natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consumers looking for a CD of their favourite band would not buy a blank CD instead or another music CD. 
Potrošniki, ki iščejo CD svoje najljubše glasbene skupine, namesto tega ne bi kupili praznega CD-ja ali drugega CD-ja z glasbo.
The recorded data characterises the product and the maker of the medium (CD) is irrelevant. 
Posneti podatki opredeljujejo proizvod, pri čemer je izdelovalec nosilca (CD) nepomemben.
It would be wrong to ignore this and to have a situation where a term covers both blank and recorded media; the difference between the two is too significant. 
Napaka bi bila, če tega ne bi upoštevali ter bi izraz zajemal prazne in posnete nosilce, saj je razlika med njimi prevelika.
Therefore, for the purposes of the comparison of goods and services, if magnetic data carriers and data carriers have to be considered to be blank, they cannot be found to be similar to the recorded content they could contain. 
Če je treba magnetne nosilce podatkov in nosilce podatkov šteti za prazne, se zato za namene primerjave blaga in storitev ne more ugotoviti, da so podobni posneti vsebini, ki jo vsebujejo.
There is no similarity between blank data carriers (of any kind) and other goods merely on the basis that the latter goods can be stored or saved onto data carriers, as the latter are merely ancillary goods in this situation (see paragraph 3.2.4.2 above). 
Med praznimi nosilci podatkov (katere koli vrste) in drugim blagom ni podobnosti zgolj zato, ker je zadnjenavedeno blago mogoče shraniti na nosilce podatkov, saj so zadnjenavedeni v tem primeru le pomožno blago (glej odstavek 3.2.4.2 zgoraj).
No relevant Canon criteria apply to printed matter and blank data carriers. 
Za tiskovine in prazne nosilce podatkov se ne uporabljajo nobena ustrezna merila iz sodbe v zadevi Canon.
Consequently, magnetic data carriers and goods in Class 16, are dissimilar. 
Zato so si magnetni nosilci podatkov in blago iz razreda 16 različni.
Likewise all kinds of recorded content such as audio visual recordings, digital music, electronic books or audio books in Class 9 must also be found to be dissimilar to magnetic data carriers. 
Podobno je treba tudi v zvezi z vsemi vrstami posnetih vsebin, kot so avdiovizualni posnetki, digitalna glasba, elektronske knjige ali avdio knjige iz razreda 9, ugotoviti, da so različne od magnetnih nosilcev podatkov.
However, an exception can be made for software. 
Vendar je mogoče narediti izjemo za programsko opremo.
There is a close correlation between software and the recording device, and recording devices, such as USB sticks, very often come with their own integrated software. 
Med programsko opremo in napravo za snemanje je tesna povezave, pri čemer imajo naprave za snemanje, kot so USB-ključki, zelo pogosto svojo integrirano programsko opremo.
The reality in the market is that consumers are likely to believe that these goods could coincide in origin or producer. 
Tržna stvarnost je, da bodo potrošniki verjetno menili, da bi lahko to blago imelo isti izvor ali proizvajalca.
For that reason, and exceptionally in relation to recorded content, magnetic data carriers are considered to be similar to a low degree to software. 
Iz tega razloga in izjemoma v zvezi s posnetimi vsebinami se šteje, da je med magnetnimi nosilci podatkov in programsko opremo nizka stopnja podobnosti.
Earlier goods Contested goods Coinciding part 
Prejšnje blago Izpodbijano blago Del, ki se ujema
Components and spare parts for land vehicles Vehicle seat * Seats for land vehicles 
Sestavni in rezervni deli za kopenska vozila Sedeži za vozila* Sedeži za kopenska vozila
Bread Long-life bakery products. 
Kruh Trajni pekovski izdelki Trajni kruh
Long-life bread 
Električni kuhinjski pripomočki Termometri** Električni kuhinjski termometri
Electric kitchen utensils Thermometers ** Electric kitchen thermometers 
Milo Čistilni pripravki za gospodinjske namene Mila za čiščenje
Soap Cleaning preparations Soaps for cleaning purposes 
Znanstveni instrumenti Optični instrumenti Znanstveni optični instrumenti, na primer mikroskopi
Scientific instruments Optical instruments Scientific optical instruments, e.g. microscopes 
Domače bančništvo Poslovno bančništvo Spletno poslovno bančništvo
Online banking services Commercial banking services Online commercial banking services 
* 09/09/2008, T363/06, Magic seat, EU:T:2008:319, § 22.
* 09/09/2008, T363/06, Magic seat, EU:T:2008:319, § 22. 
** 19/01/2011, T336/09, Topcom, EU:T:2011:10, § 34.
RELEVANT PUBLIC AND 
UPOŠTEVNA JAVNOST
DEGREE OF ATTENTION 
IN STOPNJA POZORNOSTI
2 Defining the Relevant Public 4 
2 Opredelitev upoštevne javnosti 4
3 Defining the Degree of Attention 8 
3 Opredelitev stopnje pozornosti 8
3.1 Higher degree of attention 9 
3.1 Višja stopnja pozornosti 8
3.1.1 Expensive purchases 9 
3.1.1 Dragi nakupi 9
3.1.2 Potentially hazardous purchases 10 
3.1.2 Potencialno tvegani nakupi 9
3.1.3 Brand loyalty 10 
3.1.3 Zvestoba znamki 10
3.1.4 Pharmaceuticals 10 
3.1.4 Farmacevtski proizvodi 10
3.2 Lower degree of attention 11 
3.2 Nižja stopnja pozornosti 10
With regard to the relevant public, the Court of Justice has held that a likelihood of confusion (including a likelihood of association) exists if there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29). 
V zvezi z upoštevno javnostjo je stališče Sodišča, da verjetnost zmede (vključno z verjetnostjo povezovanja) obstaja, kadar bi lahko javnost verjela, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali, odvisno od posameznega primera, iz ekonomsko povezanih podjetij (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29).
The Court has also held that it is the perception of marks in the mind of the relevant public of the goods or services in question that plays a decisive role in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23; 22/06/1999, C342/97, Lloyd Schufabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 25). 
Stališče Sodišča je tudi, da je zaznava znamk, ki jo ima upoštevna javnost glede zadevnega blaga ali storitev, odločilna pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23; 22/06/1999, C342/97, Lloyd Schufabrik, EU:C:1999:323, § 25).
Accordingly, the first task is to define the consumer circles that are relevant for the purposes of the case. 
Zato je treba najprej opredeliti, kateri potrošniki so upoštevni v posamezni zadevi.
The method for identifying the relevant public is discussed in paragraph 2 below. 
Način, kako se določi upoštevna javnost, je opisan v odstavku 2 v nadaljevanju.
Thereafter, the relevant public's degree of attention and sophistication must be established. 
Nato je treba določiti stopnjo pozornosti in razgledanosti upoštevne javnosti.
The impact of the relevant public's attention and sophistication on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is discussed in paragraph 3. 
Vpliv, ki ga imata pozornost in razgledanost upoštevne javnosti na presojo verjetnosti zmede, je opisan v odstavku 3.
In addition, the relevant public plays an important role in establishing a number of other factors that are relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. 
Poleg tega ima upoštevna javnost pomembno vlogo pri določanju drugih dejavnikov, ki so pomembni pri presoji verjetnosti zmede.
Comparison of the goods and services 
Primerjava blaga in storitev
The actual and potential customers of the goods and services in dispute constitute one of the factors to be dealt with in the analysis of their similarity. 
Eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba obravnavati pri analizi podobnosti spornega blaga in storitev, so sedanje in potencialne stranke.
While a coincidence in the relevant public is not necessarily an indication of similarity of the goods or services, largely diverging publics weigh heavily against similarity (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services). 
Ujemanje upoštevne javnosti ne kaže nujno na podobnost blaga ali storitev, zelo različne javnosti pa so zanesljivo znak, da te podobnosti ni (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 2: Primerjava blaga in storitev).
Leather, animal skins and hides are raw materials that go to industry for further processing, whereas goods made of leather are final products targeted at the general public. 
Usnje in živalske kože so surovine, namenjene nadaljnji obdelavi v industriji, usnjeni izdelki pa so končni proizvodi, namenjeni širši javnosti.
The relevant public is different, which is a fundamental factor in the assessment of similarity and which leads to the conclusion that the goods in question are dissimilar. 
Upoštevna javnost se razlikuje, kar je temeljni dejavnik pri presoji podobnosti, zaradi katerega se sklene, da je zadevno blago različno.
Similar reasoning applies to precious metals and jewellery. 
Enaka obrazložitev se uporablja za žlahtne kovine in nakit.
Comparison of the signs 
Primerjava znakov
The question of the relevant public also plays a role in the comparison of the signs. 
Vprašanje upoštevne javnosti ima vlogo tudi pri primerjavi znakov.
The same word may be pronounced differently depending on the relevant public. 
Isto besedo lahko ena upoštevna javnost izgovarja drugače kot druga.
Conceptually, the public in one part of the European Union may understand the meaning of the sign, while consumers in other parts may not understand it (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs). 
Teoretično lahko javnost v enem delu Evropske unije razume pomen znaka, potrošniki v drugih delih pa ne (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov).
The Court has already confirmed that the general public in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Finland has a basic understanding of English (26/11/2008, T435/07, New Look, EU:T:2008:534, § 23). 
Sodišče je že potrdilo, da širša javnost v skandinavskih državah, na Nizozemskem in Finskem premore osnovno razumevanje angleščine (26/11/2008, T435/07, New Look, EU:T:2008:534, § 23).
Distinctive elements of the signs/distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
Razlikovalni elementi znakov/razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke
The inherent distinctiveness of a sign or one of its elements also depends on the relevant public for the goods and services. 
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek znaka ali enega od njegovih elementov je tudi odvisen od upoštevne javnosti pri blagu in storitvah.
For example, depending on the relevant public's knowledge, background and language, an element contained in a trade mark may be non-distinctive or have a low degree of distinctiveness, or it may be distinctive because, inter alia, it is perceived as a fanciful term without any meaning claimed (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark). 
Tako lahko na primer znanje, okolje in jezik upoštevne javnosti vplivajo na to, ali je neki element blagovne znamke nerazlikovalen, ali je njegova stopnja razlikovalnega učinka nizka, ali pa je razlikovalen, ker ga med drugim dojemajo kot domišljijski izraz brez pomena (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
The French word ‘cuisine' will not be understood as a descriptive indication for goods in Classes 29 and 30 in some Member States (23/06/2010, R 1201/20091, GREEN CUISINE / Cuisine (fig.), § 29-33). 
V nekaterih državah članicah ne bodo razumeli, da francoska beseda „cuisine“ opisuje blago iz razredov 29 in 30 (23/06/2010, R 1201/20091, GREEN CUISINE / Cuisine (fig.), § 29-33).
Professionals in the IT and scientific fields are in general more familiar with the use of technical and basic English words than the general public. 
Strokovnjaki na področju informacijske tehnologije in znanosti so na splošno bolje seznanjeni z rabo tehničnih in osnovnih angleških besed kot širša javnost.
In Gateway v Activy Media Gateway, the Court held that the common word ‘gateway' directly evokes, in the mind of the relevant consumer, the concept of a gateway, which is commonly used in the computing sector (27/11/2007, T434/05, Activy Media Gateway, EU:T:2007:359, § 38, 48; confirmed 11/12/2008, C57/08 P, Activy Media Gateway, EU:C:2008:718). 
Sodišče je v zadevi Gateway/Activy Media Gateway menilo, da upoštevni potrošnik ob besedi gateway (angl. prehod) najprej pomisli na prehod, ki se uporablja v računalništvu (27/11/2007, T434/05, Activy Media Gateway, EU:T:2007:359, § 38, 48; potrjena 11/12/2008, C57/08 P, Activy Media Gateway, EU:C:2008:718).
2 Defining the Relevant Public 
Opredelitev upoštevne javnosti
In accordance with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, it must be determined whether a likelihood of confusion exists ‘on the part of the public in the territory where the earlier mark is protected'. 
V skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je treba določiti, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede „v javnosti na ozemlju, na katerem je varovana prejšnja blagovna znamka“.
The term ‘average consumer' is a legal concept that is used in the sense of the ‘relevant consumer' or ‘relevant public'. 
Izraz „povprečni potrošnik“ je pravni pojem, ki se uporablja v pomenu „upoštevnega potrošnika“ ali „upoštevne javnosti“.
It should not be confused with the ‘general public' or ‘public at large', although the Courts sometimes use it in this sense. 
Ne bi se smel zamenjevati s „širšo javnostjo“ ali „splošno javnostjo“, čeprav ga sodišča včasih uporabljajo v tem pomenu.
However, in the context of relative grounds, the term ‘average consumer' must not be used as a synonym of ‘general public' as it can refer to both professional and general public. 
V okviru relativnih razlogov za zavrnitev pa se izraz „povprečni potrošnik“ ne sme uporabljati kot sopomenka za „širšo javnost“, saj se lahko nanaša tako na strokovno kot na širšo javnost.
In this respect, in cases concerning the likelihood of confusion, the Court normally distinguishes between the general public (or public at large), and a professional or specialised public (or business customers), based on the goods and services in question. 
V tem smislu Sodišče v zadevah v zvezi z verjetnostjo zmede običajno na podlagi zadevnega blaga ali storitev razlikuje med širšo javnostjo (ali splošno javnostjo) in strokovno ali specializirano javnostjo (ali poslovnimi strankami).
the territory defined by the earlier mark: the relevant public is always the public in the territory(ies) where the earlier right(s) is/are protected. 
Zato je zadevna upoštevna javnost pri prejšnji nacionalni pravici vedno javnost v posamezni državi članici EU (ali državah članicah pri blagovnih znamkah Beneluksa).
For an earlier European Union trade mark, the public in the whole European Union has to be taken into account. 
Pri prejšnji blagovni znamki Evropske unije je treba upoštevati javnost v vsej Evropski uniji.
For an international registration, it is the public in each of the Member States where the mark is protected. 
Pri mednarodni registraciji je to javnost v vseh državah članicah, kjer je znamka zaščitena.
the goods and services that have been found identical or similar: likelihood of confusion is always assessed against the perception of the consumers of the goods and services that have been found identical or similar. 
Blago in storitve, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so enaki ali podobni: verjetnost zmede se vedno presodi glede na to, kako potrošniki dojemajo blago in storitve, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da so enaki ali podobni.
Depending on the goods or services, the relevant public is the general public or a professional/specialised public. 
Glede na blago ali storitve je upoštevna javnost širša javnost ali strokovna ali specializirana javnost.
The relevant public always includes both the actual and the potential consumers, that is, the consumers who are currently purchasing the goods/services or who may do so in the future. 
Upoštevna javnost vedno zajema dejanske in potencialne potrošnike, torej potrošnike, ki blago ali storitve kupujejo zdaj ali pa bodo to mogoče storili v prihodnje.
If a significant part of the relevant public for the goods or services at issue may be confused as to the origin of the goods, this will be sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. 
Za ugotovitev, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede, je dovolj, če pomemben del upoštevne javnosti ni prepričan o izvoru zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
It is not necessary to establish that all actual or potential consumers of the relevant goods or services are likely to be confused. 
Pri tem ni potrebna ugotovitev, da bodo verjetno zmedeni vsi dejanski ali potencialni potrošniki upoštevnega blaga ali storitev.
As stated by the Court, the relevant public for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is composed of users likely to use both the goods and services covered by the earlier mark and the product covered by the mark applied for that were found to be identical or similar (01/07/2008, T328/05, Quartz, EU:T:2008:238, § 23; appeal 10/07/2009, C416/08 P, Quartz, EU:C:2009:450, dismissed). 
Kot je navedlo Sodišče, upoštevno javnost za presojo verjetnosti zmede sestavljajo uporabniki, pri katerih je verjetno, da bi uporabljali tako blago in storitve, označene s prejšnjo znamko, kot proizvod, označen z znamko, za katero je bila vložena prijava, pri čemer je bilo za znamki ugotovljeno, da sta enaki ali podobni (01/07/2008, T328/05, Quartz, EU:T:2008:238, § 23; pritožba 10/07/2009, C416/08 P, Quartz, EU:C:2009:450, zavrnjena).
When defining the part of the public by reference to which a likelihood of confusion is assessed the following applies: 
Pri opredeljevanju dela javnosti, glede na katerega se presoja verjetnost zmede, velja naslednje:
if the goods or services of both marks target the general public, the relevant public by reference to which a likelihood of confusion will be assessed is the general public. 
če so blago ali storitve obeh znamk namenjeni širši javnosti, bo upoštevna javnost, glede na katero se presoja verjetnost zmede, širša javnost.
In a case in which both the earlier and the contested mark concerned articles of clothing, the Court held that ‘clothing for men and women are everyday consumer items and the trade mark on which the opposition is based is registered as a European Union trade mark. 
V zadevi, v kateri sta se tako prejšnja kot izpodbijana znamka nanašali na oblačila, je Sodišče menilo, da so oblačila za moške in ženske izdelki za vsakdanjo potrošnjo, blagovna znamka, na kateri temelji ugovor, pa je registrirana kot blagovna znamka Evropske unije.
It follows that the relevant public by reference to which the likelihood of confusion must be assessed is composed of the general public in the European Union' (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 & T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 25). 
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je upoštevna javnost, glede na katero je treba presojati verjetnost zmede, širša javnost v Evropski uniji (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 & T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 25).
If the goods and services of both marks are directed at the same or a similar professional public, the likelihood of confusion will be assessed from the perspective of those specialists. 
Če so blago in storitve obeh znamk namenjeni isti ali podobni strokovni javnosti, se bo verjetnost zmede presojala glede na to specializirano javnost.
The relevant goods of both the earlier and the contested mark were raw plastic materials, chemical products, resins and the like. 
Upoštevno blago tako pri prejšnji kot pri izpodbijani znamki so bile umetne snovi v surovem stanju, kemični proizvodi, smole in podobno.
These are goods for industrial use. 
Vsi ti proizvodi se uporabljajo v industriji.
The targeted consumers are, therefore, engineers and/or chemists, that is to say, highly skilled professionals who will process these products and use them in manufacturing activities. 
Ciljni potrošniki so torej inženirji in/ali kemiki, torej visoko usposobljeni strokovnjaki, ki bodo predelovali te proizvode in jih uporabljali v proizvodnji.
The relevant public was considered to be professional (15/02/2012, R 2077/20101, PEBAFLEX / PEBAX, § 18; 16/09/2010, R 1370/20091, CALCIMATT / CALCIPLAST et al., § 20, confirmed 29/03/2012, T547/10, EU:T:2012:178). 
Štelo se je, da je upoštevna javnost strokovna javnost (15/02/2012, R 2077/20101, PEBAFLEX / PEBAX, § 18; 16/09/2010, R 1370/20091, CALCIMATT / CALCIPLAST et al., § 20, potrjena 29/03/2012, T547/10, EU:T:2012:178).
If the goods or services of both marks target both the general public and specialists, the likelihood of confusion will be assessed against the perception of the part of the public displaying the lower degree of attentiveness as it will be more prone to being confused. 
Če so blago in storitve obeh znamk namenjeni širši javnosti in specializirani javnosti, se bo verjetnost zmede presojala glede na dojemanje tistega dela javnosti, ki kaže nižjo stopnjo pozornosti, saj je zanj zmedenost verjetnejša.
If this part of the public is not likely to be confused, it is even more unlikely that the part of the public with a higher degree of attention will be. 
Če ni verjetno, da bi bil ta del javnosti zmeden, je še manj verjetno, da bi bil zmeden del javnosti z višjo stopnjo pozornosti.
In a case in which both the earlier and the contested mark concerned goods in Classes 3 and 5 that targeted both the general public and professionals (e.g. doctors for pharmaceuticals in Class 5), the Court assessed the likelihood of confusion for the general public only, because it is the one displaying the lower degree of attention (15/07/2011, T220/09, ERGO, EU:T:2011:392, § 21). 
V zadevi, v kateri sta se tako prejšnja kot izpodbijana znamka nanašali na blago v razredih 3 in 5, namenjeno tako širši javnosti kot strokovnjakom (npr. zdravnikom v primeru farmacevtskih proizvodov iz razreda 5), je Sodišče presodilo verjetnost zmede le glede na širšo javnost, saj ta kaže nižjo stopnjo pozornosti (15/07/2011, T220/09, ERGO, EU:T:2011:392, § 21).
If the goods and services of the earlier mark target the general and professional public and the contested goods and services target a professional public exclusively (or vice versa), the relevant public for assessing likelihood of confusion will be the professional public only. 
Če so blago in storitve prejšnje znamke namenjeni splošni in strokovni javnosti, izpodbijano blago in storitve pa izključno strokovni javnosti (ali obratno), se bo pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede kot upoštevna javnost štela samo strokovna javnost.
The goods of the earlier mark are polish for metals, while the goods of the application are preparations for cleaning waste pipes for the metal-working industry. 
Blago prejšnje znamke so pripravki za poliranje kovin, prijava pa se nanaša na sredstva za čiščenje/odmaševanje odtočnih cevi za kovinsko industrijo.
As stated in the relevant GC judgment: ‘Although “polish for metals” can consist equally well of everyday consumer goods as of goods intended for a professional or specialised public, it is not disputed that the goods to which the trade mark application relates must be regarded as directed solely at persons operating in the metal-working industry. 
Kot je navedeno v ustrezni sodbi Splošnega sodišča: „Torej, če so lahko ,pripravki za poliranje kovin‘ tako izdelki tekoče potrošnje kot proizvodi, namenjeni strokovni ali specializirani javnosti, ni sporno, da je treba proizvode, predvidene s prijavo za registracijo, šteti, kot da so naslovljeni samo na strokovnjake iz kovinsko-predelovalne industrije.
Therefore, the only public likely to confuse the trade marks in question is formed of such operators' (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 81). 
Iz tega izhaja, da je edina javnost, ki bi mogla zamenjati zadevni znamki, sestavljena iz navedenih strokovnjakov“ (14/07/2005, T126/03, Aladin, EU:T:2005:288, § 81).