natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
…if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark (emphasis added).
[…] če zaradi enakosti ali podobnosti s prejšnjo blagovno znamko in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga ali storitev, ki jih označujejo blagovne znamke, obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti na ozemlju, na katerem je varovana prejšnja blagovna znamka; verjetnost zmede zajema verjetnost povezovanja s prejšnjo blagovno znamko (dodan poudarek).
Hence, in contrast to situations of double identity as seen above, in cases of mere similarity between the signs and the goods/services, or identity of only one of these two factors, an earlier trade mark may successfully oppose an EUTM application under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR only if there is a likelihood of confusion.
Zato lahko v nasprotju s primeri dvojne enakosti, kot so bili navedeni zgoraj, prejšnja blagovna znamka v primerih le podobnosti med znaki in blagom ali storitvami ali enakosti le enega od teh dveh dejavnikov uspešno ugovarja prijavi blagovne znamke EU na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU le, če obstaja verjetnost zmede.
2.3 Interrelation of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR
Medsebojna povezanost člena 8(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Although the specific conditions under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR differ, they are related.
Čeprav se posebni pogoji iz člena 8(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlikujejo, so povezani.
Consequently, in oppositions dealing with Article 8(1) EUTMR, if Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is the only ground claimed but identity between the signs and/or the goods/services cannot be established, the Office will still examine the case under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, which requires at least similarity between signs and goods/services and likelihood of confusion.
Zato bo Urad pri obravnavi ugovorov na podlagi člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, pri katerih je edini razlog tisti iz člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar enakosti med znaki in/ali blagom ali storitvami ni mogoče opredeliti, vseeno proučil primer v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki zahteva vsaj podobnost med znaki in blagom ali storitvami ter verjetnost zmede.
Similarity covers situations where both marks and goods/services are similar and also situations where the marks are identical and the goods/services are similar or vice versa.
Podobnost zajema primere, kadar so znamke in blago ali storitve podobni, ter primere, kadar so blagovne znamke enake in blago ali storitve podobni ter obratno.
Likewise, an opposition based only on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR that meets the requirements of Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR will be dealt with under the latter provision without any examination under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Podobno bo ugovor, ki temelji le na členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, obravnavan na podlagi zadnjenavedene določbe brez vsakršnega preizkušanja na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3 The Notion of Likelihood of Confusion
Pojem verjetnost zmede
The assessment of likelihood of confusion is a calculus applied in situations of conflict between trade marks in proceedings before the Office, the General Court and the Court of Justice as well as in infringement proceedings before the courts of the Member States.
Presoja verjetnosti zmede je metoda, ki se uporablja v primerih nasprotujočih si blagovnih znamk v postopku pred Uradom, Splošnim sodiščem in Sodiščem ter v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev pred sodišči držav članic.
However, neither the EUTMR nor the Directive contains a definition of likelihood of confusion or a statement as to precisely what ‘confusion' refers to.
Vendar ne Uredba o blagovni znamki EU ne direktiva ne vključujeta opredelitve pojma verjetnost zmede ali navedbe, na kaj natančno se nanaša „zmeda“.
As shown below, it has been settled case-law for some time now that fundamentally the concept of likelihood of confusion refers to situations where:
Kot je ponazorjeno v nadaljevanju, je že nekaj časa uveljavljena sodna praksa, da se pojem verjetnost zmede v bistvu nanaša na primere, kadar:
(1) the public directly confuses the conflicting trade marks, that is to say, mistakes the one for the other;
javnost neposredno zamenjuje nasprotujoče si blagovne znamke, tj. zamenjuje drugo za drugo;
(2) the public makes a connection between the conflicting trade marks and assumes that the goods/services in question are from the same or economically linked undertakings (likelihood of association).
javnost povezuje nasprotujoče si blagovne znamke in domneva, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (verjetnost povezovanja).
These two situations are further discussed below (see paragraph 3.2 below).
O teh dveh primerih se dodatno razpravlja v nadaljevanju (glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju).
The mere fact that the perception of a later trade mark brings to mind an earlier trade mark does not constitute likelihood of confusion.
Dejstvo, da zaznavanje poznejše blagovne znamke prikliče v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, ne pomeni verjetnosti zmede.
The Court has also established the principle that ‘marks with a highly distinctive character enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character' (see paragraph 3.3 below).
Sodišče EU je uveljavilo tudi načelo, da „blagovne znamke, ki imajo močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom“ (glej odstavek 3.3 v nadaljevanju).
Finally, the concept of likelihood of confusion as developed by the Court must be regarded as a legal concept rather than purely an empirical or factual assessment despite the fact that its analysis requires taking into account certain aspects of consumer cognitive behaviour and purchasing habits (see paragraph 3.4 below).
Nazadnje, pojem verjetnost zmede, kot ga je oblikovalo Sodišče EU, je treba obravnavati kot pravni pojem, in ne kot povsem empirično ali dejansko presojo, čeprav je treba pri njegovi analizi upoštevati nekatere vidike kognitivnega vedenja in nakupovalnih navad potrošnikov (glej odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju).
3.2 Likelihood of confusion and likelihood of association
Verjetnost zmede in verjetnost povezovanja
The Court considered likelihood of confusion comprehensively in Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528).
Sodišče EU je verjetnost zmede izčrpno obravnavalo v sodbi v zadevi Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528).
The Directive's equivalents of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and the recitals of the EUTMR clearly indicated that likelihood of confusion relates to confusion about the origin of goods/services, but the Court was required to consider what precisely this meant because there were opposing views on the meaning of, and the relationship between, ‘likelihood of confusion' and ‘likelihood of association', both of which are referred to in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
Določbe direktive, ki ustrezajo členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in uvodnim izjavam navedene uredbe, jasno določajo, da se verjetnost zmede nanaša na zmedo o izvoru blaga ali storitev, vendar je moralo Sodišče EU proučiti, kaj to natančno pomeni, saj so obstajala nasprotujoča si stališča o pomenu izrazov verjetnost zmede in verjetnost povezovanja ter razmerju med zadevnima izrazoma, ki sta navedena v členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
This issue needed to be resolved because it was argued that likelihood of association was broader than likelihood of confusion as it could cover instances where a later trade mark brought an earlier trade mark to mind but the consumer did not consider that the goods/services had the same commercial origin .
To vprašanje je bilo treba rešiti zaradi trditev, da je pojem verjetnost povezovanja širši od pojma verjetnost zmede, saj lahko zajema primere, kadar je poznejša blagovna znamka priklicala v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, pri čemer potrošnik ni menil, da imajo blago ali storitve isti tržni izvor.
Ultimately, the issue in Sabèl was whether the wording ‘the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association' meant that ‘likelihood of confusion' could cover a situation of association between trade marks that did not give rise to confusion as to origin.
V bistvu se je vprašanje v zadevi Sabèl glasilo, ali besedilo „verjetnost zmede zajema verjetnost povezovanja“ pomeni, da lahko verjetnost zmede obsega povezovanje med blagovnima znamkama, ki ne povzroči zmede glede izvora.
[5: The concept came from Benelux case-law and applied, inter alia, to non-reputed marks.]
[5: Pojem izhaja iz sodne prakse Beneluksa in se je med drugim uporabljal tudi za blagovne znamke brez ugleda.]
The Court found that likelihood of association is not an alternative to likelihood of confusion, but that it merely serves to define its scope.
Sodišče EU je ugotovilo, da pojem verjetnost povezovanja ni nadomestna možnost za pojem verjetnost zmede, temveč se uporablja le za opredelitev njegovega obsega.
Therefore, a finding of likelihood of confusion requires that there be confusion as to origin.
Zato mora za ugotovitev obstoja verjetnosti zmede obstajati zmeda glede izvora.
In Canon (paras 29-30), the Court clarified the scope of confusion as to origin when it held that:
Sodišče EU je v sodbi v zadevi Canon (točki 29 in 30) pojasnilo obseg zmede glede izvora in navedlo:
... the risk that the public might believe that the goods and services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion … there can be no such likelihood where it does not appear that the public could believe that the goods or services come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings (emphasis added).
[…] verjetnost zmede pomeni verjetnost, da bi javnost mislila, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij […] takšna verjetnost ne more obstajati, če se ne zdi, da bi lahko javnost mislila, da blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (dodan poudarek).
As seen above, likelihood of confusion relates to confusion as to commercial origin including economically linked undertakings.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, se verjetnost zmede nanaša na tržni izvor, vključno z gospodarsko povezanimi podjetji.
What matters is that the public believes that the control of the goods or services in question is in the hands of a single undertaking.
Pomembno je, da javnost misli, da ima nadzor nad zadevnim blagom ali storitvami samo eno podjetje.
The Court has not interpreted economically linked undertakings in the context of likelihood of confusion, but it has done so with respect to the free movement of goods/services.
Sodišče EU ni razlagalo gospodarsko povezanih podjetij v okviru verjetnosti zmede, vendar je to storilo v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga ali storitev.
In Ideal Standard the Court held:
Sodišče EU je v sodbi v zadevi Ideal Standard odločilo:
… A number of situations are covered: products put into circulation by the same undertaking, by a licensee, by a parent company, by a subsidiary of the same group, or by an exclusive distributor.
[…] To zajema več primerov: proizvode, ki jih daje na trg isto podjetje, pridobitelj licence, matična družba, hčerinska družba iz iste skupine ali izključni distributer.
… In all the cases mentioned, control [is] in the hands of a single body: the group of companies in the case of products put into circulation by a subsidiary; the manufacturer in the case of products marketed by the distributor; the licensor in the case of products marketed by a licensee.
[…] V vseh navedenih primerih je nadzor v rokah enega organa: skupine družb v primeru proizvodov, ki jih daje na trg hčerinska družba, proizvajalca v primeru proizvodov, ki jih trži distributer, dajalca licence v primeru proizvodov, ki jih trži pridobitelj licence.
In the case of a licence, the licensor can control the quality of the licensee's products by including in the contract clauses requiring the licensee to comply with his instructions and giving him the possibility of verifying such compliance.
Dajalec licence lahko v primeru licence nadzoruje kakovost proizvodov pridobitelja licence, tako da v pogodbo vključi klavzule, v skladu s katerimi mora pridobitelj licence ravnati v skladu z njegovimi navodili in mu omogočati preverjanje takšne skladnosti.
The origin that the trade mark is intended to guarantee is the same: it is not defined by reference to the manufacturer but by reference to the point of control of manufacture.
Izvor, ki ga blagovna znamka zagotavlja v skladu s svojim namenom, je isti: opredeljen ni na podlagi sklicevanja na proizvajalca, temveč na podlagi sklicevanja na točko nadzora proizvodnje.
Consequently, economic links will be presumed where the consumer assumes that the respective goods or services are marketed under the control of the trade mark proprietor.
V skladu s tem se domneva obstoj gospodarskih povezav, če potrošnik domneva, da se zadevno blago ali storitve tržijo pod nadzorom imetnika blagovne znamke.
Such control can be assumed to exist in the case of enterprises belonging to the same group of companies and in the case of licensing, merchandising or distribution arrangements as well as in any other situation where the consumer assumes that the use of the trade mark is normally possible only with the agreement of the trade mark proprietor.
Domnevati je mogoče, da takšen nadzor obstaja v primeru podjetij, ki spadajo v isto skupino družb, in v primeru ureditev licenciranja, trženja in distribucije, pa tudi v vseh drugih primerih, kadar potrošnik domneva, da je uporaba blagovne znamke običajno mogoča le s soglasjem njenega imetnika.
Therefore, the likelihood of confusion covers situations where:
Verjetnost zmede zato zajema primere, v katerih:
the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where
potrošnik neposredno zamenjuje blagovne znamke ali
the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings.
potrošnik povezuje nasprotujoče si znake in domneva, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij.
Hence, if the perception of a later trade mark merely brings to mind an earlier trade mark, but the consumer does not assume the same commercial origin, then this link does not constitute likelihood of confusion despite the existence of a similarity between the signs .
Če zato zaznavanje poznejše blagovne znamke samo prikliče v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, pri čemer potrošnik ne domneva, da imata blagovni znamki isti tržni izvor, potem to kljub podobnosti med znakoma ne pomeni verjetnosti zmede.
[6: Although such a situation could take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of an earlier mark under Article 8(5) EUTMR, see the Guidelines Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).]
[6: Čeprav bi se lahko v takšnem primeru neupravičeno izkoriščal ali bil oškodovan razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
3.3 Likelihood of confusion and distinctiveness of the earlier mark
Verjetnost zmede in razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke
The distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark has been held by the Court to be an important consideration when assessing likelihood of confusion, since:
Sodišče EU meni, da je pri presoji verjetnosti zmede razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke pomemben dejavnik, saj:
the more distinctive the earlier trade mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (see Sabèl, para. 24);
je verjetnost zmede toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (glej sodbo v zadevi Sabèl, točka 24),
trade marks with a highly distinctive character enjoy broader protection than trade marks with a less distinctive character (see in this regard Canon, para. 18)
blagovne znamke, ki imajo močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom (glej v zvezi s tem sodbo v zadevi Canon, točka 18),
however, the scope of protection of trade marks with low distinctive character will be narrower.
bo obseg varstva blagovnih znamk z majhnim razlikovalnim učinkom ožji.
One consequence of these findings is that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark may be a decisive factor towards establishing a likelihood of confusion when the similarity between the signs and/or the goods and services is low (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
Ena od posledic teh ugotovitev je, da je povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke lahko odločilni dejavnik za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede, če je stopnja podobnosti med zadevnimi znaki in/ali blagom in storitvami nizka (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
When the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark is low, this may be a factor weighing against likelihood of confusion.
Če je razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke majhen, je to lahko dejavnik proti verjetnosti zmede.
3.4 Likelihood of confusion: questions of fact and questions of law
Verjetnost zmede: vprašanja dejstev in vprašanja prava
The concept of likelihood of confusion is a legal concept rather than a mere factual evaluation of the rational judgments and emotional preferences that inform the consumer's cognitive behaviour and purchasing habits.
Pojem verjetnost zmede je pravni pojem in ne dejanska presoja racionalnih mnenj in čustvenih preferenc, ki vplivajo na kognitivno vedenje in nakupovalne navade potrošnikov.
Therefore, assessment of likelihood of confusion depends on both legal questions and facts.
Zato je presoja verjetnosti zmede odvisna od pravnih vprašanj in dejstev.
3.4.1 Fact and law - similarity of goods/services and of signs
Dejstva in pravo - podobnost blaga ali storitev in znakov
Determining the relevant factors for establishing likelihood of confusion and whether they exist is a question of law, that is to say, these factors are established by the relevant legislation, namely, the EUTMR and case-law.
Opredelitev ustreznih dejavnikov za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede in njihovega obstoja je pravno vprašanje, kar pomeni, da te dejavnike določa ustrezna zakonodaja, in sicer Uredba o blagovni znamki EU in sodna praksa.
For instance, Article 8(1) EUTMR establishes that the identity/similarity of goods/services is a condition for likelihood of confusion.
Tako na primer člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da je enakost/podobnost blaga/storitev pogoj za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede.
The identification of the relevant factors for evaluating whether this condition is met is also a question of law.
Vprašanje prava je tudi opredelitev ustreznih dejavnikov za presojo, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen.
The Court has identified the following factors for determining whether goods/services are similar:
Sodišče EU je opredelilo naslednje dejavnike za ugotavljanje podobnosti blaga ali storitev:
their nature
njihova narava,
their intended purpose
njihov namen,
their method of use
način njihove uporabe,
whether they are complementary or not
njihova dopolnilnost,
whether they are in competition or interchangeable
njihova konkurenčnost ali zamenljivost,
their distribution channels/points of sale
njihove distribucijske poti/prodajne točke,
their relevant public
njihova zadevna javnost,
their usual origin.
njihov običajni izvor
All these factors are legal concepts and determining the criteria to evaluate them is also a question of law.
Vsi ti dejavniki so pravni pojmi, opredelitev meril za njihovo presojo pa je prav tako vprašanje prava.
However, it is a question of fact whether, and to what degree, the legal criteria for determining, for instance, ‘nature', are fulfilled in a particular case.
Vendar je vprašanje dejstev, ali in v kakšnem obsegu so v konkretnem primeru izpolnjena pravna merila za opredelitev na primer „narave“.
By way of example, cooking fat does not have the same nature as petroleum lubricating oils and greases even though both contain a fat base.
V ponazoritev, maščobe za kuhanje nimajo enake narave kot mazalna olja in maščobe, čeprav vsebujejo maščobe.
Cooking fat is used in preparing food for human consumption, whereas oils and greases are used for lubricating machines.
Maščobe za kuhanje se uporabljajo pri pripravi živil za prehrano ljudi, medtem ko se olja in maščobe uporabljajo za mazanje strojev.
Considering ‘nature' to be a relevant factor in the analysis of similarity of goods/services is a matter of law.
Obravnava „narave“ kot ustreznega dejavnika v analizi podobnosti blaga ali storitev je vprašanje prava.
However, it is a matter of fact to state that cooking fat is used in preparing food for human consumption and that oils and greases are used for machines.
Vendar je vprašanje dejstev, če se navede, da se maščobe za kuhanje uporabljajo pri pripravi živil za prehrano ljudi, olja in maščobe pa se uporabljajo za stroje.
Similarly, when it comes to the comparison of signs, Article 8(1) EUTMR establishes that the identity/similarity of signs is a condition for likelihood of confusion.
Podobno člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zvezi s primerjavo znakov določa, da je podobnost ali enakost znakov pogoj za verjetnost zmede.
It is a question of law that a conceptual coincidence between signs may render them similar for the purposes of the EUTMR, but it is a question of fact, for instance, that the word ‘fghryz' does not have any meaning for the Spanish public.
Vprašanje prava je, da so si lahko znaki podobni zaradi pojmovne enakosti za namene Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, medtem ko je vprašanje dejstev, da na primer beseda „fghryz“ španski javnosti ne pomeni ničesar.
3.4.2 Fact and law - evidence
Dejstva in pravo - dokazi
In opposition proceedings, the parties must allege and, where necessary, prove the facts in support of their arguments.
V postopku ugovora morata stranki po potrebi dokazati dejstva v podporo svojim navedbam.
This follows from Article 95(1) EUTMR, according to which, in opposition proceedings, the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought.
To izhaja iz člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim je Urad v postopku ugovora pri preizkusu omejen na zahtevani ukrep in na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih predložile stranke.
Therefore, it is up to the opponent to state the facts on which the claim of similarity is based and to submit supporting evidence.
Zato je vložnik ugovora tisti, ki mora navesti dejstva, na katerih temelji trditev o podobnosti, in predložiti dokaze.
For instance, where wear-resistant cast iron is to be compared with medical implants, it is not up to the Office to answer the question of whether wear-resistant cast iron is actually used for medical implants.
Kadar je treba na primer primerjati lito železo, odporno na obrabo in medicinske vsadke, Uradu ni treba odgovoriti na vprašanja, ali se lito železo, odporno na obrabo, dejansko uporablja za medicinske vsadke.
This must be demonstrated by the opponent as it seems improbable (14/05/2002, R 684/20004, Tinox / TINOX).
To mora dokazati vložnik ugovora, ker se tovrstna uporaba zdi neverjetna (14/05/2002, R 684/20004, Tinox / TINOX).
An admission by the applicant of legal concepts is irrelevant.
Dejstvo, da prijavitelj sprejme pravne pojme, ni pomembno.
It does not discharge the Office from analysing and deciding on these concepts.
To ne pomeni, da Uradu ni treba analizirati teh pojmov in o njih odločati.