natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Below is an example where misuse can be established already on the basis of the filing of the application in view of the composition of the trade mark applied for:
V nadaljevanju je naveden primer, v katerem se lahko zloraba ugotovi že na podlagi vložitve prijave glede na sestavo blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava:
The establishment of ‘misuse' due to use in trade is more difficult to find in an absolute grounds for refusal examination.
Obstoj „zlorabe“ zaradi uporabe v trgovini je težje ugotoviti v preizkušanju absolutnih razlogov za zavrnitev.
The Office's examination is an ex parte assessment, which takes place normally before the applicant has actually used the trade mark.
Preizkušanje, ki ga opravi Urad, je enostranska presoja, ki običajno poteka, preden prijavitelj dejansko uporabi blagovno znamko.
Therefore, in most cases, it would be difficult for the Office to prove that the trade mark ‘misuses' the PDO/PGI if this point does not stem clearly from the sign.
Zato bi Urad v večini primerov težko dokazal, da blagovna znamka zlorablja ZOP/ZGO, če to ni jasno razvidno iz znaka.
As indicated above, the location of the applicant's legal seat as indicated in the EUTM application is irrelevant.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, kraj pravnega sedeža prijavitelja, naveden v prijavi blagovne znamke EU, ni pomemben.
The Office considers that the applicant files the trade mark in good faith.
Urad meni, da prijavitelj vloži prijavo blagovne znamke v dobri veri.
3.4 Other misleading indications and practices
251/2014, člen 16(c) in (d) Uredbe (ES) št.
Although it very much depends on the particularities of each case, each of which must therefore be assessed individually, an EUTM may be considered misleading when, for example, it contains figurative elements that are typically associated with the geographical area in question (such as well-known historical monuments) or when it reproduces a particular shape of a product.
Zgoraj navedeno je treba razlagati restriktivno: nanaša se samo na blagovne znamke EU, ki prikazujejo znano in edinstveno podobo, ki se na splošno šteje za simbol posebnega kraja izvora proizvodov, zaščitenih z označbo ZOP/ZGO, ali edinstveno obliko proizvoda, ki je opisana v specifikacijah zadevne ZOP/ZGO.
3.5 Exploitation of the reputation of PDOs/PGIs
251/2014, členom 16(a) Uredbe (ES) št.
This protection extends even to different products (12/06/2007, T53/04 - T56/04, T58/04 & T59/04, Budweiser, EU:T:2007:167, § 175).
To varstvo zajema celo različne proizvode (12/06/2007, T53/04 - T56/04, T58/04 & T59/04, Budweiser, EU:T:2007:167, § 175).
Other products and services are not objected to.
Zoper druge proizvode in storitve se ugovor ne vloži.
However, the extended scope of protection of a PDO/PGI with reputation can be invoked in the context of Article 8(6) EUTMR (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 4, Rights under Article 8(4) and 8(6) EUTMR).
Vendar se je mogoče na razširjeni obseg varstva označbe ZOP/ZGO z ugledom sklicevati v okviru člena 8(6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 4: Pravice iz člena 8(4) in (6) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
3.6 Limits to the scope of protection
Omejitve obsega varstva
3.6.1 Elements that will not be afforded protection
Elementi, za katere se varstvo ne zagotovi
3.6.1.1 Descriptive elements within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR
Opisni elementi v smislu člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
In the PGI ‘Ron de Málaga', it is a well-known fact that the term ‘ron' (the Spanish word for rum) is descriptive in the sense of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR and therefore is not protected.
V ZGO „Ron de Málaga“ je dobro znano, da je izraz „ron“ (španska beseda za rum) opisen v smislu člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in zato ni zaščiten.
Accordingly, no objection will be raised to the mere fact that an EUTM contains a descriptive element that is part of a PDO/PGI.
V skladu s tem ne bo vložen noben ugovor le zaradi dejstva, da blagovna znamka EU vsebuje opisni element, ki je del označbe ZOP/ZGO.
Other examples include the PGIs ‘Maçã de Alcobaça' (‘maçã' is the Portuguese word for apple) and ‘Jambon d'Ardenne' (‘jambon' is the French word for ham).
Drugi primeri vključujejo označbi ZGO „Maçã de Alcobaça“ (maçã je portugalska beseda za jabolko) in „Jambon d'Ardenne“ (jambon je francoska beseda za šunko).
Where the descriptive nature of an element in a PDO/PGI can be determined by standard dictionary definitions, the perspective of the public in the country of origin of the PDO/PGI is determinative.
Če je mogoče opisno naravo nekega elementa v označbi ZOP/ZGO določiti na podlagi standardnih slovarskih opredelitev, je odločilen vidik javnosti v državi porekla označbe ZOP/ZGO.
For instance, in the example cited above, it suffices that the term ‘ron' will be perceived by the Spanish-speaking consumers as denoting an alcoholic spirit distilled from sugar-cane residues or molasses for it to be concluded that it is descriptive, regardless of whether or not it can be understood by other parts of the public in the European Union.
V zgoraj navedenem primeru na primer zadostuje, da bodo špansko govoreči potrošniki izraz „ron“ zaznali kot izraz za alkoholno pijačo, destilirano iz ostankov ali melase sladkornega trsa, da se šteje za opisnega, in to ne glede na to, ali ga lahko razume druga javnost v Evropski uniji.
By contrast, where no definition can be found in a standard, well-known dictionary, the descriptive nature of the term in question should be assessed following the criteria laid down by the Court, such as relevant national and EU legislation, how the term is perceived by the public, and circumstances relating to the marketing of the product in question (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 12/09/2007, T291/03, Grana Biraghi, EU:T:2007:255).
Nasprotno pa je treba, kadar v standardnem, priznanem slovarju ni mogoče najti opredelitve, opisni značaj izraza presoditi na podlagi meril, ki jih določi Sodišče, kot so ustrezna nacionalna zakonodaja in zakonodaja EU, kako javnost zaznava izraz in okoliščine, povezane s trženjem zadevnega proizvoda (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 12/09/2007, T291/03, Grana Biraghi, EU:T:2007:255).
The terms ‘camembert' and ‘brie' have been recognised as generic by the Court of Justice (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 36, 52).
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da sta izraza „camembert“ in „brie“ generična (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 36, 52).
See the PDOs Camembert de Normandie (FR/PDO/0017/0112), Brie de Meaux (FR/PDO/0017/0110) and Brie de Melun (FR/PDO/0017/0111).
Glej označbe ZOP „Camembert de Normandie“ (FR/PDO/0017/0112), „Brie de Meaux“ (FR/PDO/0017/0110) in „Brie de Melun“ (FR/PDO/0017/0111).
When terms have been declared as being ‘generic' by the EU judicature or legislation, no objection will be raised.
Če sodišča ali zakonodaja EU ugotovijo, da je izraz generičen, se ugovor ne vloži.
3.6.2 Terms commonly used in trade
Izrazi, ki se pogosto uporabljajo v trgovini
In particular, the Office will assess whether, by including the terms in the sign, the image triggered in the mind of the consumer is that of the product whose designation is protected.
Urad zlasti presodi, ali zaradi vključitve izrazov v znak potrošnik pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je zaščitena.
3.6.3 Surnames or family names
Priimki
A PGI/PDO that coincides with surnames or family names, when used in combination with other elements, is, based on the criteria mentioned above, unlikely to remind the relevant consumer of the product protected under the relevant PDO/PGI.
Za ZOP/ZGO, ki sovpada s priimki ali domačimi imeni in se uporablja z drugimi elementi, ni verjetno, da bo na podlagi prej navedenih meril upoštevnega potrošnika spomnila na proizvod, zaščiten z zadevno ZOP/ZGO.
Again, objections should not automatically be raised just because of the presence of a PDO/PGI term in the trade mark.
Samo zaradi izraza iz ZOP/ZGO v blagovni znamki ni treba samodejno vložiti ugovorov.
For instance, the term ‘Leon' is included in the PDO ‘Tierra de León' and the PGI ‘Castilla y León', both for wines.
Na primer, izraz Leon je vključen v ZOP „Tierra de León“ in ZGO „Castilla y León“, ki se uporabljata za vina.
However, in combination with a first name, it is more likely to be perceived as a family name rather than an indication of geographical origin (25/04/2012, R 2274/20114, MICHEL LEON); however, see, on the contrary, decision of 07/07/2015, R 1944/20142, FRAY LEÓN, which was rejected.
V kombinaciji z imenom pa je verjetneje, da se zazna kot priimek, in ne kot označba geografskega porekla (25/04/2012, R 2274/20114, MICHEL LEON); nasprotno pa glej odločbo 07/07/2015, R 1944/20142, FRAY LEÓN, ki je bila zavrnjena.
The term ‘Lorenzo' is included in the PDO ‘Castel San Lorenzo' for wines.
Izraz „Lorenzo“ je vključen v ZOP „Castel San Lorenzo“ za vina.
3.6.4 Names of countries
Imena držav
There are a number of PGIs for spirit drinks where the geographical significant part of the PGI refers to a whole country, for example: Polska Wódka/Polish Vodka; Suomalainen Vodka/Finsk Vodka/Vodka of Finland; Svensk Vodka/Swedish Vodka; Original Lithuanian vodka; Estonian vodka; Anis portugês; Ginjinha portuguesa; Whisky español; Anís español; Dansk Akvavit/Dansk aquavit; Brandy français/Brandy de France; Slovenská borovička; Brandi italiano; Irish whiskey.
V številnih označbah ZGO za žgane pijače se geografsko pomemben del označbe ZGO nanaša na celotno državo, na primer: Polska Wódka/Polish Vodka, Suomalainen Vodka/Finsk Vodka/Vodka of Finland, Svensk Vodka/Swedish Vodka, Original Lithuanian vodka, Estonian vodka, Anis portugês, Ginjinha portuguesa, Whisky español, Anís español, Dansk Akvavit/Dansk aquavit, Brandy français/Brandy de France, Slovenská borovička, Brandi italiano, Irish whiskey.
Such PGIs deserve the protection afforded by Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.
Take ZGO si zaslužijo zaščito, ki jo zagotavlja Uredba (ES) št.
In this sense, protection of the PGIs does not automatically extend to prohibitions of use of the name of the country or of its adjective for any spirit drink or, more broadly, any alcoholic beverage.
V tem smislu zaščita označb ZGO ne zajema samodejno prepovedi uporabe imena države ali njegovega pridevnika za katero koli žgano pijačo ali, širše, katero koli alkoholno pijačo.
3.7 Trade marks in conflict with two or more PDOs/PGIs
Blagovne znamke, ki sovpadajo z dvema ali več označb ZOP/ZGO
In some cases an EUTM application may constitute direct/indirect use or evocation of more than one PDO/PGI at the same time.
Prijava blagovne znamke EU lahko v nekaterih primerih pomeni neposredno/posredno uporabo ali navajanje več ZOP/ZGO hkrati.
This is likely to happen when the EUTM application contains an element (not being a generic one) that appears in more than one PDO/PGI.
To se verjetno zgodi, kadar blagovna znamka EU vsebuje element (ki ni splošen), ki se pojavlja v več ZOP/ZGO.
A number of scenarios can be identified:
Navesti je mogoče številne scenarije:
use/evocation of two (or more) different PGIs/PDOs for identical products: the objection cannot be overcome by limiting the goods to those that comply with either one of or all of the PDOs/PGIs as this would necessarily trigger another objection under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR and possibly under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR, since such a limitation would inevitably and confusingly identify the goods with a geographical origin other than that of the PDO/PGI in question.
uporaba/navajanje dveh (ali več) različnih ZGO/ZOP za identične proizvode: ugovora ni mogoče odpraviti z omejitvijo blaga na tisto, ki je v skladu s katero koli od označb ZOP/ZGO ali vsemi označbami ZOP/ZGO, saj bi bilo to nujno povod za nov ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in po možnosti na podlagi člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ker bi takšna omejitev neizogibno in na način, ki povzroča zmedo, opredelila blago z geografskim poreklom, ki se razlikuje od geografskega porekla zadevne ZOP/ZGO.
Use/evocation of two (or more) different PGIs/PDOs for different products:
Uporaba/navajanje dveh (ali več) različnih označb ZGO/ZOP za različne proizvode:
Use/evocation of two (or more) PGIs/PDOs sharing common term(s) for identical products: the objection can be waived if a limitation for one or more of the PGIs/PDOs is introduced.
Uporaba/navajanje dveh (ali več) označb ZGO/ZOP, ki imata skupni izraz/skupne izraze za identične proizvode: ugovor se lahko odpravi, če se uvede omejitev za eno ali več ZGO/ZOP.
Use/evocation of two (or more) PGIs/PDOs sharing common term(s) for different products: an objection can be waived for those goods where an appropriate limitation is introduced.
Uporaba/navajanje dveh (ali več) označb ZGO/ZOP, ki imata skupni izraz/skupne izraze za različne proizvode: ugovor se lahko odpravi za tisto blago, za katero je uvedena ustrezna omejitev.
Use/evocation of two (or more) PGIs/PDOs sharing common term(s) for comparable products: an objection can be waived if a limitation is properly introduced and the deceptive goods deleted from the list.
Uporaba/navajanje dveh (ali več) označb ZGO/ZOP, ki imata skupni izraz/skupne izraze za primerljive proizvode: ugovor se lahko odpravi, če se ustrezno uvede omejitev in se zavajajoče blago črta s seznama.
4 Relevant Goods under EU Regulations
Ustrezno blago v skladu z uredbami EU
Objections based on Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR can be raised only for specific goods of the EUTM application, namely those that are identical or ‘comparable' to ones covered by the PDO/PGI.
Ugovore na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je mogoče vložiti samo za posebno blago iz prijave blagovne znamke EU, in sicer za blago, ki je enako ali primerljivo s tistim, ki je zaščiteno z ZOP/ZGO.
The Office does not raise objections against different goods or against services.
Urad ne vloži ugovorov zoper različno blago ali storitve.
4.1 Identical products
Identični proizvodi
Identification of the specific products that are covered by a PDO/PGI can be a complex exercise.
Identifikacija posebnih proizvodov, ki jih zajema ZOP/ZGO, je lahko zahtevna naloga.
They are further specified in the product category that appears in the E-Spirit-Drinks database.
Podrobneje so opredeljeni v kategoriji proizvodov, ki je na voljo v podatkovni zbirki E-Spirit-Drinks.
For instance, Polish Cherry is protected for liqueur, Cognac for wine spirit and Scotch Whisky for whisky.
Polish Cherry je na primer zaščiten za liker, Cognac za vinsko žganje in Scotch Whisky za viski.
However, there are a number of exceptions.
Vendar so številne izjeme.
For example:
Na primer:
Class 22: wool (e.g. native Shetland wool);
razred 22: volna (npr. naravna šetlandska volna),
Importantly, the product covered by the PDO/PGI is the one specified in the description of the product in the Official Journal publication containing the application for registration.
Proizvod, zaščiten z označbo ZOP/ZGO, je proizvod, ki je naveden v opisu proizvoda v objavi Uradnega lista, ki vsebuje prijavo za registracijo.
The DOOR database includes a link to this publication (C series).
Podatkovna zbirka DOOR vključuje povezavo na to objavo (serija C).
This product should not be confused with the product class under which the DOOR database classifies the PDO/PGI.
Ta proizvod se ne sme zamenjevati z razredom proizvoda, v katerega podatkovna zbirka DOOR razvršča označbo ZOP/ZGO.
For instance, the PGI ‘Welsh Beef' only covers ‘beef' but it is classified in DOOR under ‘Class 1.1.
Na primer, označba ZGO „Welsh Beef“ zajema samo „govedino“, vendar je v podatkovni zbirki DOOR razvrščena v razred „1.1.
Fresh meat (and offal)'.
Sveže meso (in drobovina)“.
Similarly, the PDO ‘Pomme du Limousin' only covers ‘apples' but it is classified in DOOR under ‘Class 1.6.
Podobno označba ZOP „Pomme du Limousin“ zajema samo jabolka, vendar je v podatkovni zbirki DOOR razvrščena v razred 1.6.
Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed'.
Sadje, zelenjava in žita, sveži ali predelani.
Whether ‘beef' or ‘apples' are comparable to other types of ‘meat' or ‘fruits' is a different assessment (see paragraph 4.2 below).
Ali so „govedina“ in „jabolka“ primerljivi z drugimi vrstami „mesa“ oziroma „sadja“, je stvar drugačne presoje (glej odstavek 4.2 v nadaljevanju).
The applicant may overcome the objection by restricting the list of goods.
Prijavitelj lahko odpravi ugovor z omejitvijo seznama blaga.
This is further explained in paragraph 4.3 below.
To je dodatno pojasnjeno v odstavku 4.3 v nadaljevanju.
4.2 Comparable products
Primerljivi proizvodi
PDO/PGIs are protected not only as regards trade marks applied for in respect of identical products to the product covered by the PDO/PGIs but also, under certain circumstances, as regards comparable products.
ZOP/ZGO so zaščitene ne samo glede blagovnih znamk, za katere je vložena prijava v zvezi s proizvodi, ki so identični proizvodu, ki ga zajemajo ZOP/ZGO, ampak v določenih okoliščinah tudi glede primerljivih proizvodov.
Importantly, while PDO/PGI protection against comparable goods is automatic in situations of direct or indirect use of PDO/PGIs, there is no such automatic protection in cases of evocation.
Pomembno je, da ni samodejne zaščite v primerih prikazovanja, čeprav je zaščita ZOP/ZGO pred primerljivimi proizvodi samodejna v primeru neposredne ali posredne rabe ZOP/ZGO.
As explained in paragraph 3.3 above, consumers must also establish a link between the term used to designate the product (i.e. the trade mark) and the product whose designation is protected.
Kot je pojasnjeno v zgornjem odstavku 3.3, mora potrošnik tudi ustvariti povezavo med izrazom, ki je uporabljen za opis proizvoda (tj. blagovno znamko), in proizvodom, katerega označba je zaščitena.
In establishing the link, the degree of proximity of the products is one of the factors to be taken into account.
Pri vzpostavljanju povezave je stopnja bližine proizvodov eden od dejavnikov, ki ga je treba upoštevati.
As a consequence, it is necessary to assess, given all the relevant factors, whether a link will be established in the mind of the relevant public.
Zato je nujno glede na vse pomembne dejavnike presoditi, ali bo upoštevna javnost v mislih ustvarila povezavo.
For instance, the expression ‘POLISH TASTE' for vodka evokes the PGI ‘Polish vodka'.
Na primer, izraz „POLISH TASTE“ za vodko navaja označbo ZGO „Polish vodka“.
However, the Office considers that the expression ‘POLISH TASTE' for whisky does not evoke the PGI Polish vodka, considering the differences between whisky and vodka.
Urad pa meni, da izraz „POLISH TASTE“ za viski glede na razlike med viskijem in vodko ne navaja označbe ZGO Polish vodka.
In other words, the Office considers that even if all spirit drinks are comparable products, the relevant consumers will not establish a link between a bottle of whisky marketed under the trade mark ‘POLISH TASTE' and vodka protected by the designation ‘Polish vodka', taking into account the differences between whisky and vodka (e.g. different characteristics, ingredients and taste) and the fact that the PGI ‘Polish vodka' is not fully reproduced in the trade mark.
Z drugimi besedami, Urad ob upoštevanju razlik med viskijem in vodko (npr. druge značilnosti, sestavine in okus) ter dejstva, da ZGO „Polish vodka“ ni v celoti reproducirana v blagovni znamki, meni, da tudi če so vse žgane pijače primerljivi proizvodi, upoštevni potrošnik ne bo ustvaril povezave med steklenico viskija, ki se trži pod blagovno znamko „POLISH TASTE“, in vodko, zaščiteno z ZGO „Polish vodka“.
Similarly, the expression ‘M.
Podobno izraz „M.
Müller - Real Bavarian Quality of Bodensee) for beef evokes the PGI ‘Bayerisches Rindfleisch' (beef from Bavaria).
Müller - Prava bavarska kakovost z Bodenskega jezera) za govedino prikazuje ZGO „Bayerisches Rindfleisch“ (bavarska govedina).
However, the Office considers that the same expression for poultry will not evoke the PGI ‘Bayerisches Rindfleisch'.
Urad pa meni, da enak izraz za perutnino ne navaja ZGO „Bayerisches Rindfleisch“.
The Office considers that even if meat products are comparable, the relevant consumers will not establish a link between poultry meat marketed under the trade mark ‘M.
MÜLLER - ECHTE BAYERISCHE QUALITÄT VON BODENSEE“, in govedino, zaščiteno z ZGO „Bayerisches Rindfleisch“.
MÜLLER - ECHTE BAYERISCHE QUALITÄT VON BODENSEE' and beef protected by the designation ‘Bayerisches Rindfleisch', taking into account the differences between beef and poultry and the fact that the PGI ‘Bayerisches Rindfleisch' is not fully reproduced in the trade mark.
Predpisi EU o označbi ZOP/ZGO zajemajo sklicevanja na različne izraze, ki jih Urad vse razlaga kot sopomenke za primerljivo blago.
The EU PDO/PGI regulations contain references to different expressions, all interpreted by the Office as synonyms of comparable goods.
Urad si različna izraza, uporabljena v členu 102(1) in členu 103(2) Uredbe (EU) št.
Specifically for wines, the different terms used in Articles 102(1) and 103(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (‘product falling under one of the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII' and ‘comparable products' respectively) are interpreted by the Office as synonyms referring to the same concept.
1308/2013 („proizvod, ki spada v eno od kategorij s seznama v delu II Priloge VII“ oziroma „primerljivi proizvodi“), zlasti za vina razlaga kot sopomenki, ki se nanašata na isti pojem.
For ease of reference, the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII can be grouped in: (i) wine; (ii) sparkling wine; (iii) grape must; (iv) wine vinegar.
Za lažje sklicevanje je mogoče kategorije iz dela II Priloge VII združiti v: (i) vino, (ii) peneče vino, (iii) grozdni mošt in (iv) vinski kis.
They are classified into the following categories: aromatised wines; aromatised wine-based drinks; and aromatised wine-product cocktails.
Razvrščeni so v naslednje kategorije: aromatizirana vina, aromatizirane pijače na osnovi vina in aromatizirani koktajli iz vinskih proizvodov.
The notion of comparable goods must be understood restrictively and is independent of the analysis of similarity between goods in trade mark law.
Pojem primerljivega blaga, ki ga je treba razumeti restriktivno, je neodvisen od analize podobnosti med blagom v okviru zakonodaje o znamkah.
Accordingly, the criteria set out in the judgment of 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, should not necessarily be adhered to, although some of them may be useful.
V skladu s tem ni treba nujno upoštevati meril iz sodbe 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, čeprav so lahko nekatera med njimi koristna.
For example, given that a PDO/PGI serves to indicate the geographical origin and the particular qualities of a product, criteria such as the nature of the product or its composition are more relevant than, for instance, whether or not goods are complementary.
Ker se na primer ZOP/ZGO uporablja za označevanje geografskega porekla in posebnih lastnosti proizvoda, so merila, kot je vrsta proizvoda ali njegova sestava, pomembnejša kot na primer to, ali je blago komplementarno ali ne.
In particular, the CJEU (14/07/2011, C4/10 & C27/10, BNI Cognac, EU:C:2011:484, § 54) has developed certain criteria for determining whether goods are comparable, specifically whether or not the products have common objective characteristics, such as method of elaboration, physical appearance of the product or use of the same raw materials.
Sodišče (14/07/2011, C4/10 & C27/10, BNI Cognac, EU:C:2011:484, § 54) je razvilo nekatera merila za določanje, ali je blago primerljivo, še zlasti, ali imajo proizvodi skupne objektivne lastnosti, kot so način izdelave, fizični videz proizvoda ali uporaba istih surovin.
In addition, factors such as whether the products are consumed, from the point of view of the relevant public, on largely identical occasions, or whether or not they are distributed through the same channels and/or subject to similar marketing rules, can be taken into account in order to confirm whether goods are comparable.
Poleg tega je mogoče za potrditev, ali je blago primerljivo, upoštevati dejavnike, kot so, ali zadevna javnost proizvode uživa v pretežno enakih okoliščinah, ali se distribuirajo po istih distribucijskih mrežah in/ali zanje veljajo podobna tržna pravila.