natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The need for the earlier mark to be known by a significant part of the public also serves to mark the difference between the notions of reputation as a necessary condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and enhanced distinctiveness through use as a factor for evaluating likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Na podlagi zahteve, da prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, je mogoče določiti tudi razlike med pojmom ugled kot nujnim pogojem za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in pojmom povečani razlikovalni učinek z uporabo kot dejavnikom za presojo verjetnosti zmede za namene člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Even though both terms are concerned with the recognition of the mark among the relevant public, in the case of reputation a threshold exists below which extended protection cannot be granted, whereas in the case of enhanced distinctiveness there is no threshold. 
Čeprav se oba izraza nanašata na prepoznavnost znamke pri upoštevni javnosti, se v zvezi z ugledom uporablja prag, pod katerim ni mogoče odobriti razširjenega varstva, medtem ko v zvezi s povečanim razlikovalnim učinkom ni nobenega praga.
It follows that in the latter case any indication of enhanced recognition of the mark should be taken into account and evaluated according to its significance, regardless of whether it reaches the limit required by Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Iz tega sledi, da je treba v zadnje navedenem primeru upoštevati vsak znak povečane prepoznavnosti znamke in ga oceniti glede na njegov pomen ne glede na to, ali dosega zahtevano mejo iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, a finding of ‘enhanced distinctiveness' under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR will not necessarily be conclusive for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Zato ugotovitev „povečanega razlikovalnega učinka“ v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ni nujno odločilna za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
3.1.2.2 Relevant public 
Upoštevna javnost
In defining the kind of public that should be taken into account for assessing reputation, the Court held that the ‘public amongst which the earlier trade mark must have acquired a reputation is that [public] concerned by that trade mark, that is to say, depending on the product or service marketed, either the public at large or a more specialised public, for example traders in a specific sector' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 24; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34, 41). 
V zvezi z opredelitvijo, katero vrsto javnosti je treba upoštevati pri presoji ugleda, je Sodišče odločilo, da je javnost, v kateri mora prejšnja znamka pridobiti ugled, tista [javnost], ki ji je ta znamka namenjena, kar pomeni, odvisno od izdelka ali storitve na trgu, širšo javnost ali bolj specializirano javnost, na primer gospodarski subjekti v nekem sektorju (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 24; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34, 41).
Hence, if the goods and services covered by the mark are mass consumption products, the relevant public will be the public at large, whereas if the designated goods have a very specific application or exclusively target professional or industrial users, the relevant public will be limited to the specific purchasers of the products in question. 
Če so torej blago in storitve, ki jih označuje znamka, izdelki za široko porabo, je upoštevna javnost širša javnost, če pa ima zadevno blago zelo specifično uporabo ali je namenjeno izključno strokovnim ali industrijskim uporabnikom, je upoštevna javnost omejena na posebne kupce zadevnih izdelkov.
In addition to the actual buyers of the relevant goods, the notion of the relevant public extends to the potential purchasers thereof, as well as to those members of the public that only come indirectly into contact with the mark, to the extent that such consumer groups are also targeted by the goods in question, for instance, sports fans in relation to athletic gear, or frequent air-travellers as regards air carriers, etc. 
Poleg dejanskih kupcev zadevnega blaga je pojem upoštevne javnosti razširjen na morebitne kupce tega blaga in tiste pripadnike javnosti, ki pridejo v stik z znamko samo posredno, če je zadevno blago namenjeno tudi takim skupinam potrošnikov, na primer športni navdušenci v zvezi s športno opremo ali pogosti uporabniki letalskih storitev v zvezi z letalskimi prevozniki itd.
Quite often, a given product will concern various purchaser groups with different profiles, as in the case of multipurpose goods or goods that are handled by several intermediaries before they reach their final destination (distributors, retailers, end-users). 
Določeni izdelki so precej pogosto namenjeni različnim skupinam kupcev z različnimi profili, na primer večnamensko blago ali blago, s katerim ravna več posrednikov, preden doseže končni cilj (distributerji, trgovci na drobno, končni uporabniki).
In such cases the question arises whether reputation has to be assessed within each separate group or if it should cover all the different types of purchaser. 
V takšnih primerih se postavlja vprašanje, ali je treba ugled presojati v vsaki skupini posebej ali v zvezi z vsemi različnimi vrstami kupcev.
The example given by the Court in its judgment of 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408 (traders in a specific sector) implies that reputation within one single group may suffice. 
Iz primera, ki ga je Sodišče navedlo v sodbi 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408 (gospodarski subjekti v določenem sektorju), je razvidno, da lahko zadostuje ugled v eni skupini.
Likewise, if the earlier trade mark is registered for quite heterogeneous goods/services, different segments of the public may be concerned by each type of good/service, and, therefore, the overall reputation of the mark will have to be assessed separately for each category of goods involved. 
Če je prejšnja znamka registrirana za precej raznovrstno blago/storitve, je lahko podobno vsaka vrsta blaga/storitve primerna za različne dele javnosti, zato je treba skupni ugled znamke presoditi ločeno za vsako kategorijo zadevnega blaga.
The foregoing only deals with the kind of public to be taken into account when assessing whether the earlier mark has reached the threshold of reputation laid down by the Court in Chevy (General Motors). 
Zgornje navedbe se nanašajo samo na to, katero vrsto javnosti je treba upoštevati pri presoji, ali je prejšnja znamka dosegla prag ugleda, ki ga je Sodišče določilo v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors).
However, a relevant question arises when assessing detriment or unfair advantage, namely whether the earlier mark must also be known to the public concerned by the goods and services of the later mark, since otherwise it is difficult to see how the public will be in a position to associate the two. 
Pomembno vprašanje se pojavi pri presoji oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja, in sicer ali mora prejšnjo znamko poznati tudi javnost, ki so ji namenjeni blago in storitve iz poznejše znamke, saj je drugače težko ugotoviti, kako bi lahko javnost povezala obe znamki.
This issue is discussed in paragraph 3.4 below. 
To vprašanje se obravnava v odstavku 3.4 v nadaljevanju.
3.1.2.3 Goods and services covered 
Vključeno blago in storitve
The goods and services must first of all be those for which the earlier trade mark is registered and for which reputation is claimed. 
Blago in storitve morajo biti predvsem tisti, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka in se zanje trdi, da imajo ugled.
The goods and services to which the evidence refers have to be identical (not only similar) to the goods and services for which the earlier trade mark is registered. 
Blago in storitve, na katere se nanašajo dokazi, morajo biti enaki (ne samo podobni) blagu in storitvam, za katere je registrirana prejšnja znamka.
Where the earlier mark is registered for a wide range of goods and services targeting different kinds of public, it will be necessary to assess reputation separately for each category of goods. 
Kadar je prejšnja znamka registrirana za raznovrstno blago in storitve, namenjeno različnim vrstam javnosti, je treba ugled presoditi ločeno za vsako kategorijo blaga.
In such cases the earlier mark may not have a reputation for all of them, as it may not have been used at all for some of the goods, whereas for others it may not have reached the degree of knowledge necessary for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
V takšnih primerih je mogoče, da prejšnja znamka nima ugleda v zvezi z vsem blagom in storitvami, saj se za nekatero blago sploh ne uporablja, medtem ko v zvezi z drugim mogoče ni dosegla potrebne stopnje poznanosti za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Hence, if the evidence shows that the earlier mark enjoys a partial reputation, that is, the reputation only covers some of the goods or services for which it is registered, it is only to that extent that this mark may be protected under Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Če je iz dokazov torej razvidno, da ima prejšnja znamka delni ugled, kar pomeni, da se ugled nanaša samo na nekatero blago ali storitve, za katere je registrirana, se lahko znamka zaščiti v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU samo v tem obsegu.
Consequently, it is only these goods that may be taken into account for the purposes of the examination. 
Zato se lahko pri preizkušanju upošteva samo to blago.
3.1.2.4 Relevant territory 
Upoštevno ozemlje
According to Article 8(5) EUTMR, the relevant territory for establishing the reputation of the earlier mark is the territory of protection: the earlier mark must have a reputation in the territory where it is registered. 
V skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je upoštevno ozemlje za določitev ugleda prejšnje znamke ozemlje varstva: prejšnja znamka mora imeti ugled na ozemlju, kjer je registrirana.
Therefore, for national marks the relevant territory is the Member State concerned, whereas for EUTMs the relevant territory is the European Union. 
Zato je upoštevno ozemlje za nacionalne znamke zadevna država članica, zadevno ozemlje za blagovne znamke EU pa je Evropska unija.
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court stated that a national trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation throughout the entire territory of the Member State concerned. 
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors) navedlo, da za nacionalno znamko ni mogoče zahtevati, da ima ugled na celotnem ozemlju zadevne države članice.
It is sufficient if reputation exists in a substantial part of that territory. 
Zadostuje, da ima ugled na znatnem delu tega ozemlja.
For the Benelux territory in particular, the Court held that a substantial part thereof may consist of part of one of the Benelux countries (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 28-29). 
Sodišče je v zvezi z ozemljem Beneluksa odločilo, da je lahko znaten del tega ozemlja del ene od držav Beneluksa (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 28-29).
The Court has clarified that, for an earlier European Union trade mark, reputation throughout the territory of a single Member State may suffice. 
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da lahko za prejšnjo blagovno znamko Evropske unije zadostuje ugled na ozemlju ene države članice.
In general, however, when evaluating whether the part of the territory in question is a substantial one, account must be taken both of the size of the geographical area concerned and of the proportion of the overall population living there, since both these criteria may affect the overall significance of the specific territory. 
Na splošno pa je treba pri presoji, ali je del zadevnega ozemlja znaten, upoštevati velikost zadevnega geografskega območja in delež celotnega prebivalstva, ki živi na tem območju, saj lahko obe merili vplivata na skupen pomen zadevnega ozemlja.
Opponents often indicate in the notice of opposition that the earlier mark has a reputation in an area that extends beyond the territory of protection (e.g. a pan-European reputation is alleged for a national mark). 
Vložniki ugovora v ugovoru zoper registracijo pogosto navedejo, da ima prejšnja znamka ugled na območju, večjem od ozemlja varstva (npr. nacionalna znamka naj bi imela vseevropski ugled).
In such a case the opponent's claim must be examined for the territory of protection only. 
V takem primeru je treba trditev vložnika ugovora proučiti samo glede na ozemlje varstva.
Similarly, the evidence submitted must specifically concern the relevant territory. 
Podobno se morajo predloženi dokazi posebej nanašati na upoštevno ozemlje.
For example, if the evidence relates to Japan, or to undefined regions, it will not be able to prove reputation in the EU or in a Member State. 
Če se dokazi na primer nanašajo na Japonsko ali nedoločene regije, z njimi ni mogoče dokazati ugleda v EU ali posamezni državi članici.
Therefore, figures concerning sales in the EU as a whole, or worldwide sales, are not appropriate for showing reputation in a specific Member State, if the relevant data are not broken down by territory. 
Zato podatki, ki se nanašajo na prodajo v EU kot celoti ali na svetovno prodajo, niso primerni za dokazovanje ugleda v posamezni državi članici, če zadevni podatki niso razčlenjeni po ozemljih.
In other words, a ‘wider' reputation must also be specifically proven for the relevant territory if it is to be taken into account. 
Povedano drugače, „širši“ ugled je treba posebej dokazati tudi za upoštevno območje, da se lahko to upošteva.
However, where reputation is claimed as extending beyond the territory of protection and there is evidence to this effect, this must be taken into account because it may reinforce the finding of reputation in the territory of protection. 
Kadar pa se trdi, da ima znamka ugled tudi zunaj ozemlja varstva, in so za to na voljo dokazi, jih je treba upoštevati, saj lahko okrepijo ugotovitev, da ima znamka ugled na ozemlju varstva.
3.1.2.5 Relevant point in time 
Upoštevni trenutek
The opponent must show that the earlier mark had acquired a reputation by the filing date of the contested EUTM application, taking account, where appropriate, of any priority claimed, on condition of course that the priority claim has been accepted by the Office. 
Vložnik ugovora mora dokazati, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila ugled do datuma vložitve izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU, ob upoštevanju, kadar je to primerno, morebitne zahteve za priznanje prednostne pravice, če je seveda Urad sprejel to zahtevo.
In addition, the reputation of the earlier mark must subsist until the decision on the opposition is taken. 
Poleg tega mora prejšnja znamka ohraniti ugled do sprejetja odločitve o ugovoru.
However, in principle it will be sufficient for the opponent to show that its mark already had a reputation on the filing/priority date of the EUTM application, while any subsequent loss of reputation is for the applicant to claim and prove. 
Vendar načeloma zadostuje, da vložnik ugovora dokaže, da je znamka že imela ugled na datum vložitve/prednostne pravice prijave blagovne znamke EU, prijavitelj pa mora zahtevati priznanje kakršne koli poznejše izgube ugleda in jo dokazati.
In practice, such an occurrence will be rather exceptional, since it presupposes a dramatic change of market conditions over a relatively short period of time. 
V praksi je tak primer precej neobičajen, saj vključuje veliko spremembo tržnih pogojev v sorazmerno kratkem času.
Where the opposition is based on an earlier application, there is no formal obstacle for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR, which encompasses earlier applications by reference to Article 8(2) EUTMR. 
Kadar ugovor temelji na prejšnji prijavi, ni nobene formalne ovire za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki vključuje prejšnje prijave s sklicevanjem na člen 8(2) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Although, in most cases, the earlier application will not have acquired sufficient reputation in so short a time, it cannot be a priori excluded that a sufficient degree of reputation may be achieved in an exceptionally short period. 
Čeprav v večini primerov prejšnja prijava ne pridobi dovolj ugleda v tako kratkem času, ni mogoče takoj izključiti, da je mogoče doseči zadostno stopnjo ugleda v izjemno kratkem obdobju.
In addition, the application may be for a mark that was already in use long before the application was filed and has therefore had sufficient time to acquire a reputation. 
Poleg tega se lahko prijava nanaša na znamko, ki se je uporabljala že dolgo pred vložitvijo prijave in je tako preteklo dovolj časa, da bi pridobila ugled.
In any event, as the effects of registration are retroactive, the applicability of Article 8(5) EUTMR to earlier applications cannot be regarded as a deviation from the rule that Article 8(5) EUTMR only applies to earlier registrations, as concluded in paragraph 2.1 above. 
Ker ima registracija učinek za nazaj, uporabe člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU za prejšnje prijave nikakor ni mogoče obravnavati kot odstopanje od pravila, da se člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporablja samo za prejšnje registracije, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v odstavku 2.1 zgoraj.
In general, the closer to the relevant date the evidence is, the easier it will be to assume that the earlier mark had acquired reputation at that time. 
Na splošno velja - bližje ko so dokazi upoštevnemu datumu, lažje je sklepati, da je prejšnja znamka v tistem času pridobila ugled.
The evidential value of a particular document is likely to vary depending on how close the period covered is to the filing date. 
Dokazna vrednost določenega dokumenta se navadno razlikuje glede na to, kako blizu datumu vložitve je zajeto obdobje.
Evidence of reputation with regard to a later point in time than the relevant date might nevertheless allow conclusions to be drawn as to the earlier mark's reputation at the relevant date (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82). 
Dokazi o ugledu v zvezi s poznejšim datumom od upoštevnega datuma lahko kljub temu omogočajo sklepanje o ugledu prejšnje znamke na upoštevni datum (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
For this reason, the materials submitted with a view to proving reputation must be dated, or at least clearly indicate when the facts attested therein took place. 
Zato mora biti gradivo, ki je predloženo za dokazovanje ugleda, datirano ali pa mora biti iz njega vsaj jasno razvidno, kdaj so se zgodila dejstva, ki jih dokazuje.
Consequently, undated documents, or documents bearing a date added afterwards (e.g. hand-written dates on printed documents), are not appropriate for giving reliable information about the material time. 
Nedatirani dokumenti ali dokumenti, ki so bili datirani pozneje (npr. ročno napisani datumi na tiskanih dokumentih), zato niso primerni za zagotavljanje zanesljivih informacij o upoštevnem času.
If the period between the latest evidence of use and the filing of the EUTM application is quite significant, the relevance of the evidence should be carefully assessed by reference to the kind of goods and services concerned. 
Če je obdobje med zadnjim dokazom o uporabi in vložitvijo prijave blagovne znamke EU precej dolgo, je treba ustreznost dokazov presojati previdno ob upoštevanju zadevne vrste blaga in storitev.
This is because changes in consumer habits and perceptions may take some time to happen, usually depending on the particular market involved. 
To pa zato, ker je lahko za spremembe potrošniških navad in zaznavanja potrebnega nekaj časa, kar je navadno odvisno od zadevnega trga.
For instance, the clothing market is strongly tied to yearly seasons and to the different collections presented every quarter. 
Na primer, trg oblačil je tesno povezan z letnimi časi in različnimi kolekcijami, ki se dajo na trg vsako četrtletje.
This will have to be taken into account in assessing a possible loss of reputation in this particular field. 
To je treba upoštevati pri presoji morebitne izgube ugleda na tem področju.
Likewise, the market for internet providers and ecommerce companies is very competitive and undergoes rapid growth, as well as rapid demise, which means that reputation in this area may be diluted faster than in other market sectors. 
Podobno je trg ponudnikov internetnih storitev in elektronskih trgovinskih podjetij zelo konkurenčen in lahko hitro raste ali hitro propade, kar pomeni, da se lahko ugled na tem področju izgubi hitreje kot v drugih tržnih sektorjih.
A similar question arises in the case of evidence that post-dates the filing date of the EUTM application. 
Podobno vprašanje se pojavi tudi v primeru dokazov s poznejšim datumom od datuma vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU.
Even though such evidence will not usually be sufficient on its own to prove that the mark had acquired a reputation when the EUTM was filed, it is not appropriate to reject it as irrelevant either. 
Čeprav taki dokazi sami po sebi navadno ne zadostujejo za potrditev, da je znamka pridobila ugled, ko je bila vložena prijava blagovne znamke EU, jih tudi ni ustrezno zavrniti kot nepomembne.
Given that reputation is usually built up over a period of years and cannot simply be switched on and off, and that certain kinds of evidence (e.g. opinion polls, affidavits) are not necessarily available before the relevant date, as they are usually prepared only after the dispute arises, such evidence must be evaluated on the basis of its contents and in conjunction with the rest of the evidence. 
Glede na to, da je ugled navadno rezultat večletnega dela in se ne pojavi ali izgine kar naenkrat, in da nekatere vrste dokazov (npr. javnomnenjske raziskave, izjave pod prisego) niso nujno na voljo pred upoštevnim datumom, saj se navadno pridobijo šele po začetku spora, je treba take dokaze ovrednotiti na podlagi njihove vsebine in v povezavi s preostalimi dokazi.
For example, an opinion poll conducted after the material time but showing a sufficiently high degree of recognition might be sufficient to prove that the mark had acquired a reputation on the relevant date if it is also shown that the market conditions have not changed (e.g. the same levels of sales and advertising expenditure were maintained before the opinion poll was carried out). 
Na primer, javnomnenjska raziskava, ki je opravljena po upoštevnem času in pokaže zadostno stopnjo prepoznavnosti, je lahko dovolj kot dokaz, da je znamka pridobila ugled do upoštevnega datuma, če se tudi dokaže, da se tržni pogoji niso spremenili (npr. pred izvedbo javnomnenjske raziskave se je ohranjala enaka raven prodaje in izdatkov za oglaševanje).
The possibility cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. 
Ni mogoče samodejno izključiti možnosti, da lahko dokument, ki je nastal nekaj časa pred tem datumom ali po njem, vsebuje koristne informacije, saj se ugled znamke navadno pridobiva postopoma.
The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on how close the period covered is to the filing date (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82). 
Verjetno je, da se dokazna vrednost takega dokumenta razlikuje glede na to, kako blizu je zajeto obdobje datumu vložitve (27/01/2004, C259/02, Laboratoire de la mer, EU:C:2004:50, § 31; 17/04/2008, C108/07 P, Ferro, EU:C:2008:234, § 53; 15/12/2005, T262/04, Briquet à Pierre, EU:T:2005:463, § 82).
3.1.2.6 Reputation acquired as part of another mark 
Ugled, pridobljen kot del druge znamke
Reputation proven for a complex sign refers to that sign as such and not a particular element alone. 
Ugled, dokazan za sestavljeni znak, se nanaša na znak, in ne samo na določen element.