natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No (level of similarity) 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve (stopnja podobnosti)
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (average) 
MEDINETTE MESILETTE 13/06/2012, T342/10, EU:T:2012:290 (povprečna)
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/20024 (high) 
FORTIS FORIS 17/03/2003, R 49/20024 (visoka)
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401 (very high) 
ARTEX ALREX 17/11/2005, T154/03, EU:T:2005:401 (zelo visoka)
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (average) 
EPILEX E-PLEX 24/05/2011, T161/10, EU:T:2011:244 (povprečna)
The Board held that although those marks shared the letter ‘a' and the ending ‘ol', they ‘clearly differ[ed]' visually. 
Odbor je menil, da sta bili znamki, čeprav sta imeli obe črko „a“ in končnico „-ol“, na vidni ravni jasno različni.
The General Court agreed. 
Splošno sodišče se je strinjalo.
It held that the same number of letters in two marks is not, as such, of any particular significance for the relevant public, even for a specialised public. 
Menilo je, da enako število črk, ki sestavljajo znamki, kot tako nima posebnega pomena za upoštevno javnost, celo za strokovno javnost.
Since the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which, moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable that many words will have the same number of letters and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone, be regarded as visually similar. 
Ker je abeceda sestavljena iz omejenega števila črk, ki poleg tega niso vse uporabljane enako pogosto, je neizogibno, da je več besed sestavljenih iz istega števila črk in istih črk, kar pa ne pomeni, da jih le zato lahko štejemo za podobne na vidni ravni.
In addition, the public is not, in general, aware of the exact number of letters in a word mark and, consequently, will not notice, in the majority of cases, that two conflicting marks have the same number of letters (paras 81-82). 
Poleg tega se javnost na splošno ne zaveda natančnega števila črk, ki sestavljajo besedno znamko, in zato v večini primerov ne bo zaznala, da sta sovpadajoči znamki sestavljeni iz enakega števila črk (točki 81 in 82).
The Court held that what matters in the assessment of the visual similarity of two word marks is the presence, in each of them, of several letters in the same order (para. 83). 
Sodišče je menilo, da je pri presoji vizualne podobnosti obeh znamk pomembnejši obstoj enakega vrstnega reda več črk v vsaki (točka 83).
The ending ‘ol' of the marks at issue constituted a common element of the marks but comes at the end and is preceded by completely different groups of letters (‘arc' and ‘cap' respectively), so the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that that this commonality does not render the marks visually similar (para. 83). 
Končnica „-ol“ je bila pri nasprotujočih si znamkah njun skupni element, ki pa se pojavlja na koncu, pred njim pa sta skupini popolnoma različnih črk (skupina črk „arc“ in „cap“ v posameznih znamkah), zato je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da zaradi tega znamki nista bili vidno podobni (točka 84).
The Court of Justice upheld this assessment from a visual perspective (para. 74). 
Sodišče je z vizualnega vidika potrdilo to presojo (točka 74).
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (average) 
VITAFIT 25/10/2012, T552/10, EU:T:2012:576 (povprečna)
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (average) 
15/03/2012, T379/08, EU:T:2012:125 (povprečna)
11/03/2009, B 1 157 769 (medium) 
11/03/2009, B 1 157 769 (srednja)
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054; confirmed 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (average) 
03/09/2007, R 1454/20054, potrjena z 18/06/2009, T418/07, EU:T:2009:208 (povprečna)
29/09/2008, B 1 220 724 (high) 
29/09/2008, B 1 220 724 (visoka)
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 & T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (significant) 
14/12/2006, T81/03, T82/03 in T103/03, EU:T:2006:397 (precejšnja)
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (low) 
(i) (ii) 17/11/2010, R 144/20102 (nizka)
30/05/2002, B 134 900 The marks were considered visually dissimilar 
30/05/2002, B 134 900 Za znamki se je štelo, da se vizualno razlikujeta.
G&S: Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 41 Territory: EU Assessment: as regards the visual similarity of the conflicting signs, the Board of Appeal rightly considered that both marks in question include as a dominant element the lower-case white letter ‘a', of a commonplace typeface, on a black background. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 16, 25, 35 in 41 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Kar zadeva vizualno podobnost spornih znakov, je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da obe sporni znamki vključujeta kot prevladujoč sestavni del malo črko „a“ bele barve na črnem ozadju v navadni pisavi.
That dominant element makes an immediate impression and is remembered. 
Ta prevladujoči del naredi takojšen vtis in se vtisne v spomin.
Conversely, the graphic differences between the trade marks in question - namely the shape of the background (oval for the trade mark applied for and square for the earlier trade mark), the position of the letter on that background (in the centre in the case of the trade mark applied for and in the lower right-hand corner in the case of the earlier trade mark), the thickness of the line used to represent that letter (the trade mark applied for uses a slightly broader line than that used in the earlier trade mark) and the calligraphic details of the letters of the respective marks - are minor and do not constitute elements that will be remembered by the relevant public as effective distinguishing features. 
Nasprotno je grafična razlika med spornima blagovnima znamkama - in sicer oblika ozadja (ovalna pri prijavljeni blagovni znamki in kvadratna pri prejšnji blagovni znamki), položaj črke na ozadju (v sredini pri prijavljeni blagovni znamki in v spodnjem desnem kotu pri prejšnji blagovni znamki), debelina črte, ki je uporabljena za prikaz te črke (prijavljena blagovna znamka uporablja malo debelejšo črto kot prejšnja blagovna znamka) in podrobnosti pisave črk zadevnih znamk - manjša in ne sestavlja delov, ki si jih bo upoštevna javnost vtisnila v spomin kot dejansko razlikovalne.
Consequently, the conflicting signs are very similar from the visual point of view. 
Sovpadajoča znaka sta si zato vizualno zelo podobna.
G&S: Classes 9, 18, 24, 25, 28 Territory: Germany Assessment: the Board found the signs visually similar to a medium degree. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 18, 24, 25 in 28 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Odbor je ugotovil, da imata znaka srednjo stopnjo vizualne podobnosti.
G&S: Classes 9, 18, 25 Territory: EU, Italy Assessment: the signs were found to be similar to a low degree from a visual point of view (likelihood of confusion). 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 18 in 25 Ozemlje: EU, Italija Presoja: z vizualnega vidika je bila ugotovljena nizka stopnja podobnosti med znakoma (verjetnost zmede).
G&S: Class 25 Territory: EU Assessment: even though the signs can both be perceived as representing the letter ‘e', they differ visually in their respective colours, typefaces and the overall impressions they convey (para. 25). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Čeprav je oba znaka mogoče zaznavati, kot da ponazarjata črko „e“, se vizualno razlikujeta v barvi, pisavi in celotnem vtisu (točka 25).
The outcome of this case: likelihood of confusion for identical goods and services (this part of the BoA decision was not challenged before the General Court). 
Izid te zadeve: verjetnost zmede za enako blago in storitve (ta del odločbe odbora za pritožbe ni bil izpodbijan pred Splošnim sodiščem).
No likelihood of confusion for the similar and dissimilar goods and services (inter alia, electric energy emanating from wind power; plants for the production of renewable energy; leasing of wind power energy generating facilities) for which the relevant public has a high degree of attention. 
Ni verjetnosti zmede za podobno ter različno blago in storitve (med drugim električno energijo , pridobljeno iz energije vetra; naprave za proizvodnjo energije iz obnovljivih virov; najem prostorov in opreme za proizvodnjo vetrne energije), za katere ima upoštevna javnost visoko stopnjo pozornosti.
G&S: Classes 18, 25 Territory: Germany Assessment: on the basis of the particular graphic design of the contested trade mark, the Court only found a low degree of visual and conceptual similarity (para. 31). 
Blago in storitve: Razreda 18 in 25 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Sodišče je na podlagi posebne grafične oblike izpodbijane blagovne znamke ugotovilo le nizko stopnjo vizualne in pojmovne podobnosti (točka 31).
A phonetic comparison was not possible, as it was found that the public would most likely not pronounce the contested trade mark given the particular graphic design (para. 32). 
Zvočna primerjava ni bila mogoča, saj se je ugotovilo, da javnost izpodbijane blagovne znamke glede na posebno grafično obliko najverjetneje ne bi izgovorila (točka 32).
Please note that the outcome in this case was that of no likelihood of confusion, although the Court found low visual similarity between the signs. 
Izid te zadeve je bil, da verjetnosti zmede ni, čeprav je Sodišče ugotovilo nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti med znakoma.
G&S: Class 25 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, the earlier mark is an upper case letter ‘F' written in a standard typeface, whereas the contested mark is a stylised letter ‘F', in which the horizontal line is embellished with a distinctive drawing that amounts to a relevant visual difference. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Z vizualnega vidika je prejšnja znamka velika črka „F“, zapisana v standardni pisavi, izpodbijana znamka pa stilizirana črka „F“, pri kateri je vodoravna črta okrašena z razlikovalno risbo, ki pomeni pomembno vizualno razliko.
The outcome of this case was that of no likelihood of confusion. 
Izid te zadeve je bil, da ni verjetnosti zmede.
G&S: Class 25 Territory: Spain Assessment: even though the marks share the presence of the letter ‘m', they cannot be considered visually similar since the overall visual impression that each mark makes on the relevant public is clearly distinct. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Čeprav je v obeh znamkah črka „m“, ju ni mogoče šteti kot vizualno podobni, saj se celotni vizualni vtis znamk na upoštevno javnost jasno razlikuje.
The EUTM applied for is a complex graphic device that includes a black lowercase letter ‘m' and in addition, other significant figurative elements, namely a bold curved dark line placed above a background circle in which the letter ‘m' is almost included. 
Blagovna znamka EU, za katero je bila vložena prijava, je kompleksen grafični znak, ki vključuje črno malo črko „m“, poleg tega pa še druge pomembne figurativne elemente, in sicer ukrivljeno temno črto v krepkem tisku, umeščeno nad krog v ozadju, ki skoraj zajema črko „m“.
These additional elements are of particular importance since the heavy bold line echoes the form of the background circle and the dark shade of the letter ‘m', which is placed over the background. 
Ti dodatni elementi so še zlasti pomembni, ker črta v krepkem tisku sledi obliki kroga v ozadju in temni senci črke „m“, ki je umeščena pred ozadje.
In the earlier mark, the letter ‘m' appears in outline font with a characteristic inclination to the right and an uneven height so that the right-hand size of the letter is lower. 
Pri prejšnji znamki je črka m prikazana v obrisni pisavi, ki je značilno nagnjena na desno in ima neenakomerno višino, tako da je desna stran črke nižja.
Consequently, these dissimilarities between the signs are sufficient for it to be held that they do not give the consumer the same visual impression (para. 18). 
Te razlike med znakoma zadoščajo za presojo, da potrošniku ne vzbujata enakega vizualnega vtisa (točka 18).
04/10/2010, R 576/20102; confirmed 24/01/2012, T593/10, EU:T:2012:25 
04/10/2010, R 576/20102; potrjena z 24/01/2012, T593/10, EU:T:2012:25
G&S: Classes 25, 41, 43 Territory: Germany Assessment: due to the different colours, figurative element and stylisation, the marks were found to be visually dissimilar. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 25, 41 in 43 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: zaradi razlik v barvi, figurativnih elementih in stilizaciji je bilo ugotovljeno, da se znamki vizualno razlikujeta.
Visually, the earlier mark can be perceived as a boomerang, accompanied by the letter ‘B', which is the first letter of ‘boomerang'. 
Z vizualnega vidika je prejšnjo znamko mogoče zaznati kot bumerang, ki ga spremlja črka „B“, ki je prva črka besede „bumerang“.
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, para. 19 (low) 
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, para. 19 (nizka)
04/03/2010, T24/08, EU:T:2010:71 (low) 
04/03/2010, T24/08, EU:T:2010:71 (nizka)
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, para. 34 
09/11/2010, R 806/20094, točka 34
Earlier sign Contested sign Relevant territory Case No 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Upoštevno ozemlje Št. zadeve
Earlier sign Contested sign Relevant territory Case No (level of similarity) 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Upoštevno ozemlje Št. zadeve (stopnja podobnosti)
CAMEA BALEA EU 14/01/2015, T195/13, EU:T:2015:6 (low) 
CAMEA BALEA EU 14/01/2015, T195/13, EU:T:2015:6 (nizka)
PT: the part of the relevant public that has some knowledge of the English language will read and pronounce the earlier mark in the same way as the mark applied for insofar as the latter uses the English word ‘forever' (para. 70). 
Portugalska: del upoštevne javnosti, ki razpolaga z nekim znanjem angleškega jezika, bo bral in izgovarjal prejšnjo znamko enako kot prijavljeno znamko, saj je v zadnjenavedeni znamki uporabljena angleška beseda „forever“ (za vedno) (točka 70).
The marks at issue share the same ending ‘ever'; the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that those marks were phonetically similar to an average degree for the part of the relevant public with no knowledge of the English language (para. 72). 
Nasprotujoči si znamki imata enako končnico „ever“; odbor za pritožbe ni storil napake, ko je ugotovil, da sta ti znamki za del upoštevne javnosti, ki ne zna angleško, fonetično srednje podobni (točka 72).
16/01/2014, T528/11, EU:T:2014:10 (identity/average) 
16/01/2014, T528/11, EU:T:2014:10 (enakost/srednja)
FEMARA EU 12/02/2010, R 722/20084 (above average) 
FEMARA EU 12/02/2010, R 722/20084 (nadpovprečna)
BX 16/09/2010, R 166/20101 (identity) 
Beneluks 16/09/2010, R 166/20101 (enakost)
DE 09/06/2010, R 1071/20091 (low) 
Nemčija 09/06/2010, R 1071/20091 (nizka)
DNG 15/09/2010, R 160/20102 The ampersand ‘&' will be pronounced in most European Union languages and is recognised as the corresponding translation of the conjunction ‘and'. 
DNG 15/09/2010, R 160/20102 Znak „&“ se bo v večini jezikov Evropske unije izgovoril in je priznan kot ustrezen prevod veznika „in“.
VODAFONE AT HOME 30/08/2010, R 138/20102 @ will be pronounced as ‘at' or ‘arobase' in the Benelux (para. 21). 
VODAFONE AT HOME 30/08/2010, R 138/20102 @ se bo v Beneluksu izgovoril kot „at“ ali „arobase“ (točka 21).
03/02/2011, R 719/20101; dismissed 19/09/2012, T220/11, EU:T:2012:444; dismissed 14/11/2013, C524/12 P, EU:C:2013:874 The @ will be perceived as the letter ‘a' by (at least) the EN public (para. 25). 
03/02/2011, R 719/20101, zavrnjena 19/09/2012, T220/11, EU:T:2012:444, pritožba zavrnjena 14/11/2013, C524/12 P, EU:C:2013:874 Znak @ bo vsaj angleško govoreča javnost zaznala kot črko „a“ (točka 25).
20/07/2016, T745/14, EU:T:2016:423 The symbol ‘@' will easily be understood by the consumer as replacing the letter ‘a' (para. 26). 
20/07/2016, T745/14, EU:T:2016:423 Simbol „@“ bo potrošnik zlahka razumel tako, kot da nadomešča črko a (točka 26).
AirPlus International 03/03/2010, T321/07, EU:T:2010:64; dismissed 25/11/2010, C216/10 P, EU:C:2010:719 
AirPlus International 03/03/2010, T321/07, EU:T:2010:64; zavrnjena 25/11/2010, C216/10 P, EU:C:2010:719
Sign Explanation 
Znak Pojasnilo
T593/10 In this figurative mark, the letter ‘B' can be read. 
T593/10 V tej figurativni znamki je črko „B“ mogoče prebrati.
The mark must, therefore, be assessed phonetically. 
Znamko je zato treba presoditi na zvočni ravni.
T593/10 In this figurative mark, the letter ‘B' is so highly distorted that the Court found that for part of the public it is difficult to clearly identify if it is indeed the letter ‘b' or the figure ‘8'. 
T593/10 V tej figurativni znamki je črka „B“ tako močno popačena, da je Sodišče menilo, da je delu javnosti težko jasno ugotoviti, ali je to dejansko črka „b“ ali številka „8“.
22/06/2011, R 1779/20104 It is very difficult to determine the pronunciation of the sign. 
22/06/2011, R 1779/20104 Izgovarjavo tega znaka je zelo težko določiti.
An aural comparison may, therefore, lead to very different results, ranging from identity to dissimilarity. 
Zvočna primerjava lahko torej pripelje do zelo različnih rezultatov, od enakosti do različnosti.
28/01/2009, B 1 127 416 In this figurative mark the letter ‘H' can be read and, therefore, must be assessed phonetically. 
28/01/2009, B 1 127 416 V tej figurativni znamki je črko „H“ mogoče prebrati, zato jo je treba presoditi na zvočni ravni.
28/01/2009, B 1 127 416 In this sign, the pattern makes it unlikely that consumers will read an ‘H' (or rather several ‘H's). 
28/01/2009, B 1 127 416 V tem znaku je zaradi vzorca malo verjetno, da bodo potrošniki prebrali črko „H“ (ali več črk „H“).
This mark cannot be assessed phonetically. 
Te znamke ni mogoče presoditi na zvočni ravni.
16/10/2013, T282/12, EU:T:2013:533 The Court held that, although hardly legible at first sight, the words ‘FREE' and ‘STYLE' in both of the signs are pronounced identically regardless of the language of the public. 
16/10/2013, T282/12, EU:T:2013:533 Sodišče je presodilo, da se besedi „FREE“ in „STYLE“ v obeh znakih izgovorita enako ne glede na jezik javnosti, čeprav sta na prvi pogled komaj berljivi.
VITS4KIDS Kids Vits 09/12/2009, T484/08, EU:T:2009:486; dismissed 22/10/2010, C84/10 P, EU:C:2010:628 (significant) 
VITS4KIDS Kids Vits 09/12/2009, T484/08, EU:T:2009:486; zavrnjena 22/10/2010, C84/10 P, EU:C:2010:628 (precejšnja)
LIDL LIFEL 19/10/2010, R 410/20101 The first two letters and the last one are the same in both marks. 
LIDL LIFEL 19/10/2010, R 410/20101 Prvi dve črki in zadnja črka so v obeh znamkah enake.
Aurally, the similarity is even stronger because LIDL will often be pronounced as if spelt LIDEL. 
Zvočno je podobnost še večja, ker se bo beseda LIDL pogosto izgovarjala, kot da bi bila napisana LIDEL.
For phonological reasons, ‘D' and ‘L' are nearly impossible to pronounce in most languages without inserting a vowel between them. 
S fonološkega vidika je črki „D“ in „L“ v večini jezikov skoraj nemogoče izgovoriti, ne da bi med njiju vstavili samoglasnik.
Therefore, the marks would be pronounced LIFEL and LIDEL in languages like French, German, Italian and Spanish. 
Znamki bi se torej v jezikih, kot so francoščina, nemščina, italijanščina in španščina, izgovarjali LIFEL in LIDEL.
KAN-OPHTAL PAN-OPHTAL BAÑOFTAL 12/07/2012, T346/09, EU:T:2012:368 The relevant territory is Germany. 
KAN-OPHTAL PAN-OPHTAL BAÑOFTAL 12/07/2012, T346/09, EU:T:2012:368 Upoštevno ozemlje je Nemčija.
The Court found a phonetic similarity. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo zvočno podobnost.
The German consumer will probably pronounce the letters ‘N' and ‘Ñ' in the same way. 
Nemški potrošnik bo črki „N“ in „Ñ“ verjetno izgovoril enako.
Moreover, the letters ‘P' and ‘B' are pronounced with both lips and their sound can be confused if they are accompanied by the same vowel; the signs PAN-OPHTAL and BAÑOFTAL are aurally very similar. 
Poleg tega se črki „P“ in „B“ izgovarjata z obema ustnicama, tako da je mogoče njun zvok zamešati, če jima sledi enak samoglasnik; znaka PAN-OPHTAL in BAÑOFTAL sta si zvočno zelo podobna.
GLANZ GLÄNSA 13/07/2011, T88/10, EU:T:2011:368 The GC concluded that the umlaut would not alter the overall phonetic impression for EN, ES and FR speakers, since the languages in question do not have the letter ‘ä' (para. 40). 
GLANZ GLÄNSA 13/07/2011, T88/10, EU:T:2011:368 Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da preglas ne bo spremenil celotnega zvočnega vtisa za angleške, španske in francoske govorce, ker v zadevnih jezikih ni črke „ä“ (točka 40).
WRITE RIGHT (example only) English: highly similar aurally 
WRITE RIGHT (samo primer) angleščina: zvočno zelo podobna
Spanish: dissimilar aurally 
španščina: zvočno različna
BAMIX KMIX 21/02/2013, T444/10, EU:T:2013:89 The GC noted that the word element ‘kmix' does not correspond to any existing word in the European Union and that it may be pronounced by part of the relevant public as it is written, as a single syllable. 
BAMIX KMIX 21/02/2013, T444/10, EU:T:2013:89 Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da besedni element „kmix“ ne ustreza nobeni obstoječi besedi v Evropski uniji in da bi ga lahko del upoštevne javnosti izgovarjal tako, kot je napisan, tj. kot en sam zlog.
In certain languages of the European Union (in particular French and German), the letter ‘k' is pronounced as ‘ka' and the pronunciation ‘km' is not usual (para. 32). 
V nekaterih jezikih Evropske unije (zlasti v francoščini in nemščini) se črka „k“ izgovarja kot „ka“ in izgovarjava km ni običajna (točka 32).
‘Hellim' is the Turkish translation of ‘Halloumi' (Greek) (a type of cheese). 
„Hellim“ je turški prevod besede „Halloumi“ (grščina) (vrsta sira).
The relevant territory was Cyprus. 
Upoštevno ozemlje je bil Ciper.
The Court held that while Turkish is not an official language of the EU, it is one of the official languages of the Republic of Cyprus. 
Sodišče je odločilo, da je turščina eden od uradnih jezikov Republike Ciper, čeprav ni uradni jezik EU.
Therefore, Turkish is understood and spoken by part of the population of Cyprus (para. 38). 
Zato turščino razume in govori del prebivalstva Cipra (točka 38).
Therefore, the Court found that the average consumer in Cyprus, where both Greek and Turkish are official languages, will understand that the words HALLOUMI or HELLIM both refer to the same specialty cheese from Cyprus. 
Sodišče je torej ugotovilo, da bo povprečni potrošnik na Cipru, kjer sta uradna jezika grščina in turščina, razumel, da se besedi HALLOUMI in HELLIM nanašata na isti posebni ciprski sir.
Consequently, there is some conceptual similarity between these words (para. 41). 
Zato med tema besedama obstaja določena pojmovna podobnost (točka 41).
Sign Territory Concept Case No 
Znak Ozemlje Pojem Št. zadeve
Mirto ES [in EN: myrtle] in Spanish describes a shrub of the family Myrtaceae, two to three metres high. 
Mirto ES [v slovenščini: mirta] v španščini opisuje grm iz družine Myrtaceae, visok od dva do tri metre.
Storm EN Bad weather T30/09 
Storm EN Slabo vreme T30/09
--- STAR SNACKS EU The terms ‘star snacks' and ‘star foods' will be understood as referring to quality food not only by English speakers, but also by most of the relevant public. 
--- STAR SNACKS EU Angleški govorci in večina upoštevne javnosti bodo izraza „star snacks“ in „ star foods“, razumeli tako, kot da se nanašata na kakovostno hrano.
EU There is some degree of conceptual similarity, based on ‘Mc' and the words ‘baby' and ‘kids' that both refer to children (para. 42). 
EU Obstaja določena stopnja pojmovne podobnosti, ki temelji na „Mc“ ter besedah „baby“ in „kids“, ki se obe nanašata na otroke (točka 42).
The GC considered that ‘icebreaker' would be understood only by that part of the Italian public with a command of the English language. 
Splošno sodišče je menilo, da bo izraz „icebreaker“ razumel le del italijanske javnosti, ki obvlada angleški jezik.
However, ‘iceberg' is a common word with an immediately obvious meaning to the relevant public. 
Vendar je „iceberg“ običajna beseda, ki ima za upoštevno javnost takojšen očiten pomen.
Therefore, the earlier mark ICEBERG will have a clear meaning for the Italian public, whereas the mark applied for ICEBREAKER would be devoid of any clear meaning for that public. 
Zato bo imela prejšnja znamka ICEBERG jasen pomen za italijansko javnost, medtem ko bo prijavljena znamka ICEBREAKER brez jasnega pomena za to javnost.
The GC further indicated that the marks at issue have the prefix ‘ice' in common. 
Splošno sodišče je nadalje navedlo, da je spornima znamkama skupna predpona „ice“.