natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, the General Court has held that although preponderant importance had sometimes been accorded to the phonetic perception of marks for beverages, the phonetic dissimilarities of the marks did not merit particular importance where the specific beverages were widely distributed and sold not only in specialist shops, where they would be ordered orally, but also in large shopping centres, where they would be purchased visually (03/09/2010, T472/08, 61 a nossa alegria, EU:T:2010:347, § 106). 
Splošno sodišče je dejansko razsodilo, da se je zvočni zaznavi znamk pijač včasih sicer pripisoval odločilen pomen, a se zvočnim razlikam znamk ni pripisoval poseben pomen, če so se posebne pijače dobavljale vsem in se prodajale tako v specializiranih prodajalnah, kjer so se naročale ustno, kot na velikih nakupovalnih površinah, kjer naj bi se kupovale vizualno (03/09/2010, T472/08, 61 a nossa alegria, EU:T:2010:347, § 106).
4.3 Conclusion 
Sklepna ugotovitev
The circumstances set out above demonstrate that in certain situations the Office should grant preferential consideration to the visual or aural perception of marks depending on how the goods and services at issue are ordered or purchased. 
Zgoraj navedene okoliščine kažejo, da bi moral Urad v nekaterih primerih prednostno upoštevati vizualno ali zvočno zaznavanje znamk glede na način, kako se zadevno blago in storitve naročajo ali kupujejo.
However, identical or highly similar visual or aural elements cannot be entirely overlooked even in these situations because all the relevant factors are interlinked and interdependent, and each set of circumstances must be examined on a case-by-case basis. 
Vendar tudi v teh primerih ni mogoče popolnoma prezreti enakih ali zelo podobnih vizualnih ali zvočnih elementov, saj so vsi upoštevni dejavniki medsebojno povezani in soodvisni ter je treba vsak sklop okoliščin proučiti za vsak primer posebej.
5 Impact of the Conceptual Similarity of the Signs on Likelihood of Confusion 
Učinek pojmovne podobnosti znakov na verjetnost zmede
A conceptual similarity between signs with analogous semantic content may give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark is particularly distinctive (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24, where the signs shared the broader concept of a ‘bounding feline', but did not evoke the same animal: a puma in the earlier mark and a cheetah in the contested mark). 
Pojmovna podobnost med znaki s podobno semantično vsebino lahko privede do verjetnosti zmede, če ima prejšnja znamka poseben razlikovalni učinek (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24, kjer je bil znakoma skupen širši pojem „mačke v skoku“, ki pa ni priklical iste živali: puma v prejšnji znamki in gepard v izpodbijani znamki).
However, exceptionally, where the signs have the same distinctive concept in common accompanied by visual similarities between the signs, this may lead to a likelihood of confusion even in the absence of a particularly high distinctiveness of the earlier mark, as illustrated by the following example. 
Izjemoma pa, kadar je znakom skupen isti razlikovalen pojem, ki ga spremljajo vizualne podobnosti med znaki, lahko to privede do verjetnosti zmede tudi, kadar ni posebej velikega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, kot ponazarja naslednji primer.
A conceptual similarity between the signs may not be sufficient to outweigh the visual and phonetic differences where the concept in common is non-distinctive. 
Pojmovna podobnost med znaki morda ne zadostuje, da bi prevladala nad vizualnimi in zvočnimi razlikami, kadar skupni pojem ni razlikovalen.
According to case-law, the conceptual differences between signs may counteract their visual and phonetic similarity (12/01/2006, C361/04, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25, § 20). 
V skladu s sodno prakso lahko pojmovne razlike med znaki prevladajo nad vizualnimi in zvočnimi podobnostmi (12/01/2006, C361/04, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25, § 20).
According to Office practice, when a similarity is found in one aspect (visual/phonetic/conceptual), the examination of likelihood of confusion must continue . 
V skladu s prakso Urada se mora preizkušanje verjetnosti zmede nadaljevati, kadar se ugotovi podobnost pri enem vidiku (vizualnem/zvočnem/pojmovnem).
Therefore, the question whether the conceptual dissimilarity is sufficient to counteract the visual and/or phonetic similarity between the marks has to be examined in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. 
Zato je treba v celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede proučiti vprašanje, ali pojmovna različnost zadostuje za prevlado nad vizualno in/ali zvočno podobnostjo znamk.
Furthermore, as explained above in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs', paragraph 3.4.4, conceptual dissimilarity can be found only if each trade mark has a clear concept that may be immediately grasped by the public and these concepts are different. 
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj v Smernicah, del C: Ugovor, Razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov, odstavek 3.4.4, je mogoče poleg tega pojmovno različnost ugotoviti samo, če ima vsaka blagovna znamka jasen pomen, ki ga javnost lahko takoj dojame, in če so ti pomeni različni.
[2: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs, paragraph 1.3.] 
[2: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov, odstavek 1.3.]
The conceptual difference between the signs may not be sufficient to neutralise the visual and phonetic similarities. 
Pojmovna razlika med znaki morda ne bo zadostovala za nevtralizacijo vizualnih in zvočnih podobnosti.
The finding of conceptual similarity must therefore be followed by a careful assessment of the inherent and acquired distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark. 
Ugotovitvi pojmovne podobnosti mora zato slediti skrbna presoja svojstvenega in z uporabo pridobljenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke.
6 Impact on Likelihood of Confusion of Components that are Non-Distinctive or Distinctive Only to a Low Degree 
Vpliv na verjetnost zmede sestavnih delov z nerazlikovalnim učinkom ali samo šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom
When assessing the similarity of the signs, an analysis of whether the coinciding components are descriptive, allusive or otherwise weak is carried out in order to calculate the extent to which these coinciding components have a lesser or greater capacity to indicate commercial origin. 
Pri presoji podobnosti znakov se analiza, s katero se preveri, ali so sestavni deli, ki so enaki, opisni, namigovalni ali drugače šibki, izvede zato, da se lahko določi, v kakšnem obsegu imajo ti sestavni deli, ki so enaki, manjšo ali večjo sposobnost označevanja trgovskega izvora.
It may be more difficult to establish that the public may be confused as to origin due to similarities that solely pertain to non-distinctive elements . 
Morda je težje določiti, da bi lahko bila javnost zmedena glede izvora zaradi podobnosti, ki se nanašajo izključno na nerazlikovalne elemente.
[3: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark.] 
[3: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke.]
The Office and a number of trade mark offices of the European Union have agreed on a Common Practice under the European Trade Mark and Designs Network with regard to the impact on likelihood of confusion of components that are non-distinctive or distinctive only to a low degree. 
Urad in številni uradi za blagovne znamke v Evropski uniji so v okviru Evropske mreže blagovnih znamk in modelov sprejeli skupno prakso v zvezi z vplivom na verjetnost zmede sestavnih delov z nerazlikovalnim učinkom ali samo šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom.
6.1 Common components with a low degree of distinctiveness 
Skupni sestavni deli s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom
According to the Common Practice , when the marks share an element with a low degree of distinctiveness, the assessment of likelihood of confusion will focus on the impact of the non-coinciding components on the overall impression of the marks, as previously assessed in the comparison of signs. 
V skladu s skupno prakso bo presoja verjetnosti zmede, kadar je znamkam skupen element s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom, osredotočena na vpliv neujemajočih se sestavnih delov na splošen vtis znamk, kot se je prej presojalo pri primerjavi znakov.
That assessment takes into account the similarities/differences and distinctiveness of the non-coinciding components. 
Pri tej presoji se upoštevajo podobnosti/razlike in razlikovalni učinek neujemajočih se sestavnih delov.
[4: For the purposes of the Common Practice, all the other factors that may be relevant for the global appreciation of likelihood of confusion are deemed not to affect the outcome. 
[4: V skupni praksi velja, da vsi drugi dejavniki, ki so morda pomembni za celovito presojo verjetnosti zmede, ne vplivajo na rezultat.
It is also considered that the goods and services are identical.] 
Šteje se tudi, da so blago in storitve enaki.]
A coincidence in an element with a low degree of distinctiveness will not normally on its own lead to likelihood of confusion. 
Ujemanje pri elementu s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom običajno ne povzroči verjetnosti zmede.
However, there may be likelihood of confusion if the other components are of a lower (or equally low) degree of distinctiveness or are of insignificant visual impact and the overall impression of the marks is similar. 
Lahko pa verjetnost zmede nastane, če imajo drugi sestavni deli še šibkejši (ali enako šibek) razlikovalni učinek ali če imajo nepomemben vizualni vpliv in če je splošen vtis znamk podoben.
There may also be likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical. 
Verjetnost zmede lahko obstaja tudi, če je splošen vtis znamk zelo podoben ali enak.
No likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples. 
V naslednjih primerih verjetnost zmede ni bila ugotovljena.
In the following example there was a likelihood of confusion because other components are of a lower (or equally low) degree of distinctiveness or are of insignificant visual impact and the overall impression of the marks is similar. 
V naslednjem primeru je obstajala verjetnost zmede, ker imajo drugi sestavni deli šibkejši (ali enako šibek) razlikovalni učinek ali nepomemben vizualni vpliv, splošen vtis znamk pa je podoben.
Common components with no distinctiveness 
Skupni sestavni deli brez razlikovalnega učinka
According to the Common Practice, when marks share an element with no distinctiveness, the assessment will focus on the impact of the non-coinciding components on the overall impression of the marks. 
V skladu s skupno prakso bo presoja, kadar je znamkam skupen element brez razlikovalnega učinka, osredotočena na vpliv neujemajočih se sestavnih delov na splošen vtis znamk.
The assessment will take into account the similarities/differences and distinctiveness of the non-coinciding components. 
Pri tej presoji se bodo upoštevali podobnosti/razlike in razlikovalni učinek neujemajočih se sestavnih delov.
A coincidence only in non-distinctive components does not lead to likelihood of confusion. 
Ujemanje le nerazlikovalnih sestavnih delov ne vodi k verjetnosti zmede.
However, when marks also contain other figurative and/or word elements that are similar, there will be likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical. 
Kadar pa znamke vsebujejo tudi druge figurativne in/ali besedne elemente, ki so si podobni, verjetnost zmede obstaja, če je splošen vtis znamk zelo podoben ali enak.
No likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples, as the signs coincide solely in a non-distinctive element. 
V naslednjih primerih ni bila ugotovljena verjetnost zmede, saj se znaki ujemajo samo v nerazlikovalnem elementu.
Likelihood of confusion was found in the following examples because the marks also contain other figurative and/or word elements that are similar, and the overall impression of the marks is highly similar or identical. 
Verjetnost zmede je bila ugotovljena v naslednjih primerih, saj znamke vsebujejo tudi druge figurativne in/ali besedne elemente, ki so si podobni, splošen vtis pa je, da so si znamke zelo podobne ali enake.
The abovementioned examples concern the coincidence in a weakly distinctive or non-distinctive element of the marks. 
Zgoraj navedeni primeri se nanašajo na ujemanje v šibkem razlikovalnem ali nerazlikovalnem elementu znamk.
The distinctiveness of an element of the mark is a separate question from the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as a whole (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, paragraph 2). 
Razlikovalni učinek elementa znamke je ločeno vprašanje v presoji razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, odstavek 2).
However, when the earlier trade mark is entirely contained in the contested EUTM application and recognisable as such, its degree of distinctiveness naturally equals that of the coinciding element, with the following consequences. 
Vendar če je prejšnja blagovna znamka v celoti vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU in je kot taka prepoznavna, je njen razlikovalni učinek po naravi enak razlikovalnemu učinku ujemajočega se elementa z naslednjimi posledicami.
The analysis of the cases where the earlier mark is entirely contained in the contested EUTM application cannot follow the principles established in paragraph 6.2 above (Common components with no distinctiveness) but rather those established in paragraph 6.1 (Common components with a low degree of distinctiveness). 
Analiza primerov, v katerih je prejšnja znamka v celoti vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, ne more upoštevati načel, določenih v zgornjem odstavku 6.2 (Skupni sestavni deli brez razlikovalnega učinka), temveč lahko upošteva tista, ki so določena v odstavku 6.1 (Skupni sestavni deli s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom).
This is because the Office applies the practice clarified in the judgment of 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-LIVE, EU:C:2012:314, namely that in proceedings opposing the registration of an EUTM application, the validity of earlier trade marks may not be called into question. 
Razlog za to je, da Urad uporablja prakso, pojasnjeno v sodbi z dne 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-LIVE, EU:C:2012:314, in sicer da v postopkih ugovarjanja registraciji prijave blagovne znamke EU veljavnosti prejšnjih blagovnih znamk ni mogoče izpodbijati.
Consequently, the elements corresponding to the earlier mark cannot be considered as devoid of distinctive character in the trade mark comparison, but must be deemed to be endowed with some (low/minimal) degree of distinctiveness (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs, paragraph 3.2.3.5 (Earlier marks, the distinctiveness of which is called into question)). 
Zato se ne more šteti, da elementi, ki se ujemajo s prejšnjo znamko, nimajo razlikovalnega značaja pri primerjavi blagovnih znamk, temveč je treba upoštevati, da imajo neki (šibek/minimalni) razlikovalni učinek (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov, odstavek 3.2.3.5 Prejšnje znamke, pri katerih se izpodbija razlikovalni učinek).
If the earlier mark contained in the contested EUTM application enjoys enhanced distinctiveness through use despite low inherent distinctiveness, the common element corresponding to that mark cannot be considered distinctive to a low degree and the principles of the Common Practice mentioned in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 above do not apply. 
Če ima prejšnja znamka, ki je vključena v prijavo izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU, povečan razlikovalni učinek z uporabo, in to kljub šibkemu svojstvenemu razlikovalnemu učinku, se ne more šteti, da ima skupni element, ki se ujema s to znamko, šibek razlikovalni učinek, in načela skupne prakse, navedena v odstavkih 6.1 in 6.2 zgoraj, se ne uporabljajo.
7 Specific Cases 
Posebni primeri
7.1 Short signs 
Kratki znaki
As indicated before, the Courts have not exactly defined what a short sign is. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, sodišča niso natančno opredelila, kaj je kratek znak.
However, signs with three or fewer letters/numbers are considered by the Office as short signs. 
Vendar Urad šteje, da je znak kratek, če je sestavljen iz treh ali manj črk/številk.
The General Court held that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion between signs consisting of a single letter (or a combination of letters not recognisable as a word) follows the same rules as that in respect of word signs comprising a word, a name or an invented term (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 & T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 47-48; 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 49). 
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da za celovito presojo verjetnosti zmede med znaki z eno samo črko (ali kombinacijo črk, ki ni prepoznavna kot beseda), veljajo enaka pravila kot za besedne znake, ki obsegajo besedo, ime ali fantazijsko sestavino (06/10/2004, T117/03 - T119/03 in T171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 47-48; 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 49).
In the assessment of the likelihood of confusion it is important to establish the degree of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark, and therefore its scope of protection. 
Pri presoji verjetnosti zmede je pomembno ugotoviti stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke in s tem njen obseg zaščite.
See in this respect the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark, paragraph 2.2.3.1. 
Glej v zvezi s tem Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke, odstavek 2.2.3.1.
As to the overall assessment of likelihood of confusion, the Court made it clear that the fact that two trade marks consisting of the same letter (or of the same sequence of letters) are found to be identical from an aural and a conceptual point of view is relevant when it comes to assessing the existence of a likelihood of confusion. 
Sodišče je v zvezi s celostno presojo verjetnosti zmede jasno opredelilo, da je ugotovitev, da sta dve blagovni znamki, sestavljeni iz iste črke (ali istega zaporedja črk), enaki z zvočnega in pojmovnega vidika, pomembna pri presoji obstoja verjetnosti zmede.
In such cases, it is only when the later trade mark causes a sufficiently different visual impression that a likelihood of confusion can be safely ruled out (T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 60). 
V takšnih primerih je mogoče verjetnost zmede zanesljivo izključiti le, če poznejša blagovna znamka ustvari dovolj različen vizualni vtis (T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, § 60).
Consequently, a likelihood of confusion can be safely excluded when two conflicting signs, albeit containing or consisting of the same single letter or a combination of letters not recognisable as a word, are stylised in a sufficiently different way or contain a sufficiently different figurative element, so that their different overall graphical representation eclipses the common verbal element. 
Zato je mogoče verjetnost zmede zanesljivo izključiti, kadar sta sporna znaka, čeprav vsebujeta isto črko ali kombinacijo črk ali sta sestavljena iz nje, pri čemer ta ni prepoznavna kot beseda, stilizirana dovolj različno ali vsebujeta dovolj različen figurativni element, da njun različen splošen grafični prikaz prevlada nad skupnim besednim elementom.
Where the opponent has successfully proven that its earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through intensive use or reputation, the impact thereof on the final outcome has to be carefully assessed. 
Če vložnik ugovora uspešno dokaže, da je njegova prejšnja znamka z intenzivno uporabo ali ugledom pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek, je treba skrbno pretehtati njegov vpliv na končni izid.
Firstly, enhanced distinctiveness on the part of an earlier mark containing or consisting of a single letter or a combination of letters cannot justify a finding of a likelihood of confusion if the overall visual impression of the signs is so different as to safely set them apart. 
Prvič, zaradi povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke, ki vsebuje eno samo črko ali je sestavljena iz nje, ni upravičeno ugotoviti verjetnost zmede, če je celotni vizualni vtis znakov tako različen, da ju je mogoče zanesljivo ločiti.
Secondly, if the evidence shows use of a single letter or combination of letters stylised or accompanied by additional figurative elements, the benefit of the resulting broader scope of protection accrues to the form in which it was used and not to the single letter as such or any other stylised variation. 
Drugič, če se dokazi nanašajo na uporabo ene same črke ali kombinacije črk, ki so stilizirane ali jih spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, širši obseg varstva uživa oblika, v kateri se je uporabljala, ne pa črka kot taka ali katera koli druga stilizirana različica.
7.2 Name/Surnames 
Imena/priimki
In principle, there are no specific criteria to be taken into account when likelihood of confusion between names is assessed. 
Načeloma ni posebnih meril, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji verjetnosti zmede med imeni.
However, because of the very nature of names and surnames, there are certain aspects that come into play (as will be seen below) that have to be carefully considered and balanced, such as whether a given name and/or surname is common or not in the relevant territory. 
Zaradi narave imen in priimkov pa imajo vlogo nekateri vidiki (ti bodo prikazani v nadaljevanju), ki jih je treba skrbno upoštevati in uskladiti: na primer ali je neko ime in/ali priimek na upoštevnem ozemlju običajen ali ne.
7.2.2 Business names in combination with other components 
Imena podjetij v povezavi z drugimi sestavnimi deli
When assessing likelihood of confusion in relation to composite signs that contain several verbal elements, one of which might be seen as being a business name, that is to say, indicating the company ‘behind' the trade mark, an overall assessment must be done in order to identify which element functions as the trade mark of the goods and services concerned. 
Pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede v povezavi s sestavljenimi znaki, ki vsebujejo več besednih elementov, od katerih bi lahko enega šteli za ime podjetja, tj. da označuje podjetje za blagovno znamko, je treba izvesti celostno presojo za opredelitev, kateri element deluje kot blagovna znamka zadevnega blaga ali storitev.
Factors to be taken into account include the distinctiveness of each element as well as the size and/or space they occupy in a figurative mark, which determine the dominant element of the conflicting signs. 
Dejavniki, ki jih je treba upoštevati, vključujejo razlikovalni učinek posameznega elementa ter velikost in/ali mesto v figurativni znamki, ki določa prevladujoči element spornih znakov.