natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) provided a legal base for approximating criminal legislation, including that on organised crime. 
Amsterdamska pogodba (1997) je zagotovila pravno podlago za približevanje kazenske zakonodaje, vključno z zakonodajo v zvezi z organiziranim kriminalom.
The Lisbon Treaty (2009) substantially strengthened the EU's standing in this field (para 28). 
Lizbonska pogodba (2009) je pomembno okrepila položaj EU na tem področju (točka 28).
In view of the above, the contested trade mark, which manifestly promotes the name of the criminal organisation Mafia in large letters, must be considered to be against public policy and should therefore not be protected as an EUTM. 
Na podlagi navedenega je treba šteti, da je izpodbijana blagovna znamka, ki očitno ponazarja ime kriminalne združbe Mafia z velikimi črkami, v nasprotju z javnim redom in zato ne bi smela biti zaščitena kot blagovna znamka EU.
The trade mark distorts therewith the grave perception this name conveys (paras 30-31). 
Blagovna znamka s tem izkrivlja resen pomen, ki jo ta beseda vsebuje (točki 30 in 31).
In this case it has been clearly shown that Italian society is deeply disturbed by the use of the contested trade mark for everyday consumer goods and services, especially restaurant services (para 32). 
V tem primeru se jasno kaže, da je uporaba sporne blagovne znamke v zvezi z vsakdanjim potrošniškim blagom in storitvami, zlasti gostinskimi storitvami, močno vznemirjujoča za italijansko družbo (točka 32).
27/10/2016, R 803/20161, under appeal, T1/17 
27/10/2016, R 803/20161, predmet pritožbe, T1/17
ETA General consumer Public policy and morality - ‘ETA' will be immediately understood in Europe, in particular in Spain, as designating the terrorist group ETA (para 2). 
ETA Običajni potrošnik Javni red in morala - kratica „ETA“ bo v Evropi, zlasti v Španiji, takoj razumljena kot oznaka za teroristično skupino ETA (točka 2).
ETA is included on the list of individuals and groups facilitating, attempting to commit or committing terrorist acts in EU territory (Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27/12/2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism updated by Council Common Position 2009/64/CFSP) (para. 14). 
ETA je vključena na seznam posameznikov in skupin, ki omogočajo izvajanje, poskušajo izvajati ali izvajajo teroristična dejanja na ozemlju EU (Skupno stališče Sveta 2001/931/SZVP z dne 27. decembra 2001 o uporabi posebnih ukrepov za boj proti terorizmu, kot je dopolnjeno s Skupnim stališčem Sveta 2009/64/SZVP (točka 14).
In a commercial context, the term ‘ETA' has the inherent tendency to shock any normal person who hears or reads it and, in particular, members of the Spanish public who particularly keep that name in mind. 
V komercialnem okviru je neločljivo povezan namen izraza „ETA“ presuniti vsako normalno osebo, ki jo sliši ali prebere, zlasti pripadnike španske javnosti, ki so si to ime še posebej zapomnili.
The fact that ETA is not currently considered to be the biggest threat facing Spain according to an extract from a survey conducted in June 2015 provided by the applicant, does not mean that the term will not continue to be associated with the terrorist group in question in the mind of the public (para. 15). 
Dejstvo, da ETA danes ne velja več za največjo grožnjo, s katero se spopada Španija, kar dokazuje izvleček iz raziskave, opravljene junija 2015, ki ga je predložil prijavitelj, ne pomeni, da javnost tega pojma ne bo več povezovala z zadevno teroristično skupino (točka 15).
Cannabis with a high THC content is considered to be a narcotic that is prohibited in a large number of Member States (19/11/2009, T234/06, Cannabis, EU:T:2009:448). 
Marihuana z visoko vsebnostjo THC velja za drogo, ki je prepovedana v številnih državah članicah (19/11/2009, T234/06, Cannabis, EU:T:2009:448).
Non-psychoactive substances are legal and the authorities can issue licences for their cultivation for those purposes. 
Snovi, ki niso psihoaktivne, so dovoljene, organi pa lahko za njihovo vzgojo za te namene izdajo dovoljenja.
However, due to its high THC content, in this case the product concerned is not non-psychoactive, but is a substance for smoking that is strictly controlled in almost all European Union countries (para 22). 
V tem primeru pa zadevni proizvod zaradi visoke vsebnosti THC ne velja za snov, ki ni psihoaktivna, temveč gre za snov za kajenje, ki je pod strogim nadzorom v skoraj vseh državah Evropske unije (točka 22).
Sign Relevant Consumer Comment Case No 
Znak Upoštevni potrošnik Pripomba Št. zadeve
KURO General consumer That a foreign term, name or abbreviation displays certain similarities with an offensive word (like ‘kúró') is not in itself sufficient reason to refuse an EUTM application (para. 20). 
KURO Običajni potrošnik Dejstvo, da ima tuji izraz, ime ali okrajšava nekatere podobnosti z žaljivo besedo (kot je kúró), samo po sebi ni zadosten razlog za zavrnitev prijave za blagovno znamko EU (točka 20).
The Hungarian vowels ‘ò' and ‘ù' are clearly different from the unaccented vowels ‘o' and ‘u'. 
Madžarska samoglasnika „ò“ in „ù“ sta očitno drugačna kot „o“ in „u“ brez naglasnega znamenja.
Furthermore, Hungarian words never end with an unaccented ‘o' (paras 15-18). 
Poleg tega se madžarske besede nikoli ne končajo na „o“ brez naglasnega znamenja (točke 15-18).
SCREW YOU General consumer (for sex products) A person entering a sex shop is unlikely to be offended by a trade mark containing crude, sexually charged language (para. 26). 
SCREW YOU Običajni potrošnik (za spolne pripomočke) Oseba, ki vstopi v trgovino z erotičnimi pripomočki, verjetno ne bo užaljena zaradi blagovne znamke, ki vključuje eksplicitno seksualno zaznamovan jezik (točka 26).
Even if the relevant public understood the English word ‘AIR', and analysed the mark by separating it into two elements, the meaning of ‘AIRCURVE' would be ‘air whores', which, as a concept, and for respiratory apparatus, is sufficiently nonsensical or puzzling to the extent that it would eclipse any notion of being offensive (para. 13 et seq.). 
Tudi če upoštevna javnost razume angleško besedo „AIR“ in analizira blagovno znamko tako, da besedi loči na dva dela, bi bil pomen izraza „AIRCURVE“, tj. zračne kurbe, kot pojem za dihalni aparat dovolj nesmiseln ali nenavaden, da bi zasenčil kakršne koli žaljive predstave (točka 13 in naslednje).
With regard to the word ‘Curve' on its own, see the abovementioned example in this paragraph (T266/13). 
V zvezi s samostojno besedo „curve“ glej zgoraj navedeni primer v tem odstavku (T266/13).
General consumer For the goods at issue - rum (Class 33) - the relevant public will perceive the sign as provocative, transgressive, rebellious, but not as an indicator of criminal origin of the goods (para. 23). 
Običajni potrošnik Pri zadevnem blagu - rum (razred 33) - bo upoštevna javnost zaznala znak kot provokativen, transgresiven ali uporniški, vendar ne tudi kot znak za kaznivo poreklo blaga (točka 23).
ILLICIT General consumer The mark is considered acceptable under Article 7(1)(f) EUTMR, as ‘illicit' is different from something like ‘counterfeit'. 
ILLICIT (NEDOVOLJENO) Običajni potrošnik Blagovna znamka na podlagi člena 7(1)(f) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU velja za sprejemljivo, saj se to, kar „ni dovoljeno“, razlikuje od nečesa, kar je „ponarejeno“.
The mark would be seen as fanciful on the goods (cosmetics, and perfumes) and it could be accepted. 
Znamka bi bila videti kot nekaj nestvarnega na blagu (kozmetičnih izdelkih in parfumih) in bi lahko bila sprejemljiva.
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part B, Examination Page 13 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del B, Preizkušanje stran 12
Absolute Grounds for Refusal - Deceptive Trade Marks 
Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev - Zavajajoče blagovne znamke
CHAPTER 8 
POGLAVJE 8
DECEPTIVE TRADE MARKS 
ZAVAJAJOČE BLAGOVNE ZNAMKE EU
ARTICLE 7(1)(g) EUTMR 
ČLEN 7(1)(g) UREDBE O BLAGOVNI ZNAMKI EU
1 Examination of the Deceptive Character 3 
1 Preizkus zavajajoče narave 3
2 Market Reality and Consumers' Habits and Perceptions 5 
2 Tržna stvarnost ter navade in zaznave potrošnikov 5
3 Trade Marks with Geographical Connotations Relating to the Location of the Applicant or the Place of Origin of the Goods/Services 6 
3 Blagovne znamke z geografskimi konotacijami v zvezi s krajem prijavitelja ali krajem izvora blaga/storitev 6
4 Trade Marks Making Reference to ‘Official' Approval, Status or Recognition 7 
4 Blagovne znamke, ki se sklicujejo na „uradno odobritev“, status ali priznanje 7
5 Relation with Other EUTMR Provisions 7 
5 Razmerje z drugimi določbami Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 7
5.1 Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR 8 
5.1 Člen 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU 8
1 Examination of the Deceptive Character 
Preizkus zavajajoče narave
Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR provides that marks that are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance, as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services, will not be registered. 
Člen 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se znamke, ki zavajajo javnost, na primer glede narave, kakovosti ali geografskega porekla blaga ali storitev, ne registrirajo.
According to the case-law relating to Article 3(1)(g) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [now Article 4(g) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015] (TMD), the wording of which remains identical to that of Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR, the circumstances for refusing registration referred to in Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR presuppose the existence of actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived (30/03/2006, C259/04, Elizabeth Emanuel, EU:C:2006:215, § 47, and the case-law cited therein). 
V skladu s sodno prakso v zvezi s členom 3(1)(g) prve direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami [danes člen 4(g) Direktive (EU) 2015/2436 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2015], katere besedilo je enako besedilu člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, pa primeri zavrnitve, ki jih določa člen 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, predvidevajo, da se lahko ugotovi obstoj resnične prevare ali dovolj velike nevarnosti prevare potrošnika (30/03/2006, C259/04, Elizabeth Emanuel, EU:C:2006:215, § 47 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
Pursuant to the above, the Office, as a matter of practice, makes the twin assumptions that: 
Urad v skladu z zgoraj navedenim v praksi domneva dvoje:
1. there is no reason to assume that a trade mark application has been filed with the intention of deceiving customers. 
da ni razloga za domnevo, da je bila prijava blagovne znamke namenoma vložena za zavajanje potrošnikov.
No objection based on deception should be raised if a non-deceptive use of the mark is possible vis-à-vis the goods and services specified - that is to say, an assumption is made that non-deceptive use of the sign will be made if possible; 
Ugovor zaradi zavajajoče narave se ne sme vložiti, če je mogoča nezavajajoča uporaba znamke v odnosu do opredeljenega blaga in storitev: tj. če se domneva, da se bo znak po možnosti uporabljal nezavajajoče;
2. the average consumer is reasonably attentive and should not be regarded as particularly vulnerable to deception. 
povprečen potrošnik, ki je razumno pozoren, se ne sme šteti za posebno ranljivega za prevaro.
An objection will generally only be raised where the mark leads to a clear expectation that is patently contradictory to, for instance, the nature or quality or geographical origin of the goods so that there is a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived. 
Ugovor se na splošno vloži le, če znamka ustvari jasno pričakovanje, ki je v očitnem protislovju z, na primer, naravo, ali kakovostjo, ali geografskim poreklom blaga, da obstaja dovolj resno tveganje zavajanja potrošnika.
An objection should, therefore, be raised when the list of goods/services is worded in such a way that a non-deceptive use of the trade mark is not guaranteed and there is a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived. 
Ugovor je torej treba vložiti, če je seznam blaga/storitev oblikovan tako, da ne zagotavlja nezavajajoče uporabe blagovne znamke, in če obstaja dovolj resno tveganje zavajanja potrošnika.
The following are three examples of marks that were found to be deceptive with regard to all or part of the claimed goods . 
Sledijo trije primeri znamk, v zvezi s katerimi je bilo ugotovljeno, da so zavajajoče glede vsega ali dela blaga, za katerega se zahteva varstvo.
[2: These examples only address the issue of whether an objection based on deception should be raised or not. 
[2: V teh primerih je obravnavano le vprašanje, ali je treba vložiti ugovor zaradi zavajanja.
This paragraph does not deal with possible objections under other absolute grounds for refusal. 
Ta odstavek ne obravnava morebitnih ugovorov na podlagi drugih absolutnih razlogov za zavrnitev.
Therefore, the possibility that a given trade mark might appear to be prima facie objectionable under Article 7(1)(b) and/or (c) EUTMR (or any other provisions) is not contemplated here.] 
Zato tokrat ni obravnavana možnost, po kateri bi se na prvi pogled zdelo, da je mogoče zoper zadevno znamko vložiti ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) in/ali (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (ali katerih koli drugih določb).]
In the judgments of 27/10/2016, T29/16, CAFFÈ NERO, EU:T:2016:635, § 48 and 27/10/2016, T37/16, CAFFÈ NERO (fig.), EU:T:2016:634, § 53, the General Court found that a possible perception of the mark by the relevant consumer in a non-deceptive manner is irrelevant, once - and thus provided that - the existence of actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived has been established. 
V sodbah z dne 27. oktobra 2016, CAFFÈ NERO, T29/16, EU:T:2016:635, točka 48, in z dne 27. oktobra 2016, CAFFÈ NERO (fig.), T37/16, EU:T:2016:634, točka 53, je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da ni pomembno, ali upoštevni potrošnik znamko morda zaznava kot nezavajajočo, ko - in s tem tudi če - je ugotovljen obstoj dovolj resnega tveganja zavajanja potrošnika.
An objection should be raised when the list of goods/services, worded in a detailed manner, contains goods/services for which a non-deceptive use is not guaranteed, and there is a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived. 
Ugovor je treba vložiti, če seznam blaga/storitev s podrobnimi opredelitvami vsebuje blago in storitve, za katere ni zagotovljena nezavajajoča uporaba, in če obstaja dovolj resno tveganje zavajanja potrošnika.
In the (invented) case of trade mark ‘KODAK VODKA' for vodka, rum, gin, whisky, an objection should be raised for the specific goods for which non-deceptive use of the trade mark is not possible, that is to say, rum, gin, whisky. 
V (izmišljenem) primeru znamke „KODAK VODKA“ je treba za kategorijo vodka, rum, gin, viski vložiti ugovor glede posebnega blaga, v zvezi s katerim nezavajajoča uporaba znamke ni mogoča, tj. rum, gin, viski.
Such cases are substantially different from those (see below) where broad wording/categories are used and where non-deceptive use of the sign is possible. 
Takšni primeri se bistveno razlikujejo od primerov (glej v nadaljevanju), v katerih se uporablja široka ubeseditev/kategorije in je mogoča nezavajajoča uporaba znaka.
No objection should be raised when the list of goods/services is worded in such a broad way that non-deceptive use is possible. 
Ugovor naj se ne vloži, če je seznam blaga/storitev oblikovan tako široko, da omogoča nezavajajočo uporabo znamke.
When broad categories in the list of goods/services are used, the question arises whether an objection should be raised in relation to an entire category where the mark is deceptive for only some goods/services falling within that category. 
Če se na seznamu blaga/storitev uporabljajo široke kategorije, se pojavi vprašanje, ali je treba vložiti ugovor v zvezi s celotno kategorijo, v okviru katere je znamka zavajajoča le v zvezi z nekaterim blagom/storitvami iz zadevne kategorije.
The policy of the Office is not to object in these circumstances. 
Politika Urada v takšnih okoliščinah je, da se ugovor ne vloži.
The examiner should assume that the mark will be used in a non-deceptive manner. 
Preizkuševalec mora domnevati, da se bo znamka uporabljala nezavajajoče.
In other words, they will not object on the basis of deception wherever they can pinpoint non-deceptive use (within a category). 
Z drugimi besedami, ugovor zaradi zavajanja se ne vloži, če je mogoče (v neki kategoriji) opredeliti nezavajajočo uporabo.
For example, no objection would be raised for ‘KODAK VODKA' for alcoholic beverages, since this broad category includes vodka, for which the trade mark is not deceptive. 
Tako na primer ne bi bil vložen ugovor za izraz KODAK VODKA za alkoholne pijače, saj ta široka kategorija vključuje vodko, v zvezi s katero blagovna znamka ni zavajajoča.
2 Market Reality and Consumers' Habits and Perceptions 
Tržna stvarnost ter navade in zaznave potrošnikov
When assessing if a given trade mark is deceptive or not, account should be taken of the characteristics of the goods and services at issue, of market reality and of consumers' habits and perceptions. 
Pri presoji, ali je zadevna blagovna znamka zavajajoča ali ne, je treba upoštevati značilnost zadevnega blaga in storitev ter tržno stvarnost ter navade in zaznave potrošnikov.
For example, in the (invented) trade mark ‘ELDORADO CAFÉ ESPAÑOL' covering coffee, preparations for use as substitutes for coffee, artificial coffee, chicory, chicory flavourings; chocolate, preparations for use as substitutes for chocolate; tea, cocoa; sugar, rice, tapioca, sago; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice in Class 30, the examination should come to the following conclusions. 
Tako bi bilo treba na primer na podlagi preizkusa (izmišljene) znamke „ELDORADO CAFÈ ESPAÑOL“, ki zajema kavo, pripravke, ki se uporabljajo namesto kave, kavne nadomestke, cikorijo, arome iz cikorije, čokolado, pripravke, ki se uporabljajo kot nadomestki čokolade, čaj, kakav, sladkor, riž, tapioko, sago; moko in izdelke iz žitaric, kruh, pecivo in slaščice, sladoled, med, melasni sirup; kvas, pecilni prašek; sol, gorčico; kis, omake (začimba), začimbe; led iz razreda 30, sklepati naslednje.
An objection under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR would be justified for preparations for use as substitutes for coffee, artificial coffee, chicory, chicory flavourings, because use of the mark on these goods would necessarily be deceptive. 
Ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bi bil utemeljen v zvezi z izrazom pripravki, ki se uporabljajo namesto kave, kavni nadomestki, cikorija, arome iz cikorije, saj bi bila uporaba znamke za to blago nujno zavajajoča.
One would assume one was purchasing coffee, which would not in fact be the case. 
Potrošnik bi lahko domneval, da kupuje kavo, kar seveda ne bi bilo res.
An objection under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR would also be justified for products such as cocoa or tea. 
Ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bi bil utemeljen tudi za proizvode, kot je kakav ali čaj.
Like substitutes for coffee, they may be sold in packaging quite similar to that used for coffee and are often bought rather hastily; it is likely that many consumers will not take time to analyse the wording on the packaging, but will choose these goods from the shelf in the (erroneous) belief that they are coffee. 
Tako kot kavni nadomestki se lahko namreč prodajata v pakiranju, podobno tistemu, ki se uporablja za kavo, in se pogosto kupuje v naglici, je verjetno, da številni potrošniki sploh ne bodo prebrali napisa na pakiranju, temveč bodo to blago vzeli s police v (zmotnem) prepričanju, da je kava.
However, as far as coffee is concerned, there is no ‘clear contradiction' between the claim for coffee and the wording ‘ELDORADO CAFÉ ESPAÑOL, since the general category coffee may also include coffee originating from Spain. 
Vendar v zvezi s kavo ni „očitnega nasprotja“ med sklicevanjem na kavo in besedilom „ELDORADO CAFÉ ESPAÑOL“, saj lahko splošna kategorija kava vključuje tudi kavo s poreklom iz Španije.
Hence, no Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR objection arises for the category of coffee itself. 
Zato se za kategorijo kava kot tako ne vloži noben ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
The same logic applies for goods that could be flavoured with coffee (such as chocolate, ices and pastry and confectionery) - an assumption of non-deceptive use should be made, and there is not necessarily any contradiction between the said wording and the goods. 
Enaka logika se uporablja za blago, ki ima lahko okus po kavi (kot je čokolada, aromatizirani sladoledi ter pecivo in slaščice) - domnevati je treba o nezavajajoči uporabi, med zadevnim besedilom in blagom pa ni nujno nasprotja.
Finally, for the remainder of the goods concerned, that is to say, honey, bread, vinegar, etc. the presence of the wording ‘ELDORADO CAFÉ ESPAÑOL' will not give rise to any expectations at all. 
Nazadnje, kar zadeva preostalo blago, tj. med, kruh, kis itd., besedilo ELDORADO CAFÉ ESPAÑOL sploh ne bo vzbudilo nikakršnih pričakovanj.
For such goods, this wording will be seen as clearly non-descriptive and hence there is no potential for actual deception. 
Za takšno blago se bo ta formulacija štela za očitno neopisno, zato ni možnosti za dejansko zavajanje.
In the ‘real' market, coffee is not displayed on the same shelves or in the same sections of a shop as bread, honey or vinegar. 
Na stvarnem trgu kava ni razstavljena na istih policah ali v istih oddelkih trgovin kot kruh, med ali kis.
Furthermore, the goods in question have a different appearance and taste and are normally distributed in different packaging. 
Poleg tega ima zadevno blago drugačen videz in okus ter se navadno distribuira v drugačnem pakiranju.
3 Trade Marks with Geographical Connotations Relating to the Location of the Applicant or the Place of Origin of the Goods/Services 
Blagovne znamke z geografskimi konotacijami v zvezi s krajem prijavitelja ali krajem izvora blaga/storitev
When it comes to trade marks having certain ‘geographical' connotations relating to the location of the applicant or the place of origin of the goods/services, the following should be noted. 
V zvezi z znamkami, ki imajo nekatere geografske konotacije v zvezi s krajem prijavitelja ali krajem izvora blaga/storitev, je treba upoštevati naslednje.
As a general rule, the Office will not raise an objection on the grounds of deception based upon the applicant's geographical location (address). 
Urad načeloma ne bo vložil ugovora zaradi zavajanja na podlagi prijaviteljeve geografske lokacije (naslova).
Indeed, such a geographical location bears, in principle, no relation to the geographical origin of the goods and services, that is to say, the actual place of production/offering of the goods and services covered by the mark. 
Takšna geografska lokacija načeloma dejansko nima nobene zveze z geografskim poreklom blaga in storitev, tj. dejanskim krajem proizvodnje/ponujanja blaga in storitev, ki jih označuje znamka.
For example, under Article 7(1)(g) EUTMR, the Office will not object to a figurative mark containing the words MADE IN USA for clothing in Class 25 that is filed by a company with its seat in Sweden. 
Na primer, Urad na podlagi člena 7(1)(g) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne bo vložil ugovora zoper figurativno znamko, ki vključuje besede MADE IN USA za oblačila iz razreda 25, ki jo je vložila družba s sedežem na Švedskem.
In such cases, the Office assumes a non-deceptive use of the mark on the part of the proprietor. 
Urad v takšnih primerih domneva, da imetnik znamko uporablja nezavajajoče.