natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The analysis of the semantic content of onomatopoeias follows the general rules for conceptual comparison: their concept will be that depicted by the onomatopoeia in question, provided it can be established that it will be recognised as such by the relevant public.
Pri analizi semantične vsebine onomatopejskih izrazov se upoštevajo splošna pravila za pojmovno primerjavo: njihova pojmovna vsebina bo vsebina, ki jo ponazarja zadevni onomatopejski izraz, če je mogoče dokazati, da ga bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala kot takega.
For instance, ‘WOOF WOOF' represents the bark of a dog for English speakers; ‘MUUU' represents the mooing of a cow for Spanish speakers.
Na primer, WOOF WOOF ponazarja pasji lajež za angleške govorce in MUUU kravje mukanje za španske govorce.
In some cases, the context in which the onomatopoeia will be used can be decisive for establishing whether the relevant public will recognise its meaning.
V nekaterih primerih so lahko okoliščine, v katerih se bo uporabljal onomatopejski izraz, odločilne za to, ali bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala pomen tega izraza.
For instance, in the following case, the Board considered that the relevant public would not interpret the sign ‘PSS' as onomatopoeia in the context of information technology services.
V naslednjem primeru je odbor menil, da upoštevna javnost znaka PSS v okviru storitev informacijske tehnologije ne bo razumela kot onomatopejski izraz.
3.4.4 How to make a conceptual comparison
Kako opraviti pojmovno primerjavo
In essence, when making a conceptual comparison, first it has to be determined if the signs have a concept in accordance with the principles described in the previous paragraph.
Pri pojmovni primerjavi je treba v bistvu najprej ugotoviti, ali imajo znaki pojmovno vsebino v skladu z načeli, opisanimi v predhodnem razdelku.
(i) If both signs have a concept, the conceptual comparison can lead to three possible outcomes.
Če jo oba znaka imata, ima lahko pojmovna primerjava enega od naslednjih treh možnih izidov.
If the signs as a whole refer to the same concept, they are conceptually identical.
Če se znaka kot celoti nanašata na isti pojem, sta pojmovno enaka.
If the signs refer to similar concepts, they are conceptually similar.
Če se znaka nanašata na podobna pojma, sta pojmovno podobna.
If both signs have a meaning and those refer to different concepts, they are conceptually dissimilar/not similar.
Če imata oba znaka pomen, ki pa se nanaša na različna pojma, sta pojmovno različna oziroma nista podobna.
(ii) If only one of the signs evokes a concept, the signs are not conceptually similar.
Če pojmovno vsebino izraža samo eden od znakov, znaka pojmovno nista podobna.
On this point, the Office follows the judgment of 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25.
Pri tem Urad sledi sodbi z dne 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25.
Although there is some case-law, such as the judgment of 22/10/2015, T309/13, ELMA / ELMEX, EU:T:2015:792, which came to the conclusion that ‘it was not possible to make a conceptual comparison', even though only one of the signs evoked a concept, these cases cannot be considered as a prevailing trend.
Čeprav obstaja tudi sodna praksa, kot je sodba z dne 22/10/2015, T309/13, ELMA / ELMEX, EU:T:2015:792, v kateri se je ugotovilo, da pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča, čeprav je pojmovno vsebino izražal le eden od znakov, taki primeri ne morejo šteti kot prevladujoči trend.
It follows that the term ‘not similar' encompasses two scenarios, namely, when both signs have a concept albeit distinct or when only one of them has a concept.
Iz tega izhaja, da izraz, da znaka „nista podobna“, zajema dvoje primerov, in sicer primere, v katerih imata oba znaka pojmovno vsebino, ki pa je različna, in primere, v katerih ima pojmovno vsebino le eden od znakov.
However the term ‘dissimilar' is reserved only for the case where both signs have a concept albeit distinct.
Izraz „različen“ pa je omejen le na primere, v katerih imata oba znaka pojmovno vsebino, ki pa je različna.
iii) If none of the signs has any concept, a conceptual comparison is not possible (13/05/2015, T169/14, Koragel / CHORAGON, EU:T:2015:280, § 68-69).
Če nobeden od znakov nima pojmovne vsebine, pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča (13/05/2015, T169/14, Koragel / CHORAGON, EU:T:2015:280, § 68-69).
The conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.
Pojmovni vidik ne vpliva na presojo podobnosti znakov.
The signs cannot be considered conceptually similar on the sole ground that a generic term covering both of them exists and/or they fall under the same general category of signs.
Znaka se ne moreta šteti za pojmovno podobna samo zato, ker obstaja splošen izraz, ki zajema oba, in/ali ker spadata v isto splošno kategorijo znakov.
If the semantic meanings are too different, the signs may share a general concept, but one so broad that the conceptual relationship is not relevant, as in the following examples.
Če je semantični pomen preveč različen, je lahko znakoma skupna splošna pojmovna vsebina, vendar je ta tako široka, da pojmovno razmerje ni pomembno, kot je prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
The mere fact that the two words or symbols can be grouped under a common generic term by no means constitutes a case of conceptual similarity.
Dejstvo, da je mogoče besedi ali simbola uvrstiti pod skupni splošni izraz, nikakor ne utemeljuje pojmovne podobnosti.
For example, in the case of ‘Jaguar' v ‘Elephant', the fact that both are animals would not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity because the public is not likely to make a conceptual link between the two words.
Na primer, pri „jaguarju“ proti „slonu“ dejstvo, da gre za živali, ne bo pripeljalo do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, ker ni verjetno, da bo javnost vzpostavila pojmovno povezavo med besedama.
In fact, because the words refer to different animals, they should be considered conceptually dissimilar.
Pravzaprav bi bilo treba besedi šteti za pojmovno različni, ker se nanašata na različni živali.
The same happens when two signs belong to the same general category or type of mark: the fact that ‘TDL' and ‘LNF' are both three-letter abbreviations is conceptually irrelevant and therefore, a conceptual comparison is not possible.
Enako velja, kadar znaka pripadata isti splošni kategoriji ali vrsti znamke: dejstvo, da sta „TDL“ in „LNF“ kratici s tremi črkami, s pojmovnega vidika ni pomembno, tako da pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča.
Another example of signs ‘belonging to the same category' concerns names and surnames that have a similar semantic content (see paragraph 3.4.3.4 above).
Drug primer znakov, „ki spadajo v isto kategorijo“, se nanaša na imena in priimke, ki imajo podobno semantično vsebino (glej odstavek 3.4.3.4 zgoraj).
If FRANK and MIKE are compared, the fact that they are both names is conceptually irrelevant (since they are on completely different levels); by contrast, the fact that FRANK and FRANKIE are the same name but the latter is the diminutive of the former is relevant and should lead to a finding of conceptual similarity in that case.
Če primerjamo FRANK in MIKE, dejstvo, da sta obe besedi imeni, s pojmovnega vidika ni pomembno (ker sta na povsem različnih ravneh); v nasprotju s tem pa je dejstvo, da sta FRANK in FRANKIE isto ime, le da je zadnjenavedeno pomanjševalnica prvega, pomembno in bi moralo v tem primeru pripeljati do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti.
In particular, the marks will be conceptually identical or similar in the following situations.
Zlasti bosta znamki pojmovno enaki ali podobni v naslednjih primerih.
3.4.4.1 Both marks share a word and/or expression
Znamki imata skupno besedo in/ali izraz
When the two marks share the same word or expression, the marks will be conceptually similar, as in the following examples.
Kadar je znamkama skupna ista beseda ali izraz, bosta pojmovno enaki, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
As already mentioned, misspellings may also have a semantic content and in such cases can be compared, as in the following examples.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, imajo lahko tudi napačno zapisane besede semantično vsebino in jih je zato mogoče primerjati, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
3.4.4.2 Two words or terms have the same meaning but in different languages
Besedi ali izraza imata enak pomen, vendar v različnih jezikih
It is possible for the relevant public to assign a conceptual similarity or even identity in cases of marks with elements in different languages, as long as the meanings of the words in those languages are known to that public.
Možno je, da upoštevna javnost znamkama, ki imata elemente v različnih jezikih, pripiše pojmovno podobnost ali celo enakost, če ji je znan pomen besed v teh jezikih.
In the following example, it was found that the marks were conceptually identical because a substantial part of the Portuguese public would understand the words constituting the marks at issue given (i) the close proximity of the English word ‘vitamin' to the Portuguese equivalent term ‘vitamina', (ii) ‘water' is a basic English word likely to be understood by that part of the Portuguese public that has sufficient knowledge of the English language, (iii) that ‘aqua' is a widespread Latin expression and resembles the Portuguese equivalent term ‘água' (paras 56-60).
V naslednjem primeru se je ugotovilo, da sta znamki pojmovno enaki, ker precejšnji del portugalske javnosti razume besede, ki sestavljajo sporni znamki, saj (i) je angleška beseda „vitamin“ zelo podobna portugalski ustreznici „vitamina“, (ii) je „water“ osnovna angleška beseda, ki jo del portugalske javnosti z zadostnim znanjem angleškega jezika verjetno razume, (iii) je „aqua“ splošno znan latinski izraz, ki je tudi podoben portugalski ustreznici água (točke 56-60).
As it is the actual understanding of the relevant public that matters, the mere fact that one term is objectively the foreign-language equivalent of the other may not be relevant at all in the conceptual comparison.
Ker je bistveno dejansko razumevanje upoštevne javnosti, je lahko dejstvo, da je en izraz objektivno gledano tujejezična ustreznica drugega, v okviru pojmovne primerjave povsem nepomembno.
3.4.4.3 Two words refer to the same semantic term or variations thereof
Besedi se nanašata na isti semantični izraz ali njegove različice
There is conceptual identity where synonyms are involved, that is to say where two words exist for the same semantic meaning (invented examples where English is the reference language: baggage/luggage; bicycle/bike; male horse/stallion).
V primeru sopomenk, tj. kadar obstajata dve besedi z istim semantičnim pomenom, to pomeni pojmovno enakost (izmišljeni primeri z angleščino kot referenčnim jezikom: baggage/luggage (prtljaga), bicycle/bike (kolo), male horse/stallion (žrebec)).
Conceptual similarity was found in the following cases.
V naslednjih primerih je bila ugotovljena pojmovna podobnost.
3.4.4.4 Two figurative signs, symbols and/or shapes represent the same object or idea
Figurativna znaka, simbola in/ali obliki ponazarjata enak predmet ali enako zamisel
When two marks consist of or contain figurative elements and/or shapes and they represent the same or similar objects or ideas, the signs will be conceptually identical or similar.
Kadar sta znamki sestavljeni iz figurativnih elementov in/ali oblik ali jih vsebujeta ter ti ponazarjajo enake ali podobne predmete ali zamisli, bosta znaka pojmovno enaka ali podobna.
The following are cases where conceptual identity or similarity was found.
V nadaljevanju so navedeni primeri, v katerih je bila ugotovljena pojmovna enakost ali podobnost.
However, the fact that both signs contain the same object does not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity if the way in which the object is depicted in the conflicting trade marks is different.
Vendar dejstvo, da znaka vsebujeta enak predmet, ne vodi do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, če je ta predmet v sovpadajočih blagovnih znamkah prikazan različno.
Furthermore, even if both signs contain the same element, they may be found dissimilar if they evoke different concepts due to their overall impression.
Poleg tega sta lahko znaka, tudi če vsebujeta enak element, ugotovljena kot različna, če zaradi celotnega vtisa izražata različno pojmovno vsebino.
3.4.4.5 When there is a word versus a figurative sign, symbol, shape and/or colour representing the concept behind the word
Kadar gre za besedo proti figurativnemu znaku, simbolu, obliki in/ali barvi, ki ponazarja pojem za besedo
Conceptual identity also exists between a word and an image showing what the word represents (fictional examples: word mark ‘TIGER' compared with a figurative mark depicting a tiger; or word mark ‘orange' and a mark for the colour orange per se).
Pojmovna enakost obstaja tudi med besedo in sliko, na kateri je prikazano, kaj beseda ponazarja (izmišljeni primeri: besedna znamka „TIGER“ v primerjavi s figurativno znamko, ki prikazuje tigra, ali besedna znamka „orange“ in znamka, ki ponazarja oranžno barvo).
3.4.4.6 When the signs have a meaningful word in common that is distinctive, and one of them contains an additional word or figurative element without any meaning
Kadar je znakoma skupna beseda, ki ima pomen in razlikovalni učinek, eden od njiju pa vsebuje še dodatno besedo ali figurativni element brez kakršnega koli pomena
Where the signs have a meaningful word in common that is distinctive, and one or both of them contains an additional word element without any meaning (a fanciful word or one that will not be understood in the relevant language area), the signs are considered conceptually highly similar, and not identical.
Kadar je znakoma skupna beseda, ki ima pomen in razlikovalni učinek, eden ali oba pa vsebujeta še dodaten besedni element brez kakršnega koli pomena (domišljijsko ali tako besedo, ki jo javnost na upoštevnem jezikovnem območju ne bo razumela), znaka štejeta kot pojmovno zelo podobna, ne pa enaka.
In such a case, even if not understood, the relevant public will note the presence of the additional term that prevents the signs from being perceived as conceptually totally identical.
V takem primeru bo upoštevna javnost opazila dodatni izraz tudi, če ga ne razume, zaradi česar znaka ne bosta zaznana kot pojmovno povsem enaka.
However, where the word that the signs have in common is accompanied by additional figurative elements that lack any particular concept (such as a background, colours or a particular typeface), the signs are considered conceptually identical.
Če pa besedo, ki je znakoma skupna, spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, ki nimajo posebne pojmovne vsebine (npr. ozadje, barve ali posebna pisava), se znaka štejeta kot pojmovno enaka.
In such a case, the additional figurative elements have no impact on the conceptual perception of the signs.
V takem primeru dodatni figurativni elementi nimajo vpliva na pojmovno zaznavo znakov.
3.4.5 Impact of the distinctive and dominant character of the components on the similarity of signs
Vpliv razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka sestavnih delov na podobnost znakov
At each level (visual, phonetic and conceptual) the comparison of signs will lead to a decision as to whether the marks are similar and if so, to what degree.
Primerjava znakov na vsaki ravni posebej (vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni) privede do odločitve, ali sta znamki podobni, in če sta, koliko sta podobni.
In general, the more commonalities there are between marks, the higher their degree of similarity.
Na splošno velja, da več ko imata znamki skupnega, višja je stopnja podobnosti med njima.
However, this finding depends, first, on whether the coincidence is recognisable or rather remains unnoticed in the overall impression of both marks (paragraph 3.4.5.1 below), and furthermore, on the distinctiveness and dominant character of the common elements (paragraph 3.4.5.2 below), and also the impact of the remaining elements in the overall impression of the marks (paragraph 3.4.5.3 below).
Vendar je ta ugotovitev odvisna od tega, ali je to ujemanje prepoznavno ali v celotnem vtisu obeh znamk ostane neopaženo (odstavek 3.4.5.1 v nadaljevanju), od razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka skupnih elementov (odstavek 3.4.5.2 v nadaljevanju) ter od vpliva, ki ga imajo ostali elementi na celotni vtis znamk (odstavek 3.4.5.3 v nadaljevanju).
3.4.5.1 Identifiable common element/coincidence
Prepoznavnost skupnega elementa/ujemanja
Two marks are similar when, from the point of view of the relevant public, they are at least partly identical as regards one or more relevant aspects (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 30).
Znamki sta podobni, kadar sta z vidika upoštevne javnosti vsaj delno enaki v zvezi z enim ali več zadevnimi vidiki (23/10/2002, T6/01, Matratzen + Matratzenmarkt Concord (fig.), EU:T:2002:261, § 30).
The coincidence must be, therefore, ‘relevant' from the perspective of the consumer who usually perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details (13/02/2008, T146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58).
Ujemanje mora torej biti „pomembno“ z vidika potrošnika, ki običajno znamko zaznava kot celoto in ne analizira posameznih podrobnosti (13/02/2008, T146/06, Aturion, EU:T:2008:33, § 58).
The coincidence is clearly perceived when the commonality forms an independent word element or when it is separated in the way of writing (use of a special character, hyphen or other punctuation mark).
Potrošnik jasno zazna ujemanje, kadar je skupna točka samostojen besedni element ali je ločena z načinom zapisa (uporabo posebnega znaka, vezaja ali drugega ločila).
As regards word marks, it should be recalled that they should not be dissected visually based on the alternation of upper and lower case letters, since in the case of word marks the use of mixed cases is irrelevant.
Pri besednih znamkah je treba upoštevati, da jih ne bi smeli vizualno razčlenjevati na podlagi izmenjevanja velikih in malih črk, saj v primeru besednih znamk izmenjevanje velikih in malih črk ni pomembno.
Sometimes the graphical representation allows the separation of different elements of the mark and identification.
Včasih grafični prikaz omogoča ločitev in prepoznavo različnih elementov znamke.
Furthermore, the common word can be identified as such in an isolated manner because of its clear meaning.
Poleg tega lahko javnost prepozna skupno besedo kot skupno, če ima jasen pomen.
An average consumer perceiving a word sign will break it down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning or resemble known words (06/10/2004, T356/02, Vitakraft, EU:T:2004:292, § 51; confirmed 01/12/2005, C512/04 P, Vitakraft, EU:C:2005:736).
Povprečni potrošnik bi, ko bi videl besedni znak, tega razstavil na besedne elemente, ki mu vzbujajo asociacijo na konkretni pomen ali so podobni besedam, ki jih pozna (06/10/2004, T356/02, Vitakraft, EU:T:2004:292, § 51; potrjena 01/12/2005, C512/04 P, Vitakraft, EU:C:2005:736)).
In the following examples, the common element is a part of a word, but could be identified since the public will logically split the word according to the meaning of its elements.
V primerih v nadaljevanju je skupni element del besede, a ga je mogoče prepoznati, ker bo javnost besedo logično razstavila glede na pomen njenih elementov.
On the contrary, if it remains unnoticed, the mere coincidence in a string of letters is not enough for a finding of similarity.
Če pa ujemanje v zaporedju črk ostane neopaženo, to ujemanje še ni dovolj za ugotovitev podobnosti.
The rule remains that the public compares the marks as a whole and will not artificially dissect them.
Še vedno velja pravilo, da javnost primerja znamki kot celoti in ju ne razčlenjuje umetno.
In the following cases the similarity of the marks was denied despite an overlap in some letters (see also paragraph 4 below, especially paragraph 4.2.4).
V naslednji zadevi podobnost znamk ni bila ugotovljena, čeprav se prekriva nekaj njunih črk (glej tudi odstavek 4 v nadaljevanju, zlasti odstavek 4.2.4).
3.4.5.2 Distinctiveness and dominant character of the common elements
Razlikovalni in prevladujoči učinek skupnih elementov
For the conclusion of similarity, the degree of distinctiveness of the common element (or elements) must be taken into account.
Za ugotovitev podobnosti je treba upoštevati stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka skupnega elementa (ali elementov).
The more distinctive the common element is, the higher the degree of similarity in each aspect of the comparison (visual, phonetic and conceptual).
Bolj ko je skupni element razlikovalen, višja je stopnja podobnosti pri vsakem vidiku primerjave (vizualnem, zvočnem in pojmovnem).
A finding that the common element has a limited distinctiveness will lower the similarity, with the consequence that if the only common element of both marks is non-distinctive, the degree of similarity at all levels of comparison will be low or that even - depending on the impact of the elements that differentiate the marks - the similarity will be entirely denied (see paragraph 4.2.5 below).
Če se ugotovi, da ima skupni element omejen razlikovalni učinek, se podobnost zniža, kar pomeni, da je, če je edini skupni element obeh znamk nerazlikovalen, stopnja podobnosti na vseh ravneh primerjave nizka, ali pa se podobnost celo povsem zavrne, odvisno od vpliva elementov, v katerih se znamki razlikujeta (glej odstavek 4.2.5 v nadaljevanju).
In the following examples, the common element was considered descriptive or otherwise non-distinctive, with the consequence that the level of similarity was considered low.
V naslednjih primerih se je skupni element štel kot opisen ali drugače nerazlikovalen, zaradi česar je bila ugotovljena stopnja podobnosti nizka.
The fact that the coinciding element is a non-distinctive element, does not however, suffice to deny any similarity between the marks, unless there are further factors differentiating them (see paragraph 4.2.5 below).
Dejstvo, da je element, ki se ujema, nerazlikovalen, še ne pomeni, da se zavrne vsakršna podobnost med znamkama, razen če se znamki razlikujeta tudi v drugih dejavnikih (glej odstavek 4.2.5 v nadaljevanju).
If the public will notice the overlap, it must be taken into account in the comparison.
Če bo javnost opazila prekrivanje, ga je treba upoštevati pri primerjavi.
The fact that an element is descriptive or otherwise non-distinctive is not on its own sufficient to conclude that that word is negligible in the overall impression produced by that mark (08/02/2011, T194/09, Líneas aéreas del Mediterráneo, EU:T:2011:34, § 30).
Dejstvo, da je element opisen ali drugače nerazlikovalen, samo po sebi še ne zadošča za ugotovitev, da je pri celotnem vtisu, ki ga znamka ustvarja, ta beseda zanemarljiva (08/02/2011, T194/09, Líneas aéreas del Mediterráneo, EU:T:2011:34, § 30).
(For the impact of common weak or non-distinctive components on likelihood of confusion see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment).
(Za vpliv skupnih šibkih ali nerazlikovalnih sestavnih delov na verjetnost zmede glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja.)
The conclusion on visual similarity also has to take into account whether the common element is dominant (visually outstanding) or at least codominant in the overall impression of the marks.
Pri ugotovitvi glede vizualne podobnosti je treba upoštevati tudi, ali je skupni element v okviru celotnega vtisa znamk prevladujoč (vidno izstopajoč) ali vsaj soprevladujoč.
As explained previously (see paragraph 3.3 above), within the assessment of the dominant character of one or more components, the intrinsic qualities (size, striking graphical representation, etc.) of each of those components have to be compared with the intrinsic qualities of the other components.
Kot je že pojasnjeno v odstavku 3.3 zgoraj, je treba v okviru presoje prevladujočega učinka enega ali več sestavnih delov značilnosti, lastne posameznemu sestavnemu delu (velikost, izstopajoč grafični prikaz itd.), primerjati z značilnostmi, lastnimi drugim sestavnim delom.