natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This type of evidence includes all kinds of internal publications giving varied information about the history, activities and perspectives of the opponent's company, or more detailed figures about turnovers, sales, advertising, etc. 
Takšni dokazi vključujejo raznovrstne notranje publikacije z informacijami o zgodovini, dejavnostih in perspektivah podjetja vložnika ugovora ali podrobnejše podatke o prometu, prodaji, oglaševanju itd.
To the extent that such evidence derives from the opponent and is mainly intended to promote its image, its probative value will mostly depend on its contents, and the relevant information should be treated with caution, especially if it mainly consists of estimates and subjective evaluations. 
Če je vir takih dokazov vložnik ugovora in so namenjeni predvsem promociji njegove podobe, je njihova dokazna vrednost odvisna predvsem od vsebine, zato je treba zadevne informacije obravnavati previdno, zlasti če vsebujejo predvsem približke in subjektivne ocene.
However, where such publications are circulated to clients and other interested circles and contain objectively verifiable information and data, which may have been compiled or revised by independent auditors (as is often the case with annual reports), their probative value will be substantially enhanced. 
Če pa so te publikacije namenjene strankam in drugim zainteresiranim krogom ter vsebujejo objektivne preverljive informacije in podatke, ki so jih lahko zbrali ali pregledali neodvisni revizorji (kar je pogosto pri letnih poročilih), je njihova dokazna vrednost bistveno večja.
Invoices and other commercial documents 
Računi in drugi poslovni dokumenti
Even though the relevance and credibility of commercial documents is not disputed, it will generally be difficult to prove reputation on the basis of such materials alone, given the variety of factors involved and the volume of documents required. 
Čeprav pomen in verodostojnost poslovnih dokumentov nista sporna, je navadno težko dokazati ugled samo na podlagi takega gradiva zaradi različnih vpletenih dejavnikov in količine zahtevanih dokumentov.
Furthermore, evidence relating to distribution or sponsoring contracts and commercial correspondence are more appropriate for giving indications about the geographical extent or promotional side of the opponent's activities, than for measuring the success of the mark in the market, and thus may only serve as indirect indications of reputation. 
Poleg tega so dokazi, kot so distribucijske ali sponzorske pogodbe ter poslovni dopisi, ustreznejši za ugotavljanje geografskega obsega ali promocijskih vidikov dejavnosti vložnika ugovora kot za merjenje uspeha znamke na trgu, zato se lahko uporabljajo samo kot posredni znaki ugleda.
Advertising and promotional material 
Oglaševalsko in promocijsko gradivo
However, some conclusions about the degree of exposure of the public to advertising messages concerning the mark may be drawn by reference to the kind of medium used (national, regional, local) and the audience rates or circulation figures attained by the relevant spots or publications - if, of course, this kind of information is available. 
Vendar je mogoče povzeti nekaj ugotovitev o stopnji izpostavljenosti javnosti oglasnim sporočilom v zvezi z znamko glede na vrsto uporabljenega medija (nacionalni, regionalni, lokalni) in delež občinstva ali velikost naklade zadevnih spotov ali publikacij, če so te informacije seveda na voljo.
In addition, such evidence may give useful indications of the kind of goods covered, the form in which the mark is actually used and the kind of image the opponent is trying to create for its brand. 
Taki dokazi so lahko poleg tega koristni pri ugotavljanju označene vrste blaga, dejanske uporabe znamke in vrste podobe, ki bi jo vložnik ugovora rad ustvaril v zvezi s svojo znamko.
For example, if the evidence shows that the earlier registration for which reputation is claimed covers a device, but in fact this device is used in combination with a verbal element, it would not be correct to accept that the device itself has a reputation. 
Če je iz dokazov na primer razvidno, da se prejšnja registracija, za katero se trdi, da ima ugled, nanaša na logotip, vendar se ta logotip dejansko uporablja skupaj z besednim elementom, bi bilo nepravilno sprejeti ugotovitev, da ima logotip ugled.
Rather, it should be assessed whether the reputation extends to the device. 
Namesto tega bi bilo treba presoditi, ali ugled zajema logotip.
For that purpose, it is important to assess whether the device plays a predominant or even significant role when used in combination with the verbal element, and has acquired a reputation in itself. 
Zato je pomembno oceniti, ali ima logotip, kadar se uporablja skupaj z besednim elementom, prevladujočo ali celo pomembno vlogo in je sam pridobil ugled.
This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 
To je treba preizkusiti za vsak primer posebej.
See example judgments in paragraph 3.1.2.6 above. 
Glej primere sodb v odstavku 3.1.2.6 zgoraj.
3.2 The similarity of the signs 
Podobnost znakov
A certain degree of similarity between the signs must be found for an opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR to succeed (24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53). 
Za uspešen ugovor v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba ugotoviti določeno stopnjo podobnosti med znakoma (24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
If the signs are found dissimilar overall, the examination aimed at establishing whether the other requirements under Article 8(5) EUTMR are met should not be carried out, as the opposition cannot succeed. 
Če se ugotovi, da sta znaka popolnoma različna, se preizkušanja, ali so izpolnjene druge zahteve v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne sme opraviti, saj ugovor ne more biti uspešen.
A subject that gives rise to some uncertainty is the relationship between the term ‘similar' within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR and the term ‘similarity' used in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Negotovost povzroča razmerje med pojmom podobno v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pojmom „podobnost“, uporabljenim v členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
According to the clear wording of these two provisions, similarity (or identity) between the signs is a precondition for the application of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
V skladu z jasno ubeseditvijo teh dveh določb je podobnost (ali enakost) znakov temeljni pogoj za uporabo člena 8(1)(b) in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The use of essentially the same term in both provisions is an argument in favour of the need to interpret this term in the same way, and the case-law has confirmed this. 
Uporaba v bistvu istega izraza v obeh določbah je trditev, da je treba ta izraz razlagati enako, kar potrjuje tudi sodna praksa.
Accordingly, similarity should be assessed according to the same criteria that apply in the context of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, thus taking into account elements of visual, aural or conceptual similarity (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28, relating to the interpretation of Article 5(2) TMD; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 52). 
Ustrezno bi bilo treba podobnost oceniti v skladu z istimi merili, ki se uporabljajo v okviru člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in upoštevati elemente vizualne, zvočne ali pomenske podobnosti (sodba 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28, ki se nanaša na razlago člena 5(2) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami, in sodba 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 52).
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs. 
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.
The general rules for assessing signs established for examining this criterion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR apply, such as the rule that consumers perceive the sign as a whole and only rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between the different marks, and must place their trust in the imperfect image of them that they have kept in mind (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 33, 34) (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment, paragraph 3, Imperfect Recollection). 
Uporabljajo se splošna pravila za presojo znakov, določena za preizkušanje tega merila v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kot je na primer pravilo, da potrošniki zaznavajo znak kot celoto in ga lahko le redko neposredno primerjajo z različnimi znamkami, zato se morajo zanesti na nepopolno podobo znamk, ki jo hranijo v spominu (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 33, 34) (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja, odstavek 3: Nepopoln priklic v spomin).
3.2.1 Notion of ‘similarity' pursuant to Article 8(5) EUTMR compared with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR 
Pojem „podobnosti“ v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v primerjavi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Despite application of the same criteria for similarity of the signs in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR, the purposes underlying these Articles are different: in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the aim is to prevent the registration of a later trade mark that, if used, could confuse the relevant public as regards the commercial origin of the goods or services concerned, whereas in Article 8(5) EUTMR, the aim is to prevent the registration of a later trade mark that, if used, could take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the reputation or distinctiveness of the earlier reputed trade mark. 
Kljub uporabi istih meril za podobnost znakov v skladu s členoma 8(1)(b) in 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je osnovni namen teh členov različen: cilj člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je preprečiti registracijo poznejše znamke, katere uporaba bi lahko zmedla upoštevno javnost, kar zadeva tržni izvor zadevnega blaga ali storitev, cilj člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa je preprečiti registracijo poznejše znamke, katere uporaba bi lahko na nepošten način izkoriščala ali oškodovala ugled ali razlikovalni učinek prejšnje ugledne znamke.
The relationship between the notion of ‘similarity' under the two provisions was addressed by the Court in TiMiKinderjoghurt: ‘It should be noted at the outset that … the existence of a similarity between the earlier mark and the challenged mark is a precondition for the application both of Article 8(1)(b) [EUTMR] and of Article 8(5) [EUTMR]' (para. 51). 
Razmerje med pojmoma „podobnost“ v okviru obeh določb je Sodišče obravnavalo v zadevi TiMiKinderjoghurt: „Najprej je treba spomniti [...][,] da je obstoj podobnosti med prejšnjo in izpodbijano znamko pogoj za uporabo tako odstavka 1(b) kakor odstavka 5 člena 8 [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU]“ (točka 51).
Article 8(5) [EUTMR], like Article 8(1)(b) [EUTMR], is manifestly inapplicable if any similarity between the marks is ruled out (20/11/2014, C581/13 P & C582/13 P, Golden balls, EU:C:2014:2387, § 73). 
Člen 8(5) [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU] tako kot člen 8(1)(b) [Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU] se očitno ne uporablja, če je izključena podobnost med znamkama (20/11/2014, C581/13 P in C582/13 P, Golden balls, EU:C:2014:2387, § 73).
In the context both of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 8(5) EUTMR, a finding of similarity between the marks in question requires the existence, in particular, of elements of visual, aural or conceptual similarity (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28). 
V okviru člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU morajo za ugotovitev podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama obstajati zlasti elementi vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 28).
However, those provisions differ in terms of the degree of similarity required. 
Vendar se ti določbi razlikujeta v smislu zahtevane stopnje podobnosti.
Whereas the protection provided for under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is conditional upon a finding of a degree of similarity between the marks at issue such that there is a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public, the existence of such a likelihood is not necessary for the protection conferred by Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Varstvo v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je odvisno od ugotovitve, da je stopnja podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama tolikšna, da obstaja v zvezi z njima verjetnost zmede pri upoštevnem delu javnosti, obstoj take verjetnosti pa se ne zahteva za varstvo v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Accordingly, the types of injury referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR may result from a lesser degree of similarity between the marks in question, provided that it is sufficient for the relevant section of the public to make a connection between those marks, that is, to establish a link between them (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 27, 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66). 
V skladu s tem lahko kršitve iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU povzroči nižja stopnja podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama, če je zadostna, da upoštevni del javnosti ti znamki poveže, torej med njima vzpostavi zvezo (23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 27, 29, 31; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66).
Nevertheless, it is not apparent either from the wording of those provisions or from the case-law that the similarity between the marks at issue must be assessed in a different way, depending on whether the assessment is carried out under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR or under Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Kljub temu iz ubeseditve teh določb ali iz sodne prakse ni razvidno, da je treba podobnost zadevnih znamk presojati različno glede na to, ali se presoja opravlja v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) ali členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
To sum up, the application of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) EUTMR requires a finding of similarity between the signs. 
Če povzamemo, se za uporabo člena 8(1)(b) in člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zahteva potrditev podobnosti znakov.
Consequently, if, when Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is examined, the signs are found to be dissimilar, the opposition will necessarily fail under Article 8(5) EUTMR too. 
Iz tega izhaja, da se ugovor na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nujno zavrne, če se je s preizkušanjem člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ugotovilo, da sta znaka različna.
However, once the signs have been found to be similar, depending on whether Article 8(1)(b) or Article 8(5) EUTMR is involved, the examiner will independently assess whether the degree of similarity is sufficient for the relevant provision to apply (in correlation with the further relevant factors). 
Če pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da sta znaka podobna, preizkuševalec glede na to, ali gre za člen 8(1)(b) ali člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, neodvisno presodi, ali je stopnja podobnosti zadostna za uporabo zadevne določbe (v povezavi z dodatnimi upoštevnimi dejavniki).
Therefore, a degree of similarity between the marks that, after an overall assessment of the factors, leads to a partial finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR does not necessarily trigger a link between the signs under Article 8(5) EUTMR, for example because the markets concerned are completely distinct. 
Zato stopnja podobnosti med znamkama, na kateri po skupni presoji dejavnikov temelji delna ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ne vzbudi nujno zveze med znakoma v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj so lahko na primer upoštevni trgi popolnoma različni.
A full analysis must take place. 
Opraviti je treba celovito analizo.
This is because the similarity of the signs is only one of the factors to be considered when assessing whether there is such a link (see the relevant criteria listed under paragraph 3.3 below on the ‘link'). 
Razlog za to je, da je podobnost znakov samo eden od dejavnikov, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri presoji obstoja take povezave (glej ustrezna merila, navedena v odstavku 3.3 v nadaljevanju v zvezi z izrazom „zveza“).
Depending on the case, the following scenarios are possible. 
Glede na posamezen primer so mogoči naslednji scenariji:
Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR fails because the signs are dissimilar - Article 8(5) EUTMR fails too, since the same conclusion applies. 
Člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni mogoče uporabiti, ker so znaki različni, poleg tega ni mogoče uporabiti niti člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj velja ista ugotovitev.
Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR is excluded (e.g. because the goods or services are dissimilar or very remotely similar), but the signs are similar - the examination of Article 8(5) EUTMR must be carried out (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 66-71). 
Verjetnost zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je izključena (npr. ker so blago ali storitve različni ali le nekoliko podobni), vendar so znaki podobni - opraviti je treba preizkušanje člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 66-71).
The similarity of the signs together with the other relevant factors justifies the exclusion of likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, but the similarity between the signs might be sufficient to establish a link between them under Article 8(5) EUTMR, in view of the other relevant factors to be taken into account. 
Podobnost znakov skupaj z drugimi upoštevnimi dejavniki upravičuje izključitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar lahko podobnost znakov morda zadostuje za vzpostavitev zveze med njimi v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ob upoštevanju drugih upoštevnih dejavnikov.
3.3 The link between the signs 
Zveza med znakoma
The Court has made it clear that, in order to assess whether use of the contested mark would be likely to cause detriment to, or take unfair advantage of, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark, it is necessary to establish - once the signs have been found to be similar - whether, given all the relevant factors, a link (or association) between the signs will be established in the mind of the relevant public. 
Sodišče je jasno določilo, da je treba za presojo, ali bi lahko izpodbijana znamka oškodovala ali brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje znamke, ugotoviti - ko je ugotovljeno, da sta znaka podobna -, ali se bo glede na vse upoštevne dejavnike v zavesti upoštevne javnosti med znakoma vzpostavila zveza (ali asociacija).
The subsequent case-law has made it clear that such an analysis should precede the final assessment of the existence of a risk of injury. 
Iz poznejše sodne prakse je razvidno, da bi bilo treba takšno analizo opraviti pred končno presojo obstoja tveganja kršitve.
The term ‘link' is often also referred to as ‘association' in other paragraphs of this part of the Guidelines as well as in case-law. 
Namesto izraza „zveza“ se v drugih delih teh smernic in sodni praksi pogosto uporablja tudi izraz „asociacija“.
These terms are, at times, used interchangeably. 
Včasih se izraza uporabljata tako, da sta medsebojno zamenljiva.
The Court made it clear that the mere fact that the marks in question are similar is not sufficient for it to be concluded that there is a link between them. 
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da samo to, da sta si zadevni znamki podobni, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev zveze med njima.
Rather, whether or not there is a link between the marks at issue must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. 
Namesto tega je treba vprašanje, ali je med zadevnima znamkama zveza, presojati celovito, ob upoštevanju vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov obravnavanega primera.
According to Intel (para. 42), the following may be relevant factors when assessing whether such a link exists. 
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi Intel (točka 42) so pri presoji obstoja take zveze lahko upoštevni naslednji dejavniki:
The degree of similarity between the conflicting marks. 
stopnja podobnosti med nasprotujočima si znamkama.
The more similar they are, the more likely it is that the later mark will bring the earlier mark with a reputation to the mind of the relevant public (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26 and, by analogy, 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44). 
Bolj ko sta si podobni, verjetneje je, da bo upoštevna javnost ob poznejši znamki pomislila na prejšnjo znamko, ki ima ugled (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 26, in po analogiji 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44),
The nature of the goods or services for which the earlier mark is reputed and the later mark seeks registration, including the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant section of the public. 
vrsta blaga ali storitev, v zvezi s katerimi ima prejšnja znamka ugled, vključno s stopnjo podobnosti ali različnosti tega blaga ali storitev ter upoštevnim delom javnosti.
The goods or services may be so dissimilar that the later mark is unlikely to bring the earlier mark to the mind of the relevant public (Intel, paragraph 49). 
Blago ali storitve so lahko tako različni, da ni verjetno, da bi upoštevna javnost ob poznejši znamki pomislila na prejšnjo znamko (Intel, točka 49),
The strength of the earlier mark's reputation. 
intenzivnost ugleda prejšnje znamke,
The degree of the earlier mark's distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use. 
stopnja razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke, ki ga ima sama po sebi ali ki je pridobljen z uporabo.
The more inherently distinctive the prior mark, the more likely it will be brought to a consumer's mind when encountering a similar (or identical) later mark. 
Večji ko je svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, verjetneje je, da bo potrošnik pomislil nanjo, ko bo naletel na podobno (ali enako) poznejšo znamko,
The existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. 
obstoj verjetnosti zmede pri javnosti.
This list is not exhaustive, and a link between the marks at issue may be established or excluded on the basis of only some of those criteria. 
Seznam ni izčrpen, zvezo med zadevnima znamkama pa je mogoče ugotoviti ali izključiti tudi na podlagi le nekaterih od navedenih meril.
The question of whether the relevant public will establish a link between the marks at issue is a question of fact, which must be answered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 
Vprašanje, ali bo upoštevna javnost povezala zadevni znamki, je dejansko vprašanje, na katero je treba odgovoriti ob upoštevanju dejstev in okoliščin vsakega posameznega primera.
The assessment of whether a ‘link' will be established must take into account all the relevant factors that will then need to be balanced. 
Pri presoji, ali se bo vzpostavila „zveza“, je treba upoštevati vse upoštevne dejavnike in jih uskladiti.
Therefore, even a faint or remote degree of similarity between the signs (which might not be sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR) still justifies assessing all the relevant factors to determine if it is likely that a link between the signs will be established in the mind of the relevant public. 
Zato tudi zelo majhna ali bežna podobnost med znakoma (ki morda ne zadostuje za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) še vedno upravičuje presojo vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov za ugotovitev, ali je verjetno, da se bo v zavesti upoštevne javnosti vzpostavila zveza med znakoma.
In this respect, in its judgment of 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, the Court stated the following: 
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče v sodbi z dne 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 65-66, navedlo: