natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to determine whether the use of a sign takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment, which takes into account all the factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, confirmed 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53). 
Za ugotovitev, ali uporaba znaka neupravičeno izkorišča razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke, je treba opraviti tudi celovito presojo, ki upošteva vse dejavnike, pomembne za okoliščine primera (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 53, potrjena s sodbo z dne 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; see also 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, § 29, 30, 38; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 57, 58, 66; 24/03/2011, C552/09 P, TiMiKinderjoghurt, EU:C:2011:177, § 53).
The misappropriation of the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark presupposes an association between the respective marks, which makes possible the transfer of attractiveness and prestige to the sign applied for. 
Neupravičena prisvojitev razlikovalnega učinka in ugleda prejšnje znamke je odvisna od asociacije med zadevnima znamkama, ki omogoča prenos privlačnosti in prestiža na znak, za katerega je vložena prijava.
An association of this kind will be more likely in the following circumstances. 
Takšna asociacija je verjetnejša v naslednjih okoliščinah.
1. Where the earlier mark possesses a strong reputation or a very strong (inherent) distinctive character, because in such a case it will be both more tempting for the applicant to try to benefit from its value and easier to associate it with the sign applied for. 
Kadar ima prejšnja znamka velik ugled ali (sama po sebi) zelo velik razlikovalni značaj, saj je v takem primeru privlačneje za prijavitelja, da poskuša izkoristiti njeno vrednost, lažje pa jo je tudi povezati z znakom, za katerega je vložena prijava.
Such marks will be recognised in almost any context, exactly because of their outstanding distinctiveness or ‘good' or ‘special' reputation, in the sense that it reflects an image of excellence, reliability or quality, or some other positive message, which could positively influence the choice of the consumer as regards goods of other producers (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44). 
Take znamke je mogoče prepoznati skoraj v vseh okoliščinah prav zaradi svojega izjemnega razlikovalnega učinka ali „dobrega“ ali „posebnega“ ugleda, saj izražajo podobo odličnosti, zanesljivosti ali kakovosti ali kakšno drugo pozitivno sporočilo, ki bi lahko pozitivno vplivalo na potrošnikovo izbiro v zvezi z blagom drugih proizvajalcev (12/07/2011, C324/09, L'Oréal-eBay, EU:C:2011:474, § 44).
The stronger the distinctive character of the earlier mark, the more likely it is that, when encountering a later identical or similar mark, the relevant public will associate it with that earlier mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27). 
Večji ko je razlikovalni značaj prejšnje znamke, verjetneje je, da bo upoštevna javnost ob stiku s poznejšo enako ali podobno znamko to povezala s prejšnjo znamko (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 27).
2. Where the degree of similarity between the signs at issue is high. 
Kadar je stopnja podobnosti med spornima znakoma visoka.
The more similar the marks 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; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44). 
Bolj ko sta si znamki 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; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 44).
3. Where there is a special connection between the goods/services, which allows for some of the qualities of the opponent's goods/services to be attributed to those of the applicant. 
Kadar je med blagom/storitvami posebna zveza, na podlagi katere je mogoče nekatere značilnosti blaga/storitev vložnika ugovora pripisati blagu/storitvam prijavitelja.
This will be particularly so in the case of neighbouring markets, where a ‘brand extension' would seem more natural, as in the example of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; the healing properties of the former may be presumed in the latter when it bears the same mark. 
Tako je zlasti v primeru sosednjih trgov, na katerih se zdi „razširitev znamke“ bolj primerna, na primer na področjih farmacevtskih proizvodov in kozmetičnih proizvodov; lahko se domneva, da imajo kozmetični proizvodi zdravilne lastnosti farmacevtskih proizvodov, če so označeni z isto znamko.
Similarly, the Court has held that certain drinks (Classes 32 and 33) commercialised as improving sexual performance were linked to the properties of the goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and veterinary products and substances) for which the earlier mark, Viagra, was registered (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74). 
Podobno je Sodišče odločilo, da so nekatere pijače (razreda 32 in 33), ki so se tržile za izboljšanje spolne učinkovitosti, povezane z značilnostmi blaga iz razreda 5 (farmacevtski proizvodi in snovi ter proizvodi in snovi za uporabo v veterinarski medicini), za katero je bila registrirana prejšnja znamka Viagra (25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 74).
Conversely, such a link was not found between credit card services and cosmetics, as it was thought that the image of the former is not transferable to the latter, even though their respective users largely coincide. 
Nasprotno pa take zveze ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti med storitvami kreditne kartice in kozmetičnimi proizvodi, ker je bilo ocenjeno, da podobe storitev ni mogoče prenesti na proizvode, čeprav oboje uporablja v glavnem ista skupina uporabnikov.
4. Where, in view of its special attractiveness and prestige, the earlier mark may be exploited even outside its natural market sector, for example, by licensing or merchandising. 
Kadar je mogoče prejšnjo znamko zaradi posebne privlačnosti in prestiža izkoristiti tudi zunaj njenega običajnega tržnega sektorja, na primer z licenciranjem ali trženjem.
In this case, if the applicant uses a sign that is identical or similar to the earlier mark for goods for which the latter is already exploited, it will obviously profit from its de facto value in that sector (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER). 
Če prijavitelj v tem primeru znak, ki je enak ali podoben prejšnji znamki, uporablja za blago, za katerega se ta znamka že izkorišča, bo nedvomno izkoristil njeno dejansko vrednost v tem sektorju (16/03/2012, R 1074/20115, Twitter (fig.) / TWITTER).
The applicant's intention is not a material factor. 
Prijaviteljev namen ni pomemben dejavnik.
Taking unfair advantage of the distinctiveness or repute of a trade mark may be a deliberate decision, for example where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark, or an attempt to trade upon the reputation of a famous mark. 
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda blagovne znamke je lahko namerno, kadar gre na primer za jasno izkoriščanje in obešanje na ugled slavne znamke ali poskuse izkoriščanja njenega ugleda.
However, taking unfair advantage does not necessarily require a deliberate intention to exploit the goodwill attached to someone else's trade mark. 
Vendar za neupravičeno izkoriščanje ni nujno potrebno namerno izkoriščanje dobrega imena, povezanega z blagovno znamko nekoga drugega.
The concept of taking unfair advantage ‘concerns the risk that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics which it projects are transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods is made easier by that association with the earlier mark with a reputation' (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46). 
Pri pojmu neupravičenega izkoriščanja „gre za tveganje, da se podoba ugledne znamke ali značilnosti, ki jih slednja prikazuje, prenesejo na proizvode, na katere se nanaša prijavljena znamka, tako da se njihovo trženje olajša z miselnim povezovanjem s prejšnjo ugledno znamko“ (19/06/2008, T93/06, Mineral Spa, EU:T:2008:215, § 40; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 40; 30/01/2008, T128/06, Camelo, EU:T:2008:22, § 46).
Therefore, bad faith is not in itself a condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR, which only requires that the advantage be ‘unfair', in that there is no justification for the applicant's profit. 
Slaba vera sama po sebi zato ni pogoj za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim se zahteva le, da gre za izkoriščanje „brez upravičenega razloga“, kar pomeni, da prijaviteljeva korist ni upravičena.
However, where the evidence shows that the applicant is clearly acting in bad faith, there will be a strong indication of unfair advantage. 
Kadar pa je iz dokazov razvidno, da prijavitelj očitno ravna v slabi veri, je to pomemben znak neupravičenega izkoriščanja.
The existence of bad faith may be inferred from various factors, such as an obvious attempt by the applicant to imitate an earlier sign of great distinctiveness as closely as possible, or where there is no apparent reason why it chose for its goods a mark that includes such a sign. 
Obstoj slabe vere je mogoče povzeti iz različnih dejavnikov, kot na primer kadar prijavitelj očitno poskuša čim natančnejše posnemati prejšnji znak z velikim razlikovalnim učinkom ali kadar nima nobenega očitnega razloga, da je za svoje blago izbral znamko, ki vključuje takšen znak.
Finally, the concept of unfair advantage in Article 8(5) EUTMR does not relate to the detriment caused to the reputed mark. 
Nazadnje, pojem neupravičenega izkoriščanja v členu 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se ne nanaša na oškodovanje ugledne znamke.
Accordingly, advantage taken by a third party of the distinctive character or repute of the mark may be unfair even if the use of the identical or similar sign is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor. 
V skladu s tem je lahko korist, ki jo je tretja oseba pridobila zaradi razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda znamke, neupravičena, tudi če uporaba enakega ali podobnega znaka ne oškoduje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda znamke ali, splošneje, njenega imetnika.
It is, therefore, not necessary for the opponent to show that the applicant's benefit is detrimental to its economic interests or to the image of its mark (unlike with tarnishing, see below), as in most cases the ‘borrowed' distinctiveness/prestige of the sign will principally affect the applicant's competitors, that is, traders dealing in identical/similar/neighbouring markets, by putting them at a competitive disadvantage. 
Zato vložniku ugovora ni treba dokazati, da prijaviteljeva korist škoduje njegovim ekonomskim interesom ali ugledu njegove znamke (za razliko od očrnitve, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju), saj v večini primerov „izposojeni“ razlikovalni učinek/prestiž znaka prizadene načeloma prijaviteljeve tekmece, torej gospodarske subjekte, ki delujejo na enakih/podobnih/sorodnih trgih, ker se znajdejo v podrejenem konkurenčnem položaju.
However, the possibility of simultaneous detriment to the opponent's interests should not be ruled out completely, especially in instances where use of the sign applied for could affect the opponent's merchandising schemes, or would hinder its plans to penetrate a new market sector. 
Vendar se ne sme popolnoma izključiti možnost sočasnega oškodovanja interesov vložnika ugovora, zlasti kadar bi lahko uporaba znaka, za katerega je bila vložena prijava, prizadela njegove programe trženja ali ovirala načrte za prodor v novi tržni sektor.
Cases on unfair advantage 
Primeri neupravičenega izkoriščanja
Risk of unfair advantage established 
Potrjeno tveganje neupravičenega izkoriščanja
Risk of unfair advantage denied 
Zavrnjeno tveganje neupravičenega izkoriščanja
3.4.3.2 Detriment to distinctiveness 
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka
Detriment to the distinctive character of an earlier reputed mark (also referred to as ‘dilution', ‘whittling away' or ‘blurring') is caused when that mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor is weakened because use of a later similar mark leads to dispersion of the identity of the earlier reputed mark by making it less distinctive or unique (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 29). 
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje ugledne znamke (uporabljajo se tudi izrazi „oslabitev“, „izpodjedanje“ ali „zabris“) obstaja, če je sposobnost te znamke - da blago/storitve, za katere je registrirana in za katere se uporablja, označuje tako, kot da jih zagotavlja imetnik navedene znamke - oslabljena, ker uporaba poznejše podobne znamke povzroči razpršitev identitete prejšnje ugledne znamke, katere razlikovalni učinek ali edinstvenost se zato zmanjšata (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 29).
Article 8(5) EUTMR states that a proprietor of a reputed mark may oppose EUTM applications that, without due cause, would be detrimental to the distinctive character of earlier reputed marks. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da lahko imetnik ugledne znamke ugovarja prijavi blagovne znamke EU, ki bi brez upravičenega razloga oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
Clearly, therefore, the object of protection is the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark. 
Predmet varstva je torej očitno razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke z ugledom.
As demonstrated in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, ‘distinctiveness' refers to the greater or lesser capacity of a mark to identify the goods/services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking. 
Kot je pojasnjeno v Smernicah, delu C: Ugovor, razdelku 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavju 5: „Razlikovalni učinek“ prejšnje znamke, se razlikovalni učinek nanaša na večjo ali manjšo sposobnost znamke, da blago/storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, označuje, kot da izhajajo iz določenega podjetja.
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR protects reputed marks against a reduction of their distinctive quality by a later similar mark even where the later mark relates to dissimilar goods/services. 
Zato člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ščiti ugledne znamke pred tem, da bi poznejša podobna znamka zmanjšala njihov razlikovalni učinek, tudi kadar se poznejša znamka nanaša na različno blago/storitve.
Although the former wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR only referred to conflicts between dissimilar goods/services, in its judgments of 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9; 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, the Court held that this Article also covers similar or identical goods/services. 
Čeprav se ubeseditev člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša samo na spore med različnim blagom ali storitvami, je Sodišče v sodbah z dne 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9 in z dne 23/10/2003, C408/01, Adidas, EU:C:2003:582, odločilo, da ta člen zajema tudi podobno ali enako blago ali storitve.
The protection provided in Article 8(5) EUTMR, therefore, acknowledges that unrestrained use of a reputed mark by third parties, even on dissimilar goods, will eventually reduce the distinctive quality or uniqueness of that reputed mark. 
Varstvo, zagotovljeno s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, torej temelji na priznavanju, da se bosta razlikovalni učinek ali edinstvenost ugledne znamke, tudi če gre za različno blago, sčasoma zmanjšala, če jo bodo neomejeno uporabljale tretje osebe.
For example, if Rolls Royce were used on restaurants, pants, candy, plastic pens, yard brushes, etc., its distinctiveness would eventually be dispersed and its special hold upon the public would be reduced - even in relation to cars, for which it is reputed. 
Če bi se na primer znamka Rolls Royce uporabljala za restavracije, hlače, sladkarije, plastična pisala, metle za dvorišče itd., bi se njen razlikovalni učinek postopno razpršil, poseben vpliv, ki ga ima v javnosti, pa bi se zmanjšal celo glede avtomobilov, v zvezi s katerimi ima ugled.
Consequently, the Rolls Royce mark's ability to identify the goods/services for which it is registered and used as coming from its proprietor would be weakened in the sense that consumers of the goods for which the reputed mark is protected and reputed will be less inclined to associate it immediately with the owner that has built up the trade mark's reputation. 
Posledično bi sposobnost znamke Rolls Royce, za označevanje blaga/storitev, za katere je registrirana in se uporablja, kot da jih zagotavlja imetnik te znamke, oslabila, saj bi jo bili potrošniki blaga, v zvezi s katerim je znamka zaščitena in ima ugled, manj sposobni neposredno povezati z imetnikom, ki je ustvaril njen ugled.
This is because, for those consumers, the mark now has several or many ‘other' associations, where it previously had only one. 
To pa zato, ker ima znamka za te potrošnike zdaj nekaj ali veliko „drugih“ asociacij, prej pa je imela samo eno.
Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier reputed mark must be assessed by reference to the average consumers of the goods and services for which that mark is registered, who are reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35). 
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke z ugledom je treba presojati z vidika povprečnega potrošnika blaga in storitev, za katere je ta znamka registrirana, ki je normalno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in preudaren (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35).
The assessment of detriment to distinctiveness 
Presoja oškodovanja razlikovalnega učinka
Detriment to the distinctiveness of the earlier reputed mark occurs where use of a later similar mark reduces the distinctive quality of the earlier reputed mark. 
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke z ugledom se pojavi, kadar se zaradi uporabe poznejše podobne znamke zmanjša razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke z ugledom.
However, this cannot be found to occur merely because the earlier mark has a reputation and is identical with or similar to the mark applied for - such an approach would apply an automatic and indiscriminate finding of likelihood of dilution against all marks that are similar to reputed trade marks and would negate the requirement of proving detriment. 
Vendar taka ugotovitev ne more temeljiti samo na tem, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled in je enaka ali podobna znamki, za katero je vložena prijava - tak pristop bi pomenil, da se samodejno in brez razlikovanja ugotovi, da obstaja verjetnost oslabitve v zvezi z vsemi znamkami, ki so podobne ugledni znamki, in bi bil v nasprotju z zahtevo, da je treba dokazati oškodovanje.
The Court held in Intel that Article 4(4)(a) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (the equivalent of Article 8(5) EUTMR) must be interpreted as meaning that proof that use of the later mark would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a ‘change in the economic behaviour' of the average consumer of the goods/services for which the earlier mark was registered, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future. 
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Intel odločilo, da je treba člen 4(4)(a) Prve direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS (ki je enakovreden členu 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) razlagati, kot da se v okviru dokaza, da bi uporaba poznejše znamke oškodovala razlikovalni značaj prejšnje znamke, zahteva, da se dokaže bodisi „sprememba ekonomskega ravnanja“ povprečnega potrošnika blaga/storitev, za katere je prejšnja znamka registrirana, bodisi resno tveganje za nastanek take spremembe v prihodnosti.
The Court has further elaborated on the concept of ‘change in the economic behaviour of the average consumers' in its judgment of 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741. 
Sodišče je koncept „spremembe ekonomskega ravnanja“ povprečnega potrošnika dodatno opredelilo v sodbi z dne 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741.
It indicated that it is an autonomous objective condition, which cannot be deduced solely from subjective elements such as how consumers perceive the dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity. 
Navedlo je, da gre za samostojni objektivni pogoj, ki ga ni mogoče zožiti le na subjektivne elemente, kot je, kako potrošniki dojemajo razpršitev podobe in identitete znamke z ugledom.
The mere fact that consumers note the presence of a new similar sign that is likely to undermine the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods for which it is registered as coming from the mark's proprietor, is not sufficient by itself to establish the existence of detriment or a risk of detriment to the distinctive character of the reputed mark (paras 35 to 40). 
Dejstvo, da potrošniki opazijo obstoj novega podobnega znaka, ki bo verjetno spodkopal sposobnost prejšnje znamke, da proizvode, za katere je registrirana, označuje tako, kot da izvirajo od imetnika znamke, samo po sebi ne zadostuje za dokaz škodovanja ali nevarnosti škodovanja razlikovalnemu učinku znamke z ugledom (točke od 35 do 40).
The Court insists on a ‘higher standard' for establishing dilution. 
Sodišče vztraja pri „višjem standardu“ za dokaz oslabitve.
The following two autonomous conditions must be substantiated by the opponent and reasoned by the Office. 
Vložnik ugovora mora utemeljiti, Urad pa obrazložiti naslednja samostojna pogoja.
Dispersion of the reputed mark's image and identity in the relevant public's perception (subjective condition). 
Dojemanje upoštevne javnosti v zvezi z oslabitvijo podobe in identitete blagovne znamke z ugledom (subjektivni pogoj).
A change in the economic behaviour of this public (objective condition). 
Sprememba ekonomskega ravnanja te javnosti (objektivni pogoj).
Whilst the opponent does not need to submit evidence of actual detriment, it must convince the Office by adducing evidence of a serious future risk - which is not merely hypothetical - of detriment. 
Vložniku ugovora sicer ni treba predložiti dokazov o dejanskem oškodovanju, vendar mora Urad prepričati s predložitvijo dokazov o resnem tveganju oškodovanja v prihodnosti, ki ni samo hipotetično.
The opponent may do this by submitting evidence that proves a likelihood of detriment on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities (and not mere suppositions), and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, as cited in 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52; confirmed 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
Vložnik ugovora lahko to stori s predložitvijo dokazov, ki kažejo verjetnost oškodovanja na podlagi logičnih sklepanj, ki izhajajo iz analize možnosti (ne samo predpostavk), in ob upoštevanju običajne prakse v upoštevni gospodarski panogi ter vseh drugih okoliščin obravnavanega primera (16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78, kakor je navedena v sodbi 22/05/2012, T570/10, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:T:2012:250, § 52, in potrjena s sodbo 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).