natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED It was found that ‘the signs at stake were obviously not identical', even if ‘Insurance company limited' was descriptive in English for the related services.
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Ugotovljeno je bilo, da „sporna znaka očitno nista enaka“, čeprav je „Insurance company limited“ opis v angleščini za zadevne storitve.
Earlier sign Contested sign
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak
The Court considered that the fact that ‘the proprietor of a mark may use it in a colour or a combination of colours and obtain for it, as the case may be, protection under the relevant applicable provisions … does not mean … that the registration of a mark which does not designate any specific colour covers all colour combinations which are enclosed with the graphic representation' (para. 39).
Sodišče je menilo, da dejstvo, „da lahko imetnik znamke [znamko] uporablja v eni barvi ali v kombinaciji barv, ter v zvezi s to barvo ali kombinacijo barv, če je to potrebno, pridobi varstvo v skladu z upoštevnimi predpisi“, ne pomeni, „da bi registracija znamke, ki posebej ne prikazuje nobene barve, vključevala vse kombinacije barv, ki so zajete v grafičnem prikazu“ (točka 39).
In this particular case, the Court considered that the Board was right in finding ‘that one difference between the mark applied for and the first and second earlier marks lay in the fact that the mark applied for consisted, in part, of a yellow background with white vertical stripes' (para. 40).
V tej zadevi je Sodišče menilo, da je odbor pravilno ugotovil, „da je bila razlika med prijavljeno znamko in prvo ter drugo prejšnjo znamko v tem, da je bila prijavljena znamka delno sestavljena iz rumenega ozadja z belimi navpičnimi črtami“ (točka 40).
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: EU Assessment of the components ‘frut' and ‘sol': ‘… it is necessary to distinguish between the perception by the public in those Member States, such as Italy and Spain, where the elements “sol” and “frut” are generally recognisable and can be understood as alluding to “sun” and “fruit” respectively, and the perception by the public in those Member States, such as Hungary, Finland and Lithuania, where those elements have no such close equivalent in their national languages'.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: EU Presoja sestavnih delov „frut“ in „sol“: „[…] treba je razlikovati med zaznavanjem javnosti v državah članicah, kot sta Italija in Španija, kjer sta elementa ,sol‘ in ,frut‘ na splošno prepoznavna in ju je mogoče razumeti kot povezana s soncem oziroma sadjem, ter zaznavanjem javnosti v državah članicah, kot so Madžarska, Finska in Litva, kjer navedena elementa v njihovih nacionalnih jezikih nimata takšne ustreznice“.
In the first category of Member States, consumers are liable to associate both marks with the notions of ‘fruit' and ‘sunshine'.
Za potrošnike v prvi skupini držav članic je verjetno, da obe znamki povezujejo s pojmoma sadje in sonce.
There will consequently be a certain level of conceptual similarity between them.
Zato bo med njima neka stopnja pojmovne podobnosti.
In Member States of the second category, consumers will not perceive any conceptual similarity between the signs since they will not attach any particular meaning to the constituent parts of either sign (paras 21-24).
Potrošniki v državah članicah iz druge skupine ne zaznavajo pojmovne podobnosti med znakoma, ker sestavnim delom znakov ne pripisujejo nobenega določenega pomena (točke 21-24).
G&S: Class 3 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘products': ‘… the term “products” is not distinctive enough to be taken into consideration by the consumers' (para. 39).
Blago in storitve: Razred 3 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa Products: „[…] izraz ,Products‘ ni dovolj razlikovalen, da bi ga potrošniki upoštevali“ (točka 39).
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU Assessment of ‘CAPITAL MARKETS': ‘the relevant public, consisting of consumers who are very attentive, well-informed and familiar with basic English financial terminology, will attach little significance to the meaning of the words “capital” and “markets”, which are descriptive of those services and which do not enable the commercial origin of the trade marks at issue to be identified' (para. 59).
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU Presoja sestavnih delov „CAPITAL MARKETS“: „za upoštevno javnost, v katero spadajo potrošniki, ki so zelo pozorni, dobro obveščeni in seznanjeni z osnovno angleško finančno terminologijo, pomen izrazov ,capital‘ in ,markets‘, ki opisujeta navedene storitve in ji ne omogočata, da ugotovi tržno poreklo zadevnih znamk, ne bo zelo pomemben“ (točka 59).
G&S: Classes 3 and 5 Territory: EU Assessment of the earlier right: even though the signs have some similarities, the expression ‘NATURAL BRONZE' is descriptive of the purpose of the goods (tanning) for the goods in Class 3 (para. 31).
Blago in storitve: Razreda 3 in 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja prejšnje pravice: čeprav imata znaka nekaj podobnosti, je izraz „NATURAL BRONZE“ opisen glede na namen blaga (porjavitev) za blago iz razreda 3 (točka 31).
G&S: Classes 38 and 41 Territory: Spain Assessment of the element ‘CINE': the word ‘cine' has a descriptive meaning in the sense of ‘cinema (film)'.
Blago in storitve: Razreda 38 in 41 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja elementa „CINE“: beseda „cine“ ima opisen pomen v smislu besede „cinema“ (film).
Therefore, this component has only limited relevance in the perception of the signs (para. 36).
Zato ima ta sestavni del v zaznavanju znakov samo omejen pomen (točka 36).
G&S: Classes 3 and 5 Territory: Germany Assessment of the element ‘NATURAL BEAUTY': the element ‘NATURAL BEAUTY' is a plain and essential indication of the kind and quality of the goods.
Blago in storitve: Razreda 3 in 5 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja elementa „NATURAL BEAUTY“: element „NATURAL BEAUTY“ je jasna in ključna označba vrste in kakovosti blaga.
The German public understands the meaning of these two basic words as well as the combination thereof (paras 31-35).
Nemška javnost razume pomen teh dveh osnovnih besed in njuno kombinacijo (točke 31-35).
G&S: Classes 9 and 12 Territory: EU Assessment: the word ‘force', synonymous with strength and power, can describe one of the characteristics of the goods concerned.
Blago in storitve: Razreda 9 in 12 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: beseda „force“, ki pomeni silo ali moč, lahko opisuje eno od značilnosti zadevnega blaga.
Furthermore, for some goods in Class 12, it must be held that that word can also designate one of their purposes.
Poleg tega je treba za nekatere proizvode iz razreda 12 poudariti, da lahko ta beseda označuje tudi enega od njihovih namenov.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the evidence adduced by the applicant, the word ‘force' is commonly used, on the European market, in trade marks in the domain of cycling, thus rendering it banal (paras 38-39).
Kot je razvidno iz dokazil, na katere se sklicuje prijavitelj, se beseda „force“ na evropskem trgu pogosto uporablja v blagovnih znamkah na področju kolesarstva, zaradi česar je vsakdanja (točki 38 in 39).
G&S: Class 12 Territory: Spain Assessment of the element ‘MAGIC': the word ‘magic' will be perceived by the relevant public as a simple qualifier for the word ‘seat' on account of its resemblance to the Spanish word ‘mágico', which is purely laudatory (para. 39).
Blago in storitve: Razred 12 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja elementa „MAGIC“: Upoštevna javnost besedo „magic“ zaradi njene podobnosti s špansko besedo „mágico“, ki je izključno poveličevalna, razume le kot kvalifikator besede „seat“ (točka 39).
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘STAR': the word element ‘STAR' is laudatory, as it merely constitutes (together with the remaining elements of the signs) a reference to high-quality food products (para. 52).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa „STAR“: besedni element „STAR“ je poveličevalen, saj označuje (skupaj z drugimi elementi znakov) le visokokakovostna živila (točka 52).
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘LINK': the element ‘LiNK' of the earlier mark is not immediately descriptive of inter alia ‘banking services for the dispensing of cash; funds transfer and payment services; financial information services' (Class 36) covered by the earlier mark, but merely allusive in relation to them (para. 68 et seq.).
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa „LINK“: element prejšnje znamke „LiNK“ med drugim ni neposredno opisen za „bančne storitve za izdajanje gotovine, prenose sredstev in plačilne storitve, finančno informiranje“ (razred 36), ki jih označuje prejšnja znamka, temveč je v zvezi z njimi samo namigovalen (točka 68 in naslednje).
G&S: Class 9 Territory: EU Assessment of figurative elements: the verbal elements of the two signs coincide.
Blago in storitve: Razred 9 Ozemlje: EU Presoja figurativnih elementov: besedna elementa obeh znakov sta enaka.
Even if it is not negligible in terms of its size, the figurative element of the contested EUTM is likely to be perceived by consumers essentially as a mere decorative element, and not as an element indicating the commercial origin of the goods (para. 43).
Za figurativni element izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU je verjetno, da ga potrošniki zaznavajo zlasti kot le okrasni element, in ne kot element, ki označuje komercialni izvor blaga, čeprav po svoji velikosti ni zanemarljiv (točka 43).
The marks are visually highly similar and phonetically and conceptually identical (paras 45-48).
Znamki sta vizualno zelo podobni, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaki (točke 45-48).
iHotel T277/11, paras 83-84 The Court did not assess the distinctiveness of the coinciding word elements, orange, with the explanation that the differentiating elements (the way of writing and the orange background) are only an insignificant difference.
iHotel T277/11, točki 83 in 84 Sodišče ni presodilo razlikovalnega učinka besednih elementov, ki se ujemata, kar je pojasnilo tako, da so elementi, ki se razlikujejo (način zapisa in oranžno ozadje) le nepomembna razlika.
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: the Czech Republic Assessment: ‘The Board also notes that the earlier mark “Glanc” is registered in the Czech Republic for the goods in question and, therefore, for the purpose of the present proceedings, it must be deemed to be endowed with at least some degree of distinctive character'.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: Češka Presoja: Odbor ugotavlja še, da je prejšnja znamka „Glanc“ registrirana na Češkem za upoštevno blago in se mora tako za namen tega postopka šteti, da ima vsaj neko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
Sign Dominant component and reasoning Case No
Znak Prevladujoči sestavni del in obrazložitev Št. zadeve
RPT: ‘the dominant element of the earlier marks is the acronym RPT, in which the letter “p” predominates' (para. 33).
RPT: „prevladujoči element prejšnjih znamk je kratica RPT, v kateri prevlada črka ,p‘“ (točka 33).
Free: ‘the word “free” dominates the visual impression created by the mark of which it forms part, because it is considerably larger than the other components and, in addition, is much easier to remember and pronounce than the slogan in question' (para. 39).
Free: „beseda ‚free‘ prevladuje v vizualnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarja znamka, katere del je, ker je precej večja od drugih sestavnih delov, poleg tega pa si jo je tudi lažje zapomniti in izgovoriti kot zadevni slogan“ (točka 39).
Xtreme: ‘On the visual level, it must be concluded that in the mark applied for, the term “XTREME” occupies a central position.
Xtreme: „Na vizualni ravni je mogoče ugotoviti, da izraz ‚XTREME‘ v znamki, za katero je bila vložena prijava, zavzema osrednji položaj.
Indeed, the size of its typeface is bigger than that of the other verbal elements, and the word is highlighted with a white outline … The other verbal components “RIGHT GUARD” and “SPORT”, are written in a much smaller type and are shifted to the right and towards the edge of the sign' (para. 55).
Velikost njegove pisave je večja od velikosti pisave drugih besedilnih elementov, sama beseda pa je poudarjena z belo obrobo […] Druga besedilna elementa ‚RIGHT GUARD‘ in ‚SPORT‘ sta zapisana v veliko manjši pisavi ter sta zamaknjena v desno in proti robu znaka“ (točka 55).
(by missako) GREEN by missako: ‘It must be noted, as a first point, that the representation of the sun has an important place within the mark applied for, in that it is positioned in the centre and covers almost two thirds of the area.
(by missako) GREEN by missako: „Najprej je treba opaziti, da ima prikaz sonca pomembno mesto v znamki, za katero je bila vložena prijava, saj je postavljen v sredino in zajema skoraj dve tretjini znaka.
Next, the position of the word element “green” is also important within the mark, as it is portrayed in large-typeface, stylised upper case letters in black and takes up about one third of the area.
Poleg tega je prav tako pomembna postavitev besednega elementa ‚green‘ v znamki, saj je prikazan z veliko pisavo in velikimi stiliziranimi črkami črne barve, zavzema pa približno tretjino znaka.
As observed by the Board of Appeal in para. 28 of the contested decision, those two elements thus occupy the major portion of the mark applied for and are, therefore, striking in the overall impression of the mark.
Kot je odbor za pritožbe ugotovil v točki 28 izpodbijane odločbe, ta dva elementa tako zavzemata velik del znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava, in zato izstopata v celotnem vtisu znamke.
Lastly, as regards the word element “by missako”, the Board of Appeal correctly held, in para. 28 of the contested decision, that those words were almost illegible because of their size and that the handwriting made them difficult to decipher.
Nazadnje, v zvezi z besednim elementom ‚by missako‘ je odbor za pritožbe v točki 28 izpodbijane odločbe pravilno menil, da sta ti besedi zaradi svoje velikosti skoraj neberljivi in da ju je bilo težko prebrati, ker sta zapisani v rokopisu.
It follows, first, that the dominant nature of the word “green” and of the representation of the sun are thereby further reinforced and, secondly, that the word element “by missako” is negligible in nature' (paras 37-39).
Iz tega sledi, prvič, da je prevladujoča narava besede ‚green‘ in prikaza sonca s tem še dodatno okrepljena in, drugič, da je besedni element ‚by missako‘ glede na naravo zanemarljiv” (točke 37-39).
BÜRGER: The dominant element of the mark applied for is undeniably the word element in upper case letters that stands out, simply because of its position and the very large size of its lettering, from all the other elements that make up the label (para. 38).
BÜRGER: Prevladujoči element znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava, je nedvomno besedni element, zapisan z velikimi črkami, ki med vsemi drugimi elementi, ki sestavljajo znak, izstopa zaradi svoje postavitve in zelo velike pisave (točka 38).
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No (level of similarity)
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve (stopnja podobnosti)
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (average)
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (povprečna)
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/20024 (high)
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/20024 (visoka)
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401 (very high)
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401 (zelo visoka)
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (average)
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (povprečna)
The Board held that although those marks shared the letter ‘a' and the ending ‘ol', they ‘clearly differ[ed]' visually.
Odbor je menil, da sta bili znamki, čeprav sta imeli obe črko „a“ in končnico „-ol“, na vidni ravni jasno različni.
The General Court agreed.
Splošno sodišče se je strinjalo.
It held that the same number of letters in two marks is not, as such, of any particular significance for the relevant public, even for a specialised public.
Menilo je, da enako število črk, ki sestavljajo znamki, kot tako nima posebnega pomena za upoštevno javnost, celo za strokovno javnost.
Since the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which, moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable that many words will have the same number of letters and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone, be regarded as visually similar.
Ker je abeceda sestavljena iz omejenega števila črk, ki poleg tega niso vse uporabljane enako pogosto, je neizogibno, da je več besed sestavljenih iz istega števila črk in istih črk, kar pa ne pomeni, da jih le zato lahko štejemo za podobne na vidni ravni.
In addition, the public is not, in general, aware of the exact number of letters in a word mark and, consequently, will not notice, in the majority of cases, that two conflicting marks have the same number of letters (paras 81-82).
Poleg tega se javnost na splošno ne zaveda natančnega števila črk, ki sestavljajo besedno znamko, in zato v večini primerov ne bo zaznala, da sta sovpadajoči znamki sestavljeni iz enakega števila črk (točki 81 in 82).
The Court held that what matters in the assessment of the visual similarity of two word marks is the presence, in each of them, of several letters in the same order (para. 83).
Sodišče je menilo, da je pri presoji vizualne podobnosti obeh znamk pomembnejši obstoj enakega vrstnega reda več črk v vsaki (točka 83).
The ending ‘ol' of the marks at issue constituted a common element of the marks but comes at the end and is preceded by completely different groups of letters (‘arc' and ‘cap' respectively), so the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that that this commonality does not render the marks visually similar (para. 83).
Končnica „-ol“ je bila pri nasprotujočih si znamkah njun skupni element, ki pa se pojavlja na koncu, pred njim pa sta skupini popolnoma različnih črk (skupina črk „arc“ in „cap“ v posameznih znamkah), zato je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da zaradi tega znamki nista bili vidno podobni (točka 84).
The Court of Justice upheld this assessment from a visual perspective (para. 74).
Sodišče je z vizualnega vidika potrdilo to presojo (točka 74).
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (average)
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (povprečna)
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (average)
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (povprečna)
11/03/2009, B 1 157 769 (medium)
11/03/2009, B 1 157 769 (srednja)
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054; confirmed 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (average)
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054, potrjena z 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (povprečna)
29/09/2008, B 1 220 724 (high)
29/09/2008, B 1 220 724 (visoka)
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 & T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (significant)
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 in T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (precejšnja)
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (low)
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (nizka)
30/05/2002, B 134 900 The marks were considered visually dissimilar
30/05/2002, B 134 900 Za znamki se je štelo, da se vizualno razlikujeta.
G&S: Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 41 Territory: EU Assessment: as regards the visual similarity of the conflicting signs, the Board of Appeal rightly considered that both marks in question include as a dominant element the lower-case white letter ‘a', of a commonplace typeface, on a black background.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 16, 25, 35 in 41 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Kar zadeva vizualno podobnost spornih znakov, je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da obe sporni znamki vključujeta kot prevladujoč sestavni del malo črko „a“ bele barve na črnem ozadju v navadni pisavi.
That dominant element makes an immediate impression and is remembered.
Ta prevladujoči del naredi takojšen vtis in se vtisne v spomin.
Conversely, the graphic differences between the trade marks in question - namely the shape of the background (oval for the trade mark applied for and square for the earlier trade mark), the position of the letter on that background (in the centre in the case of the trade mark applied for and in the lower right-hand corner in the case of the earlier trade mark), the thickness of the line used to represent that letter (the trade mark applied for uses a slightly broader line than that used in the earlier trade mark) and the calligraphic details of the letters of the respective marks - are minor and do not constitute elements that will be remembered by the relevant public as effective distinguishing features.
Nasprotno je grafična razlika med spornima blagovnima znamkama - in sicer oblika ozadja (ovalna pri prijavljeni blagovni znamki in kvadratna pri prejšnji blagovni znamki), položaj črke na ozadju (v sredini pri prijavljeni blagovni znamki in v spodnjem desnem kotu pri prejšnji blagovni znamki), debelina črte, ki je uporabljena za prikaz te črke (prijavljena blagovna znamka uporablja malo debelejšo črto kot prejšnja blagovna znamka) in podrobnosti pisave črk zadevnih znamk - manjša in ne sestavlja delov, ki si jih bo upoštevna javnost vtisnila v spomin kot dejansko razlikovalne.
Consequently, the conflicting signs are very similar from the visual point of view.
Sovpadajoča znaka sta si zato vizualno zelo podobna.
G&S: Classes 9, 18, 24, 25, 28 Territory: Germany Assessment: the Board found the signs visually similar to a medium degree.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 18, 24, 25 in 28 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Odbor je ugotovil, da imata znaka srednjo stopnjo vizualne podobnosti.
G&S: Classes 9, 18, 25 Territory: EU, Italy Assessment: the signs were found to be similar to a low degree from a visual point of view (likelihood of confusion).
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 18 in 25 Ozemlje: EU, Italija Presoja: z vizualnega vidika je bila ugotovljena nizka stopnja podobnosti med znakoma (verjetnost zmede).
G&S: Class 25 Territory: EU Assessment: even though the signs can both be perceived as representing the letter ‘e', they differ visually in their respective colours, typefaces and the overall impressions they convey (para. 25).
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Čeprav je oba znaka mogoče zaznavati, kot da ponazarjata črko „e“, se vizualno razlikujeta v barvi, pisavi in celotnem vtisu (točka 25).
The outcome of this case: likelihood of confusion for identical goods and services (this part of the BoA decision was not challenged before the General Court).
Izid te zadeve: verjetnost zmede za enako blago in storitve (ta del odločbe odbora za pritožbe ni bil izpodbijan pred Splošnim sodiščem).
No likelihood of confusion for the similar and dissimilar goods and services (inter alia, electric energy emanating from wind power; plants for the production of renewable energy; leasing of wind power energy generating facilities) for which the relevant public has a high degree of attention.
Ni verjetnosti zmede za podobno ter različno blago in storitve (med drugim električno energijo , pridobljeno iz energije vetra; naprave za proizvodnjo energije iz obnovljivih virov; najem prostorov in opreme za proizvodnjo vetrne energije), za katere ima upoštevna javnost visoko stopnjo pozornosti.
G&S: Classes 18, 25 Territory: Germany Assessment: on the basis of the particular graphic design of the contested trade mark, the Court only found a low degree of visual and conceptual similarity (para. 31).
Blago in storitve: Razreda 18 in 25 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Sodišče je na podlagi posebne grafične oblike izpodbijane blagovne znamke ugotovilo le nizko stopnjo vizualne in pojmovne podobnosti (točka 31).
A phonetic comparison was not possible, as it was found that the public would most likely not pronounce the contested trade mark given the particular graphic design (para. 32).
Zvočna primerjava ni bila mogoča, saj se je ugotovilo, da javnost izpodbijane blagovne znamke glede na posebno grafično obliko najverjetneje ne bi izgovorila (točka 32).
Please note that the outcome in this case was that of no likelihood of confusion, although the Court found low visual similarity between the signs.
Izid te zadeve je bil, da verjetnosti zmede ni, čeprav je Sodišče ugotovilo nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti med znakoma.