natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, the General Court concludes that a link is likely to be established between the marks (para. 52).
Zato Splošno sodišče ugotavlja, da je vzpostavitev zveze med znamkama verjetna (točka 52).
As the contested trade mark is exclusively made up of the central and distinctive element of the earlier trade mark, namely the expression ‘royal shakespeare', the signs at issue are visually, phonetically and conceptually similar.
Ker je izpodbijana znamka sestavljena izključno iz osrednjega in razlikovalnega elementa prejšnje znamke, in sicer izraza „royal shakespeare“, sta si sporna znaka vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobna.
Therefore, the average consumer will establish a link between those signs (para. 29).
Povprečni potrošnik bo zato povezoval zadevna znaka (točka 29).
The earlier mark covers services in Class 41, including theatre productions, whereas the contested mark covers non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks in Classes 32 and 33 and providing of food and drink, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels; temporary accommodation in Class 42.
Prejšnja znamka označuje storitve iz razreda 41, vključno s produkcijami gledaliških predstav, medtem ko izpodbijana znamka označuje brezalkoholne in alkoholne pijače iz razredov 32 in 33 ter nudenje hrane in pijače, restavracije, bare, kantine, hotele; začasno nastanitev iz razreda 42.
The General Court confirmed the Board's finding of the ‘exceptional' reputation of the earlier mark in the United Kingdom for theatre productions.
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora o „izjemnem“ ugledu prejšnje znamke v Združenem kraljestvu v zvezi s produkcijami gledaliških predstav.
The relevant public for the contested trade mark is the same as the relevant public for the earlier trade mark, namely the public at large (para. 58).
Upoštevna javnost za sporno znamko je ista kot upoštevna javnost za prejšnjo znamko, in sicer širša javnost (točka 58).
Although the contested goods in Classes 32-33 do not appear to be directly and immediately linked to the opponent's theatre productions, there is a certain proximity and link between them.
Čeprav se izpodbijano blago iz razredov 32 in 33 ne zdi neposredno povezano s produkcijami gledaliških predstav vložnika ugovora, je med njima neka stopnja bližine in zveze.
The General Court refers to the judgment of 04/11/2008, T161/07, Coyote ugly, EU:T:2008:473, § 31-37, where a certain similarity between entertainment services and beer was found due to their complementarity.
Splošno sodišče se sklicuje na sodbo 04/11/2008, T161/07, Coyote ugly, EU:T:2008:473, § 3137, v kateri je bila ugotovljena določena stopnja podobnosti med razvedrilom in pivom zaradi njunega dopolnjevanja.
The General Court added that it is common practice, in theatres, for bar and catering services to be offered either alongside and during the interval of a performance.
Splošno sodišče je dodalo, da se v gledališčih običajno zagotavljata tudi strežba pijače in hrane med predstavami ali v odmorih.
Moreover, irrespective of the above, in view of the established reputation of the earlier trade mark, the relevant public, namely the public at large in the United Kingdom, would be able to make a link with the intervener when seeing a beer with the contested trade mark in a supermarket or in a bar (para. 60).
Poleg tega lahko upoštevna javnost, torej širša javnost v Združenem kraljestvu, ne glede na zgornje navedbe zaradi potrjenega ugleda prejšnje znamke vzpostavi zvezo z intervenientom, ko v trgovini ali baru vidi pivo, označeno z izpodbijano znamko (točka 60).
The signs only have a certain degree of visual and aural similarity.
Znaka sta si le nekoliko vizualno in zvočno podobna.
The Board confirms that the reputation of the earlier marks has been proven solely for distribution of energy services.
Odbor potrjuje, da je bil ugled prejšnjih znamk dokazan samo v zvezi distribucijo energije.
These services are completely different from the goods for which protection is requested in Classes 18, 20, 24 and 27.
Te storitve so popolnoma drugačne od blaga, za katerega se zahteva varstvo v razredih 18, 20, 24 in 27.
The relevant section of the public is the same, given that the services for which a reputation has been proven, namely distribution of energy services, are aimed at the general public and the goods in dispute are also aimed at the average consumer who is reasonably observant and circumspect.
Upoštevni del javnosti je enak, saj so storitve, v zvezi s katerimi je bil dokazan ugled, torej distribucija energije, namenjene splošni javnosti, blago ki je predmet spora, pa je prav tako namenjeno povprečnemu potrošniku, ki je razmeroma pozoren in dovzeten.
However, even if the relevant section of the public for the goods or services for which the conflicting marks are registered is the same or overlaps to some extent, those goods or services may be so dissimilar that the later mark is unlikely to bring the earlier mark to the mind of the relevant public.
Tudi če je upoštevni del javnosti v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, za katere sta registrirani nasprotujoči si znamki, enak ali se nekoliko prekriva, pa so lahko to blago ali storitve tako različni, da ni verjetno, da bi poznejša znamka upoštevno javnost spomnila na prejšnjo znamko.
The huge differences in usage between the goods in dispute and the services for which reputation has been proven make it very unlikely that the public will make a link between the signs in dispute, which is essential for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and for unfair advantage to be taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark.
Zaradi velikih razlik v uporabi blaga, ki je predmet spora, in storitev, v zvezi s katerimi je bil dokazan ugled, je malo verjetno, da bo javnost vzpostavila zvezo med znakoma, ki sta predmet spora, kar je bistveno za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke.
It is even less likely that, when intending to purchase a bag or item of furniture, the relevant public will link these goods to a trade mark that is very well known, but for services in the energy sector (paras 69 and 79).
Še manj verjetno pa je, da bi upoštevna javnost, ki namerava kupiti torbo ali kos pohištva, to blago povezala z znamko, ki je dobro znana, vendar v zvezi s storitvami na področju energetike (točke od 69 do 79).
Earlier reputed signs EUTM application Case No
Prejšnja znaka z ugledom Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
G-STAR and 21/01/2010, T309/08, EU:T:2010:22
G-STAR in 21/01/2010, T309/08, EU:T:2010:22
Visually the signs give a different overall impression, due to the figurative element of a Chinese dragon's head placed at the beginning of the mark applied for.
Vizualno dajeta znaka različen skupni vtis zaradi figurativnega elementa glave kitajskega zmaja na začetku znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
Aurally, there is a rather close aural similarity between the marks at issue.
Med spornima znamkama je precejšnja zvočna podobnost.
The signs are conceptually different, since the element ‘star' of the earlier marks is a word that is part of basic English vocabulary, the meaning of which is widely understood throughout the EU.
Znaka sta pojmovno različna, saj je element prejšnjih znamk „star“ beseda, ki je del osnovnega angleškega besedišča in katere pomen je splošno znan po vsej EU.
Therefore, the earlier marks will be perceived as referring to a star or a famous person.
Zato se prejšnje znamke zaznavajo, kot da se nanašajo na zvezdo ali slavno osebo.
It is possible that a part of the relevant public will attribute to the element ‘stor' of the contested mark the sense of the Danish and Swedish word ‘stor', meaning ‘big, large', or will regard it as a reference to the English word ‘store' meaning ‘shop, storage'.
Zgodi se lahko, da bo del upoštevne javnosti elementu izpodbijane znamke „stor“ pripisal pomen danske in švedske besede „stor“, ki pomeni „velik“, „obsežen“, ali pa jo bo povezal z angleško besedo „store“, ki pomeni „trgovino, skladišče“.
It is, however, more likely that the majority of the relevant public will not attribute any particular meaning to that element.
Verjetneje je, da večina upoštevne javnosti temu elementu ne bo pripisala posebnega pomena.
Therefore, the relevant public will perceive the marks at issue as conceptually different inasmuch as the earlier marks have a clear meaning throughout the EU, while the mark applied for has either a different meaning for part of the relevant public or no meaning.
Zato bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala sporne znamke kot pojmovno različne, saj imajo prejšnje znamke jasen pomen v vsej EU, medtem ko ima znamka, za katero je bila vložena prijava, drugačen pomen za del upoštevne javnosti ali ga sploh nima.
According to settled case-law, where the meaning of at least one of the two signs at issue is clear and specific so that it can be grasped immediately by the relevant public, the conceptual differences between those signs may counteract the visual and aural similarities between them.
Kadar je v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso pomen vsaj enega od spornih znakov jasen in poseben, tako da ga lahko upoštevna javnost takoj zazna, lahko pojmovne razlike prevladajo nad vizualnimi in zvočnimi podobnostmi med znakoma.
The Board of Appeal was right to find that the visual and conceptual differences between the marks prevented any assumption of a possible link between them (paras 25 to 36).
Odbor za pritožbe je pravilno ugotovil, da vizualne in pojmovne razlike med znamkama preprečujejo domnevo o morebitni zvezi med njima (točke od 25 do 36).
ONLY 07/10/2010, R 1556/20092 (confirmed 08/12/2011, T586/10, EU:T:2011:722)
ONLY 07/10/2010, R 1556/20092 (potrjena s sodbo z dne 08/12/2011, T586/10, EU:T:2011:722)
The goods in Class 3 are identical and target the same public.
Blago iz razreda 3 je enako in namenjeno isti javnosti.
There is a slight degree of visual and conceptual similarity between the signs at issue and a moderate degree of aural similarity.
Sporna znaka sta si vizualno in pojmovno nekoliko podobna, vendar je več zvočne podobnosti.
Even if the earlier marks had a reputation, the differences between the signs, in particular due to the conceptual unit created by the combination of the element ‘only' and the distinctive dominant element ‘givenchy', would be significant enough for the public not to make any connection between them.
Tudi če so prejšnje znamke imele ugled, so razlike med znakoma dovolj velike, da ju javnost ne bi povezala, zlasti zaradi pojmovne enote, ki jo sestavljata element „only“ in razlikovalni prevladujoči element „givenchy“.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that one of the conditions for applying Article 8(5) EUTMR, namely that the signs be sufficiently similar to lead the relevant public to make a connection between them, has not been met (paras 65 and 66).
Zato je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da eden od pogojev za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, tj. da si morata biti znaka dovolj podobna, da ju upoštevna javnost poveže, ni izpolnjen (točki 65 in 66).
KARUNA 29/06/2010, R 696/20094, (confirmed 20/06/2012, T357/10, EU:T:2012:312)
KARUNA 29/06/2010, R 696/20094, (potrjena s sodbo z dne 20/06/2012, T357/10, EU:T:2012:312)
The goods concerned, chocolate in Class 30, are identical.
Zadevno blago, čokolada iz razreda 30, je enako.
The signs differ visually not only because of the figurative elements in the sign applied for, but also because of their verbal elements.
Znaka se vizualno razlikujeta ne le zaradi figurativnih elementov znaka, za katerega je vložena prijava, ampak tudi zaradi besednih elementov.
Even though the verbal elements of the marks at issue have three letters out of six in common, a difference arises because the earlier marks begin with the letters ‘ka' while the mark applied for begins with the letters ‘co', and because the consumer normally attaches more importance to the first part of words.
Čeprav imata besedna elementa spornih znamk skupne tri črke od šestih, se razlikujeta, saj se prejšnja znamka začne s črkama „ka“, znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, pa se začne s črkama „co“, vendar potrošniki navadno večji pomen pripišejo prvemu delu besed.
There is a low degree of phonetic similarity between the signs taken as a whole.
Med znakoma je na splošno nizka stopnja zvočne podobnosti.
Conceptually, the word ‘corona', meaning ‘crown' in Spanish, does not have any meaning in Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian.
Pojmovno beseda „corona“, ki v španščini pomeni „krona“, nima pomena v estonščini, latvijščini ali litovščini.
Accordingly, no conceptual comparison is possible between the signs at issue in the three Baltic States.
V skladu s tem ni mogoča pojmovna primerjava med spornima znakoma v treh baltskih državah.
The mere fact that the Lithuanian word ‘karūna' means ‘crown' is not sufficient to establish that the relevant public associates the terms ‘karuna' or ‘karūna' with the word ‘corona', which remains a foreign word.
Dejstvo, da litovska beseda „karūna“ pomeni „krono“, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev, da upoštevna javnost izraza „karuna“ ali „karūna“ povezuje z besedo „corona“, ki je še vedno tuja beseda.
To conclude, the General Court reiterated that if the condition of similarity of the signs is not met under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, it must also be held, on the basis of the same analysis, that that condition is not met under Article 8(5) EUTMR either (paras 30 to 34 and 49).
Nazadnje je Splošno sodišče znova poudarilo, da je treba, če pogoj glede podobnosti znakov ni izpolnjen v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, na podlagi iste analize ugotoviti tudi, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen niti v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU(točke od 30 do 34 in 49).
Repute for services in Classes 38, 42 and 45, inter alia, a website for social networking Classes 14, 18 and 25
Ugled v zvezi s storitvami iz razredov 38, 42 in 45, med drugim spletno mesto za družbena omrežja Razredi 14, 18 in 25
The Board defined the relevant public as the average European consumer of the goods applied for, which are ordinary goods meant for the general public.
Odbor je upoštevno javnost opredelil kot povprečne evropske potrošnike blaga, za katero je bila vložena prijava, in sicer običajnega blaga, namenjenega splošni javnosti.
The Board found it likely that the applicant's goods could be seen as merchandising products coming from the opponent.
Ugotovil je, da bi se lahko blago prijavitelja verjetno zaznavalo kot izdelki za trženje, ki jih proizvaja vložnik ugovora.
Items such as t-shirts, key chains, watches, hand bags, jewellery, caps, etc., are very frequently used as marketing means bearing trade marks that relate to entirely distinct goods and services.
Izdelki, kot so majice, obeski za ključe, ročne ure, torbice, nakit, čepice itd., se zelo pogosto uporabljajo kot sredstva za trženje, ki predstavljajo znamke, povezane s povsem različnim blagom in storitvami.
Upon encountering the sign TWITTER used on a watch, a scarf or a t-shirt, the relevant consumer would inevitably make a mental connection with the opponent's sign and the services it offers, on account of the reputation of the opponent's mark.
Upoštevni potrošniki bi znak TWITTER, ki bi ga videli na uri, šalu ali majici, neizogibno miselno povezali z znakom in storitvami vložnika ugovora zaradi ugleda njegove znamke.
This would give the applicant a competitive advantage since its goods would benefit from the extra attractiveness they would gain from the association with the opponent's older mark.
S tem bi prijavitelj pridobil konkurenčno prednost, saj bi njegovo blago izkoristilo dodatno privlačnost zaradi asociacije na prejšnjo znamko vložnika ugovora.
Buying a TWITTER watch as a present for someone who is known to be a TWITTER user is, for example, an action motivated by the fondness for the earlier mark (para. 40).
Nakup ročne ure TWITTER kot darilo za uporabnika TWITTERJA je na primer dejanje, ki ga je spodbudila priljubljenost prejšnje znamke (točka 40).
Terms in Article 8(5) EUTMR Commonly used equivalents
Izrazi iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Pogosto uporabljeni enakovredni izrazi
Unfair advantage Free-riding, riding on the coat-tails
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje Parazitstvo, obešanje na ugled
Detriment to distinctiveness Dilution by blurring, dilution, blurring, watering down, debilitating, whittling away
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka Oslabitev z zabrisom, oslabitev, zabris, razvodenitev, izčrpavanje, izpodjedanje
Detriment to repute Dilution by tarnishing, tarnishment, degradation
Oškodovanje ugleda Oslabitev z očrnitvijo, očrnitev, razvrednotenje
The concept of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark must be intended to encompass instances where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation (see to that effect Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Adidas, para. 39) (para. 51).
Izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke vključuje vse primere očitnega izkoriščanja in parazitstva slavne znamke ali poskusov izkoriščanja njenega slovesa (v tem smislu glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v sodbi Adidas, točka 39) (točka 51).
The unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark consists in the fact that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics that it projects will be transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods can be made easier by the association with the earlier mark with a reputation (para. 48).
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke pomeni, da se podoba znamke z ugledom ali značilnosti, ki jih ta znamka sporoča, prenesejo na blago, označeno z znamko, za katero je vložena prijava, tako da lahko postane trženje tega blaga lažje zaradi asociacije na prejšnjo znamko z ugledom (točka 48).
In her opinion in the Intel preliminary ruling, Advocate General Sharpston referred to unfair advantage as follows: ‘The concepts of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark in contrast must be intended to encompass “instances where there is clear exploitation and free-riding on the coattails of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation”.
Generalna pravobranilka Eleanor Sharpston je v svojem mnenju o predhodni odločbi v zadevi Intel v zvezi z neupravičenim izkoriščanjem navedla naslednje: „Nepošteno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda je treba razumeti tako, da vključuje ‚primere očitnega izkoriščanja in obešanja na ugled znane znamke ali poskuse izkoriščanja njenega ugleda‘.
Thus by way of example Rolls Royce would be entitled to prevent a manufacturer of whisky from exploiting the reputation of the Rolls Royce mark in order to promote his brand.
Tako bi bila na primer družba Rolls Royce upravičena preprečiti, da bi proizvajalec viskija izkoristil ugled znamke Rolls Royce za promocijo lastne znamke.
It is not obvious that there is any real difference between taking advantage of a mark's distinctive character and taking advantage of its repute; since however nothing turns on any such difference in the present case, I shall refer to both as free-riding' (para. 33).
Ni jasno, ali se izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja znamke dejansko razlikuje od izkoriščanja njenega ugleda; ker pa v tej zadevi ta razlika ni bistvena, bom oboje označevala kot obešanje na ugled“ (točka 33).
‘… the reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK in the European Community in regard to banking services is not disputed.
„[...] ugled znamke CITIBANK v Evropski skupnosti v sektorju bančnih storitev ni sporen.
That reputation is associated with features of the banking sector, namely, solvency, probity and financial support to private and commercial clients in their professional and investment activities.
Na tej podlagi je ta ugled povezan z značilnostmi bančnega sektorja, in sicer s plačilno sposobnostjo, poštenostjo in finančno podporo zasebnih in poslovnih strank pri njihovi poklicni in investicijski dejavnosti.
‘In those circumstances, the Court holds that there is a high probability that the use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, by customs agencies, and therefore for financial agency activities in the management of money and real estate for clients, may lead to free-riding, that is to say, it would take unfair advantage of the well-established reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK and the considerable investments undertaken by the applicants to achieve that reputation.
„Sodišče prve stopnje zato meni, da obstaja velika možnost, da bi uporaba prijavljene znamke CITI s strani carinarskega posrednika - in zato za dejavnosti finančnega pooblaščenca pri upravljanju denarja in nepremičnin za stranke - vodila do parazitizma, to je izkoriščanja priznanega ugleda znamke CITIBANK in večjih investicij, ki sta jih izvedli tožeči stranki za dosego tega ugleda, brez upravičenega razloga.
That use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, could also lead to the perception that the intervener is associated with or belongs to the applicants and, therefore, could facilitate the marketing of services covered by the trade mark applied for.
Ta uporaba prijavljene znamke CITI bi lahko povzročila tudi to, da bi se intervenientko štelo kot družbenico ali del tožečih strank ter bi zato lahko olajšala trženje storitev, zajetih s prijavljeno znamko.
That risk is further increased because the applicants are the holders of several trade marks containing the component “citi”' (paras 81 to 83).
Poleg tega je to tveganje še toliko večje, ker sta tožeči stranki imetnici več znamk, ki vsebujejo element ‚citi‘“ (točke od 81 do 83).
MINERAL SPA (for soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, dentifrices in Class 3) could take unfair advantage of the image of the earlier trade mark SPA and the message conveyed by it in that the goods covered by the contested application would be perceived by the relevant public as supplying health, beauty and purity.
Znamka MINERAL SPA (za mila, parfume, eterična olja, pripravke za nego telesa in lepotilno nego, pripravke za lase, sredstva za čiščenje zob iz razreda 3) bi lahko neupravičeno izkoristila podobo in sporočilo prejšnje znamke SPA in sporočilo, saj bi upoštevna javnost blago, vključeno v sporno prijavo, zaznala kot blago, ki zagotavlja zdravje, lepoto in čistost.
It is not a question of whether toothpaste and perfume contain mineral water, but whether the public may think that the goods concerned are produced from or with mineral water (paras 43 and 44).
Ni vprašanje, ali zobna pasta in parfum vsebujeta mineralno vodo, ampak ali bi lahko javnost mislila, da se zadevno blago izdeluje iz mineralne vode ali jo vsebuje (točki 43 in 44).
Earlier reputed sign Case No
Prejšnji znak z ugledom Št. zadeve
L'Oréal et al. 12/07/2011, C324/09 (preliminary ruling)
L'Oréal in drugi 12/07/2011, C324/09 (predhodna odločba)
According to L'Oréal et al., the defendants manufactured and imported perfume that was a ‘smellalike' of L'Oréal's fragrances but sold at a considerably lower price, using packaging that was reminiscent of the get-up covered by L'Oréal's marks.
Po trditvah L'Oréala in drugih so tožene osebe proizvajale in uvažale parfum s podobnim vonjem kot L'Oréalove dišave, prodajale pa so ga po bistveno nižji ceni v embalaži, ki je povzemala stil, ki se uporablja za L'Oréalove znamke.
The defendants used comparison lists to present the perfumes, which they marketed as being imitations or replicas of goods bearing a trade mark with repute.
Tožene osebe so uporabljale primerjalne sezname, na katerih so predstavljale parfume, ki so jih tržile kot ponaredek ali kopijo blaga, označenega z znamko z ugledom.
Under Council Directive 84/450/EEC, comparative advertising that presents the advertiser's products as an imitation of a product bearing a trade mark is inconsistent with fair competition and thus unlawful.
V skladu z Direktivo Sveta 84/450/EGS je primerjalno oglaševanje, ki predstavlja oglaševalčeve izdelke kot ponaredke izdelka, označenega z znamko, neskladno s pošteno konkurenco in zato nezakonito.