natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The notion of negligible elements should be interpreted strictly and, in the event of any doubt, the decision should cover the signs in their entirety. 
Pojem zanemarljivih elementov je treba razlagati ozko, odločba pa mora v primeru dvoma znaka zajemati v celoti.
The Office considers that a negligible element refers to an element that, due to its size and/or position, is not noticeable at first sight or is part of a complex sign with numerous other elements (e.g. beverage labels, packaging) and, therefore, very likely to be disregarded by the relevant public. 
Urad meni, da zanemarljivi element pomeni element, ki zaradi svoje velikosti in/ali položaja ni opazen na prvi pogled ali je del kompleksnega znaka s številnimi drugimi elementi (npr. etikete na pijačah, embalaža), zato je zelo verjetno, da ga bo upoštevna javnost prezrla.
It should also be noted that informative indications that the mark is registered (such as the symbols ‘™' and ‘®') are not considered part of the mark (see the Guidelines, Part B, Examination, Section 2, Formalities). 
Treba je omeniti tudi, da se informativne navedbe, da je znamka registrirana (kot sta simbola ™ in ®), ne štejejo kot del znamke (glej Smernice, del B: Preizkušanje, razdelek 2: Formalnosti).
Consequently, such symbols will not be taken into account in the comparison of the signs. 
Taki simboli se zato pri primerjavi znakov ne upoštevajo.
1.6 Relevant territory and relevant public 
Upoštevno ozemlje in upoštevna javnost
Similarity must be assessed for the territory in which the earlier mark is protected. 
Podobnost je treba presojati za ozemlje, na katerem je prejšnja znamka zaščitena.
The relevant territory must be indicated. 
Upoštevno ozemlje mora biti navedeno.
Moreover, the perception of the relevant public plays an important role when comparing signs (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 3, Relevant Public and Degree of Attention). 
Poleg tega ima pomembno vlogo pri primerjavi znakov zaznavanje upoštevne javnosti (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 3: Upoštevna javnost in stopnja pozornosti).
Where the earlier mark is a national mark, the relevant criteria must be analysed for the relevant public in that particular EU Member State (or Member States in the case of Benelux trade marks). 
Če je prejšnja znamka nacionalna znamka, je treba upoštevna merila analizirati za upoštevno javnost v tej določeni državi članici EU (ali več državah članicah v primeru blagovnih znamk Beneluksa).
The perception of similarity may differ from one Member State to another because of differences in pronunciation and/or meaning/understanding. 
Zaznavanje podobnosti se lahko po posameznih državah članicah razlikuje zaradi razlik v izgovarjavi in/ali pomenu/razumevanju.
When the earlier mark is an EUTM registration, the analysis must in principle extend to the whole EU. 
Če je prejšnja znamka registrirana blagovna znamka EU, je treba pri analizi načeloma zajeti celotno EU.
However, in situations where there is likelihood of confusion in a part of the EU and when justifiable for reasons of economy of procedure (such as to avoid examining specific pronunciations or meanings of marks in several languages), the Office's analysis need not extend to the whole EU but may instead focus on only one part or parts where there is a likelihood of confusion. 
Vendar kadar obstaja verjetnost zmede v delu EU in kadar je to upravičeno zaradi ekonomičnosti postopka (da se izognemo preizkušanju posebnih izgovarjav ali pomenov znamk v več jezikih), Uradu pri analizi ni treba zajeti celotne EU, ampak se lahko osredotoči samo na del ali dele, kjer obstaja verjetnost zmede.
The unitary character of the EUTM means that an earlier EUTM can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any application for registration of an EUTM that would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in the perception of consumers in part of the European Union (18/09/2008, C514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 56-57 and subsequent case-law; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 52 and the case-law quoted). 
Enotna narava blagovne znamke EU pomeni, da se je mogoče v postopku ugovora zoper katero koli prijavo za registracijo blagovne znamke EU, ki bi škodovala varstvu prve znamke, opreti na prejšnjo blagovno znamko EU, tudi če samo v zvezi z zaznavanjem potrošnikov v delu Evropske unije (18/09/2008, C514/06 P, Armafoam, EU:C:2008:511, § 56-57 in navedena sodna praksa; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 52 in navedena sodna praksa).
If the opposition is based on an international registration, the territory for which the basic mark is protected is not to be considered as the relevant territory of the earlier international registration designating or subsequently designating other relevant territories (except if the owner has protection in the whole EU - IR designating or subsequently designating the EU where the same country of the basic registration is covered). 
Če ugovor temelji na mednarodni registraciji, se ozemlje, na katerem je zaščitena osnovna znamka, ne bi smelo šteti kot upoštevno ozemlje prejšnje mednarodne registracije, v kateri so imenovana ali naknadno imenovana druga upoštevna ozemlja (razen če ima imetnik zaščito v celotni EU - mednarodna registracija, v kateri je imenovana ali naknadno imenovana EU in zajeta ista država kot v osnovni prijavi).
Where the relevant public consists of both general and professional consumers, the finding of a likelihood of confusion in relation to just one part of the public is sufficient to uphold the opposition. 
Kadar upoštevno javnost sestavljajo tako splošni kot strokovni potrošniki, za sprejetje ugovora zadostuje, da se ugotovi verjetnost zmede v zvezi z le enim delom javnosti.
Usually it is the general public that is more prone to confusion. 
Ponavadi je zmeda verjetnejša za splošno javnost.
Consequently, if the likelihood of confusion is to be confirmed on the part of the general public, there is no need to examine it based on the perception of professionals (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 0, Introduction, paragraph 4). 
Če se verjetnost zmede potrdi v zvezi s širšo javnostjo, je tako ni treba preizkusiti glede na zaznavanje strokovnjakov (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 0: Uvod, odstavek 4).
2 Identity of Signs 
Enakost znakov
2.1 The concept of identity 
Pojem enakosti
As indicated above, a finding of identity between signs will lead to the success of the opposition pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR if the goods and services are also identical. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, bo ugotovitev enakosti znakov pomenila uspeh ugovora v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, če so enaki tudi blago in storitve.
The differences between Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR and protection in the event of likelihood of confusion, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, must be borne in mind in order to understand the concept of identity and its attached requirements. 
Za razumevanje pojma enakosti in z njim povezanih zahtev je treba upoštevati razlike med členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in varstvom v primeru verjetnosti zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Protection pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR is absolute, because registration of a later identical sign for identical goods or services would compromise the function of the earlier mark as a means of identifying commercial origin. 
Varstvo v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je absolutno, ker bi registracija poznejšega enakega znaka za enako blago ali storitve ogrozila funkcijo prejšnje znamke kot sredstva za označevanje tržnega porekla.
Where identical signs or marks are registered for identical goods or services, it is impossible to conceive of circumstances in which all likelihood of confusion could be ruled out. 
Če so za enako blago ali storitve registrirani enaki znaki ali znamke, si je nemogoče zamisliti okoliščine, v katerih bi lahko bila izključena vsaka verjetnost zmede.
There is no need to consider any other factors, such as the degree of attention of the public or the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark. 
Upoštevati ni treba nobenih drugih dejavnikov, kot je na primer stopnja pozornosti javnosti ali razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke.
However, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the earlier trade mark is protected against the likelihood of confusion: even if the trade marks differ in some elements, their similarity - in combination with further elements that have to be assessed globally - may lead to the assumption that the relevant goods and services originate from the same or an economically linked undertaking. 
V skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU pa je prejšnja blagovna znamka zaščitena pred verjetnostjo zmede: tudi če se blagovni znamki razlikujeta v nekaterih elementih, je mogoče na podlagi njune podobnosti - v povezavi z dodatnimi elementi, ki jih je treba celovito presoditi - domnevati, da zadevno blago in storitve izvirajo iz istega ali gospodarsko povezanega podjetja.
Due to the absolute protection conferred by Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR, the concept of identity between trade marks must be interpreted strictly. 
Zaradi absolutnega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja člen 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba pojem enakosti blagovnih znamk razlagati ozko.
The absolute protection in the case of an EUTM application ‘which is identical with the [earlier] trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered [pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR] cannot be extended beyond the situations for which it was envisaged, in particular, to those situations which are more specifically protected by [Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR]' (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54 in relation to the corresponding provisions of the Directive). 
Absolutnega varstva v primeru prijave blagovne znamke EU, „ki je enaka [prejšnji] blagovni znamki, za blago ali storitve, ki so enaki blagu ali storitvam, za katere je blagovna znamka registrirana [v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU], ni mogoče razširiti na primere, za katere ni bilo predvideno, zlasti ne na primere, ki so še posebej zaščiteni s [členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU]“ (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54 v povezavi z ustreznimi določbami direktive).
2.2 Threshold for a finding of identity 
Prag za ugotovitev enakosti
The very definition of identity implies that the two signs should be the same in all respects. 
Opredelitev enakosti pomeni, da morata biti znaka enaka v vseh pogledih.
There is, therefore, identity between trade marks where the EUTM application reproduces, without any modification or addition, all the elements constituting the earlier trade mark. 
Blagovni znamki sta torej enaki, kadar so v prijavi blagovne znamke EU brez katerih koli sprememb ali dodatkov prikazani vsi elementi, ki sestavljajo prejšnjo blagovno znamko.
However, since the perception of identity between the two signs is not always the result of a direct comparison of all the characteristics of the elements compared, insignificant differences between trade marks may go unnoticed by the average consumer. 
Ker pa zaznava enakosti med znakoma ni vedno rezultat neposredne primerjave vseh značilnosti primerjanih elementov, se lahko zgodi, da povprečni potrošnik ne bo opazil nepomembnih razlik med blagovnima znamkama.
Therefore, the EUTM application should be considered identical to the earlier trade mark ‘where it reproduces, without any modification or addition, all the elements constituting the trade mark or where, viewed as a whole, it contains differences so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by an average consumer' (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54). 
Prijavo blagovne znamke EU je torej treba šteti za enako prejšnji blagovni znamki, „kadar brez kakršnih koli sprememb ali dodatkov posnema vse elemente, ki sestavljajo blagovno znamko, ali kadar, gledano v celoti, vsebuje tako nepomembne razlike, da jih povprečen potrošnik morda ne opazi“ (20/03/2003, C291/00, Arthur et Félicie, EU:C:2003:169, § 50-54).
An insignificant difference between two marks is a difference that a reasonably observant consumer will perceive only upon examining the marks side by side. 
Nepomembna razlika med znamkama je razlika, ki jo bo razumno pozoren potrošnik zaznal šele po proučitvi znamk druge ob drugi.
Insignificant differences are those that, because they concern elements that are very small or are lost within a complex mark, cannot be readily detected by the human eye upon observing the trade mark concerned, bearing in mind that the average consumer does not normally indulge in an analytical examination of a trade mark but perceives it in its entirety. 
Nepomembne razlike so tiste, ki jih zato, ker se nanašajo na elemente, ki so zelo majhni ali se izgubijo v kompleksni znamki, ob opazovanju zadevne blagovne znamke ni mogoče takoj zaznati s prostim očesom, pri čemer je treba upoštevati, da povprečni potrošnik običajno ne začne podrobno proučevati blagovne znamke, ampak jo zaznava kot celoto.
The finding that an element is ‘insignificant' must be accompanied by sufficient reasoning for its lack of impact on the global perception of the trade mark. 
Ugotovitev, da je element „nepomemben“, je treba sprejeti z zadostno obrazložitvijo v zvezi z njegovim neobstojem učinka na celostno zaznavo blagovne znamke.
It follows from the definition of identity above that the following conditions have to be met in order for trade marks to be considered identical in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR. 
Iz zgornje opredelitve enakosti izhaja, da morata biti za to, da se blagovni znamki štejeta za enaki v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, izpolnjena naslednja pogoja.
Complete identity of the signs taken as a whole. 
Popolna enakost znakov, upoštevanih kot celota.
Partial identity is not sufficient under Article 8(1)(a) EUTMR; however, a coincidence in any part of the mark may lead to similarity between the signs and should be addressed when carrying out the examination of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR. 
Delna enakost v skladu s členom 8(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zadostuje, vendar lahko ujemanje v katerem koli delu znamke vodi do podobnosti znakov in ga je treba upoštevati pri preizkusu v zvezi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Any additional element is sufficient for concluding that the marks are not identical; it is immaterial whether the added element is a word, a figurative device or a combination of the two. 
Kateri koli dodatni element zadostuje za ugotovitev, da znamki nista enaki; ni pomembno, ali je dodani element beseda, figurativni element ali kombinacija obeh.
Consequently, two word marks will not be considered identical if one is contained within the other but is accompanied by further characters (see paragraph 2.4 below) or by words - irrespective of distinctiveness or possible descriptive character. 
Besedni znamki se torej ne bosta šteli za enaki, če je ena zajeta v drugi, vendar vključuje tudi dodatne znake (glej odstavek 2.4 v nadaljevanju) ali besede - ne glede na razlikovalni učinek ali morebitno opisno naravo.
Identity on all levels of comparison. 
Enakost na vseh ravneh primerjave.
There must be identity between the signs at all relevant levels of trade mark comparison, that is, visual, phonetic and conceptual. 
Znaka morata biti enaka na vseh upoštevnih ravneh primerjave blagovnih znamk, tj. vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni.
If the trade marks are identical in some aspects (visual, phonetic or conceptual) but not in others, they are not identical overall. 
Če sta blagovni znamki enaki v nekaterih vidikih (vizualno, zvočno ali pojmovno), ne pa tudi v drugih, nista v celoti enaki.
In the latter case, they may be similar and, therefore, likelihood of confusion must be examined. 
V takšnem primeru sta si lahko podobni in je zato treba preizkusiti verjetnost zmede.
2.3 Identity of word marks 
Enakost besednih znamk
This means that they do not claim any particular figurative element or appearance. 
To pomeni, da ne zahtevajo nobenega posebnega figurativnega elementa ali videza.
Differences in the use of lower or uppercase letters are immaterial, even if lower case and upper case letters alternate. 
Poleg tega niso pomembne razlike pri uporabi malih ali velikih črk, tudi če se te izmenjujejo.
Word marks are identical if they coincide exactly in the string of letters or numbers. 
Besedni znamki sta enaki, če se povsem ujemata v zaporedju črk ali številk.
The following word marks are identical. 
Naslednje besedne znamke so enake.
In general, it should be checked whether the sign has been registered as a word mark. 
Na splošno je treba preveriti, ali je bil znak registriran kot besedna znamka.
In these cases, the claim will prevail over the exact reproduction in the certificate, bulletins, etc. 
V takšnem primeru bo zahteva prevladala nad natančnim prikazom v potrdilu, biltenih itd.
The following Cyrillic word marks are identical. 
Naslednji besedni znamki v cirilici sta enaki.
A difference of just one letter is sufficient for a finding of non-identity. 
Razlika v samo eni črki zadostuje za ugotovitev neenakosti.
Whether or not a space, a punctuation mark (e.g. hyphen, full stop) or an accent is a significant difference (and therefore excludes the finding of identity as stated in Arthur et Félicie, § 50-54) is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the relevant language. 
Ali presledek, ločilo (npr. vezaj, pika) ali naglasno znamenje pomenijo pomembno razliko (in s tem izključujejo ugotovitev enakosti, kot je navedeno v sodbi v zadevi Arthur et Félicie, točke 50-54), se presodi v vsakem primeru posebej, pri čemer se upošteva ustrezni jezik.
However, the use of a space, hyphen or accent may change the meaning of the word element and therefore influence how the sign is perceived. 
Presledek, vezaj ali naglasno znamenje pa lahko tudi spremeni pomen besede in s tem vpliva na zaznavanje znaka.
The following word marks are not identical. 
Naslednje besedne znamke v parih niso enake.
2.4 Word marks and figurative marks 
Besedne znamke in figurativne znamke
A word mark and a figurative mark, even when both consist of the same word, will not be identical unless the differences are so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by the relevant public. 
Besedna znamka in figurativna znamka, tudi če sta obe sestavljeni iz iste besede, ne bosta enaki, razen če so razlike tako nepomembne, da bi jih lahko upoštevna javnost prezrla.
In the following examples the signs are clearly not identical. 
Znaki v naslednjih primerih očitno niso enaki.
However, the finding that trade marks are not identical can be more difficult if the figurative trade mark is written in normal typeface. 
Ugotovitev, da blagovni znamki nista enaki, je lahko težja, če je figurativna blagovna znamka napisana v običajni pisavi.
Nevertheless, in the following examples the trade marks were found not to be identical. 
Kljub temu je bilo v naslednjih primerih ugotovljeno, da blagovni znamki nista enaki.
2.5 Identity of figurative marks 
Enakost figurativnih znamk
Two figurative marks are identical when both signs match in all their elements (shape, colours, contrast, shadowing, etc.). 
Figurativni znamki sta enaki, kadar se oba znaka ujemata v vseh svojih elementih (obliki, barvah, kontrastu, senčenju itd.).
It goes without saying that use of the same word will not suffice for a finding of identity when the figurative element is not the same. 
Samoumevno je, da uporaba iste besede ne zadostuje za ugotovitev enakosti, če figurativni element ni enak.
The following marks are not identical. 
Naslednje znamke niso enake.
However, since in the following case the difference in the presentation of the letters ‘TEP' in italics would go unnoticed by the public, the marks were considered identical. 
Vendar sta se znamki v naslednjem primeru šteli za enaki, ker javnost ne bi opazila razlike v prikazu črk „TEP“ v poševnem tisku.
2.6 Identity of an earlier black and white (B&W) or greyscale mark with a colour mark application 
Enakost prejšnje črno-bele ali sivinske znamke in prijave barvne znamke
In the framework of the European Trade Mark and Design Network, the Office and a number of trade mark offices in the European Union have agreed on a Common Practice with regard to the scope of identity of earlier B&W or greyscale marks with coloured versions of the same sign. 
Urad in več uradov za blagovne znamke iz Evropske unije so se v okviru Evropske mreže blagovnih znamk in modelov dogovorili o skupni praksi glede obsega enakosti prejšnjih črno-belih ali sivinskih znamk ter barvnih različic istega znaka.
According to this Common Practice, the differences between an earlier B&W or greyscale mark and a coloured version of the same sign will normally be noticed by the average consumer, with the consequence that the marks are not considered identical. 
V skladu s to skupno prakso razlike med prejšnjo črno-belo ali sivinsko znamko in barvno različico istega znaka povprečni potrošnik običajno opazi, tako da se znamki ne štejeta kot enaki.
It is only under exceptional circumstances that the signs will be considered identical, namely where the differences in the colours or in the contrast of shades are so insignificant that a reasonably observant consumer will perceive them only upon examining the marks side by side. 
Samo v izjemnih primerih se znaka štejeta kot enaka, in sicer kadar so razlike v barvah ali kontrastu senc tako nepomembne, da bi jih razumno pozoren potrošnik zaznal le, če bi znamki proučil drugo ob drugi.
In other words, for the finding of identity the differences in the colour of the signs in question must be hardly noticeable by the average consumer. 
Za ugotovitev enakosti morajo biti torej razlike v barvah znakov takšne, da jih povprečni potrošnik stežka opazi.
Invented examples of significant differences with the consequence of no identity. 
Izmišljeni primeri pomembnih razlik, zaradi katerih znaki niso enaki:
Invented examples of insignificant differences with the consequence of identity. 
Izmišljeni primeri nepomembnih razlik, zaradi česar so znaki enaki:
In relation to the findings above, the issue as to whether a trade mark registered in B&W or greyscale should be considered to cover all colours has also been addressed by the Court in a subsequent judgment (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199). 
V zvezi z zgornjimi ugotovitvami je tudi Sodišče v poznejši sodbi obravnavalo vprašanje, ali naj se blagovna znamka, registrirana kot črno-bela ali sivinska, šteje, da vključuje vse barve (09/04/2014, T623/11, Milanówek cream fudge, EU:T:2014:199).
3 Similarity of Signs 
Podobnost znakov
The similarity of signs depends on the distinctiveness (see paragraph 3.2 below) and dominant character (see paragraph 3.3 below) of their components, and on other possible relevant factors defined in the opposition decision. 
Podobnost znakov je odvisna od razlikovalnega (glej odstavek 3.2 v nadaljevanju) in prevladujočega učinka (glej odstavek 3.3 v nadaljevanju) njunih sestavnih delov ter drugih možnih upoštevnih dejavnikov, opredeljenih v odločbi o ugovoru.
In the comparison of marks, the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity must be assessed by weighing up the coinciding and the differing elements, and by taking into consideration their distinctiveness and dominance (see paragraph 3.4 below) and whether and to what degree these elements coin the overall impression produced by the marks. 
Pri primerjavi znamk je treba vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobnost presoditi tako, da se pretehtajo elementi, ki se ujemajo in ki se razlikujejo, ter upošteva njihov razlikovalni in prevladujoči učinek (glej odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju) ter to, ali in koliko ti elementi ustvarjajo celotni vtis, ki ga naredita znamki.
All these considerations will lead to a conclusion on the degree of similarity in each (visual, phonetic and conceptual) aspect (see paragraph 3.5 below). 
Z upoštevanjem vsega tega se ugotovi stopnja podobnosti v vsakem (vizualnem, zvočnem in pojmovnem) vidiku (glej odstavek 3.5 v nadaljevanju).