natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Due to the absolute protection conferred by Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR, the concept of identity between trade marks must be interpreted strictly.
Zaradi absolutnega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba pojem enakosti blagovnih znamk razlagati ozko.
The absolute protection in the case of an EUTM application ‘which is identical with the [earlier] trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered [pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR] cannot be extended beyond the situations for which it was envisaged, in particular, to those situations which are more specifically protected by [Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR]' (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54 in relation to the corresponding provisions of the Directive).
Absolutnega varstva v primeru prijave blagovne znamke EU, „ki je enaka [prejšnji] blagovni znamki, za blago ali storitve, ki so enaki blagu ali storitvam, za katere je blagovna znamka registrirana [v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU], ni mogoče razširiti na primere, za katere ni bilo predvideno, zlasti ne na primere, ki so še posebej zaščiteni s [členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU]“ (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54 v povezavi z ustreznimi določbami direktive).
2.2 Threshold for a finding of identity
Prag za ugotovitev enakosti
The very definition of identity implies that the two signs should be the same in all respects.
Opredelitev enakosti pomeni, da morata biti znaka enaka v vseh pogledih.
There is, therefore, identity between trade marks where the EUTM application reproduces, without any modification or addition, all the elements constituting the earlier trade mark.
Blagovni znamki sta torej enaki, kadar so v prijavi blagovne znamke EU brez katerih koli sprememb ali dodatkov prikazani vsi elementi, ki sestavljajo prejšnjo blagovno znamko.
However, since the perception of identity between the two signs is not always the result of a direct comparison of all the characteristics of the elements compared, insignificant differences between trade marks may go unnoticed by the average consumer.
Ker pa zaznava enakosti med znakoma ni vedno rezultat neposredne primerjave vseh značilnosti primerjanih elementov, se lahko zgodi, da povprečni potrošnik ne bo opazil nepomembnih razlik med blagovnima znamkama.
Therefore, the EUTM application should be considered identical to the earlier trade mark ‘where it reproduces, without any modification or addition, all the elements constituting the trade mark or where, viewed as a whole, it contains differences so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by an average consumer' (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54).
Prijavo blagovne znamke EU je torej treba šteti za enako prejšnji blagovni znamki, „kadar brez kakršnih koli sprememb ali dodatkov posnema vse elemente, ki sestavljajo blagovno znamko, ali kadar, gledano v celoti, vsebuje tako nepomembne razlike, da jih povprečen potrošnik morda ne opazi“ (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54).
An insignificant difference between two marks is a difference that a reasonably observant consumer will perceive only upon examining the marks side by side.
Nepomembna razlika med znamkama je razlika, ki jo bo razumno pozoren potrošnik zaznal šele po proučitvi znamk druge ob drugi.
Insignificant differences are those that, because they concern elements that are very small or are lost within a complex mark, cannot be readily detected by the human eye upon observing the trade mark concerned, bearing in mind that the average consumer does not normally indulge in an analytical examination of a trade mark but perceives it in its entirety.
Nepomembne razlike so tiste, ki jih zato, ker se nanašajo na elemente, ki so zelo majhni ali se izgubijo v kompleksni znamki, ob opazovanju zadevne blagovne znamke ni mogoče takoj zaznati s prostim očesom, pri čemer je treba upoštevati, da povprečni potrošnik običajno ne začne podrobno proučevati blagovne znamke, ampak jo zaznava kot celoto.
The finding that an element is ‘insignificant' must be accompanied by sufficient reasoning for its lack of impact on the global perception of the trade mark.
Ugotovitev, da je element „nepomemben“, je treba sprejeti z zadostno obrazložitvijo v zvezi z njegovim neobstojem učinka na celostno zaznavo blagovne znamke.
It follows from the definition of identity above that the following conditions have to be met in order for trade marks to be considered identical in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR.
Iz zgornje opredelitve enakosti izhaja, da morata biti za to, da se blagovni znamki štejeta za enaki v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, izpolnjena naslednja pogoja.
Complete identity of the signs taken as a whole.
Popolna enakost znakov, upoštevanih kot celota.
Partial identity is not sufficient under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR; however, a coincidence in any part of the mark may lead to similarity between the signs and should be addressed when carrying out the examination of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Delna enakost v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zadostuje, vendar lahko ujemanje v katerem koli delu znamke vodi do podobnosti znakov in ga je treba upoštevati pri preizkusu v zvezi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Any additional element is sufficient for concluding that the marks are not identical; it is immaterial whether the added element is a word, a figurative device or a combination of the two.
Kateri koli dodatni element zadostuje za ugotovitev, da znamki nista enaki; ni pomembno, ali je dodani element beseda, figurativni element ali kombinacija obeh.
Consequently, two word marks will not be considered identical if one is contained within the other but is accompanied by further characters (see paragraph 2.4 below) or by words - irrespective of distinctiveness or possible descriptive character.
Besedni znamki se torej ne bosta šteli za enaki, če je ena zajeta v drugi, vendar vključuje tudi dodatne znake (glej odstavek 2.4 v nadaljevanju) ali besede - ne glede na razlikovalni učinek ali morebitno opisno naravo.
Identity on all levels of comparison.
Enakost na vseh ravneh primerjave.
There must be identity between the signs at all relevant levels of trade mark comparison, that is, visual, phonetic and conceptual.
Znaka morata biti enaka na vseh upoštevnih ravneh primerjave blagovnih znamk, tj. vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni.
If the trade marks are identical in some aspects (visual, phonetic or conceptual) but not in others, they are not identical overall.
Če sta blagovni znamki enaki v nekaterih vidikih (vizualno, zvočno ali pojmovno), ne pa tudi v drugih, nista v celoti enaki.
In the latter case, they may be similar and, therefore, likelihood of confusion must be examined.
V takšnem primeru sta si lahko podobni in je zato treba preizkusiti verjetnost zmede.
2.3 Identity of word marks
Enakost besednih znamk
This means that they do not claim any particular figurative element or appearance.
To pomeni, da ne zahtevajo nobenega posebnega figurativnega elementa ali videza.
Differences in the use of lower or uppercase letters are immaterial, even if lower case and upper case letters alternate.
Poleg tega niso pomembne razlike pri uporabi malih ali velikih črk, tudi če se te izmenjujejo.
Word marks are identical if they coincide exactly in the string of letters or numbers.
Besedni znamki sta enaki, če se povsem ujemata v zaporedju črk ali številk.
The following word marks are identical.
Naslednje besedne znamke so enake.
In general, it should be checked whether the sign has been registered as a word mark.
Na splošno je treba preveriti, ali je bil znak registriran kot besedna znamka.
In these cases, the claim will prevail over the exact reproduction in the certificate, bulletins, etc.
V takšnem primeru bo zahteva prevladala nad natančnim prikazom v potrdilu, biltenih itd.
The following Cyrillic word marks are identical.
Naslednji besedni znamki v cirilici sta enaki.
A difference of just one letter is sufficient for a finding of non-identity.
Razlika v samo eni črki zadostuje za ugotovitev neenakosti.
Whether or not a space, a punctuation mark (e.g. hyphen, full stop) or an accent is a significant difference (and therefore excludes the finding of identity as stated in Arthur et Félicie, § 50-54) is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the relevant language.
Ali presledek, ločilo (npr. vezaj, pika) ali naglasno znamenje pomenijo pomembno razliko (in s tem izključujejo ugotovitev enakosti, kot je navedeno v sodbi v zadevi Arthur et Félicie, točke 50-54), se presodi v vsakem primeru posebej, pri čemer se upošteva ustrezni jezik.
However, the use of a space, hyphen or accent may change the meaning of the word element and therefore influence how the sign is perceived.
Presledek, vezaj ali naglasno znamenje pa lahko tudi spremeni pomen besede in s tem vpliva na zaznavanje znaka.
The following word marks are not identical.
Naslednje besedne znamke v parih niso enake.
2.4 Word marks and figurative marks
Besedne znamke in figurativne znamke
A word mark and a figurative mark, even when both consist of the same word, will not be identical unless the differences are so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by the relevant public.
Besedna znamka in figurativna znamka, tudi če sta obe sestavljeni iz iste besede, ne bosta enaki, razen če so razlike tako nepomembne, da bi jih lahko upoštevna javnost prezrla.
In the following examples the signs are clearly not identical.
Znaki v naslednjih primerih očitno niso enaki.
However, the finding that trade marks are not identical can be more difficult if the figurative trade mark is written in normal typeface.
Ugotovitev, da blagovni znamki nista enaki, je lahko težja, če je figurativna blagovna znamka napisana v običajni pisavi.
Nevertheless, in the following examples the trade marks were found not to be identical.
Kljub temu je bilo v naslednjih primerih ugotovljeno, da blagovni znamki nista enaki.
2.5 Identity of figurative marks
Enakost figurativnih znamk
Two figurative marks are identical when both signs match in all their elements (shape, colours, contrast, shadowing, etc.).
Figurativni znamki sta enaki, kadar se oba znaka ujemata v vseh svojih elementih (obliki, barvah, kontrastu, senčenju itd.).
It goes without saying that use of the same word will not suffice for a finding of identity when the figurative element is not the same.
Samoumevno je, da uporaba iste besede ne zadostuje za ugotovitev enakosti, če figurativni element ni enak.
The following marks are not identical.
Naslednje znamke niso enake.
However, since in the following case the difference in the presentation of the letters ‘TEP' in italics would go unnoticed by the public, the marks were considered identical.
Vendar sta se znamki v naslednjem primeru šteli za enaki, ker javnost ne bi opazila razlike v prikazu črk „TEP“ v poševnem tisku.
2.6 Identity of an earlier black and white (B&W) or greyscale mark with a colour mark application
Enakost prejšnje črno-bele ali sivinske znamke in prijave barvne znamke
In the framework of the European Trade Mark and Design Network, the Office and a number of trade mark offices in the European Union have agreed on a Common Practice with regard to the scope of identity of earlier B&W or greyscale marks with coloured versions of the same sign.
Urad in več uradov za blagovne znamke iz Evropske unije so se v okviru Evropske mreže blagovnih znamk in modelov dogovorili o skupni praksi glede obsega enakosti prejšnjih črno-belih ali sivinskih znamk ter barvnih različic istega znaka.
According to this Common Practice, the differences between an earlier B&W or greyscale mark and a coloured version of the same sign will normally be noticed by the average consumer, with the consequence that the marks are not considered identical.
V skladu s to skupno prakso razlike med prejšnjo črno-belo ali sivinsko znamko in barvno različico istega znaka povprečni potrošnik običajno opazi, tako da se znamki ne štejeta kot enaki.
It is only under exceptional circumstances that the signs will be considered identical, namely where the differences in the colours or in the contrast of shades are so insignificant that a reasonably observant consumer will perceive them only upon examining the marks side by side.
Samo v izjemnih primerih se znaka štejeta kot enaka, in sicer kadar so razlike v barvah ali kontrastu senc tako nepomembne, da bi jih razumno pozoren potrošnik zaznal le, če bi znamki proučil drugo ob drugi.
In other words, for the finding of identity the differences in the colour of the signs in question must be hardly noticeable by the average consumer.
Za ugotovitev enakosti morajo biti torej razlike v barvah znakov takšne, da jih povprečni potrošnik stežka opazi.
Invented examples of significant differences with the consequence of no identity.
Izmišljeni primeri pomembnih razlik, zaradi katerih znaki niso enaki:
Invented examples of insignificant differences with the consequence of identity.
Izmišljeni primeri nepomembnih razlik, zaradi česar so znaki enaki:
In relation to the findings above, the issue as to whether a trade mark registered in B&W or greyscale should be considered to cover all colours has also been addressed by the Court in a subsequent judgment (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199).
V zvezi z zgornjimi ugotovitvami je tudi Sodišče v poznejši sodbi obravnavalo vprašanje, ali naj se blagovna znamka, registrirana kot črno-bela ali sivinska, šteje, da vključuje vse barve (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199).
3 Similarity of Signs
Podobnost znakov
The similarity of signs depends on the distinctiveness (see paragraph 3.2 below) and dominant character (see paragraph 3.3 below) of their components, and on other possible relevant factors defined in the opposition decision.
Podobnost znakov je odvisna od razlikovalnega (glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju) in prevladujočega učinka (glej odstavek 3.3 v nadaljevanju) njunih sestavnih delov ter drugih možnih upoštevnih dejavnikov, opredeljenih v odločbi o ugovoru.
In the comparison of marks, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity must be assessed by weighing up the coinciding and the differing elements, and by taking into consideration their distinctiveness and dominance (see paragraph 3.4 below) and whether and to what degree these elements coin the overall impression produced by the marks.
Pri primerjavi znamk je treba vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobnost presoditi tako, da se pretehtajo elementi, ki se ujemajo in ki se razlikujejo, ter upošteva njihov razlikovalni in prevladujoči učinek (glej odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju) ter to, ali in koliko ti elementi ustvarjajo celotni vtis, ki ga naredita znamki.
All these considerations will lead to a conclusion on the degree of similarity in each (visual, phonetic and conceptual) aspect (see paragraph 3.5 below).
Z upoštevanjem vsega tega se ugotovi stopnja podobnosti v vsakem (vizualnem, zvočnem in pojmovnem) vidiku (glej odstavek 3.5 v nadaljevanju).
3.2 Distinctive elements of the marks
Razlikovalni elementi znamk
In the Sabèl judgment (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23), the Court held that ‘… (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, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components'.
V sodbi v zadevi Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23), je Sodišče menilo, da „[…] mora celovita presoja vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti zadevnih znamk temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, ki ga ti ustvarjata, pri čemer je treba upoštevati zlasti njune razlikovalne in prevladujoče elemente“.
Therefore, the degree of distinctiveness of the various components of composite marks is an important criterion that must be considered within the trade mark comparison.
Stopnja razlikovalnega učinka različnih sestavnih delov sestavljenih znamk je torej pomembno merilo, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri primerjavi blagovnih znamk.
When assessing the similarity of signs, the degree of distinctiveness of their coinciding and differing components should be established because distinctiveness is one of the factors that determine the importance of those elements in each sign and, accordingly, the impact of the commonalities/differences in the overall impression of the signs.
Pri presoji podobnosti znakov je treba določiti stopnjo podobnosti sestavnih delov, ki se ujemajo, in različnih sestavnih delov, saj je razlikovalni učinek eden od dejavnikov, s katerimi se določi pomembnost teh elementov v posameznem znaku in s tem vpliv, ki ga imajo skupne točke ali razlike na celotni vtis znakov.
A coincidence in a distinctive element and/or a difference in an element with no or little distinctiveness tend to increase the degree of similarity.
Če se razlikovalni element ujema in/ali če se element z nič ali le malo razlikovalnega učinka razlikuje, se stopnja podobnosti navadno zviša.
A difference in a distinctive element tends to decrease the degree of similarity.
Če se razlikovalni element razlikuje, se stopnja podobnosti navadno zniža.
The same applies where the coincidence found concerns an element with no or reduced distinctiveness.
Enako velja, kadar je ugotovljeno ujemanje v elementu, ki nima razlikovalnega učinka ali ima zmanjšan razlikovalni učinek.
Consequently, although trade mark proprietors commonly use non-distinctive or weak elements as part of a trade mark to inform consumers about certain characteristics of the relevant goods or services, it may be more difficult to establish that the public may be confused as to origin due to similarities that solely pertain to non-distinctive or weak elements.
Posledično je morda, čeprav imetniki blagovnih znamk pogosto uporabljajo opisne, nerazlikovalne ali šibke elemente kot sestavni del blagovne znamke za obveščanje potrošnikov o nekaterih značilnostih zadevnega blaga ali storitev, težje določiti, da bi lahko bila javnost zmedena glede izvora zaradi podobnosti, ki se nanašajo izključno na nerazlikovalne ali šibke elemente.
Therefore, in principle, the distinctiveness of all components of both the earlier and of the contested mark should be examined.
Zato je treba načeloma proučiti razlikovalni učinek vseh sestavnih delov prejšnje in izpodbijane znamke.
It is important to distinguish between the analysis of the distinctive character of (i) the component of a mark and (ii) the earlier mark as a whole.
Pomembno je razlikovati med analizo razlikovalnega učinka (i) sestavnega dela znamke in (ii) prejšnje znamke kot celote.
Analysing the components determines whether the signs in conflict coincide in a component that is distinctive (and therefore important), non-distinctive or weak (therefore being of less importance in the trade mark comparison).
Z analizo sestavnih delov se določi, ali se sovpadajoča znaka ujemata v sestavnem delu, ki je razlikovalen (in s tem pomemben), nerazlikovalen ali šibek (zaradi česar je manj pomemben za primerjavo blagovnih znamk).
The analysis of the earlier mark as a whole determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark, which is a separate consideration within the likelihood of confusion, independent from the comparison of the trade marks (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark).
Z analizo prejšnje znamke kot celote se določi obseg varstva, podeljenega tej znamki, kar je ločen vidik v okviru verjetnosti zmede, ki je neodvisen od primerjave blagovnih znamk (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
However, if either mark consists of one element only, the decision in the part dealing with the comparison of signs will establish whether the distinctiveness of that element is normal or lower than normal.
Če pa prejšnjo znamko sestavlja le en element, se v delu odločbe, ki obravnava primerjavo znakov, določi, ali je razlikovalni učinek tega elementa običajen ali manjši od običajnega.
In this case, it cannot be found that the element lacks distinctiveness.
V tem primeru ni mogoče ugotoviti, da element nima razlikovalnega učinka.
Regarding the earlier mark, this would amount to denying its distinctive character (for details, see paragraph 3.2.3.4 below).
V zvezi s prejšnjo znamko bi se s tem zanikal njen razlikovalni učinek (za podrobnosti glej odstavek 3.2.3.4 v nadaljevanju).
As regards the contested sign, this would mean that a new examination of absolute grounds would have to be carried out.
V zvezi z izpodbijanim znakom bi to pomenilo, da je treba opraviti nov preizkus absolutnih razlogov.
3.2.1 What is a component of a sign?
Kaj je sestavni del znaka?
The Court has not defined what is to be regarded as a ‘component' or ‘element' of a sign.
Sodišče še ni opredelilo, kaj se šteje za „sestavni del“ ali „element“ znaka.
It is easy to identify components when a sign is visually divided into different parts (e.g. separate figurative and verbal components).
Opredelitev sestavnih delov je preprosta, če je znak vizualno razdeljen na različne dele (na primer na ločene figurativne in besedne sestavne dele).
However, the term ‘component' encompasses more than these visual distinctions.
Vendar izraz sestavni del vključuje več kot takšne vizualne razlike.
Ultimately, the perception of the sign by the relevant public is decisive and a component exists wherever the relevant public perceives one.
Nazadnje, zaznavanje znaka je pri upoštevni javnosti odločilno, sestavni del obstaja, kadar ga zaznava upoštevna javnost.
For example, the relevant public will often regard one-word signs as being composed of different components, in particular, where one part has a clear and evident meaning while the rest is meaningless or has a different meaning (e.g. in the mark EUROFIRT, ‘Euro' will be widely understood as referring to Europe whereas ‘Firt' is meaningless, giving this word mark two components: ‘Euro' and ‘Firt').
Na primer, upoštevna javnost enobesedne znake pogosto šteje za sestavljene iz različnih sestavnih delov, zlasti če ima en sestavni del jasen in očiten pomen, medtem ko so drugi brez pomena ali pa imajo drugačen pomen (na primer v znamki EUROFIRT se „Euro“ na splošno razume, kot da se nanaša na Evropo, „Firt“ pa je brez pomena, besedna znamka ima tako dva sestavna dela: „Euro“ in „Firt“).
In such cases, the elements of one-word signs could be regarded as ‘components' in the terminology of the Court.
V takšnih primerih bi se lahko elementi enobesednih znakov v terminologiji Sodišča šteli za sestavne dele.
However, words should not be artificially dissected.
Besed ne bi smeli umetno razčlenjevati.
Dissection is not appropriate unless the relevant public will clearly perceive the components in question as separate elements.
Razčlenjevanje ni primerno, če upoštevna javnost sestavnih delov ne bi jasno zaznavala kot ločenih elementov.
A case-by-case assessment is required as to whether the division of a sign into components is artificial (e.g. whether splitting the word ‘LIMEON' for fruit into the components ‘LIME' and ‘ON' would be artificial or not) (see also paragraphs 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.5.1 below).
Za vsak primer posebej je treba presoditi, ali je razdelitev znaka na sestavne dele umetna (na primer, ali bi bila razdelitev besede „LIMEON“ za sadje na sestavna dela „LIME“ in „ON“ umetna ali ne) (glej tudi odstavka 3.4.3.2 in 3.4.5.1 v nadaljevanju).
3.2.2 Examination of distinctiveness
Preizkus razlikovalnega učinka
3.2.2.1 What is distinctiveness?
Kaj je razlikovalni učinek?
The Court has defined distinctiveness in the following manner:
Sodišče je razlikovalni učinek opredelilo tako: