natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After the obligatory examination of inherent distinctiveness, the second step is to check - provided the opponent has made the corresponding claim - whether the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing (or priority date) of the contested EUTM application as a consequence of the use that the opponent has made of it.
Po obveznem preizkusu svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka se opravi drugi korak, ki vključuje preveritev (če je vložnik ugovora predložil ustrezno trditev), ali je prejšnja znamka pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek ob vložitvi prijave (ali na datum prednostne pravice) izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU zaradi uporabe s strani vložnika ugovora.
[5: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.]
[5: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve.]
The distinctiveness of the earlier mark always has to be taken into account when deciding on likelihood of confusion.
Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke je treba pri ugotavljanju verjetnosti zmede vselej upoštevati.
The more distinctive the earlier trade mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24).
Verjetnost zmede je toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (sodba z dne 11. novembra 1997, Sabèl, C251/95, EU:C:1997:528, točka 24).
Therefore, marks with a highly distinctive character, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).
Znamke z večjim razlikovalnim učinkom imajo tako širše varstvo kot znamke z manjšim razlikovalnim učinkom (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).
In practice, this means that the fact that an earlier trade mark enjoys enhanced distinctive character or reputation is an argument in favour of finding a likelihood of confusion.
V praksi to pomeni, da je dejstvo, da ima prejšnja blagovna znamka povečani razlikovalni učinek ali ugled, argument v prid ugotovitvi verjetnosti zmede.
Enhanced distinctiveness requires recognition of the mark by the relevant public.
Za povečani razlikovalni učinek se zahteva, da upoštevna javnost prepozna znamko.
This recognition may enhance the distinctiveness of marks with little or no inherent distinctiveness or those that are inherently distinctive.
Ta prepoznavnost lahko poveča razlikovalni učinek znamk, ki imajo malo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka ali ga sploh nimajo, ali tistih, ki imajo svojstveni razlikovalni učinek.
The Court has given some guidance in respect of the evaluation of distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier mark and provided a non-exhaustive list of factors.
Sodišče EU je podalo nekatere smernice v zvezi s presojo razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo prejšnje znamke, in zagotovilo neizčrpen seznam dejavnikov.
In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered; the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public which, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations.
Pri navedeni presoji bi bilo treba upoštevati zlasti lastnosti znamke, vključno s tem, ali vsebuje element, ki opisuje blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, ali ne, tržni delež, ki ga ima znamka, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje uporabe te znamke, pomembnost naložb, ki jih podjetje opravi za uveljavljanje znamke, delež upoštevnega dela javnosti, ki na podlagi znamke ugotovi, da blago ali storitve izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, ter izjave gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih poklicnih združenj
The evidence of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use must refer to both (i) the relevant geographical area and (ii) the relevant goods and services.
Dokazila o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku, pridobljenem z uporabo, se morajo nanašati na (i) upoštevno geografsko območje ter (ii) upoštevno blago in storitve.
The opponent may claim enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark for only part of the registered goods and services.
Vložnik ugovora lahko uveljavlja povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke samo za del registriranega blaga in storitev.
According to the evidence submitted, the Office must establish precisely for which goods and services distinctiveness has been acquired.
Urad mora na podlagi predloženih dokazil natančno določiti, za katero blago in storitve se je pridobil razlikovalni učinek.
The nature, factors, evidence and assessment of enhanced distinctiveness are the same as for reputation.
Vrsta, dejavniki, dokazila in presoja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka so enaki kot pri ugledu.
For further details on the evidence required and its assessment see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).
Za dodatne podrobnosti o zahtevanih dokazilih in njihovi presoji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
However, a finding of reputation requires that a certain threshold of recognition be met whilst, as set out above, the threshold for a finding of enhanced distinctiveness may be lower.
Za ugotovitev ugleda se zahteva izpolnitev določenega praga prepoznavnosti, kot je navedeno zgoraj, prag za ugotovitev povečanega razlikovalnega učinka pa je lahko nižji.
Enhanced distinctiveness is anything above inherent distinctiveness.
Povečani razlikovalni učinek je vse, kar je nad svojstvenim razlikovalnim učinkom.
Importantly, acquisition of enhanced distinctive character by a mark may be a result of its use as part of another registered trade mark (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432, § 30-32; 07/09/2006, T168/04, Aire limpio, EU:T:2006:245, § 74).
Poudariti je treba, da je lahko pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke rezultat njene uporabe kot dela druge registrirane blagovne znamke (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432, § 30-32; 07/09/2006, T168/04, Aire limpio, EU:T:2006:245, § 74).
The outcome of the examination of enhanced distinctiveness will be one of the following.
Izid preizkusa povečanega razlikovalnega učinka je lahko eden od naslednjih.
Where there is no evidence of enhanced distinctiveness as regards the relevant goods and services or the territory, or the evidence is insufficient, the level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark will be its inherent distinctiveness (less than normal or normal).
Če ni dokazil o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku v zvezi z upoštevnim blagom in storitvami ali ozemljem ali če dokazila niso zadostna, bo stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke ustrezala njenemu svojstvenemu razlikovalnemu učinku (nižja od običajne ali običajna).
Where there is evidence of enhanced distinctiveness as regards all or some of the relevant goods and services and the territory, and the evidence is sufficient:
Če obstajajo dokazila o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku za vse upoštevno blago in storitve ali njihov del ter ozemlje in če so dokazila zadostna:
○ if the earlier mark has less than normal inherent distinctiveness, the mark/component may have acquired a normal or even a high degree of distinctiveness, depending on the evidence submitted ; or
če je stopnja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke nižja od običajne, je lahko znamka/sestavni del pridobil običajno ali celo visoko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, odvisno od predloženih dokazil, ali
[6: For further details on the evidence required and its assessment see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).]
[6: Za dodatne podrobnosti o zahtevanih dokazilih in njihovi presoji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
○ if the earlier trade mark has normal inherent distinctiveness, it may have acquired high distinctiveness.
če ima prejšnja blagovna znamka običajno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, je lahko pridobila visoko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
It must be recalled that although a mark as a whole may have acquired enhanced distinctiveness, there may be descriptive elements that will have less than normal or no distinctiveness.
Opozoriti je treba, da lahko znamka vključuje opisne elemente, ki imajo razlikovalni učinek, ki je manjši od običajnega, ali ga sploh nimajo, čeprav je morda kot celota pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek.
The fact that the mark at issue consists of the same word sign as the earlier word mark and differs from it solely by a figurative element without particular meaning could be perceived as a particular configuration of the earlier word mark (paras 73, 77).
Blago in storitve: Razred 43 in drugi razredi, povezani s potovalnimi in hotelirskimi storitvami Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Blagovni znamki sta si vizualno zelo podobni, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaki.
Earlier mark Contested sign Case No
Prejšnja znamka Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
POST TPG POST 13/05/2015, T102/14, EU:T:2015:279
SHE 15/10/2015, T642/13, EU:T:2015:781
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: the earlier mark has limited distinctiveness.
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Blagovni znamki sta si vizualno in pojmovno podobni, zvočno pa enaki.
The differences between the marks due to the addition of the distinctive element ‘TPG' will be perceived visually, phonetically and conceptually (paras 61, 68.
Trditev, da je prejšnja besedna znamka povsem opisna in ima zato majhen razlikovalni učinek, ugotovitve verjetnosti zmede ne postavlja pod vprašaj.
F1 F1H2O 21/05/2005, T55/13, EU:T:2015:309
POST TPG POST 13/05/2015, T102/14, EU:T:2015:279
G&S: Class 9, 25, 38, 41 Territory: IT, UK and others Assessment: the visual and phonetic similarity is low, the signs are conceptually dissimilar.
Blago in storitve: Razred 39 in drugi razredi, povezani s poštnimi storitvami Ozemlje: Nemčija, EU Presoja: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke je omejen.
G&S: Class 33 Territory: France Assessment: (earlier mark ‘CRISTAL') ‘As regards the claim that “Cristal” is a descriptive word for the goods at issue (sparkling wines with crystalline character), the Board cannot accept it.
Blago in storitve: Razred 33 Ozemlje: Francija Presoja: (Prejšnja znamka CRISTAL) „Odbor se ne more strinjati s trditvijo, da je ,Cristal‘ opisna beseda za zadevno blago (peneča vina s kristalno čistim značajem).
On the one hand, it is an evocative indication which suggests the crystalline character of wines, but which in no way describes the product.
Po eni strani je to evokativna označba, ki namiguje na kristalno čist značaj vin, vendar nikakor ne opisuje proizvoda.
On the other hand, [the Board] considers that a highly distinctive character of the mark CRISTAL on the French market had been shown.
Po drugi strani pa [odbor] meni, da je bil na francoskem trgu dokazan visok razlikovalni učinek znamke CRISTAL.
' (para. 31)
“ (točka 31)
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 2
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 1
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Other Factors
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Drugi dejavniki
PART C
(EUIPO)
OPPOSITION
DEL C
SECTION 2
UGOVOR
DOUBLE IDENTITY AND
RAZDELEK 2
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
DVOJNA ENAKOST IN VERJETNOST ZMEDE
OTHER FACTORS
DRUGI DEJAVNIKI
2 Family of Marks/Series of Marks 3
2 Družina znamk/serija znamk 3
3 Coexistence of Conflicting Marks on the Market in the Same Territory 6
3 Soobstoj nasprotujočih si znamk na trgu na istem ozemlju 6
3.1 Coexistence between the marks involved in the opposition 6
3.1 Soobstoj znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru 6
4 Incidences of Actual Confusion 8
4 Dejanski primeri zmede 8
5 Prior Decisions by EU or National Authorities Involving Conflicts Between the Same (or Similar) Trade Marks 9
5 Predhodne odločbe organov EU ali nacionalnih organov, v katerih je bilo obravnavano navzkrižje med enakimi (ali podobnimi) blagovnimi znamkami 9
5.1 Prior Office decisions 9
5.1 Predhodne odločbe Urada 9
5.2 Prior national decisions and judgments 10
5.2 Prejšnje nacionalne odločbe in sodbe 9
6 Irrelevant Arguments for Assessing Likelihood of Confusion 11
6 Brezpredmetne utemeljitve za presojanje verjetnosti zmede 11
6.1 Specific marketing strategies 11
6.1 Posebne strategije trženja 11
6.2 Reputation of EUTM application 12
6.2 Ugled prijave blagovne znamke EU 11
The Office normally examines the most salient and habitually relevant factors relating to likelihood of confusion under separate headings before the chapter on global assessment.
Urad navadno prouči dejavnike, ki najbolj izstopajo in so običajno najbolj pomembni pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede, pod posameznimi naslovi, šele nato preide na poglavje o celoviti presoji.
These factors have been treated in the preceding chapters of these Guidelines.
Ti dejavniki so bili obravnavani v predhodnih poglavjih teh Smernic.
However, the global assessment also takes into account other factors, based on arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, which are relevant for deciding on likelihood of confusion.
Pri celoviti presoji se upoštevajo tudi drugi dejavniki, ki temeljijo na utemeljitvah in dokazih, ki so jih predložile stranke, ter so pomembni pri odločanju, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede.
This chapter deals with the frequent arguments/claims raised by the parties.
To poglavje obravnava pogoste utemeljitve/trditve strank.
2 Family of Marks/Series of Marks
Družina znamk/serija znamk
When an opposition to an EUTM application is based on several earlier marks and those marks display characteristics that give grounds for regarding them as forming part of a single ‘series' or ‘family', a likelihood of confusion may be created by the possibility of association between the contested trade mark and the earlier marks forming part of the series.
Kadar ugovor zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU temelji na več prejšnjih znamkah in imajo te znamke lastnosti, zaradi katerih je mogoče šteti, da so del ene „serije“ ali „družine“ znamk, lahko nastane verjetnost zmede zaradi povezave med izpodbijano blagovno znamko in prejšnjimi znamkami, ki so del serije.
The Courts have given clear indications on the two cumulative conditions that have to be satisfied (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 123-127, confirmed 13/09/2007, C234/06 P, Bainbridge, EU:C:2007:514, § 63).
Sodišča so jasno navedla dva kumulativna pogoja, ki morata biti izpolnjena (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 123-127, potrjena z dne 13/09/2007, C234/06 P, Bainbridge, EU:C:2007:514, § 63).
Firstly, the proprietor of a series of earlier marks must submit proof of use of all the marks belonging to the series or, at the very least, of a number of marks capable of constituting a ‘series' (i.e. at least three).
Prvič, imetnik serije prejšnjih znamk mora predložiti dokaz o uporabi vseh znamk, ki so del serije, ali vsaj za več znamk, ki bi lahko sestavljale „serijo“ (tj. najmanj tri).
Secondly, the trade mark applied for must not only be similar to the marks belonging to the series, but must also display characteristics capable of associating it with the series.
Drugič, ne le da mora biti prijavljena blagovna znamka podobna znamkam, ki so del serije, ampak mora imeti tudi lastnosti, zaradi katerih jo je mogoče povezati s serijo.
Association must lead the public to believe that the contested trade mark is also part of the series, that is to say, that the goods and services could originate from the same or connected undertakings.
Povezava mora javnost voditi k prepričanju, da je tudi izpodbijana blagovna znamka del iste serije, tj. da bi lahko blago in storitve izvirali od istega podjetja ali od povezanih podjetij.
This may not be the case where, for example, the element common to the earlier series of marks is used in the contested trade mark, either in a different position from that in which it usually appears in the marks belonging to the series, or with a different semantic content.
To na primer ni mogoče, kadar se skupni element prejšnje serije znamk uporabi v izpodbijani blagovni znamki, in sicer v drugačni postavitvi od tiste, v kakršni se navadno pojavlja v znamkah v seriji, ali z drugačno semantično vsebino.
The argument that there is a ‘family of marks' must be claimed before the expiry of the time limit set for substantiating the opposition.
Zato se je treba na trditev, da gre za „družino znamk“, sklicevati še pred iztekom roka za utemeljitev ugovora.
The opponent must prove within the same time limit that it has used the marks forming the alleged family in the marketplace to such an extent that the relevant public has become familiar with this family of marks as designating the goods and/or services of a particular undertaking.
Vložnik ugovora mora v istem roku dokazati, da znamke, ki tvorijo domnevno družino na trgu, uporablja v takšnem obsegu, da se je upoštevna javnost lahko seznanila s to družino znamk kot z znamkami, ki označujejo blago in/ali storitve določenega podjetja.
A positive finding that the opponent has a family of marks entails the use of at least three marks, the minimum threshold for such an argument to be taken into due consideration.
Pozitivna ugotovitev, da je vložnik ugovora imetnik družine znamk, pomeni, da se uporabljajo vsaj tri znamke, kar je najnižji prag za upoštevanje takšne utemeljitve.
Proof of use relating to only two trade marks cannot substantiate the existence of a series of marks.
Z dokazom o uporabi samo dveh blagovnih znamk ni mogoče potrditi obstoja serije znamk.
Normally, the trade marks constituting a ‘family' and used as such are all registered marks.
Blagovne znamke, ki sestavljajo „družino“ in se tako tudi uporabljajo, so običajno vse registrirane.
However, it cannot be precluded that the ‘family of marks' doctrine may also include non-registered trade marks.
Vendar ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da doktrina o „družini znamk“ lahko vključuje tudi neregistrirane blagovne znamke.
When the opponent has proven the existence of a family of marks, it would be wrong to compare the contested application individually with each of the earlier marks making up the family.
Kadar vložnik ugovora dokaže, da obstaja družina znamk, ne bi bilo pravilno, če bi izpodbijano prijavo primerjali z vsako od prejšnjih znamk v družini posebej.
Rather, the assessment of similarity should be conducted to make a comparison between the contested mark and the family taken as a whole, in order to establish if the contested sign displays those characteristics that are likely to trigger the association with the opponent's family of marks in consumers' minds.
Presojati je treba podobnost izpodbijane znamke in družine kot celote, da se ugotovi, ali ima izpodbijani znak tiste lastnosti, zaradi katerih bi ga lahko potrošniki povezali z družino znamk, katere imetnik je vložnik ugovora.
In fact, an individual comparison between the conflicting signs might even lead to a finding that the signs are not sufficiently similar to lead to a likelihood of confusion, whereas the association of the contested sign with the earlier family of marks might be the decisive factor that tips the balance to a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Pravzaprav je mogoče celo, da bi pri posameznih primerjavah nasprotujočih si znakov ugotovili, da si znaka nista dovolj podobna, da bi to privedlo do verjetnosti zmede, povezava izpodbijanega znaka s prejšnjo družino znamk pa je lahko odločilen dejavnik, na podlagi katerega se sprejme odločitev o verjetnosti zmede.
An assumption of a family of marks on the part of the public requires that the common denominator of the contested application and the earlier family of marks must have a distinctive character, either per se or acquired through use, to allow a direct association between all of these signs.
Za veljavnost domneve, da javnost pozna družino znamk, mora imeti skupni imenovalec izpodbijane prijave in prejšnje družine znamk razlikovalni značaj, ki je znamki lasten ali je nastal z uporabo in omogoča neposredno povezavo med vsemi temi znaki.
Likewise, there will be no assumption of a family of marks where the further components of the earlier signs have a greater impact in the overall impression of those signs.
Domneva o družini znamk ne bo niti veljavna, če obstajajo dodatni elementi prejšnjih znakov, ki imajo večji vpliv pri splošnem vtisu teh znakov.
The finding that a particular mark forms part of a family of marks requires that the common component of the signs is identical or very similar.
Ugotovitev, da je neka znamka del družine znamk, zahteva, da je skupni element znakov enak ali zelo podoben.
The signs must contain the same distinctive element, and this element must play an independent role in the sign as a whole.
Znaki morajo vsebovati isti razlikovalni element, ki mora imeti neodvisno vlogo v znaku kot celoti.
Minor graphical differences in the common component may not exclude an assumption of a series of marks, when these differences may be understood by the public to be a modern presentation of the same product line.
Ni nujno, da manjše razlike v grafiki skupnega elementa izključujejo domnevo o seriji znamk, če jih lahko javnost razume kot sodobno upodobitev iste proizvodne linije.
In contrast, letters that are different from or additional to the common component generally do not allow an assumption of a family of marks.
Po drugi strani drugačne ali dodatne črke v skupnem elementu načeloma ne omogočajo domneve o obstoju družine znamk.
Normally, the common element that characterises the family appears in the same position within the marks.
Skupni element, ki je značilen za družino, se pri znamkah običajno pojavlja na istem mestu.
Therefore, the same (or very similar) element appearing in the same position in the contested sign will be a strong indicator that the later mark could be associated with the opponent's family of marks.
Isti (ali zelo podoben) element, ki se v izpodbijanem znaku pojavlja na istem mestu, pa močno kaže, da je mogoče kasnejšo znamko povezati z družino znamk, katere imetnik je vložnik ugovora.
However, the common element appearing in a different position in the contested sign weighs heavily against such an association being established in the consumers' minds.
Vendar je malo verjetno, da bi potrošniki o takšni povezavi sklepali na podlagi skupnega elementa, ki se v izpodbijanem znaku pojavlja na drugem mestu.
For example, the contested sign ISENBECK is not likely to be associated with a family of BECK- marks where the element BECK is at the beginning of the signs making up the family.
Tako je na primer malo možnosti, da bi izpodbijani znak ISENBECK povezali z družino znamk BECK-, v kateri element BECK stoji na začetku znakov, ki sestavljajo družino.
Examples where the Boards considered that a family of marks had been established
Primeri, v katerih so odbori menili, da je bila ugotovljena družina znamk
3 Coexistence of Conflicting Marks on the Market in the Same Territory
Soobstoj nasprotujočih si znamk na trgu na istem ozemlju
The EUTM applicant may claim that the conflicting trade marks coexist in the relevant territory.
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU lahko trdi, da na upoštevnem ozemlju soobstajata nasprotujoči si blagovni znamki.
Usually the coexistence argument comes up when the applicant owns a national trade mark corresponding to the EUTM application in the territory where the opposing trade mark is protected.
Utemeljitev o soobstoju se navadno poda, kadar je prijavitelj imetnik nacionalne blagovne znamke, ki ustreza prijavi blagovne znamke EU na ozemlju, kjer je zaščitena nasprotujoča blagovna znamka.
The applicant may also refer to coexistence with a trade mark owned by a third party.
Prijavitelj se lahko na soobstoj sklicuje tudi, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke tretja oseba.