natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the visual impression created by the marks, the beginnings ‘sto' and ‘cre' and the endings ‘tec' and ‘o' play a more important role than the syllables ‘cre' and ‘te', which are placed in the middle of the signs and are less perceived by the relevant public.
V vizualnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata znamki, imata začetka „sto“ in „cre“ ter konca „tec“ in „o“ pomembnejšo vlogo kot zloga „cre“ in „te“, ki sta na sredini znakov ter ju upoštevna javnost manj zaznava.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no visual similarity between the signs (para. 71).
Zato se ugotovi, da med znakoma ni vizualne podobnosti (točka 71).
The marks are not phonetically similar, in particular on account of their different beginnings and endings (para. 72).
Znamki si nista zvočno podobni, zlasti ker se razlikujeta na začetku in na koncu (točka 72).
The conceptual comparison remains neutral, as ‘StoCretec' and ‘CRETEO' are coined terms without any meaning in German (para. 73).
Rezultat pojmovne primerjave je nevtralen, saj sta „StoCretec“ in „CRETEO“ na novo skovana izraza, ki v nemščini nimata pomena (točka 73).
The figurative elements and the additional word ‘foods' must not be disregarded when comparing the signs (paras 54-55).
Pri primerjavi znakov je treba upoštevati tudi figurativne elemente in dodatno besedo „foods“ (točki 54 in 55).
The overall visual impression of the conflicting signs is clearly dissimilar (paras 59-61).
Celotni vtis zadevnih znakov je jasno različen (točke 59-61).
The signs are not phonetically similar bearing in mind, in particular, the additional element ‘foods' of the contested mark (paras 65-66).
Znaka nista zvočno podobna, zlasti ob upoštevanju dodatnega elementa „foods“ pri izpodbijani znamki (točki 65 in 66).
Finally, the marks are also conceptually not similar (para. 73).
Nazadnje, znamki niti pojmovno nista podobni (točka 73).
The figurative elements of the earlier figurative marks further distinguish those marks from the mark applied for (para. 36).
Figurativni elementi, ki so del prejšnjih figurativnih znamk, te znamke dodatno razlikujejo od prijavljene znamke (točka 36).
The signs at issue have a different rhythm of pronunciation (paras 43-44).
Ritem izgovarjave nasprotujočih si znakov je različen (točki 43 in 44).
The words have no meaning; it is not possible to carry out a conceptual comparison (para. 54).
Besedi sta brez pomena, pomenska primerjava ni mogoča (točka 54).
The figurative elements of the signs have the same outline, but will be perceived as different by the relevant public (paras 45-47).
Figurativna elementa znakov imata enak obris, a ju bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala različno (točke 45-47).
The word elements are visually different since they have only two letters in common, which are also placed in distinct positions.
Besedna elementa se vizualno razlikujeta, saj se ujemata le v dveh črkah, ki sta na povsem različnih mestih.
The marks coincide only in that the verbal elements are written in white on a contrasting grey background and the white frame that separates the verbal and the landscape elements in equal parts.
Znamki se ujemata le v tem, da sta besedna elementa zapisana z belo barvo na kontrastnem sivem ozadju in da imata bel okvir, ki enako ločuje besedni element od krajinskega elementa.
These are commonplace figurative elements, omnipresent in marks in virtually all fields of trade.
To so običajni figurativni elementi, ki se pojavljajo v znamkah na praktično vseh področjih trgovine.
The consumer's attention is not caught by any of these details, but rather by the fanciful term ‘tukaş' in the earlier mark and by the word ‘Ekonomik' in the contested mark.
Pozornosti potrošnika ne pritegne nobena od teh podrobnosti, temveč jo pritegne domišljijski izraz „tukaş“ pri prejšnji znamki in beseda „Ekonomik“ pri izpodbijani znamki.
As the signs visually overlap only in irrelevant aspects and have nothing in common aurally and conceptually, they are dissimilar overall.
Ker se prekrivajo le nepomembni vidiki znakov ter ker znaka zvočno in pojmovno nimata nič skupnega, sta na splošno različna.
G&S: provision of accommodation Territory: EU
Blago in storitve: Nudenje nastanitev Ozemlje: EU
G&S: provision of restaurant services Territory: Spain (where ‘casa' has also the meaning ‘bar', ‘restaurant')
Blago in storitve: Nudenje storitev restavracij Ozemlje: Španija (kjer casa pomeni tudi bar, restavracija)
G&S: telecommunications services Territory: EU
Blago in storitve: Telekomunikacijske storitve Ozemlje: EU
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (paras 39-61)
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (točke 39-61)
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU (relevant public considered to be familiar with basic English financial terminology) Assessment: the common element ‘capital markets' directly describes the services.
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU (šteje se, da je upoštevna javnost seznanjena z osnovno angleško finančno terminologijo) Presoja: Skupni element „capital markets“ neposredno opisuje storitve.
G&S: Classes 30, 31, 42 Territory: EU Assessment: there is some similarity between the marks.
Blago in storitve: Razredi 30, 31 in 42 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Znamki sta si nekoliko podobni.
The earlier mark consists of two elements that are non-distinctive for the goods in question - the image of a corn (descriptive for bakery products) and the laudatory word element ‘PREMIUM'.
Prejšnja znamka je sestavljena iz dveh elementov, ki sta v zvezi z zadevnim blagom nerazlikovalna - podobe žita (ki je v zvezi s pekovskimi izdelki opisna) in poveličevalnega besednega elementa „PREMIUM“.
The combination of these elements is arbitrary (unlike the word combination ‘Capital markets' in the example above, which is an established expression).
Kombinacija teh elementov je poljubna (v nasprotju s kombinacijo besed „capital markets“ v zgornjem primeru, ki je uveljavljen izraz).
The coincidences between the marks are therefore not limited to non-distinctive elements but extend to their particular combination.
Ujemanje med znamkama tako ni omejeno le na nerazlikovalna elementa, temveč zajema tudi njuno kombinacijo.
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (paras 39-61)
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (točke 39-61)
Goods and services: Class 7 Territory: EU Assessment: while the element ‘Perfect' has a laudatory character, the fact remains that none of the other elements making up the same signs can be considered to have a greater distinctive character or be dominant.
Blago in storitve: Razred 7 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Element „Perfect“ je poveličevalen, a dejstvo je, da se nobeden od drugih elementov, ki sestavljajo znaka, ne more šteti kot bolj razlikovalen ali prevladujoč.
The elements ‘aqua' and ‘water' also have a weak distinctive character owing to the fact that they will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning ‘water' and the goods covered all involve, in one way or another, water (para. 42).
Tudi elementa „aqua“ in „water“ imata šibek razlikovalni učinek, saj ju bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala v pomenu „voda“, vse zajeto blago pa na tak ali drugačen način vključuje vodo (točka 42).
The signs were found visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to an average degree.
Ugotovljena je bila povprečna stopnja vizualne, zvočne in pojmovne podobnosti.
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: although the element ‘post' as such is non-distinctive for postal services, it corresponds to the earlier mark, which should be attributed with a minimum degree of distinctiveness (para. 43).
Blago in storitve: Razred 39 in drugi razredi, povezani s poštnimi storitvami Ozemlje: Nemčija, EU Presoja: Čeprav je element „post“ v zvezi s poštnimi storitvami sam po sebi nerazlikovalen, se ujema s prejšnjo znamko, ki bi ji bilo treba pripisati minimalno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (točka 43).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 1
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 90
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke
EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE
URAD EVROPSKE UNIJE ZA INTELEKTUALNO LASTNINO
DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE EARLIER MARK
RAZLIKOVALNI UČINEK PREJŠNJE ZNAMKE
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 4
2 Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 4
2.1 General issues 4
2.1 Splošna vprašanja 4
2.1.1 Distinctiveness 4
2.1.1 Razlikovalni učinek 4
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness 6
2.1.2 Svojstveni in povečani razlikovalni učinek 6
2.1.3 Relevant point in time 6
2.1.3 Upoštevni trenutek 6
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services 6
2.1.4 Upoštevno blago in storitve 7
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 7
2.2 Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 7
2.2.1 General principles 7
2.2.1 Splošna načela 7
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark 8
2.2.2 Vpliv nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 8
2.2.3 Specific themes 9
2.2.3 Posebne teme 9
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs 9
2.2.3.1 Znaki, sestavljeni iz ene črke ali številk, in kratki znaki 9
2.2.3.2 Collective marks 10
2.2.3.2 Kolektivne znamke 10
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness 11
2.3 Preizkus povečanega razlikovalnega učinka 11
The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) held in its judgment of 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18, 24:
Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče EU) je v sodbi z dne 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18, 24, razsodilo:
… marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character.
[…] znamke, ki imajo velik razlikovalni učinek bodisi same po sebi bodisi zaradi njihove prepoznavnosti na trgu, imajo širše varstvo kot znamke z manjšim razlikovalnim učinkom.
… the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion.
[…] razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke in zlasti njen ugled je treba upoštevati pri presojanju, ali podobnost blaga in storitev, ki jih označujeta dve blagovni znamki, zadostujeta, da nastane verjetnost zmede.
The assessment of the distinctiveness of an earlier mark is especially important in cases, when there is only a low degree of similarity between the signs, as it must be assessed, whether this low degree can be compensated by the high degree of similarity between the products (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) and vice versa.
Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke je še posebej pomembna v primerih, ko med znakoma obstaja le nizka stopnja podobnosti, saj je treba presoditi, ali to nizko stopnjo lahko nadomesti visoka stopnja podobnosti med proizvodi (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67), in obratno.
According to the case-law, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion of the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which determines the protection afforded to that mark, and the notion of the distinctive character which an element of a composite mark possesses, which determines its ability to dominate the overall impression created by the mark (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
Glede na sodno prakso je treba razlikovati med razlikovalnim učinkom prejšnje znamke, ki je povezan z varstvom take znamke, in razlikovalnim učinkom, ki ga ima element sestavljene znamke in ki opredeljuje njegovo možnost prevladovanja v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ta znamka daje (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
While it is true that it is necessary to examine the distinctiveness of an element of a composite mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (…), the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark is an element to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Čeprav drži, da je treba proučiti razlikovalni učinek elementa sestavljene znamke že v fazi presoje podobnosti znakov, je stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke eden od elementov, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede.
It is therefore not appropriate to take account of what may be a low degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
Torej v fazi presoje podobnosti med znaki ni treba upoštevati morebitne nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnjih znamk (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
The Office therefore distinguishes between (i) the analysis of the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole, which determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark and is one of the factors in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and (ii) the analysis of the distinctive character of a component of the marks within their comparison .
Urad tako razlikuje med (i) analizo razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote, s katero se določi obseg varstva, podeljenega tej znamki, in ki je eden od dejavnikov pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede, ter (ii) analizo razlikovalnega učinka sestavnega dela znamk v okviru njune primerjave.
[2: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.]
[2: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.]
Whereas distinctive character must be assessed for the components of both the earlier mark and the contested mark, distinctiveness of the mark as a whole is assessed only in respect of the earlier mark .
Za sestavne dele je treba presoditi razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke in izpodbijane znamke, razlikovalni učinek znamke kot celote pa se presodi samo v zvezi s prejšnjo znamko.
The distinctiveness of the contested mark as a whole is not relevant, as such, to the assessment of likelihood of confusion, as explained in more detail in paragraph 2.1.2 below.
Razlikovalni učinek izpodbijane znamke kot celote za presojo verjetnosti zmede kot tak ni pomemben, kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v odstavku 2.1.2 v nadaljevanju.
Therefore, any reference below to the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole refers exclusively to the earlier mark.
Zato se v nadaljevanju vsa sklicevanja na razlikovalni učinek znamke kot celote nanašajo izključno na prejšnjo znamko.
[3: See also Objective 1 of the Common Practice on the impact of non-distinctive/weak components on likelihood of confusion agreed within the framework of the European Trade Mark and Design Network (ETMDN).]
[3: Glej tudi cilj 1 iz dokumenta Common Practice on the impact of non-distinctive/weak components on likelihood of confusion (Skupna praksa glede vpliva nerazlikovalnih/šibkih sestavnih delov na verjetnost zmede), dogovorjenega v okviru Evropske mreže blagovnih znamk in modelov.]
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark
Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke
The Canon judgment makes clear that (i) the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion and (ii) earlier marks with a highly distinctive character because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character.
Sodba v zadevi Canon jasno določa, da (i) je verjetnost zmede toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, in da (ii) imajo prejšnje znamke z večjim razlikovalnim učinkom zaradi njihovega ugleda na trgu širše varstvo kot znamke z manjšim razlikovalnim učinkom.
Consequently, the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole determines the strength and breadth of its protection and must be taken into consideration for the purposes of assessing likelihood of confusion.
Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke kot celote tako določa, kako močno in široko je varstvo znamke, ter ga je treba upoštevati pri presoji verjetnosti zmede.
2.1 General issues
Splošna vprašanja
2.1.1 Distinctiveness
Razlikovalni učinek
The Court has defined distinctiveness in the following manner:
Sodišče EU je razlikovalni učinek opredelilo tako:
In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, the national court must make an overall assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings (emphasis added).
Nacionalno sodišče mora za določitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke in posledično za presojo, ali ima visok razlikovalni učinek, splošno presoditi večjo ali manjšo sposobnost znamke, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, označuje kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, in je torej namenjena razlikovanju tega blaga ali storitev od tistih iz drugih podjetij (dodan poudarek)
Importantly, distinctive character is a matter of degree and, when analysing distinctiveness, a sliding scale applies, whereby a sign can lack distinctiveness entirely, be highly distinctive or be at any point in-between.
Poudariti je treba, da je pri razlikovalnem učinku pomembna stopnja, zato se pri analizi razlikovalnega učinka uporabi drseča lestvica, po kateri je lahko znak brez kakršnega koli razlikovalnega učinka, ima visok razlikovalni učinek ali pa je nekje vmes.
A sign is not distinctive if it is descriptive of the goods and services themselves or of the characteristics of those goods and services (such as their quality, value, purpose, provenance, etc.), laudatory and/or if its use in trade is common for those goods and services.
Znak ni razlikovalen, če le opisuje blago in storitve ali njihove značilnosti (kot so njihova kakovost, vrednost, namen, izvor itd.), če je poveličevalen in/ali če je njegova uporaba v gospodarskem prometu značilna za zadevno blago in storitve.
Similarly, a sign that is generic (such as a common shape of a container or a common colour) will also lack distinctiveness.
Podobno je brez razlikovalnega učinka tudi znak, ki je generičen (kot na primer običajna oblika zabojnika ali običajna barva).
The rules for the assessment of distinctive character follow those established by examination on absolute grounds.
Pravila za presojo razlikovalnega učinka so skladna s pravili, ki so se oblikovala za preizkušanje absolutnih razlogov.
A sign may be distinctive to a low degree if it alludes to (but is not exclusively descriptive of) characteristics of the goods and services.
Znak ima lahko nižjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, če namiguje na (vendar ne le opisuje) značilnosti blaga in storitev.
If the allusion to the goods and services is sufficiently imaginative or clever, the mere fact that there is an allusion to characteristics of the goods and/or services might not materially affect distinctiveness.
Če je namigovanje na blago in storitve dovolj domiselno ali bistroumno, dejstvo, da namiguje na značilnosti blaga in/ali storitev, nima nujno pomembnega vpliva na razlikovalni učinek.
‘Billionaire' for gaming services is allusive in a manner that would affect distinctiveness, because it implies for instance that you may become a billionaire.
Beseda „Billionaire“ za igre na srečo je namigovalna na tak način, da bi vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, saj na primer pomeni, da lahko potrošnik postane milijarder.
‘Billy O'Naire', which sounds identical to ‘billionaire' in English, would be allusive for gaming services as a clever wordplay on Irish names, in a manner that would not affect distinctiveness in a material way; it would be considered to have a ‘normal' degree of distinctiveness.
Besedna zveza „Billy O'Naire“, ki se v angleščini sliši enako kot „billionaire“, pa bi na igre na srečo namigovala kot domiselna besedna igra, ki se nanaša na irska imena, ne da bi znatno vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, zaradi česar bi se štelo, da ima običajno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
A sign is deemed to possess a ‘normal' degree of inherent distinctiveness if there is no indication for a limitation thereof (e.g. due to a descriptive character, laudatory meaning, etc.).
Šteje se, da ima znak običajno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, če nič ne kaže na to, da je ta omejen (npr. opisna narava, poveličevalen pomen itd.).
This means that the sign in question is fully distinctive, in the sense that its capacity to identify the goods and services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking is not in any way diminished or impaired.
To pomeni, da je zadevni znak v celoti razlikovalen v smislu, da njegova sposobnost označevanja blaga in storitev, za katere je bil registriran, kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, nikakor ni zmanjšana ali oslabljena.
Any higher degree of distinctiveness acquired by the earlier mark, which is often claimed by the opponent in order to broaden its scope of protection, has to be proven by its proprietor by submitting appropriate evidence (see paragraph 2.3 below).
Morebitno višjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, ki jo je pridobila prejšnja znamka, na katero se pogosto sklicuje vložnik ugovora, da bi razširil obseg varstva znamke, mora njen imetnik dokazati s predložitvijo ustreznih dokazov (glej odstavek 2.3 v nadaljevanju).
A mark will not necessarily have a higher degree of distinctive character just because there is no conceptual link to the relevant goods and services (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H/Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
Znamka nima nujno višje stopnje razlikovalnega učinka samo zato, ker ni pojmovno povezana z zadevnim blagom in storitvami (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H/Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
However, an EUTM applicant may argue that the earlier sign is distinctive to a low degree.
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU pa lahko trdi, da ima prejšnji znak le nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
One of the most frequent arguments brought by applicants is that the earlier trade mark or one of its components has low distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that consist of, or include, the element in question.
Prijavitelji najpogosteje trdijo, da ima prejšnja blagovna znamka ali kateri od njenih sestavnih delov majhen razlikovalni učinek, ker je veliko blagovnih znamk, ki so sestavljene iz zadevnega elementa ali ga vključujejo.
Where this argument is supported only by the applicant's referring to trade mark registrations, the Office takes the view that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market.
Če je ta trditev podprta samo s sklicevanjem prijavitelja na registracije blagovnih znamk, Urad zavzame stališče, da obstoj registracij več blagovnih znamk sam po sebi ni posebno odločilen, ker morda ne izraža stanja na trgu.
In other words, on the basis of register data only, it cannot be assumed that all the trade marks have been effectively used (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
Z drugimi besedami, samo na podlagi podatkov iz registra ni mogoče predpostavljati, da se vse blagovne znamke dejansko uporabljajo (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).