natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
… according to the settled case-law of the Court, the essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others that have another origin (emphasis added). 
[…] je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča bistvena funkcija blagovne znamke potrošniku ali končnemu uporabniku zagotavljati istovetnost izvora proizvoda, ki ga blagovna znamka označuje, in mu brez verjetnosti zmede omogočiti razlikovanje tega proizvoda ali storitve od tistih, ki izvirajo od drugod (dodan poudarek).
The essential function of trade marks as indicating origin has been emphasised repeatedly and has become a precept of European Union trade mark law (18/06/2002, C299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 30; 06/10/2005, C120/04, Thomson Life, EU:C:2005:594, § 23). 
Bistvena funkcija blagovnih znamk, to je označevanje izvora, je bila večkrat poudarjena in je postala načelo prava blagovnih znamk Evropske unije (18/06/2002, C299/99, Remington, EU:C:2002:377, § 30; 06/10/2005, C120/04, Thomson Life, EU:C:2005:594, § 23).
Whilst indicating origin is the essential function of trade marks, it is not the only one. 
Čeprav je označevanje izvora bistvena funkcija blagovnih znamk, to ni njihova edina funkcija.
Indeed, the term, ‘essential function' implies other functions. 
Izraz bistvena funkcija dejansko nakazuje druge funkcije.
The Court alluded to the other functions of trade marks several times (16/11/2004, C245/02, Budweiser, EU:C:2004:717, § 59; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 21) but addressed them directly in the L'Oréal judgment, where it stated that the functions of trade marks include: 
Sodišče EU se je večkrat sklicevalo na druge funkcije blagovnih znamk (16/11/2004, C245/02, Budweiser, EU:C:2004:717, § 59; 25/01/2007, C48/05, Opel, EU:C:2007:55, § 21), neposredno pa jih je obravnavalo v sodbi v zadevi L'Oréal, v kateri je navedlo, da funkcije blagovne znamke vključujejo:
… not only the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services, but also its other functions, in particular that of guaranteeing the quality of the goods or services in question and those of communication, investment or advertising (emphasis added). 
[…] ne samo bistvene naloge blagovne znamke potrošniku jamčiti za poreklo proizvoda ali storitve, ampak tudi druge, zlasti zagotavljanje kakovosti zadevnega proizvoda ali storitve, sporočanje, investiranje ali oglaševanje (dodan poudarek).
In examining the concepts of double identity and likelihood of confusion, this chapter touches upon several themes that are explained comprehensively in the chapters of the Guidelines that follow. 
To poglavje pri proučevanju pojmov dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede obravnava več tem, ki so izčrpno pojasnjene v naslednjih poglavjih teh Smernic.
A summary of the key cases from the Court dealing with the core principles and concepts of likelihood of confusion is added in the Annex. 
V Prilogi je na voljo povzetek ključnih zadev Sodišča EU, ki obravnavajo temeljna načela in pojme glede verjetnosti zmede.
2 Article 8(1) EUTMR 
Člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Article 8 EUTMR enables the proprietor of an earlier right to oppose the registration of later EUTM applications in a range of situations. 
Člen 8 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU imetniku prejšnje blagovne znamke omogoča, da ugovarja registraciji poznejših prijav blagovnih znamk EU v najrazličnejših primerih.
The present chapter will concentrate on the interpretation of double identity and likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1) EUTMR. 
V tem poglavju bo glavna pozornost namenjena razlagi pojmov dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede v smislu člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
An opposition pursuant to Article 8(1) EUTMR can be based on earlier trade mark registrations or applications (Article 8(2)(a) and (b) EUTMR) and earlier well-known marks (Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR) . 
Ugovor na podlagi člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU lahko temelji na prejšnjih registracijah blagovnih znamk ali prijavah blagovne znamke (člen 8(2)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) in prejšnjih znanih blagovnih znamkah (člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
[3: Further guidance on earlier well-known trade marks is found in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).] 
[3: Nadaljnja navodila o prejšnjih znanih blagovnih znamkah so na voljo v Smernicah, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
2.1 Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR - double identity 
Člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - dvojna enakost
Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR provides for oppositions based on identity. 
Člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ureja ugovore na podlagi enakosti.
It provides that, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of Article 8(2) EUTMR, an EUTM application will not be registered: 
Določa, da se ob ugovoru imetnika prejšnje blagovne znamke v smislu člena 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prijava blagovne znamke EU ne registrira:
if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected. 
če je enaka prejšnji blagovni znamki in če so blago ali storitve, za katere je registracija zahtevana, enaki blagu ali storitvam, za katere je varovana prejšnja blagovna znamka.
The wording of Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR clearly requires identity between both the signs concerned and the goods/services in question. 
Besedilo člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU jasno zahteva enakost tako med obema zadevnima znakoma kot med zadevnim blagom ali storitvami.
This situation is referred to as ‘double identity'. 
To se imenuje dvojna enakost.
Whether there is double identity is a legal finding to be established from a direct comparison of the two conflicting signs and the goods/services in question . 
Obstoj dvojne enakosti je pravna ugotovitev, ki izhaja iz neposredne primerjave dveh nasprotujočih si znakov in zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
Where double identity is established, the opponent is not required to demonstrate likelihood of confusion in order to prevail; the protection conferred by Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is absolute. 
Če je ugotovljena dvojna enakost, vložniku ugovora za prevlado ni treba dokazati verjetnosti zmede, saj je varstvo na podlagi člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU absolutno.
Consequently, where there is double identity, there is no need to carry out an evaluation of likelihood of confusion, and the opposition will automatically be upheld. 
Zato v primeru dvojne enakosti ni treba izvesti presoje verjetnosti zmede, ugovor pa bo sprejet samodejno.
[4: Comprehensive guidance on the criteria to find identity between goods and services and between signs can be found in the respective paragraphs of the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services, and Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.] 
[4: Izčrpna navodila o merilih za ugotavljanje enakosti med blagom in storitvami ter znaki so na voljo v ustreznih odstavkih Smernic, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 2: Primerjava blaga in storitev in poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.]
2.2 Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR - likelihood of confusion 
Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU - verjetnost zmede
Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR states that, upon opposition, an EUTM application will not be registered: 
Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da se prijava blagovne znamke EU ob ugovoru ne registrira:
…if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark (emphasis added). 
[…] če zaradi enakosti ali podobnosti s prejšnjo blagovno znamko in enakosti ali podobnosti blaga ali storitev, ki jih označujejo blagovne znamke, obstaja verjetnost zmede v javnosti na ozemlju, na katerem je varovana prejšnja blagovna znamka; verjetnost zmede zajema verjetnost povezovanja s prejšnjo blagovno znamko (dodan poudarek).
Hence, in contrast to situations of double identity as seen above, in cases of mere similarity between the signs and the goods/services, or identity of only one of these two factors, an earlier trade mark may successfully oppose an EUTM application under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR only if there is a likelihood of confusion. 
Zato lahko v nasprotju s primeri dvojne enakosti, kot so bili navedeni zgoraj, prejšnja blagovna znamka v primerih le podobnosti med znaki in blagom ali storitvami ali enakosti le enega od teh dveh dejavnikov uspešno ugovarja prijavi blagovne znamke EU na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU le, če obstaja verjetnost zmede.
2.3 Interrelation of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR 
Medsebojna povezanost člena 8(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU
Although the specific conditions under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) EUTMR differ, they are related. 
Čeprav se posebni pogoji iz člena 8(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razlikujejo, so povezani.
Consequently, in oppositions dealing with Article 8(1) EUTMR, if Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is the only ground claimed but identity between the signs and/or the goods/services cannot be established, the Office will still examine the case under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, which requires at least similarity between signs and goods/services and likelihood of confusion. 
Zato bo Urad pri obravnavi ugovorov na podlagi člena 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, pri katerih je edini razlog tisti iz člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar enakosti med znaki in/ali blagom ali storitvami ni mogoče opredeliti, vseeno proučil primer v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki zahteva vsaj podobnost med znaki in blagom ali storitvami ter verjetnost zmede.
Similarity covers situations where both marks and goods/services are similar and also situations where the marks are identical and the goods/services are similar or vice versa. 
Podobnost zajema primere, kadar so znamke in blago ali storitve podobni, ter primere, kadar so blagovne znamke enake in blago ali storitve podobni ter obratno.
Likewise, an opposition based only on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR that meets the requirements of Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR will be dealt with under the latter provision without any examination under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Podobno bo ugovor, ki temelji le na členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, obravnavan na podlagi zadnjenavedene določbe brez vsakršnega preizkušanja na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3 The Notion of Likelihood of Confusion 
Pojem verjetnost zmede
The assessment of likelihood of confusion is a calculus applied in situations of conflict between trade marks in proceedings before the Office, the General Court and the Court of Justice as well as in infringement proceedings before the courts of the Member States. 
Presoja verjetnosti zmede je metoda, ki se uporablja v primerih nasprotujočih si blagovnih znamk v postopku pred Uradom, Splošnim sodiščem in Sodiščem ter v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev pred sodišči držav članic.
However, neither the EUTMR nor the Directive contains a definition of likelihood of confusion or a statement as to precisely what ‘confusion' refers to. 
Vendar ne Uredba o blagovni znamki EU ne direktiva ne vključujeta opredelitve pojma verjetnost zmede ali navedbe, na kaj natančno se nanaša „zmeda“.
As shown below, it has been settled case-law for some time now that fundamentally the concept of likelihood of confusion refers to situations where: 
Kot je ponazorjeno v nadaljevanju, je že nekaj časa uveljavljena sodna praksa, da se pojem verjetnost zmede v bistvu nanaša na primere, kadar:
(1) the public directly confuses the conflicting trade marks, that is to say, mistakes the one for the other; 
javnost neposredno zamenjuje nasprotujoče si blagovne znamke, tj. zamenjuje drugo za drugo;
(2) the public makes a connection between the conflicting trade marks and assumes that the goods/services in question are from the same or economically linked undertakings (likelihood of association). 
javnost povezuje nasprotujoče si blagovne znamke in domneva, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (verjetnost povezovanja).
These two situations are further discussed below (see paragraph 3.2 below). 
O teh dveh primerih se dodatno razpravlja v nadaljevanju (glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju).
The mere fact that the perception of a later trade mark brings to mind an earlier trade mark does not constitute likelihood of confusion. 
Dejstvo, da zaznavanje poznejše blagovne znamke prikliče v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, ne pomeni verjetnosti zmede.
The Court has also established the principle that ‘marks with a highly distinctive character enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character' (see paragraph 3.3 below). 
Sodišče EU je uveljavilo tudi načelo, da „blagovne znamke, ki imajo močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom“ (glej odstavek 3.3 v nadaljevanju).
Finally, the concept of likelihood of confusion as developed by the Court must be regarded as a legal concept rather than purely an empirical or factual assessment despite the fact that its analysis requires taking into account certain aspects of consumer cognitive behaviour and purchasing habits (see paragraph 3.4 below). 
Nazadnje, pojem verjetnost zmede, kot ga je oblikovalo Sodišče EU, je treba obravnavati kot pravni pojem, in ne kot povsem empirično ali dejansko presojo, čeprav je treba pri njegovi analizi upoštevati nekatere vidike kognitivnega vedenja in nakupovalnih navad potrošnikov (glej odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju).
3.2 Likelihood of confusion and likelihood of association 
Verjetnost zmede in verjetnost povezovanja
The Court considered likelihood of confusion comprehensively in Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528). 
Sodišče EU je verjetnost zmede izčrpno obravnavalo v sodbi v zadevi Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528).
The Directive's equivalents of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and the recitals of the EUTMR clearly indicated that likelihood of confusion relates to confusion about the origin of goods/services, but the Court was required to consider what precisely this meant because there were opposing views on the meaning of, and the relationship between, ‘likelihood of confusion' and ‘likelihood of association', both of which are referred to in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Določbe direktive, ki ustrezajo členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in uvodnim izjavam navedene uredbe, jasno določajo, da se verjetnost zmede nanaša na zmedo o izvoru blaga ali storitev, vendar je moralo Sodišče EU proučiti, kaj to natančno pomeni, saj so obstajala nasprotujoča si stališča o pomenu izrazov verjetnost zmede in verjetnost povezovanja ter razmerju med zadevnima izrazoma, ki sta navedena v členu 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
This issue needed to be resolved because it was argued that likelihood of association was broader than likelihood of confusion as it could cover instances where a later trade mark brought an earlier trade mark to mind but the consumer did not consider that the goods/services had the same commercial origin . 
To vprašanje je bilo treba rešiti zaradi trditev, da je pojem verjetnost povezovanja širši od pojma verjetnost zmede, saj lahko zajema primere, kadar je poznejša blagovna znamka priklicala v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, pri čemer potrošnik ni menil, da imajo blago ali storitve isti tržni izvor.
Ultimately, the issue in Sabèl was whether the wording ‘the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association' meant that ‘likelihood of confusion' could cover a situation of association between trade marks that did not give rise to confusion as to origin. 
V bistvu se je vprašanje v zadevi Sabèl glasilo, ali besedilo „verjetnost zmede zajema verjetnost povezovanja“ pomeni, da lahko verjetnost zmede obsega povezovanje med blagovnima znamkama, ki ne povzroči zmede glede izvora.
[5: The concept came from Benelux case-law and applied, inter alia, to non-reputed marks.] 
[5: Pojem izhaja iz sodne prakse Beneluksa in se je med drugim uporabljal tudi za blagovne znamke brez ugleda.]
The Court found that likelihood of association is not an alternative to likelihood of confusion, but that it merely serves to define its scope. 
Sodišče EU je ugotovilo, da pojem verjetnost povezovanja ni nadomestna možnost za pojem verjetnost zmede, temveč se uporablja le za opredelitev njegovega obsega.
Therefore, a finding of likelihood of confusion requires that there be confusion as to origin. 
Zato mora za ugotovitev obstoja verjetnosti zmede obstajati zmeda glede izvora.
In Canon (paras 29-30), the Court clarified the scope of confusion as to origin when it held that: 
Sodišče EU je v sodbi v zadevi Canon (točki 29 in 30) pojasnilo obseg zmede glede izvora in navedlo:
... the risk that the public might believe that the goods and services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion … there can be no such likelihood where it does not appear that the public could believe that the goods or services come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings (emphasis added). 
[…] verjetnost zmede pomeni verjetnost, da bi javnost mislila, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij […] takšna verjetnost ne more obstajati, če se ne zdi, da bi lahko javnost mislila, da blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (dodan poudarek).
As seen above, likelihood of confusion relates to confusion as to commercial origin including economically linked undertakings. 
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, se verjetnost zmede nanaša na tržni izvor, vključno z gospodarsko povezanimi podjetji.
What matters is that the public believes that the control of the goods or services in question is in the hands of a single undertaking. 
Pomembno je, da javnost misli, da ima nadzor nad zadevnim blagom ali storitvami samo eno podjetje.
The Court has not interpreted economically linked undertakings in the context of likelihood of confusion, but it has done so with respect to the free movement of goods/services. 
Sodišče EU ni razlagalo gospodarsko povezanih podjetij v okviru verjetnosti zmede, vendar je to storilo v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga ali storitev.
In Ideal Standard the Court held: 
Sodišče EU je v sodbi v zadevi Ideal Standard odločilo:
… A number of situations are covered: products put into circulation by the same undertaking, by a licensee, by a parent company, by a subsidiary of the same group, or by an exclusive distributor. 
[…] To zajema več primerov: proizvode, ki jih daje na trg isto podjetje, pridobitelj licence, matična družba, hčerinska družba iz iste skupine ali izključni distributer.
… In all the cases mentioned, control [is] in the hands of a single body: the group of companies in the case of products put into circulation by a subsidiary; the manufacturer in the case of products marketed by the distributor; the licensor in the case of products marketed by a licensee. 
[…] V vseh navedenih primerih je nadzor v rokah enega organa: skupine družb v primeru proizvodov, ki jih daje na trg hčerinska družba, proizvajalca v primeru proizvodov, ki jih trži distributer, dajalca licence v primeru proizvodov, ki jih trži pridobitelj licence.
In the case of a licence, the licensor can control the quality of the licensee's products by including in the contract clauses requiring the licensee to comply with his instructions and giving him the possibility of verifying such compliance. 
Dajalec licence lahko v primeru licence nadzoruje kakovost proizvodov pridobitelja licence, tako da v pogodbo vključi klavzule, v skladu s katerimi mora pridobitelj licence ravnati v skladu z njegovimi navodili in mu omogočati preverjanje takšne skladnosti.
The origin that the trade mark is intended to guarantee is the same: it is not defined by reference to the manufacturer but by reference to the point of control of manufacture. 
Izvor, ki ga blagovna znamka zagotavlja v skladu s svojim namenom, je isti: opredeljen ni na podlagi sklicevanja na proizvajalca, temveč na podlagi sklicevanja na točko nadzora proizvodnje.
Consequently, economic links will be presumed where the consumer assumes that the respective goods or services are marketed under the control of the trade mark proprietor. 
V skladu s tem se domneva obstoj gospodarskih povezav, če potrošnik domneva, da se zadevno blago ali storitve tržijo pod nadzorom imetnika blagovne znamke.
Such control can be assumed to exist in the case of enterprises belonging to the same group of companies and in the case of licensing, merchandising or distribution arrangements as well as in any other situation where the consumer assumes that the use of the trade mark is normally possible only with the agreement of the trade mark proprietor. 
Domnevati je mogoče, da takšen nadzor obstaja v primeru podjetij, ki spadajo v isto skupino družb, in v primeru ureditev licenciranja, trženja in distribucije, pa tudi v vseh drugih primerih, kadar potrošnik domneva, da je uporaba blagovne znamke običajno mogoča le s soglasjem njenega imetnika.
Therefore, the likelihood of confusion covers situations where: 
Verjetnost zmede zato zajema primere, v katerih:
the consumer directly confuses the trade marks themselves, or where 
potrošnik neposredno zamenjuje blagovne znamke ali
the consumer makes a connection between the conflicting signs and assumes that the goods/services covered are from the same or economically linked undertakings. 
potrošnik povezuje nasprotujoče si znake in domneva, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij.
Hence, if the perception of a later trade mark merely brings to mind an earlier trade mark, but the consumer does not assume the same commercial origin, then this link does not constitute likelihood of confusion despite the existence of a similarity between the signs . 
Če zato zaznavanje poznejše blagovne znamke samo prikliče v spomin prejšnjo blagovno znamko, pri čemer potrošnik ne domneva, da imata blagovni znamki isti tržni izvor, potem to kljub podobnosti med znakoma ne pomeni verjetnosti zmede.
[6: Although such a situation could take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of an earlier mark under Article 8(5) EUTMR, see the Guidelines Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).] 
[6: Čeprav bi se lahko v takšnem primeru neupravičeno izkoriščal ali bil oškodovan razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
3.3 Likelihood of confusion and distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
Verjetnost zmede in razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke
The distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark has been held by the Court to be an important consideration when assessing likelihood of confusion, since: 
Sodišče EU meni, da je pri presoji verjetnosti zmede razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke pomemben dejavnik, saj:
the more distinctive the earlier trade mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (see Sabèl, para. 24); 
je verjetnost zmede toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (glej sodbo v zadevi Sabèl, točka 24),