šibka).
As set out above, the Office will not conclude that an earlier mark as a whole is descriptive and/or non-distinctive.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, Urad ne sprejme ugotovitve, da je prejšnja znamka kot celota opisna in/ali nerazlikovalna.
The earlier mark has normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is not descriptive, allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory (or is not otherwise weak) in relation to identical or similar goods or services.
Prejšnja znamka ima običajni razlikovalni učinek, ker kot celota ni opisna, namigovalna (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) ali poveličevalna (ali drugače šibka) v zvezi z enakim ali podobnim blagom ali storitvami.
It is Office practice, when an earlier mark is not descriptive (or is not otherwise non-distinctive), to consider it as having no more than a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness.
Praksa Urada je, da za prejšnjo znamko, ki ni opisna, (ali drugače nerazlikovalna) šteje, da ima stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, ki ni višja od običajne.
As indicated above, this degree of distinctiveness can be further enhanced if appropriate evidence is submitted showing that a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark has been acquired through use or because it is highly original, unusual or unique (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, last alternative).
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se ta stopnja razlikovalnega učinka lahko še zviša, če se predložijo ustrezna dokazila, da se je pridobila višja stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, in sicer z njeno uporabo ali zato, ker je zelo izvirna, neobičajna ali edinstvena (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, zadnja možnost).
It should, however, be recalled that a mark will not necessarily 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).
Treba pa je upoštevati, da znamka nima nujno višje stopnje razlikovalnega učinka samo zato, ker ni pojmovno povezana z zadevnim blagom in storitvami (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H/Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Vpliv nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke
As explained in paragraph 2.1.1 above, the Office, following the case-law of the Court of Justice, attributes at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness to the earlier mark.
Kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku 2.1.1 zgoraj, Urad v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča prejšnji znamki pripiše vsaj minimalno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
A finding that a trade mark has a low or even very low (minimal) degree of distinctiveness may have a different impact on the likelihood of confusion.
Ugotovitev, da ima blagovna znamka nizko ali celo zelo nizko (minimalno) stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, na verjetnost zmede lahko vpliva različno.
In general, this finding is an argument against likelihood of confusion.
Na splošno taka ugotovitev potrjuje, da verjetnosti zmede ni.
It must however be balanced with the other factors, like the degree of similarity of the signs and the goods or services, as well as the level of attention and sophistication of the relevant public.
Treba pa jo je uravnotežiti z drugimi dejavniki, kot sta stopnja podobnosti znakov ter blaga in storitev ter stopnja pozornosti in izkušenosti upoštevne javnosti.
The Court has emphasised on several occasions that a finding of a low distinctive character for the earlier trade mark does not prevent a finding of a likelihood of confusion.
Sodišče EU je večkrat poudarilo, da priznanje majhnega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke ne preprečuje, da se ugotovi obstoj verjetnosti zmede.
Although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment.
Čeprav je namreč treba pri presoji verjetnosti zmede upoštevati razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, je to le eden od dejavnikov, vključenih v to presojo.
Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a high degree of similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).
Tako bi lahko, tudi če bi prejšnja znamka imela šibak razlikovalni učinek, obstajala verjetnost zmede, zlasti zaradi podobnosti med znakoma in zajetim proizvodi ali storitvami (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).
The likelihood of confusion was affirmed for similar and identical goods, when the trade marks differed only in stylisation or non-distinctive figurative elements and showed therefore a high degree of similarity.
Verjetnost zmede je bila potrjena za podobno in enako blago, kadar sta se blagovni znamki razlikovali samo v stilizaciji ali nerazlikovalnih figurativnih elementih ter sta zato imeli visoko stopnjo podobnosti.
However, the likelihood of confusion was excluded even for identical goods in cases where the degree of similarity between the marks was low due to differences resulting from an additional fully distinctive element:
Verjetnost zmede pa je bila izključena celo za enako blago v primerih, v katerih je bila stopnja podobnosti med znamkama nizka zaradi razlik, ki so izhajale iz dodatnega povsem razlikovalnega elementa:
2.2.3 Specific themes
Posebne teme
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs
Znaki, sestavljeni iz ene črke ali številk, in kratki znaki
The Court, in its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, 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 EU je v sodbi 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 trade marks.
Čeprav so v navedeni sodbi obravnavani absolutni razlogi, Urad meni, da se načelo, ki ga je vzpostavilo Sodišče EU (tj. da mora biti uporaba merila razlikovalnega učinka enaka pri vseh znamkah), uporablja tudi v primerih inter partes za določitev razlikovalnega učinka blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke.
The Court, while 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 EU 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 posebnih meril, ki bi dopolnjevala uporabo merila razlikovalnega učinka, kot se to razlaga v sodni praksi, ali od njega odstopala.
The Office considers the ruling to mean that, when establishing the distinctiveness of an earlier mark, 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.
Urad meni, da ta sodba pomeni, da se pri določanju razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 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.
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 (točki 38 in 49).
Consequently, whilst registered earlier trade marks consisting of a single letter (or numeral) represented in standard characters enjoy a presumption of validity, ultimately their degree of inherent distinctiveness will have to be assessed with reference to the goods and/or services concerned.
Čeprav se za registrirane prejšnje blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke (ali številke), predstavljene v standardnih znakih, uporablja domneva veljavnosti, je treba zato na koncu njihovo stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka presoditi v zvezi z zadevnim blagom in/ali storitvami.
If the corresponding claim is made, account should be taken of evidence submitted by the opponent that demonstrates that its registered trade mark consisting of a single letter has acquired enhanced distinctiveness.
Če se predloži ustrezna trditev, je treba upoštevati dokazila, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora in dokazujejo, da je njegova registrirana blagovna znamka, ki je sestavljena iz ene same črke, pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek.
This circumstance could lend the earlier trade mark a broader scope of protection.
Ta okoliščina bi lahko pripomogla k širšemu obsegu varstva prejšnje blagovne znamke.
The above considerations apply both to single-letter/numeral trade marks represented 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, predstavljene v standardnih znakih (tj. besedne znamke), in stilizirane blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke/številke.
Where the opponent has successfully proven that its single-letter trade mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through intensive use, the impact thereof on the final outcome has to be carefully assessed.
Če vložnik ugovora uspešno dokaže, da je njegova blagovna znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke, z intenzivno uporabo pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek, je treba skrbno pretehtati njegov vpliv na končni izid.
Firstly, enhanced distinctiveness on the part of the earlier single-letter trade mark cannot justify a finding of likelihood of confusion if the overall visual impression conveyed by the signs is so different as to safely set them apart.
Prvič, zaradi povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, ni upravičeno ugotoviti verjetnost zmede, če je celotni vizualni vtis znakov tako različen, da ju je mogoče zanesljivo ločiti.
Secondly, if the evidence shows use of a single-letter trade mark that is stylised or accompanied by additional figurative elements, the benefit of the resulting broader scope of protection accrues to the form in which it was used and not to the single letter as such or any other stylised variation.
Drugič, če se dokazila nanašajo na uporabo blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, ki je stilizirana ali jo spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, širši obseg varstva uživa oblika, v kateri se je uporabljala, ne pa črka kot taka ali katera koli druga stilizirana različica.
Furthermore, in accordance with the α judgment, as regards short signs, unless a letter combination, as such, is intrinsically non-distinctive for the goods and services (e.g. ‘S' or ‘XL' for goods in Class 25), these signs are not necessarily distinctive only to a low degree.
Poleg tega v skladu s sodbo v zadevi α kratki znaki nimajo nujno le nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka, razen če je kombinacija črk kot taka svojstveno nerazlikovalna za blago in storitve (na primer S ali XL za blago iz razreda 25).
2.2.3.2 Collective marks
Kolektivne znamke
Where the mark on which the opposition is based is a collective mark, its inherent distinctiveness is to be assessed in the usual way.
Če je znamka, na kateri temelji ugovor, kolektivna znamka, je treba njen svojstveni razlikovalni učinek presoditi po običajni poti.
The mark may have a low or even very low degree of inherent distinctiveness when it refers to the nature or other characteristics of the goods concerned.
Znamka ima lahko nižjo ali celo zelo nizko stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, če se nanaša na vrsto ali druge značilnosti zadevnega blaga.
The fact that the mark is a collective mark does not imply that its scope of protection is broader (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61).
Dejstvo, da je znamka kolektivna, ne pomeni, da je njen obseg varstva širši (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61).
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness
Preizkus povečanega razlikovalnega učinka