natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Terms merely denoting a particular positive or appealing quality or function of the goods and services should be refused if applied for either alone or in combination with descriptive terms: 
Izraze, ki označujejo le določeno pozitivno ali privlačno lastnost ali funkcijo blaga in storitev, je treba zavrniti, če je zanje prijava vložena bodisi samostojno bodisi v kombinaciji z opisnimi izrazi:
ECO as denoting ‘ecological' (24/04/2012, T328/11, EcoPerfect, EU:T:2012:197, § 25; 15/01/2013, T625/11, EcoDoor, EU:T:2013:14, § 21); 
ECO v pomenu „ekološki“ (24/04/2012, T328/11, EcoPerfect, EU:T:2012:197, § 25; 15/01/2013, T625/11, EcoDoor, EU:T:2013:14, § 21),
FLEX and FLEXI as referring to ‘flexible' (13/06/2014, T352/12, Flexi, EU:T:2014:519, § 20-21); 
FLEX in FLEXI v pomenu „fleksibilen“ (13/06/2014, T352/12, Flexi, EU:T:2014:519, § 20-21),
GREEN as being ‘environmentally friendly' (27/02/2015, T106/14, Greenworld, EU:T:2015:123, § 24); 
GREEN v pomenu „okolju prijazen“ (27/02/2015, T106/14, Greenworld, EU:T:2015:123, § 24),
MEDI as referring to ‘medical' (12/07/2012, T470/09, Medi, EU:T:2012:369); 
MEDI v pomenu „medicinski“ (12/07/2012, T470/09, Medi, EU:T:2012:369),
MULTI as referring to ‘much, many, more than one' (17/11/2005, R 904/20042, MULTI); 
MULTI v pomenu „veliko, mnogo, več kot en“ (17/11/2005, R 904/20042, MULTI),
MINI as denoting ‘very small' or ‘tiny' (17/12/1999, R 62/19992, MINIRISC); 
MINI v pomenu „zelo majhen“ ali „drobcen“ (17/12/1999, R 62/19992, MINIRISC),
MEGA as denoting ‘big' (28/04/2015, T137/13, MEGARAIL, EU:T:2015:232, § 38); 
MEGA v pomenu „velik“ (28/04/2015, T137/13, MEGARAIL, EU:T:2015:232, § 38),
Premium/PREMIUM as referring to ‘best quality' (22/05/2012, T60/11, Suisse Premium, EU:T:2012:252, § 46-49, 56, 58; 17/01/2013, T582/11 & T583/11, Premium XL / Premium L, EU:T:2013:24, § 26); 
Premium/PREMIUM v pomenu „najboljša kakovost“ (22/05/2012, T60/11, Suisse Premium, EU:T:2012:252, § 46-49, 56, 58; 17/01/2013, T582/11 & T583/11, Premium XL / Premium L, EU:T:2013:24, § 26),
SUPER for highlighting the ‘positive qualities of the goods or services' (judgments of 19/05/2010, T464/08, Superleggera, EU:T:2010:212, § 23-30; 20/11/2002, T79/01 & T86/01, Kit Pro / Kit Super Pro, EU:T:2002:279, § 26); 
SUPER za poudarjanje „pozitivnih lastnosti blaga ali storitev“ (sodbi z dne 19/05/2010, T464/08, Superleggera, EU:T:2010:212, § 23-30 in z dne 20/11/2002, T79/01 & T86/01, Kit Pro / Kit Super Pro, EU:T:2002:279, § 26),
ULTRA as denoting ‘extremely' (09/12/2002, R 333/20021, ULTRAFLEX); 
ULTRA v pomenu „izjemno“ (09/12/2002, R 333/20021, ULTRAFLEX),
[2: Amended on 23/06/2010.] 
[2: Spremenjeno 23. junija 2010.]
UNIVERSAL as referring to goods that are ‘fit for general or universal use' (02/05/2012, T435/11, UniversalPHOLED, EU:T:2012:210, § 22, 28). 
UNIVERSAL v pomenu blaga, ki je „primerno za splošno ali univerzalno uporabo“ (02/05/2012, T435/11, UniversalPHOLED, EU:T:2012:210, § 22, 28).
Top level domain endings, such as ‘.com', only indicate the place where information can be found on the internet and thus cannot render a descriptive or otherwise objectionable mark registrable. 
Najpogostejše končnice domen, kot je „.com“, samo navajajo spletno mesto, na katerem je mogoče najti informacije, in zato ne morejo zagotoviti, da bi bilo mogoče opisno ali drugače sporno znamko registrirati.
Therefore, www.books.com is as objectionable for printed matter as the term ‘books' alone. 
Zato je izraz www.books.com enako sporen za tiskano gradivo kot za izraz „knjige“.
This was confirmed by the General Court in its judgment of 21/11/2012, T338/11, Photos.com, EU:T:2012:614, § 22, where it was stated that the element ‘.com' is a technical and generic element, the use of which is required in the normal structure of the address of a commercial internet site. 
Splošno sodišče je to potrdilo v sodbi z dne 21/11/2012, T338/11, Photos.com, EU:T:2012:614, § 22, v kateri je navedlo, da je „.com“ tehnični in splošni element, ki se mora uporabljati v običajni strukturi naslova komercialnega spletnega mesta.
Furthermore, it may also indicate that the goods and services covered by the trade mark application can be obtained or viewed online, or are internet related. 
Poleg tega lahko nakazuje, da je mogoče blago in storitve, navedene v prijavi za blagovno znamko, poiskati na spletu ali si jih tam ogledati ali da so povezani z njim.
Accordingly, the element in question must also be considered to be devoid of distinctive character in respect of the goods or services concerned. 
Skladno s tem je treba za zadevni element prav tako šteti, da je brez razlikovalnega učinka glede zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
Abbreviations of the legal form of a company such as Ltd., GmbH, etc. cannot add to the distinctiveness of a sign. 
Kratice pravnih oblik družb, kot so Ltd., GmbH in druge, ne morejo povečati razlikovalnega učinka znaka.
Names of individual persons are distinctive, irrespective of the frequency of the name and even in the case of the most common surnames, such as Jones or García (16/09/2004, C404/02, Nichols, EU:C:2004:538, § 26, 30), and the names of prominent persons (including heads of state). 
Imena posameznikov so razlikovalna ne glede na pogostost imena in tudi v primeru najbolj razširjenih družinskih imen, kot sta Jones ali García (16/09/2004, C404/02, Nichols, EU:C:2004:538, § 26, 30), ter imen znanih oseb (vključno z voditelji držav).
3 Titles of Books 
Naslovi knjig
Trade marks consisting solely of a famous story or book title may be non-distinctive under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to goods and services that could have that story as their subject matter. 
Znamke, ki vsebujejo samo naslov znane zgodbe ali knjige, so lahko na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nerazlikovalne glede na blago in storitve, ki bi lahko imeli zadevno zgodbo za vsebino.
The reason for this is that certain stories (or their titles) have been established for so long and become so well known that they have ‘entered into the language' and are incapable of being ascribed any meaning other than that of a particular story. 
Nekatere zgodbe (ali njihovi naslovi) so namreč že tako dolgo uveljavljene in so postale tako znane, da so uveljavljene v jeziku in jim ni mogoče pripisati nobenega drugega pomena, razen točno določene zgodbe.
For example, ‘Peter Pan', ‘Cinderella' and ‘The Iliad' are perfectly capable of being distinctive trade marks for paint, clothing or pencils. 
Na primer, „Peter Pan“, „Pepelka“ in „Iliada“ so lahko brez težav znamke z razlikovalnim učinkom za barvo, oblačila ali svinčnike.
However, they are incapable of performing a distinctive role in relation to books or films, for example, because consumers will simply think that these goods refer to the story of Peter Pan or Cinderella, this being the only meaning of the terms concerned. 
Vendar ne morejo imeti razlikovalnega učinka na primer za knjige ali filme, ker bodo potrošniki preprosto pomislili, da se tako blago nanaša na zgodbo Peter Pan ali Pepelka, kar je edini pomen teh izrazov.
Objections should only be raised in such cases where the title in question is famous enough to be truly well known to the relevant consumer and where the mark can be perceived in the context of the goods/services as primarily signifying a famous story or book title. 
V takšnih primerih je treba vložiti ugovor le, če je zadevni naslov dovolj znan, da ga upoštevni potrošnik resnično dobro pozna, in če je mogoče znamko na podlagi blaga/storitev najprej povezati z naslovom znane zgodbe ali knjige.
A finding of non-distinctiveness in this regard will be more likely where it can be shown that a large number of published versions of the story have appeared and/or where there have been numerous television, theatre and film adaptations reaching a wide audience, in particular when a work has passed into the public domain once copyright protection has expired. 
V zvezi s tem je verjetneje, da bo ugotovljeno, da znamka nima razlikovalnega učinka, če je mogoče dokazati, da je objavljenih veliko različic zgodbe in/ali da je bilo več televizijskih, gledaliških in filmskih priredb, ki si jih je ogledalo široko občinstvo, zlasti ko je delo po izteku varstva avtorskih pravic postalo dostopno javnosti.
In cases where copyright is still running, the Office will presume good faith and register the mark (which can later be the subject of a cancellation action if the applicant was not entitled to file the EUTM application). 
Kadar so avtorske pravice še vedno zavarovane, Urad domneva dobro vero in registrira znamko (ki se pozneje lahko izbriše, če prijavitelj ni bil upravičen do vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU).
Depending on the nature of the mark in question, an objection may be taken in relation to printed matter, films, recordings, plays and shows (this is not an exhaustive list). 
Ugovor se lahko glede na naravo zadevne znamke vloži v zvezi s tiskanim gradivom, filmi, posnetki, gledališkimi predstavami in oddajami (to ni izčrpen seznam).
4 Single Letters 
Posamezne črke
[3: This part deals with single letters under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR. 
[3: Ta del obravnava posamezne črke na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
For single letters under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 4, Descriptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR), paragraph 2.8).] 
Za posamezne črke na podlagi člena 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 4: Opisne blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 2.8).]
4.1 General considerations 
Splošne ugotovitve
In its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, the Court of Justice ruled that, in the case of trade marks consisting of single letters represented in standard characters with no graphic modifications, it is necessary to assess whether the sign at issue is capable of distinguishing the different goods and services in the context of an examination, based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned (para. 39). 
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, odločilo, da je treba v primeru znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke v standardni pisavi, ki ni grafično spremenjena, opraviti presojo, ali je mogoče z zadevnim znakom razlikovati med različnim blagom in storitvami v okviru preizkusa, ki temelji na dejstvih in je osredotočen na zadevno blago ali storitve (točka 39).
The Court recalled that, according to Article 4 EUTMR, letters are among the categories of signs of which an European Union trade mark may consist, provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings (para. 28), and emphasised that registration of a sign as a trade mark does not require a specific level of linguistic or artistic creativity or imaginativeness on the part of the applicant. 
Sodišče je spomnilo, da črke v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU spadajo v kategorijo znakov, ki lahko sestavljajo znamko Evropske unije, če se s pomočjo teh znakov blago in storitve nekega podjetja lahko razlikujejo od blaga in storitev drugih podjetij (točka 28), in poudarilo, da se za registracijo znaka kot znamke dejansko ne zahteva določena raven ustvarjalnosti ali jezikovne ali umetniške domišljije prijavitelja.
Although acknowledging that it is legitimate to take into account the difficulties in establishing distinctiveness that may be associated with certain categories of trade marks because of their very nature, and that it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for marks consisting of a single letter than for other word marks (para. 39), the Court clearly stated that these circumstances do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from application of the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law (paras 33-39). 
Čeprav je Sodišče potrdilo, da je upravičeno upoštevati težave, ki bi zaradi značilnosti nekaterih kategorij znamk lahko nastale pri ugotovitvi njihovega razlikovalnega učinka, in da je ugotavljanje razlikovalnega učinka težje za znamko, sestavljeno iz ene same črke, kot za druge besedne znamke (točka 39), je jasno odločilo, da ta dejstva ne utemeljujejo določitve posebnih dodatnih meril, ki bi nadomestila merilo razlikovalnega učinka, kot ga razlaga sodna praksa (točke od 33 do 39).
As to the burden of proof, the Court stated that, when examining absolute grounds for refusal, the Office is required under Article 95(1) EUTMR to examine, of its own motion, the relevant facts that might lead it to raise an objection under Article 7(1) EUTMR and that that requirement cannot be made relative or reversed to the detriment of the EUTM applicant (paras 55-58). 
Sodišče je v zvezi z dokaznim bremenom navedlo, da Urad na podlagi člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku registracije v zvezi z absolutnimi razlogi za zavrnitev preveri upoštevna dejstva po uradni dolžnosti, na podlagi česar lahko vloži ugovor v skladu s členom 7(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, in da ta zahteva ne bi smela biti ne relativizirana ne v škodo prijavitelja blagovne znamke EU (točke od 55 do 58).
Therefore, it is for the Office to explain, with reasons, why a trade mark consisting of a single letter represented in standard characters is devoid of any distinctive character. 
Zato mora Urad z obrazložitvijo pojasniti, zakaj je znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke v standardni pisavi, brez vsakršnega razlikovalnega učinka.
It is therefore necessary to carry out a thorough examination based on the specific factual circumstances of the case in order to assess if a given single letter represented in standard characters can function as a trade mark in respect of the goods/services concerned. 
Zato je treba opraviti temeljit preizkus, ki temelji na konkretnih dejstvih v posamezni zadevi, da se lahko presodi, ali se lahko ena sama črka v standardni pisavi uporabi kot blagovna znamka za zadevno blago/storitve.
This need for a factual assessment implies that it is not possible to rely on assumptions (such as that consumers are generally not accustomed to seeing single letters as trade marks). 
Ta potreba po presoji dejstev pomeni, da se ni mogoče opirati na predpostavke (na primer, da potrošniki običajno niso navajeni na uporabo ene same črke kot blagovne znamke).
Consequently, when examining single-letter trade marks, generic, unsubstantiated arguments, such as those relating to the availability of signs, should be avoided, given the limited number of letters. 
Pri preizkušanju blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke, se je treba zaradi omejenega števila črk izogibati splošnim, neutemeljenim argumentom, kot je razpoložljivost znakov.
The Office is obliged to establish, on the basis of a factual assessment, why the trade mark applied for would be objectionable. 
Urad mora na podlagi presoje dejstev ugotoviti, zakaj bi bila blagovna znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, sporna.
It is therefore clear that the examination of single-letter trade marks should be thorough and stringent, and that each case calls for careful examination of whether a given letter can be considered inherently distinctive for the goods and/or services concerned. 
Jasno je torej, da je potrebno temeljito in strogo preizkušanje znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke, in da je treba v vsakem primeru natančno proučiti, ali se lahko za zadevno črko šteje, da ima sama po sebi razlikovalni učinek glede zadevnega blaga in/ali storitev.
4.2 Examples 
Primeri
For instance, in technical domains such as those involving computers, machines, motors and tools, it is more likely that single letters will be perceived as technical, model or catalogue references rather than as indicators of origin, although the fact that this is the case should result from a factual assessment. 
Na primer, na tehničnih področjih, ki med drugim vključujejo računalnike, stroje, motorje in orodja, je verjetneje, da se bodo posamezne črke zaznale kot sklicevanja na tehnične lastnosti, model ali katalog, in ne kot označbe izvora, čeprav mora to potrditi presoja dejstev.
Depending on the outcome of the prior examination, a trade mark consisting of a single letter represented in standard characters might be objectionable under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR on the ground that it is devoid of inherent distinctiveness for the goods and/or services concerned or part thereof. 
Znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke v standardni pisavi, je lahko glede na izid predhodnega preizkusa sporna na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ker nima razlikovalnega učinka glede zadevnega blaga in/ali storitev ali njihovega dela.
This would be the case, for example, for a trade mark consisting of the single letter ‘C' for ‘fruit juices', as this letter is commonly used to designate vitamin C. The relevant public would not perceive it as a sign distinguishing the commercial origin of the goods in question. 
Takšen primer je znamka za „sadne sokove“, sestavljena iz ene same črke „C“, ker se ta črka običajno uporablja za označevanje vitamina C. Upoštevna javnost je ne bi prepoznala kot znaka, ki ima razlikovalni učinek glede trgovskega izvora zadevnega blaga.
Another example of lack of distinctiveness would be a single-letter trade mark applied for in respect of the sort of toy cubes used to teach children how to construct words. 
Drug primer neobstoja razlikovalnega učinka bi bila znamka, ki je sestavljena iz ene same in za katero je vložena prijava za vrsto kock za igranje, ki se uporabljajo za učenje otrok, kako sestavljati besede.
The individual letters in this example are not being used as a sign to distinguish the commercial origin of the goods in question. 
Posamezne črke v tem primeru se ne uporabljajo kot znak za razlikovanje trgovskega izvora zadevnega blaga.
Although in this case there is no direct descriptive relationship between the letters and the goods, a trade mark consisting of a single letter would lack distinctiveness, because, when it comes to toy cubes, consumers are more used to seeing single letters as having either a functional or a utilitarian connotation, rather than as indicators of commercial origin. 
Čeprav v tem primeru ni neposredne opisne povezave med črkami in blagom, znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke, ne bi imela razlikovalnega učinka, ker so potrošniki bolj navajeni, da imajo posamezne črke pri kockah za igranje funkcionalen ali praktičen pomen, kot pa da označujejo trgovski izvor.
However, if it cannot be established that a given single letter is devoid of any distinctive character for the goods and/or services concerned, then it should be accepted, even if represented in standard characters or in a fairly basic manner. 
Če ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je posamezna zadevna črka brez vsakršnega razlikovalnega učinka glede zadevnega blaga in/ali storitev, jo je treba sprejeti, čeprav je zapisana v standardni pisavi ali precej preprosto.
For example, the letter was accepted in respect of transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement in Class 39 and services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation in Class 43 (30/09/2010, R 1008/20102, W (fig.), § 12-21). 
Na primer, črka je bila sprejeta za prevozništvo; pakiranje in skladiščenje blaga; organizacijo potovanj iz razreda 39 in nudenje hrane in pijače; nudenje začasne nastanitve iz razreda 43 (30/09/2010, R 1008/20102, W (fig.), § 12-21).
For further examples see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 4, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Chapter 4, Descriptive Trade Marks (Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR). 
Več primerov je na voljo v Smernicah, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 4: Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev, poglavje 4: Opisne blagovne znamke (člen 7(1)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
5 Slogans: Assessing Distinctive Character 
Slogani: presoja razlikovalnega učinka
The Court of Justice has ruled that it is inappropriate to apply to slogans stricter criteria than those applicable to other types of signs when assessing their distinctive character (12/07/12, C311/11 P, Wir machen das Besondere einfach, EU:C:2012:460 and case-law cited). 
Sodišče je odločilo, da se za slogane ne smejo uporabiti strožja merila od tistih, ki veljajo za druge vrste znakov pri presoji njihovega razlikovalnega učinka (12/07/12, C311/11 P, Wir machen das Besondere einfach, EU:C:2012:460 in navedena sodna praksa).
Advertising slogans are objectionable under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR when the relevant public perceives them as a mere promotional formula. 
Oglaševalski slogani so sporni na podlagi člena 7(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če jih upoštevna javnost zaznava le kot oglaševalsko formulo.
However, they are deemed to be distinctive if, apart from their promotional function, the public perceives them as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services in question. 
Vendar je treba takšni znamki priznati razlikovalni učinek, če jo upoštevna javnost ne glede na promocijsko funkcijo zaznava predvsem kot označbo trgovskega izvora zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
The Court of Justice has provided the following criteria that should be used when assessing the distinctive character of a slogan (21/01/2010, C398/08 P, Vorsprung durch Technik, EU:C:2010:29, § 47; 13/04/2011, T523/09, Wir machen das Besondere einfach, EU:T:2011:175, § 37). 
Sodišče je navedlo naslednja merila, ki bi jih bilo treba uporabiti pri presoji razlikovalnega učinka slogana (21/01/2010, C398/08 P, Vorsprung durch Technik, EU:C:2010:29, § 47; 13/04/2011, T523/09, Wir machen das Besondere einfach, EU:T:2011:175, § 37).
An advertising slogan is likely to be distinctive whenever it is seen as more than a mere advertising message extolling the qualities of the goods or services in question because it: 
Oglaševalski slogan ima verjetno razlikovalni učinek, kadar ga je mogoče zaznati kot nekaj, kar je več kot le preprosto oglasno sporočilo, ki poveličuje lastnosti zadevnega blaga ali storitev, ker:
constitutes a play on words and/or 
je lahko igra besed in/ali
introduces elements of conceptual intrigue or surprise, so that it may be perceived as imaginative, surprising or unexpected, and/or 
vključuje elemente pojmovne napetosti ali presenečenja, da jo je mogoče zaznati kot domišljijsko, presenetljivo in nepričakovano, in/ali
has some particular originality or resonance and/or 
ima določeno edinstvenost ali pomen in/ali
triggers in the minds of the relevant public a cognitive process or requires an interpretative effort. 
pri upoštevni javnosti sproži kognitivni proces ali zahteva trud za razlago.
In addition to the above, the following characteristics of a slogan may contribute towards a finding of distinctiveness: 
Poleg zgoraj navedenega lahko k ugotovitvi razlikovalnega učinka prispevajo naslednje značilnosti slogana:
unusual syntactic structures; 
neobičajne skladenjske strukture,
the use of linguistic and stylistic devices, such as alliteration, metaphors, rhyme, paradox, etc. 
uporaba jezikovnih in slogovnih učinkov, kot so aliteracija, metafora, rima, paradoks itd.
However, the use of unorthodox grammatical forms must be carefully assessed because advertising slogans are often written in a simplified form, in such a way as to make them more concise and snappier (24/01/2008, T88/06, Safety 1st, EU:T:2008:15, § 40). 
Vendar je treba uporabo neobičajnih slovničnih oblik pozorno proučiti, ker so oglaševalski slogani pogosto napisani v poenostavljeni obliki, da bi bili bolj jedrnati in privlačni (24/01/2008, T88/06, Safety 1st, EU:T:2008:15, § 40).
This means that a lack of grammatical elements such as definite articles or pronouns (THE, IT, etc.), conjunctions (OR, AND, etc.) or prepositions (OF, FOR, etc.) may not always be sufficient to make the slogan distinctive. 
To pomeni, da odsotnost slovničnih elementov, kot so določni členi ali zaimki (ta, ono itd.), vezniki (ali, in itd.) ali predlogi (od, za itd.), vedno ne zadostuje za razlikovalni učinek slogana.
In ‘Safety 1st', the Court considered that the use of ‘1st' instead of ‘FIRST' was not sufficiently unorthodox to add distinctiveness to the mark. 
V zadevi „Safety 1st“ je Sodišče menilo, da uporaba „1st“ namesto „FIRST“ ni dovolj neobičajna, da bi znamka zato imela razlikovalni učinek.