natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, ‘Queso de Alicante' (a ‘simple geographical indication') cannot qualify for a PDO/PGI since it does not enjoy such characteristics and requirements. 
Vendar vino, proizvedeno na otoku Tabarca (preprosta geografska označba, ki označuje otoček blizu Alicanteja), ne izpolnjuje pogojev za pridobitev ZOP/ZGO, razen če so izpolnjene posebne zahteve.
Protection is granted to PDOs/PGIs in order, inter alia, to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and producers. 
Označbam ZOP in ZGO se podeli varstvo, da se med drugim zaščitijo zakoniti interesi potrošnikov in pridelovalcev.
For further information regarding the relevant point in time see paragraph 2.1 below. 
Za dodatne informacije o upoštevnem trenutku glej odstavek 2.1 v nadaljevanju.
2 Relevant PDOs/PGIs under EU Regulations 
110/2008 (glej odstavek 3 v nadaljevanju).
Protection is granted solely to the name of a PDO/PGI as registered (for example, Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012) and does not extend ipso iure to the names of subregions, subdenominations, local administrative areas or localities in the area covered by that PDO/PGI. 
1151/2012, so na voljo v podatkovni zbirki DOOR, ki jo vodi Komisija in do katere je mogoče dostopati na spletnem mestu http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html?locale=sl.
The Office therefore does not object under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR to trade marks consisting, containing, imitating or evoking such geographical names. 
Varstvo se odobri samo za ime ZOP/ZGO, kot je registrirana (na primer, člen 13(1) Uredbe (EU) št.
They may, nonetheless, be protected outside of the EU based on an international agreement between the EU and a non-EU country. 
1151/2012), in se ne razširi ipso iure na imena podregij, podimenovanj, lokalnih upravnih območij ali krajev na zadevnem območju, zaščitenih z navedeno ZOP/ZGO.
In this respect, and in particular as regards wines, a distinction must be made between the doctrine of the General Court in its judgment of 11/05/2010, T237/08, Cuvée Palomar, EU:T:2010:185, and the current legal framework. 
Urad zato ne vloži ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za blagovne znamke, ki vsebujejo geografska imena ali so sestavljene iz njih, jih posnemajo ali prikazujejo.
That judgment refers to a system of Member State competencies on the designation of geographical indications for wines that existed under previous Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 but is no longer in force. 
Kljub temu so lahko zaščitene v državah, ki niso članice EU, na podlagi mednarodnega sporazuma med EU in državo, ki ni članica EU.
2.1 Relevant point in time 
V skladu s členom 67 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št.
Notwithstanding the above, and in view of the fact that the vast majority of applications for a PDO/PGI usually mature into a registration, an objection will be raised when the PDO/PGI was applied for before the filing date (or the priority date, if applicable) of the EUTM application but had not yet been registered at the time of examining the EUTM application. 
Ne glede na zgoraj navedeno in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se velika večina vlog za ZOP/ZGO običajno konča z registracijo, bo vložen ugovor, če je bila vloga za ZOP/ZGO predložena pred datumom vložitve (ali datumom prednostne pravice, če se uporablja) prijave za blagovno znamko EU, vendar v času preizkušanja prijave za blagovno znamko EU še ni bila registrirana.
However, if the EUTM applicant indicates that the PDO/PGI in question has not yet been registered, the proceedings will be suspended, after consulting the applicant, pending the outcome of the registration procedure of the PDO/PGI. 
Če pa prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU navede, da zadevna ZOP/ZGO še ni bila registrirana, se postopek po posvetovanju z vlagateljem prekine do izida postopka registracije v zvezi z ZOP/ZGO.
Therefore, no objection will be raised under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR when the PDO/PGI was applied for after the filing date (or priority date, if applicable) of the EUTM application. 
Zato ne bo vložen noben ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če je bila vloga za ZOP/ZGO predložena po datumu vložitve (ali datumom prednostne pravice, če se uporablja) prijave za blagovno znamko EU.
The relevant dates for establishing priority of the PGI/PDO are the following. 
Upoštevni datumi za opredelitev prednostne pravice ZOP/ZGO so naslednji.
For wines, no relevant date information in the E-Bacchus extract means that the PDO/PGI in question was already in existence on 01/08/2009, the date on which the register was set up. 
Če za vina v izpisu iz podatkovne zbirke E-Bacchus ni informacij o upoštevnem datumu, to pomeni, da je zadevna ZOP/ZGO že obstajala 1. avgusta 2009, tj. na dan vzpostavitve registra.
For any PDOs/PGIs for wines added subsequently, the E-Bacchus extract includes a reference to the publication in the Official Journal, which gives the relevant information regarding the registration date. 
Za vse pozneje dodane ZOP/ZGO za vina je v izpisu iz podatkovne zbirke E-Bacchus sklicevanje na objavo v Uradnem listu, ki zagotavlja upoštevne informacije o datumu registracije.
For any PGIs for spirit drinks added subsequently, the corresponding amendment of the regulation contains the relevant information. 
Za vse pozneje dodane ZGO za žgane pijače so upoštevne informacije vključene v ustrezno uredbo o spremembi.
For any PGIs for aromatised wines added subsequently, the corresponding amendment of the regulation contains the relevant information. 
Za vse pozneje dodane ZGO za aromatizirana vina so upoštevne informacije vključene v ustrezno uredbo o spremembi.
Details of the date of application and registration for PDOs/PGIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs are available in the DOOR database. 
Podatki o datumu prijave in registraciji ZOP/ZGO za kmetijske proizvode in živila so na voljo v podatkovni zbirki DOOR.
3 Situations Covered by the EU Regulations 
Situacije, ki jih zajemajo uredbe EU
Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR applies (provided that the other conditions also apply) in all of the following situations: 
Člen 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU se uporablja (če se uporabljajo tudi drugi pogoji) v vseh naslednjih primerih:
the EUTM application consists solely of a whole PDO/PGI (direct use); 
prijava blagovne znamke EU je sestavljena samo iz celotne ZOP/ZGO (neposredna uporaba);
the EUTM application contains a whole PDO/PGI in addition to other word or figurative elements (direct or indirect use); 
prijava blagovne znamke EU poleg celotne ZOP/ZGO vsebuje druge besedne ali figurativne elemente (neposredna ali posredna uporaba);
the EUTM application contains or consists of a misuse, an imitation or an evocation of a PDO/PGI; 
prijava blagovne znamke EU je sestavljena iz zlorabe, posnemanja ali prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO oziroma vsebuje zlorabo, posnemanje ali prikazovanje;
other misleading indications and practices; 
druge zavajajoče navedbe in prakse;
the use of the EUTM application would exploit the reputation of PDOs/PGIs. 
raba prijave blagovne znamke EU bi izkoriščala sloves ZOP/ZGO.
However, a number of limits to the scope of protection are possible (see paragraph 3.6 below), and special rules apply to trade marks in conflict with more than one PGI/PDO (see paragraph 3.7 below). 
Mogoče so številne omejitve obsega varstva (glej odstavek 3.6 v nadaljevanju), za blagovne znamke, ki sovpadajo z več kot eno ZOP/ZGO, pa veljajo posebna pravila (glej odstavek 3.7 v nadaljevanju).
3.1 EUTM consists solely of a whole PDO/PGI (direct use) 
Blagovna znamka EU je sestavljena samo iz celotne ZOP/ZGO (neposredna uporaba)
This situation covers the ‘direct use' of a PDO/PGI as an EUTM, that is, the trade mark consists solely of the name of the PDO/PGI. 
Ta primer zajema neposredno uporabo ZOP/ZGO kot blagovne znamke EU, kar pomeni, da je znamka sestavljena samo iz imena ZOP/ZGO.
If the mark consists solely of the PDO/PGI, the EUTM also falls under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, since it is considered descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods in question. 
Če je blagovna znamka EU sestavljena samo iz ZOP/ZGO, spada tudi na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj se šteje, da opisuje geografsko poreklo zadevnega blaga.
This means that the examiner's objection will simultaneously raise absolute grounds for refusal under both Article 7(1)(c) and (j) EUTMR. 
To pomeni, da bo ugovor preizkuševalca hkrati temeljil na absolutnih razlogih za zavrnitev iz člena 7(1)(c) in (j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
There is an exception to the application of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, pursuant to Article 74(2) EUTMR, when the EUTM is a collective trade mark and the regulations governing use thereof include the particulars envisaged in Article 75(2) EUTMR (for the contrary situation, where the mark had been applied for as an individual mark, see decision of 07/03/2006, R 1073/20051, TEQUILA, § 15). 
Omejitev zadevnega blaga (za skladnost s specifikacijami ZOP/ZGO) je običajno sredstvo za razveljavitev ugovora na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (glej odstavek 4.3 v nadaljevanju), za člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa ta omejitev ni pomembna.
While restricting the relevant goods (to comply with the specifications of the PDO/PGI) is usually a means of waiving the objection under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR (see paragraph 4.3 below), this restriction is irrelevant for Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR. 
Na primer, za prijavo besedne znamke „Bergerac“ za vina bo hkrati vložen ugovor na podlagi člena 7(1)(c) in (j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU: sestavlja jo samo ZOP „Bergerac“ in je zato opisna.
3.2 EUTM contains a whole PDO/PGI in addition to other word or figurative elements (direct or indirect use) 
Blagovna znamka EU poleg celotne ZOP/ZGO vsebuje druge besedne ali figurativne elemente (neposredna ali posredna uporaba)
This situation also covers ‘direct use' of a PDO/PGI in an EUTM through the reproduction of the name of the PDO/PGI together with other elements. 
Ta primer zajema tudi neposredno uporabo ZOP/ZGO v blagovni znamki EU na podlagi reprodukcije imena ZOP/ZGO skupaj z drugimi elementi.
The following EUTMs are considered to fall under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR since they contain the whole denomination of a PDO/PGI. 
Šteje se, da naslednje blagovne znamke EU spadajo na področje uporabe člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ker vsebujejo celotno poimenovanje ZOP/ZGO.
Under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, it is irrelevant whether or not the other word or figurative elements may give the trade mark distinctive character. 
V skladu s členom 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni pomembno, ali drugi besedni oziroma figurativni elementi znamki dajejo razlikovalni učinek ali ne.
The sign can be acceptable as a whole under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR and can still be objected to (as in the cases above) under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR. 
Znak kot celota je lahko sprejemljiv v skladu s členom 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in je zoper njega še vedno mogoče vložiti ugovor (kot v zgornjih primerih) na podlagi člena 7(1)(j) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
There is ‘indirect use' of a PDO/PGI, for example, when the PDO/PGI appears in a complex trade mark (such as the representation of a label) in smaller characters as information about the origin or type of the product or as part of the producer's address. 
Primer „posredne uporabe“ ZOP/ZGO je, kadar se ZOP/ZGO v sestavljeni znamki (kot je prikaz etikete) pojavi v manjših črkah kot informacije o poreklu ali vrsti izdelka ali kot del naslova pridelovalca.
In such cases the trade mark will be objected to irrespective of the position or size of the PDO/PGI within the trade mark as a whole, provided that it is visible. 
V takšnih primerih bo mogoče zoper znamko vložiti ugovor ne glede na položaj ali velikost ZOP/ZGO v znamki kot celoti, če je vidna.
There must be a logical separation of the PDO/PGI from the rest of the term for it to be identifiable and liable to objection. 
ZOP/ZGO mora biti logično ločena od preostalega izraza, da bi bila prepoznavna in sporna.
A trade mark will not be liable to objection when it contains the PDO/PGI as part of a word element that does not bring to the consumer's mind the product whose designation is protected. 
Blagovna znamka ni sporna, če vsebuje ZOP/ZGO kot del besednega elementa, ob katerem potrošnik ne pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je zaščitena.
This is normally the case when the term has its own meaning. 
Običajno je tako, kadar ima izraz lasten pomen.
Examples where an objection should not be raised: TORONTO (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Toro'), EXCAVADORA (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Cava'), IMPORT (it does not evoke the PDO ‘Port'). 
Primeri, v katerih ni treba vložiti ugovora: TORONTO (ne navaja ZOP „Toro“), EXCAVADORA (ne navaja ZOP „Cava“), IMPORT (ne navaja ZOP „Port“).
Examples where an objection was raised: 18/11/2014, R 2462/20132, TOROLOCO (fig.) and 20/01/2014, R 1900/20135, PARMATUTTO. 
Primeri, v katerih je bil vložen ugovor: 18/11/2014, R 2462/20132, TOROLOCO (fig.) and 20/01/2014, R 1900/20135, PARMATUTTO.
3.3 EUTM consists of a misuse, an imitation or evocation of a PDO/PGI 
Blagovna znamka EU je sestavljena iz zlorabe, posnemanja ali prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO
Neither the EUTMR nor the EU regulations define the meaning of ‘misuse', ‘imitation' or ‘evocation'. 
Pomen izrazov „zloraba“, „posnemanje“ in „prikazovanje“ ni opredeljen niti v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU niti v predpisih EU.
The term ‘evocation' requires less than ‘imitation' or ‘misuse' (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33). 
Za izraz „prikazovanje“ je potrebno manj kot za „posnemanje“ ali „zlorabo“ (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33).
Nevertheless, the Office considers the terms ‘imitation' and ‘evocation' as two corollaries of essentially the same concept. 
Urad pa izraza „posnemanje“ in „prikazovanje“ šteje za posledici v bistvu istega pojma.
The mark ‘imitates' (mimics, reproduces elements of, etc.), with the result that the product designated by the PDO/PGI is ‘evoked' (called to mind). 
Znamka „posnema“ (imitira, reproducira elemente itd.), kar povzroči „prikazovanje“ (priklic v spomin) proizvoda, ki ga označuje ZOP/ZGO.
To a large extent, therefore, they are closely related concepts. 
Zato sta ta pojma večinoma tesno povezana.
Evocation/imitation 
Prikazovanje (navajanje)/posnemanje
According to the Court, ‘evocation' covers ‘a situation where the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose designation is protected' (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 25; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 44; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21). 
Sodišče je odločilo, da „navajanje“ zajema primer, v katerem izraz, uporabljen za opis proizvoda, vključuje del zaščitenega imena, tako da potrošnik, ko se sreča z imenom proizvoda, pomisli na proizvod, katerega označba je zaščitena (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 25; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 44; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21).
Consumers must establish a link between the term used to designate the product (i.e. the trade mark) and the product whose designation is protected (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 22), whilst it is necessary to take account of the presumed expectation of the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. 
Potrošniki morajo ustvariti povezavo med izrazom, ki je uporabljen za opis proizvoda (tj. blagovno znamko), in proizvodom, katerega označba je zaščitena (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 22), pri tem pa je treba upoštevati domnevno pričakovanje povprečnega potrošnika, ki je normalno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in preudaren.
According to the Advocate General (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33), ‘the term “evocation” is objective, so that it is not necessary to show that the owner of the mark intended to evoke the protected name'. 
Po mnenju generalnega pravobranilca (17/12/1998, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1998:614, § 33) je izraz „navajanje“ objektiven, zato ni treba dokazati, da je imetnik znamke nameraval navesti zaščiteno ime.
Importantly, the EU regulations protect geographical indications and denominations of origin throughout the territory of the European Union. 
Pomembno je, da predpisi EU ščitijo geografske označbe in označbe porekla na celotnem ozemlju Evropske unije.
As a result, the Court has ruled that in order to guarantee effective and uniform protection of those PGI/PDOs in that territory, it must be considered that the concept of the consumer covers European consumers and not merely consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the PGI/PDO is manufactured (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 27). 
Zato je Sodišče odločilo, da je treba za zagotavljanje učinkovitega in enotnega varstva teh ZOP/ZGO na zadevnem ozemlju šteti, da se pojem potrošnik nanaša na evropskega potrošnika, in ne le na potrošnika države članice, v kateri je proizveden proizvod, pri katerem gre za navajanje ZOP/ZGO (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 27).
Taking the Viiniverla case as an example, the possible evocation of the PGI ‘Calvados' by a Finnish manufacturer of cider spirit named Verlados has to be assessed, based on a number of criteria (see further down), with respect to European consumers, not only Finnish consumers. 
Na primeru zadeve Viiniverla je treba na podlagi številnih meril (glej v nadaljevanju) presoditi o morebitnem prikazovanju ZGO „Calvados“ finskega proizvajalca žganja iz jabolčnika z imenom Verlados ob upoštevanju evropskih potrošnikov, in ne samo finskih potrošnikov.
In the light of the above, the Office finds that there may be evocation or imitation of a PDO/PGI where: 
Urad glede na zgoraj navedeno ugotovi morebitni obstoj prikazovanja ali posnemanja ZOP/ZGO, če:
(a) the EUTM incorporates the significant part of the PDO/PGI (the part of the PDO/PGI from which the consumer identifies the PDO/PGI and which is not the generic element); 
blagovna znamka EU zajema velik del ZOP/ZGO (del ZOP/ZGO, po katerem potrošnik prepozna ZOP/ZGO in ki ni splošni element);
(b) the EUTM contains an equivalent adjective/noun that indicates the same geographical origin; 
blagovna znamka EU vsebuje enakovreden pridevnik/samostalnik, ki označuje enako geografsko poreklo;
(c) the PDO/PGI is translated; 
je ZOP/ZGO prevedena;
(d) the EUTM includes a ‘de-localiser' expression in addition to the PDO/PGI or its evocation. 
blagovna znamka EU poleg ZOP/ZGO ali njenega prikazovanja vključuje „delokalizacijski“ izraz.
The EUTM incorporates the significant part of the PDO/PGI 
Blagovna znamka EU vključuje velik del označbe ZOP/ZGO
There may be evocation when the EUTM incorporates the significant part of a PDO/PGI (i.e. not the generic element of the PDO/PGI) with the result that the EUTM triggers in the consumer's mind a link with the product whose designation is protected. 
Prikazovanje morda obstaja, če blagovna znamka EU zajema velik del ZOP/ZGO (tj. ne splošnega elementa ZOP/ZGO), kar povzroči, da blagovna znamka EU pri potrošniku sproži povezavo s proizvodom, katerega ime je zaščiteno.
A significant part is usually but not necessarily the geographical element contained in a PDO/PGI. 
Velik del je običajno, vendar ne nujno, geografski element, ki ga vsebuje ZOP/ZGO.
As indicated above, according to the Court (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21, cited above), the EUTM must trigger in the consumer's mind the image of the product whose designation is protected, in the sense that a link is established. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Sodišče odločilo (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115; 26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117; 21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 21, navedene zgoraj), da mora blagovna znamka EU pri potrošniku vzbuditi misel na proizvod, katerega ime je zaščiteno, in sicer v smislu, da ustvari povezavo.
Importantly, evocation is not assessed in the same way as likelihood of confusion. 
Pomembno je, da se prikazovanje ne presoja enako kot verjetnost zmede.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether a likelihood of confusion can be established or not in order to find that there is evocation of the PDO/PGI. 
Zato za ugotavljanje obstoja prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO ni pomembno, ali je mogoče ugotoviti verjetnost zmede ali ne.
As the Court has held, there can be ‘evocation' even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion. 
Sodišče je odločilo, da gre lahko za navajanje tudi, če ni nikakršne verjetnosti zmede.
What matters is, in particular, that an association of ideas regarding the origin of the products is not created in the mind of the public, and that a trader does not take undue advantage of the reputation of the protected geographical indication (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 45). 
Pomembno je zlasti, da se v javnosti ne povzroči asociacija na poreklo proizvoda in da se gospodarski subjekt neupravičeno ne okoristi z ugledom zaščitene geografske označbe (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35, § 45).
For evocation, a link must be made with the product whose designation is protected. 
Za prikazovanje je treba opredeliti povezavo s proizvodom, katerega označba je zaščitena.
Therefore, whether or not there is evocation will not be analysed according to the principles laid down by the Court in its judgment of 11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528. 
Zato se obstoj ali neobstoj navajanja ne bo analiziral v skladu z načeli, ki jih je Sodišče določilo v sodbi z dne 11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528.
In assessing whether such a link is established, the Court has considered: 
Pri presoji obstoja te povezave je Sodišče upoštevalo:
whether there is a visual, phonetic or conceptual relationship between the terms: 
ali obstaja vidna, fonetična ali konceptualna podobnost med izrazi:
e.g. if the terms share a characteristic beginning, such as Parmesan/Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117); 
npr. ali je izrazom skupen značilen začetek, kot je parmezan/Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117),
e.g. if the terms share characteristic roots or endings that have no particular meaning, such as in Gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115) and Verlados/Calvados (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35); 
npr. ali so izrazom skupni značilni koreni ali končnice, ki nimajo posebnega pomena, kot je gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115) in Verlados/Calvados (21/01/2016, C75/15, Viiniverla, EU:C:2016:35,
e.g. if the terms share the same number of letters or syllables, such as Gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115); 
npr. ali je izrazom skupno enako število črk ali zlogov, kot je gorgonzola/Cambozola (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115),
e.g. where there is conceptual proximity, such as between Parmesan and Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 47). 
npr. ali obstaja konceptualna bližina, kot med izrazi parmezan in Parmigiano Reggiano (26/02/2008, C132/05, Commission v Germany, EU:C:2008:117, § 47);
the degree of proximity of the goods concerned, including the actual physical appearance or the ingredients and taste of the products covered by the EUTM and the PDO/PGI (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 27). 
stopnjo bližine zadevnega blaga, vključno z dejanskim fizičnim videzom ali sestavinami in okusom proizvodov, ki jih zajema blagovna znamka EU in ZOP/ZGO (04/03/1999, C87/97, Cambozola, EU:C:1999:115, § 27).
The fact that the goods are comparable does not, as such, lead automatically to the evocation of the PDO/PGI. 
Primerljivost blaga ne pomeni nujno prikazovanja ZOP/ZGO.
However, if the goods concerned are identical, this is an element in support of evocation (see paragraph 4.2 below). 
Če pa je zadevno blago enako, je to element, ki podpira prikazovanje (glej odstavek 4.2 v nadaljevanju);