natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the context both of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 8(5) EUTMR, a finding of similarity between the marks in question requires the existence, in particular, of elements of visual, aural or conceptual similarity (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28).
V okviru člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU morajo za ugotovitev podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama obstajati zlasti elementi vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28).
However, those provisions differ in terms of the degree of similarity required.
Vendar se ti določbi razlikujeta v smislu zahtevane stopnje podobnosti.
Whereas the protection provided for under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is conditional upon a finding of a degree of similarity between the marks at issue such that there is a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public, the existence of such a likelihood is not necessary for the protection conferred by Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Varstvo v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je odvisno od ugotovitve, da je stopnja podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama tolikšna, da obstaja v zvezi z njima verjetnost zmede pri upoštevnem delu javnosti, obstoj take verjetnosti pa se ne zahteva za varstvo v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Accordingly, the types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR may result from a lesser degree of similarity between the marks in question, provided that it is sufficient for the relevant section of the public to make a connection between those marks, that is, to establish a link between them (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 27, 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66).
V skladu s tem lahko kršitve iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU povzroči nižja stopnja podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama, če je zadostna, da upoštevni del javnosti ti znamki poveže, torej med njima vzpostavi zvezo (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 27, 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66).
Nevertheless, it is not apparent either from the wording of those provisions or from the case-law that the similarity between the marks at issue must be assessed in a different way, depending on whether the assessment is carried out under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR or under Article 8(5) EUTMR.
Kljub temu iz ubeseditve teh določb ali iz sodne prakse ni razvidno, da je treba podobnost zadevnih znamk presojati različno glede na to, ali se presoja opravlja v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) ali členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
To sum up, the application of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR requires a finding of similarity between the signs.
Če povzamemo, se za uporabo člena 8(1)(b) in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zahteva potrditev podobnosti znakov.
Consequently, if, when Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is examined, the signs are found to be dissimilar, the opposition will necessarily fail under Article 8(5) EUTMR too.
Iz tega izhaja, da se ugovor na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nujno zavrne, če se je s preizkušanjem člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ugotovilo, da sta znaka različna.
However, once the signs have been found to be similar, depending on whether Article 8(1)(b) or Article 8(5) EUTMR is involved, the examiner will independently assess whether the degree of similarity is sufficient for the relevant provision to apply (in correlation with the further relevant factors).
Če pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da sta znaka podobna, preizkuševalec glede na to, ali gre za člen 8(1)(b) ali člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, neodvisno presodi, ali je stopnja podobnosti zadostna za uporabo zadevne določbe (v povezavi z dodatnimi upoštevnimi dejavniki).
Therefore, a degree of similarity between the marks that, after an overall assessment of the factors, leads to a partial finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR does not necessarily trigger a link between the signs under Article 8(5) EUTMR, for example because the markets concerned are completely distinct.
Zato stopnja podobnosti med znamkama, na kateri po skupni presoji dejavnikov temelji delna ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne vzbudi nujno zveze med znakoma v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj so lahko na primer upoštevni trgi popolnoma različni.
A full analysis must take place.
Opraviti je treba celovito analizo.
This is because the similarity of the signs is only one of the factors to be considered when assessing whether there is such a link (see the relevant criteria listed under paragraph 3.3 below on the ‘link').
Razlog za to je, da je podobnost znakov samo eden od dejavnikov, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri presoji obstoja take povezave (glej ustrezna merila, navedena v odstavku 3.3 v nadaljevanju v zvezi z izrazom „zveza“).
Depending on the case, the following scenarios are possible.
Glede na posamezen primer so mogoči naslednji scenariji:
Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR fails because the signs are dissimilar - Article 8(5) EUTMR fails too, since the same conclusion applies.
Člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče uporabiti, ker so znaki različni, poleg tega ni mogoče uporabiti niti člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj velja ista ugotovitev.
Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is excluded (e.g. because the goods or services are dissimilar or very remotely similar), but the signs are similar - the examination of Article 8(5) EUTMR must be carried out (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 66-71).
Verjetnost zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je izključena (npr. ker so blago ali storitve različni ali le nekoliko podobni), vendar so znaki podobni - opraviti je treba preizkušanje člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 66-71).
The similarity of the signs together with the other relevant factors justifies the exclusion of likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, but the similarity between the signs might be sufficient to establish a link between them under Article 8(5) EUTMR, in view of the other relevant factors to be taken into account.
Podobnost znakov skupaj z drugimi upoštevnimi dejavniki upravičuje izključitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar lahko podobnost znakov morda zadostuje za vzpostavitev zveze med njimi v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ob upoštevanju drugih upoštevnih dejavnikov.
3.3 The link between the signs
Zveza med znakoma
The Court has made it clear that, in order to assess whether use of the contested mark would be likely to cause detriment to, or take unfair advantage of, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark, it is necessary to establish - once the signs have been found to be similar - whether, given all the relevant factors, a link (or association) between the signs will be established in the mind of the relevant public.
Sodišče je jasno določilo, da je treba za presojo, ali bi lahko izpodbijana znamka oškodovala ali brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje znamke, ugotoviti - ko je ugotovljeno, da sta znaka podobna -, ali se bo glede na vse upoštevne dejavnike v zavesti upoštevne javnosti med znakoma vzpostavila zveza (ali asociacija).
The subsequent case-law has made it clear that such an analysis should precede the final assessment of the existence of a risk of injury.
Iz poznejše sodne prakse je razvidno, da bi bilo treba takšno analizo opraviti pred končno presojo obstoja tveganja kršitve.
The term ‘link' is often also referred to as ‘association' in other paragraphs of this part of the Guidelines as well as in case-law.
Namesto izraza „zveza“ se v drugih delih teh smernic in sodni praksi pogosto uporablja tudi izraz „asociacija“.
These terms are, at times, used interchangeably.
Včasih se izraza uporabljata tako, da sta medsebojno zamenljiva.
The Court made it clear that the mere fact that the marks in question are similar is not sufficient for it to be concluded that there is a link between them.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da samo to, da sta si zadevni znamki podobni, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev zveze med njima.
Rather, whether or not there is a link between the marks at issue must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.
Namesto tega je treba vprašanje, ali je med zadevnima znamkama zveza, presojati celovito, ob upoštevanju vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov obravnavanega primera.
According to Intel (para. 42), the following may be relevant factors when assessing whether such a link exists.
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi Intel (točka 42) so pri presoji obstoja take zveze lahko upoštevni naslednji dejavniki:
The degree of similarity between the conflicting marks.
stopnja podobnosti med nasprotujočima si znamkama.
The more similar they are, the more likely it is that the later mark will bring the earlier mark with a reputation to the mind of the relevant public (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26 and, by analogy, 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44).
Bolj ko sta si podobni, verjetneje je, da bo upoštevna javnost ob poznejši znamki pomislila na prejšnjo znamko, ki ima ugled (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26, in po analogiji 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44),
The nature of the goods or services for which the earlier mark is reputed and the later mark seeks registration, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant section of the public.
vrsta blaga ali storitev, v zvezi s katerimi ima prejšnja znamka ugled, vključno s stopnjo podobnosti ali različnosti tega blaga ali storitev ter upoštevnim delom javnosti.
The 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 (Intel, paragraph 49).
Blago ali storitve so lahko tako različni, da ni verjetno, da bi upoštevna javnost ob poznejši znamki pomislila na prejšnjo znamko (Intel, točka 49),
The strength of the earlier mark's reputation.
intenzivnost ugleda prejšnje znamke,
The degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use.
stopnja razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke, ki ga ima sama po sebi ali ki je pridobljen z uporabo.
The more inherently distinctive the prior mark, the more likely it will be brought to a consumer's mind when encountering a similar (or identical) later mark.
Večji ko je svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, verjetneje je, da bo potrošnik pomislil nanjo, ko bo naletel na podobno (ali enako) poznejšo znamko,
The existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
obstoj verjetnosti zmede pri javnosti.
This list is not exhaustive, and a link between the marks at issue may be established or excluded on the basis of only some of those criteria.
Seznam ni izčrpen, zvezo med zadevnima znamkama pa je mogoče ugotoviti ali izključiti tudi na podlagi le nekaterih od navedenih meril.
The question of whether the relevant public will establish a link between the marks at issue is a question of fact, which must be answered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
Vprašanje, ali bo upoštevna javnost povezala zadevni znamki, je dejansko vprašanje, na katero je treba odgovoriti ob upoštevanju dejstev in okoliščin vsakega posameznega primera.
The assessment of whether a ‘link' will be established must take into account all the relevant factors that will then need to be balanced.
Pri presoji, ali se bo vzpostavila „zveza“, je treba upoštevati vse upoštevne dejavnike in jih uskladiti.
Therefore, even a faint or remote degree of similarity between the signs (which might not be sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR) still justifies assessing all the relevant factors to determine if it is likely that a link between the signs will be established in the mind of the relevant public.
Zato tudi zelo majhna ali bežna podobnost med znakoma (ki morda ne zadostuje za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) še vedno upravičuje presojo vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov za ugotovitev, ali je verjetno, da se bo v zavesti upoštevne javnosti vzpostavila zveza med znakoma.
In this respect, in its judgment of 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, the Court stated the following:
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče v sodbi z dne 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, navedlo:
Although that global assessment implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and a low degree of similarity between the marks may therefore be offset by the strong distinctive character of the earlier mark … the fact remains that where there is no similarity between the earlier mark and the challenged mark, the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark and the fact that the goods or services respectively covered are identical or similar are not sufficient for it to be found that … the relevant public makes a link between them ...
Čeprav ta celovita presoja predpostavlja nekaj soodvisnosti med dejavniki, ki se upoštevajo, saj lahko nizko stopnjo podobnosti med znamkami odtehta velik razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke [...] pa to še ne pomeni, da to, da je prejšnja znamka, če med njo in [izpodbijano] znamko ni podobnosti, splošno znana ali da ima ugled, ter enakost oziroma podobnost zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev ne zadostujeta za ugotovitev, da obstaja [...] verjetnost, da ju zadevna javnost poveže [...]
The General Court also found that the existence of a family of marks was a factor to be taken into account in assessing the establishment, on the part of the relevant public, of a link between the marks at issue (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73).
Splošno sodišče je odločilo tudi, da je obstoj družine znamk dejavnik, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri ugotavljanju, ali bo upoštevna javnost povezala zadevni znamki (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73).
Case-law has made it clear that a link is not sufficient, in itself, to establish that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96, and the case-law cited therein).
Iz sodne prakse je razvidno, da zveza sama po sebi ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja ene od oblik oškodovanja iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96, in tam navedena sodna praksa).
However, as will be explained in detail under paragraph 3.4, ‘The risk of injury', below, the existence of a link (or association) between the signs is necessary before it can be determined whether detriment or unfair advantage is likely.
Vendar kot je podrobno pojasnjeno v spodnjem odstavku 3.4 Tveganje kršitve, mora med znakoma obstajati zveza (ali asociacija), preden se lahko ugotavlja verjetnost oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja.
Examples where a link was found between the signs
Primeri, v katerih je bila ugotovljena zveza med znaki
The following are examples where it was found that the degree of similarity between the signs (together with further factors) was sufficient to conclude that consumers would establish a link between them.
V naslednjih primerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da stopnja podobnosti med znaki (skupaj z dodatnimi dejavniki) zadostuje za ugotovitev, da jih bodo potrošniki povezali.
Examples where no link was found between the signs
Primeri, v katerih zveza med znaki ni bila ugotovljena
The following are examples where an overall assessment of all of the relevant factors showed that it was unlikely that a link would be established between the signs.
V naslednjih primerih je celovita presoja vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov pokazala, da ni verjetno, da bi se vzpostavila zveza med znaki.
3.4 The risk of injury
Tveganje kršitve
[4: For the purposes of these Guidelines, the term ‘injury' covers taking ‘unfair advantage' even though in such cases there is not necessarily an ‘injury' in the sense of detriment either to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor.]
[4: Za namene teh Smernic pojem „kršitev“ zajema „neupravičeno izkoriščanje“, čeprav v teh primerih ne gre nujno za „kršitev“ v smislu oškodovanja razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda znamke ali, splošneje, njenega imetnika.]
3.4.1 Protected subject matter
Predmet varstva
Article 8(5) EUTMR does not protect the reputation of the earlier mark as such, in the sense that it does not intend to prevent the registration of all marks identical with or similar to a mark with reputation.
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne ščiti ugleda prejšnje znamke kot takega, saj ni namenjen preprečevanju registracije vseh znamk, ki so enake ali podobne znamki z ugledom.
In addition, there must be a likelihood that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark.
Poleg tega mora obstajati verjetnost, da bo uporaba znamke, za katero je vložena izpodbijana prijava, brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje znamke.
The Court confirmed this by stating that once the condition as to the existence of reputation is fulfilled, the examination has to proceed regarding the condition that the earlier mark must be detrimentally affected without due cause (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
Sodišče je to potrdilo z navedbo, da je treba začeti preizkušanje, ko je izpolnjen pogoj glede obstoja ugleda, vendar mora biti prejšnja znamka oškodovana brez upravičenega razloga (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
The Court did not set out in more detail exactly what would count as detriment or unfair advantage, even though it stated in Sabèl that Article 8(5) EUTMR ‘[does] not require proof of likelihood of confusion', thereby stating the obvious, namely that the enlarged protection granted to reputed marks is not concerned with their function of origin (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 20).
Sodišče ni podrobneje opredelilo, kaj natančno šteje za škodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje, čeprav je v sodbi v zadevi Sabèl navedlo, da se v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zahteva dokaz o verjetnosti zmede, kar je jasno, saj razširjeno varstvo znamk z ugledom ni odvisno od njihove funkcije označevanja izvora (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 20).
However, in a series of previous decisions, the Court stated that apart from indicating origin, a trade mark may also fulfil other functions worthy of protection.
Vendar je Sodišče v več predhodnih odločbah navedlo, da ima lahko znamka poleg označevanja izvora tudi druge funkcije, ki jih je vredno zaščititi.
More particularly, it confirmed that a trade mark can offer a guarantee that all the goods coming from a single undertaking have the same quality (guarantee function) and that it can serve as an advertising instrument by reflecting back the goodwill and prestige it has acquired in the market (advertising function) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 & C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82).
Natančneje, Sodišče je potrdilo, da lahko blagovna znamka jamči (funkcija jamstva) enako kakovost vsega blaga istega podjetja in se lahko uporablja kot orodje za oglaševanje z odražanjem dobrega imena in prestiža, ki ju je pridobila na trgu (funkcija oglaševanja) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 in C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82).
It follows that trade marks serve not only to indicate the origin of a product, but also to convey a certain message or image to the consumer, which is incorporated in the sign mostly through use and, once acquired, forms part of its distinctiveness and repute.
Iz tega sledi, da se znamke ne uporabljajo samo za označevanje izvora izdelkov, ampak potrošniku tudi sporočajo neko sporočilo ali podobo, ki se znaku pripišeta predvsem z uporabo ter tako postaneta del njegovega razlikovalnega učinka in ugleda.
In most cases of reputation these features of the trade mark will be particularly developed, as the commercial success of a brand is usually based on product quality, successful promotion, or both, and, for this reason, will be especially valuable to the trade mark owner.
V večini primerov, povezanih z ugledom, so te značilnosti znamke še posebno poudarjene, saj tržni uspeh znamke navadno temelji na kakovosti izdelka, uspešni promociji ali obojem hkrati, zaradi česar so te značilnosti za imetnika znamke posebno dragocene.
This added value of a mark with reputation is precisely what Article 8(5) EUTMR intends to protect against undue detriment or unfair advantage.
Ta dodana vrednost znamke z ugledom je natančno to, čemur je namenjeno varstvo pred neupravičenim oškodovanjem ali neupravičenim izkoriščanjem v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Hence, the protection under Article 8(5) EUTMR extends to all cases where the use of the contested trade mark applied for is likely to have an adverse effect on the earlier mark, in the sense that it would diminish its attractiveness (detriment to distinctiveness) or devalue the image it has acquired among the public (detriment to repute), or where use of the contested mark is likely to result in misappropriation of its powers of attraction or exploitation of its image and prestige (taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute).
Zato se varstvo na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša na vse primere, kadar lahko uporaba izpodbijane znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, škoduje prejšnji znamki, tako da zmanjša njeno privlačnost (oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka) ali razvrednoti podobo, ki jo je prejšnja znamka pridobila v javnosti (oškodovanje ugleda), ali kadar lahko uporaba izpodbijane znamke neupravičeno prisvoji njeno privlačnost ali izkoristi njeno podobo in prestiž (neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda).
Given also that a very strong reputation is both easier to harm and more tempting to take advantage of, owing to its great value, the Court underlined that ‘the stronger the earlier mark's distinctive character and reputation the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Glede na to, da je zelo velik ugled lažje oškodovati in tudi privlačneje izkoristiti zaradi njegove velike vrednosti, je Sodišče poudarilo, da „[p]omembnejša ko sta razlikovalni značaj in ugled prejšnje znamke, lažje bo nastala kršitev“ (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Even though the Court did not say so expressly, the same must be accepted as regards the unfair advantage that the applicant might enjoy at the expense of the earlier mark.
Čeprav Sodišče tega ni izrecno navedlo, je treba enako ugotovitev sprejeti tudi v zvezi z neupravičeno koristjo, ki jo lahko prijavitelj pridobi v škodo prejšnje znamke.
3.4.2 Assessment of the risk of injury
Ocena tveganja kršitve
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court did not deal with the assessment of detriment and unfair advantage in great detail, as this issue was not part of the question referred to it.
Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors) ni podrobno presojalo oškodovanja in neupravičenega izkoriščanja, saj ta presoja ni bila del vprašanja, ki mu je bilo predloženo v obravnavo.