natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[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).
It follows that the evidence filed must demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element in question in order to prove that this element has a low degree of distinctive character. 
Zato je treba predložiti dokaze, da so bili potrošniki izpostavljeni zelo razširjeni uporabi blagovnih znamk, ki vključujejo zadevni element, in da so se nanje navadili, s čimer bi se dokazalo, da ima ta element nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
When dealing with the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, the latter should always be considered to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness. 
Pri obravnavanju razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote se mora za to znamko vselej šteti, da ima vsaj minimalno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
Earlier marks, whether EUTMs or national marks, enjoy a ‘presumption of validity'. 
Za prejšnje znamke, tako blagovne znamke EU kot nacionalne znamke, velja „domneva veljavnosti“.
The Court made it clear, in its judgment of 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, that ‘in proceedings opposing the registration of a European Union trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question'. 
Sodišče EU je v sodbi z dne 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314, § 40-41, jasno določilo, da veljavnosti nacionalnih blagovnih znamk ni mogoče izpodbijati v postopku z ugovorom zoper zahtevo za registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije.
The Court added that ‘it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character' . 
Dodalo je, da je treba ugotoviti, da opredelitev znaka kot opisnega ali generičnega pomeni zanikanje njegovega razlikovalnega učinka.
[4: 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 ETMDN.] 
[4: 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.]
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness 
Svojstveni in povečani razlikovalni učinek
The Office must consider, as a first step, the overall inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark (see paragraph 2.2 below) and, as a second step, if claimed and relevant to the outcome, whether the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness as a consequence of the use the opponent has made of it (see paragraph 2.3 below). 
Urad mora v prvem koraku upoštevati splošni svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke (glej odstavek 2.2 v nadaljevanju), v drugem koraku pa, če vložnik ugovora to uveljavlja in če je to pomembno za izid, vprašanje, ali je prejšnja znamka pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek zaradi uporabe s strani vložnika ugovora (glej odstavek 2.3 v nadaljevanju).
The degree of distinctiveness of the earlier sign is one of the factors to be taken into account in the overall assessment (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23). 
Stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnjega znaka je eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri celoviti presoji (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).
It is a matter of law, which must be examined by the Office even if the parties do not comment on it. 
Urad mora proučiti pravni vidik tudi, če stranki v zvezi s tem ne predložita pripomb.
In contrast, the degree of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier sign is a matter of law and fact, which the Office cannot examine unless the opponent claims and substantiates it in due time (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters, paragraph 4.2, Substantiation). 
Nasprotno pa je stopnja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljena z uporabo prejšnjega znaka, pravno in dejansko vprašanje, ki ga Urad ne more proučiti, če vložnik ugovora tega pravočasno ne zahteva in utemelji (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve, odstavek 4.2: Utemeljitev).
The inherent distinctiveness of the contested trade mark as a whole is not examined within the framework of the opposition proceedings, as it is the scope of protection of the earlier mark that is relevant for the purposes of likelihood of confusion. 
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek izpodbijane blagovne znamke kot celote se v okviru postopka ugovora ne preizkusi, saj je za verjetnost zmede pomemben le obseg varstva prejšnje znamke.
Likewise, the enhanced distinctiveness of the contested sign is also irrelevant because likelihood of confusion requires a consideration of the scope of protection of the earlier mark rather than that of the mark applied for. 
Tudi povečani razlikovalni učinek izpodbijanega znaka ni pomemben, ker se za verjetnost zmede zahteva proučitev obsega varstva prejšnje znamke, in ne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
If an earlier mark is recognised as having a broader scope of protection by reason of its enhanced distinctiveness, the reputation acquired by the mark applied for is, as a matter of principle, irrelevant for the purpose of assessing likelihood of confusion (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84). 
Če se za prejšnjo znamko ugotovi, da ima zaradi svojega povečanega razlikovalnega učinka širši obseg varstva, je ugled, ki ga je pridobila znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, načeloma nepomemben za presojo verjetnosti zmede (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 84).
2.1.3 Relevant point in time 
Upoštevni trenutek
The inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark(s) should be assessed at the time of the decision. 
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek prejšnje(-ih) znamke (znamk) bi bilo treba presoditi ob izdaji odločbe.
The enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark(s) (if claimed) should exist (i) at the time of filing of the contested EUTM application (or any priority date) and (ii) at the time of the decision. 
Povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje(-ih) blagovne(-ih) znamke (znamk) (če se uveljavlja), bi moral obstajati (i) ob vložitvi prijave izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU (ali na kateri koli datum prednostne pravice) in (ii) ob izdaji odločbe.
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services 
Upoštevno blago in storitve
The assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only for the goods or services that have been found to be identical or similar to the contested goods and services. 
Presoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke se izvede samo za blago ali storitve, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu ali storitvam.
Assessment of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark is carried out only in respect of the goods or services protected by the sign for which enhanced distinctiveness is claimed. 
Presoja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke se izvede samo v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, zaščitenimi z znakom, za katerega se uveljavlja povečani razlikovalni učinek.
Furthermore, it is the perception of the relevant public for these goods and services that is of relevance (e.g. whether a specialist public is involved or not). 
Poleg tega je za to blago in storitve pomembno zaznavanje v upoštevni javnosti (na primer, ali je vključena specializirana javnost ali ne).
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke
2.2.1 General principles 
Splošna načela
The first step in examining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark is to examine its inherent distinctiveness. 
Prvi korak preizkusa razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke je preizkus njenega svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
At the stage of determining the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole, distinctiveness of its various components (or its only component) has already been established in the section on comparison of signs. 
Ko se določa razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke kot celote, je bil razlikovalni učinek njenih posameznih sestavnih delov (ali edinega sestavnega dela) že ugotovljen v fazi primerjave znakov.
In principle, if an earlier mark contains a normally distinctive component, then the inherent distinctiveness of such an earlier mark as a whole is also normal, regardless of the possible presence of other non-distinctive or weak components. 
Če prejšnja znamka vsebuje sestavni del z običajnim razlikovalnim učinkom, je načeloma tudi svojstveni razlikovalni učinek take prejšnje znamke običajen, ne glede na morebitne druge nerazlikovalne ali šibke sestavne dele.
If the most distinctive component of the earlier mark is distinctive only to a low degree, then in principle the overall inherent distinctiveness of that mark will be no more than low. 
Če ima najbolj razlikovalni sestavni del prejšnje znamke le nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, načeloma stopnja splošnega svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka te znamke ne more biti višja kot nizka.
As mentioned above, earlier registered trade marks are presumed to have at least a minimum degree of inherent distinctiveness (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), even where persuasive evidence is submitted to challenge this presumption. 
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, se domneva, da imajo prejšnje registrirane blagovne znamke vsaj minimalno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka (24/05/2012, C196/11, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314), tudi če se predložijo prepričljiva dokazi, s katerimi se izpodbija ta domneva.
If the EUTM applicant proves that it has started a cancellation action against the earlier registered mark, then it might be necessary to suspend the opposition proceedings pending the outcome of the said action. 
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU dokaže, da je zoper prejšnjo registrirano znamko vložil zahtevo za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti, je morda treba postopek ugovora začasno ustaviti do izida navedenega postopka.
The outcome of the examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole will be one of the following. 
Izid preizkusa svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote je lahko eden od naslednjih.
The earlier mark has less than normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory of the characteristics of identical or similar goods or services (or because it is otherwise weak). 
Prejšnja znamka ima razlikovalni učinek, ki je manjši od običajnega, ker je kot celota namigovalna (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) ali poveličevalna glede na značilnosti enakega ali podobnega blaga ali storitev (ali ker je drugače šibka).
As set out above, the Office will not conclude that an earlier mark as a whole is descriptive and/or non-distinctive. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, Urad ne sprejme ugotovitve, da je prejšnja znamka kot celota opisna in/ali nerazlikovalna.
The earlier mark has normal distinctiveness because, as a whole, it is not descriptive, allusive (in a way that materially affects distinctiveness) or laudatory (or is not otherwise weak) in relation to identical or similar goods or services. 
Prejšnja znamka ima običajni razlikovalni učinek, ker kot celota ni opisna, namigovalna (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) ali poveličevalna (ali drugače šibka) v zvezi z enakim ali podobnim blagom ali storitvami.
It is Office practice, when an earlier mark is not descriptive (or is not otherwise non-distinctive), to consider it as having no more than a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness. 
Praksa Urada je, da za prejšnjo znamko, ki ni opisna, (ali drugače nerazlikovalna) šteje, da ima stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, ki ni višja od običajne.
As indicated above, this degree of distinctiveness can be further enhanced if appropriate evidence is submitted showing that a higher degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark has been acquired through use or because it is highly original, unusual or unique (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, last alternative). 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se ta stopnja razlikovalnega učinka lahko še zviša, če se predložijo ustrezna dokazila, da se je pridobila višja stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, in sicer z njeno uporabo ali zato, ker je zelo izvirna, neobičajna ali edinstvena (26/03/2015, T581/13, Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB (fig.) / BEVERLEY HILLS POLO CLUB et al., EU:T:2015:192, § 49, zadnja možnost).
It should, however, be recalled that 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). 
Treba pa je upoštevati, da 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).
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
Vpliv nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke
As explained in paragraph 2.1.1 above, the Office, following the case-law of the Court of Justice, attributes at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness to the earlier mark. 
Kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku 2.1.1 zgoraj, Urad v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča prejšnji znamki pripiše vsaj minimalno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
A finding that a trade mark has a low or even very low (minimal) degree of distinctiveness may have a different impact on the likelihood of confusion. 
Ugotovitev, da ima blagovna znamka nizko ali celo zelo nizko (minimalno) stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, na verjetnost zmede lahko vpliva različno.
In general, this finding is an argument against likelihood of confusion. 
Na splošno taka ugotovitev potrjuje, da verjetnosti zmede ni.
It must however be balanced with the other factors, like the degree of similarity of the signs and the goods or services, as well as the level of attention and sophistication of the relevant public. 
Treba pa jo je uravnotežiti z drugimi dejavniki, kot sta stopnja podobnosti znakov ter blaga in storitev ter stopnja pozornosti in izkušenosti upoštevne javnosti.
The Court has emphasised on several occasions that a finding of a low distinctive character for the earlier trade mark does not prevent a finding of a likelihood of confusion. 
Sodišče EU je večkrat poudarilo, da priznanje majhnega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke ne preprečuje, da se ugotovi obstoj verjetnosti zmede.
Although the distinctive character of the earlier mark must be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is only one factor among others involved in that assessment. 
Čeprav je namreč treba pri presoji verjetnosti zmede upoštevati razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, je to le eden od dejavnikov, vključenih v to presojo.