natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where the business name is not the dominant element, although each of the elements making up the sign might have their own independent distinctive role, consumers are likely to focus more on the element that would be seen as identifying the specific product line rather than on the element that would be perceived (because it is preceded by ‘by' or another equivalent term) as identifying either the company that has control of the products concerned or the designer who created the product line. 
Kadar ime podjetja ni prevladujoči element, čeprav ima lahko vsak element, ki sestavlja znak, svoj avtonomni razlikovalni učinek, je verjetneje, da se potrošniki osredotočijo na element, ki po njihovem opredeljuje posebno družino izdelkov, in ne na element, ki po njihovem (ker pred njimi stoji beseda „by“ ali drug ustrezen element) opredeljuje podjetje, ki obvladuje zadevno blago, ali oblikovalca, ki je ustvaril proizvodni program.
Therefore, whenever there is a sufficient degree of similarity between the component that would be perceived as the trade mark and a conflicting sign, in principle there will be likelihood of confusion (provided the other relevant factors are met). 
Zato bo načeloma vedno, kadar je med sestavnim delom, ki bi ga bilo mogoče zaznati kot blagovno znamko, in izpodbijanim znakom zadostna podobnost, obstajala verjetnost zmede (če so izpolnjeni drugi upoštevni dejavniki).
7.2.3 First and family names 
Imena in priimki
The perception of signs made up of personal names may vary from country to country within the European Union. 
Zaznavanje znakov, ki jih sestavljajo imena oseb, je lahko v različnih državah Evropske unije različno.
Family names have, in principle, a higher intrinsic value as indicators of the origin of goods or services than first names. 
Priimki imajo načeloma višjo dejansko vrednost kot kazalniki izvora blaga ali storitev kot imena.
This is because common experience shows that the same first names may belong to a great number of people who have nothing in common, whereas the presence of the same surname (provided it is not common in the relevant territory) could imply the existence of some link between them (identity of the persons or a family link). 
Izkušnje namreč kažejo, da ima lahko enako ime veliko ljudi, ki nimajo med seboj nič skupnega, isti priimek (če na upoštevnem ozemlju ni običajen) pa bi lahko pomenil, da obstaja neko razmerje med njimi (identiteta oseb ali družinsko razmerje).
In determining whether, in a particular country, the relevant public generally attributes greater distinctiveness to the surname than the forename, the case-law of that country, although not binding on the Office or the EU courts, may provide useful guidelines (01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, § 52). 
Pri ugotavljanju, ali v neki državi upoštevna javnost navadno pripisuje večji razlikovalni učinek imenu ali priimku, je mogoče poiskati koristne smernice v sodni praksi te države, čeprav za Urad ali sodišča EU ni zavezujoča (01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, § 52).
There are instances where the applicants invoke, as a defence, their right to use their name. 
Obstajajo primeri, v katerih se prijavitelji v obrambi sklicujejo na pravico do uporabe svojega imena.
However, such arguments are not valid in opposition proceedings, since it does not influence the issue of whether there will be likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. 
Vendar takšne trditve ne veljajo v postopkih ugovora, ker ne vplivajo na vprašanje, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede pri delu javnosti.
Furthermore, the registration of trade marks does not hinder the use of names of natural persons, due to the special protection provided by Article 14(1)(a) EUTMR and the relevant national trade mark laws according to Article 14(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive. 
Poleg tega registracija blagovnih znamk ne ovira uporabo imen fizičnih oseb zaradi posebnega varstva, ki ga določata člen 14(1)(a) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ustrezna nacionalna zakonodaja o blagovnih znamkah v skladu s členom 14(1)(a) Direktive o blagovnih znamkah.
First name against the same first name or slight variations thereof 
Ime proti enakemu imenu ali majhni razliki v imenu
The rule of thumb is that when two conflicting signs consist exclusively of the same first name, consumers are likely to perceive the similar/identical goods/services marketed under those marks as coming from the same source. 
Praviloma velja, da če sta sporna znaka sestavljena le iz istega imena, je verjetno, da bodo potrošniki za podobno/enako blago/storitve, ki se tržijo pod navedenimi znamkami, menili, da izvirajo iz istega vira.
It is clear that in the absence of any differentiating element, likelihood of confusion is the necessary conclusion. 
Če torej ni nobenega razlikovalnega elementa, je seveda treba ugotoviti, da obstaja verjetnost zmede.
First name against identical first name plus surname 
Ime proti enakemu imenu in priimku
Whenever two signs share the same first name and one of the two also contains a surname, and when the first name is likely to be perceived as a common (let alone very common) name in the relevant territory, the rule of thumb is that there will be no likelihood of confusion, since consumers will be aware that there are many people with that name. 
Kadar koli imata dva znaka enako ime, eden od njiju pa vsebuje tudi priimek in če je verjetno, da se na upoštevnem ozemlju ime zaznava kot običajno (ali celo zelo običajno), na splošno velja, da ni verjetnosti zmede, ker se potrošniki zavedajo, da ima navedeno ime veliko ljudi.
An exception applies when a given first name is likely to be perceived as uncommon in the relevant territory. 
Izjema pri tem pravilu je, kadar je verjetno, da se neko ime na upoštevnem ozemlju zaznava kot neobičajno.
In such cases, the presence of this uncommon element is likely to focus the consumers' attention and they could be misled into attributing a common origin to the goods/services concerned. 
V takšnih primerih je verjetno, da bodo potrošniki pozornost osredotočili na ta neobičajni element, kar jih lahko zavede, da bodo zadevnemu blagu/storitvam pripisali skupni izvor.
First name plus surname against identical first name plus different surname 
Ime in priimek proti enakemu imenu in različnemu priimku
When two conflicting signs contain the same first name but are followed by clearly different surnames, the rule of thumb is that there is no likelihood of confusion. 
Če sporna znaka vsebujeta enako ime, ki pa mu sledita popolnoma drugačna priimka, načeloma velja, da ni verjetnosti zmede.
Consumers will realise that they distinguish goods/services of different, unconnected undertakings. 
Potrošniki bodo zaznali, da gre za blago/storitve različnih, nepovezanih podjetij.
Invented example: ‘Michael Schumacher' / ‘Michael Ballack' (no likelihood of confusion). 
Izmišljen primer: „Michael Schumacher“ / „Michael Ballack“ (ni verjetnosti zmede).
However, when the overall impression created by the signs is one of clear similarity, that is to say, the differences between the signs are lost in the overall impression created by the signs, then, applying the normal criteria, the outcome will be that there is likelihood of confusion. 
Če pa znaka ustvarita celoten vtis, da sta si zelo podobna, tj. da se razlike med njima izgubijo v njunem celotnem vtisu, bo na podlagi običajnih meril sprejeta ugotovitev, da obstaja verjetnost zmede.
First name plus surname against different first name plus identical surname 
Ime in priimek proti različnemu imenu in enakemu priimku
When the conflicting signs contain the same surname preceded by different first names, the outcome will very much depend on the perception of the surname in the relevant territory. 
Če sporna znaka vsebujeta enaka priimka, pred katerima stojita različni imeni, bo izid zelo odvisen od zaznavanja priimka na upoštevnem ozemlju.
The less common a surname is, the more likely it is that it will attract the consumers' attention (regardless of whether the first names are common or not). 
Kolikor manj običajen je priimek, toliko večja je verjetnost, da bo pritegnil pozornost potrošnikov (ne glede na to, ali je ime običajno ali ne).
In contrast, when two marks have the same surname and this is likely to be perceived as common (let alone very common) in the relevant territory, consumers will not normally be misled into attributing a common origin to the goods/services concerned (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 82-83; 24/06/2010, C51/09 P, Barbara Becker, EU:C:2010:368, § 36). 
Če pa znamki vsebujeta enak priimek, ki ga bo javnost na upoštevnem ozemlju verjetno zaznala kot običajnega (ali celo zelo običajnega), potrošniki po drugi strani navadno ne bodo zavedeni, da bi zadevnemu blagu/storitvam pripisali skupni izvor (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 82-83; 24/06/2010, C51/09 P, Barbara Becker, EU:C:2010:368, § 36).
Consumers are used to trade marks that contain common surnames and will not blindly assume that every time a common surname occurs in two conflicting signs the goods/services in question all emanate from the same source. 
Potrošniki so navajeni na blagovne znamke, ki vsebujejo običajne priimke, in ne bodo slepo domnevali, da je vsakokrat, ko se običajni priimek pojavi v dveh spornih znakih, vse zadevno blago/storitve izvira iz istega vira.
First name plus surname against different first name plus identical surname conjoined in a single word 
Ime in priimek proti različnemu imenu in enakemu priimku, povezanima v eno besedo
In cases where one of the conflicting signs consists of a name and surname and the other of a single word that will, however, be broken down into separate components by at least part of the relevant public, due to the recognisable presence of a name and surname combined to form the one word making up that sign, the result will be one of likelihood of confusion whenever the overall impression created by the marks is one of similarity. 
V primerih, v katerih je eden od spornih znakov sestavljen iz imena in priimka, drugi znak pa iz ene besede, ki pa jo bo vsaj del upoštevne javnosti razstavil v dva ločena sestavna dela, ker v znaku prepozna ime in priimek, povezana v eno besedo, bo izid ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede, vsakokrat ko je celoten vtis, ki ga ustvarjata znamki, podoben.
Surname against first name plus identical surname 
Priimek proti imenu in enakemu priimku
When two signs contain the same surname but only one of them also contains a given first name, the rule of thumb is that normally there will be likelihood of confusion. 
Če dva znaka vsebujeta enak priimek, vendar samo eden od njiju vsebuje osebno ime, na splošno velja, da bo navadno obstajala verjetnost zmede.
Consumers might be misled and attribute a common origin to the goods/services concerned. 
Potrošniki so lahko zavedeni in zadevnemu blagu/storitvam pripišejo skupni izvor.
The presence of a first name in one of the conflicting signs will not suffice to safely distinguish the signs in the minds of the consumers. 
Prisotnost imena v enem od spornih znakov ne zadostuje za zanesljivo razlikovanje znakov v zaznavi potrošnikov.
The surname alone will be perceived as the short version of the full name, thus identifying the same origin. 
Potrošniki bodo priimek zaznali kot krajšo različico celotnega imena in tako prepoznali skupni izvor.
7.3 Colour marks per se 
Barvna znamka kot taka
When likelihood of confusion of two colour marks per se is assessed, a phonetic or conceptual comparison of the signs cannot be made and the visual similarities will depend on the colour of the signs. 
Kadar se presoja verjetnost zmede dveh barvnih znamk kot takih, znakov ni mogoče zvočno ali pojmovno primerjati in bodo vizualne podobnosti odvisne od njune barve.
In the overall assessment, the Office takes into account the fact that there is a ‘public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other traders who market goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought' (24/06/2004, C49/02 Blau/Gelb, EU:C:2004:384, § 41; 06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244, § 52-56). 
Urad mora pri celoviti presoji „upoštevati javni interes, in sicer da se drugim subjektom, ki ponujajo blago ali storitve enake vrste, kot je tisto, za katero se zahteva registracija, neupravičeno ne omeji razpoložljivosti barv“ (24/06/2004, C49/02 Blau/Gelb, EU:C:2004:384, § 41; 06/05/2003, C104/01, Libertel, EU:C:2003:244, § 52-56).
The inherent distinctiveness of colour marks per se is limited. 
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek barvnih znamk kot takih je omejen.
The scope of protection should be limited to identical or almost identical colour combinations. 
Obseg varstva bi moral biti omejen na enake ali skoraj enake barvne kombinacije.
FISHBONE 29/09/2011 T415/09, EU:T:2011:550 (appeal 18/07/2013, C621/11 P, EU:C:2013:484, dismissed) 
FISHBONE 29/09/2011 T415/09, EU:T:2011:550 (pritožba z dne 18/07/2013, C621/11 P, EU:C:2013:484, zavrnjena)
G&S: Classes 32, 33 Territory: Spain (where ‘venado' means ‘deer') Assessment: The Court found that the signs had the same concept and that there was significant visual similarity. 
Blago in storitve: razreda 32 in 33 Ozemlje: Španija („venado“ pomeni „jelen“) Presoja: Sodišče je ugotovilo, da imajo znaki isti pojem in da so si vizualno zelo podobni.
In the absence of a clear semantic link between a deer or a deer's head and alcoholic or non‑alcoholic beverages, the Court found it impossible to deny that the concept of a deer's head portrayed facing forward inside a circle had at least average distinctive character for designating beverages (para. 110). 
Ker ni jasne semantične povezave med jelenom ali jelenjo glavo ter alkoholnimi ali nealkoholnimi pijačami, Sodišče ni moglo zanikati, da ima pojem jelenje glave, ki je prikazana od spredaj in vrisana v krog, vsaj povprečen razlikovalni značaj za označevanje pijač (točka 110).
Enhanced distinctiveness was not considered - likelihood of confusion (for the Spanish public). 
Povečan razlikovalni učinek se ni upošteval, kar pomeni verjetnost zmede (za špansko javnost).
G&S: Classes 18, 25, 28 Territory: Germany and the United Kingdom Assessment: Contrary to the Board's finding that there is no conceptual similarity, the term ‘sport', notwithstanding its descriptive character, refers to the same concept and leads to the conclusion that there is a degree of conceptual similarity. 
Blago in storitve: razredi 18, 25 in 28 Ozemlje: Nemčija in Združeno kraljestvo Presoja: V nasprotju z ugotovitvijo odbora, da ni pojmovne podobnosti, se beseda „sport“, ne glede na svoj razlikovalni učinek, nanaša na isti pojem in vodi v sklep, da gre za neko stopnjo pojmovne podobnosti.
The Court concluded that this similarity was weak in the context of the overall impression of the signs and in particular of the very weak distinctive character of this term. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je ta podobnost šibka v okviru splošnega vtisa znakov in zlasti zelo šibkega razlikovalnega značaja te besede.
However, the weak conceptual similarity did not offset the significant visual and phonetic differences between the signs (para. 49) - no likelihood of confusion. 
Vendar šibka pojmovna podobnost ne odtehta velikih vizualnih in zvočnih razlik med znaki (točka 49) - ni verjetnosti zmede.
G&S: Class 2 Territory: Spain Assessment: Whilst ‘MUNDICOLOR' is to a certain extent evocative of ‘colours of the world' or ‘the world in colours' for the Spanish public, it cannot be regarded as having any clear and specific meaning. 
Blago in storitve: razred 2 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Čeprav izraz „MUNDICOLOR“ špansko javnost delno spominja na „barve sveta“ ali „svet v barvah“, se ne more šteti za izraz z jasnim in določenim pomenom.
In the mark applied for, the same prefix is accompanied by the suffix ‘cor', a term which has no meaning in the Spanish language. 
V prijavljeni znamki isto predpono spremlja pripona „cor“, ki v španščini nima pomena.
Therefore, notwithstanding the evocative nature of the prefix ‘mundi' (world), the latter is ultimately devoid of any concept for that public. 
Zato ne glede na to, da predpona „mundi“ spominja na besedo svet, ta na koncu nima pomena za navedeno javnost.
As neither of the signs has a clear and specific meaning likely to be grasped immediately by the public, any conceptual difference between them is not such as to counteract their visual and aural similarities (paras 90-99) - likelihood of confusion. 
Ker nobeden od znakov nima jasnega in določenega pomena, ki bi ga javnost lahko takoj dojela, pojmovna razlika med njimi ne bo prevladala nad vizualnimi in zvočnimi podobnostmi (točke 90-99) - verjetnost zmede.
‘XL' is an abbreviation of extra-large size used within the whole EU. 
„XL“ je kratica za zelo veliko velikost in se uporablja po vsej EU.
For the goods in question, namely alcoholic beverages, the public is likely to associate it with an extra quantity of a drink (paras 34, 35). 
V primeru zadevnega blaga, tj. alkoholnih pijač, javnost lahko to poveže z zelo veliko količino pijače (točki 34 in 35).
The word element TORO is distinctive (para. 42). 
Besedni element TORO je razlikovalen (točka 42).
The marks are visually, and phonetically dissimilar (paras 46, 48) and there is only a weak conceptual similarity (para. 52). 
Znamki se vizualno in zvočno razlikujeta (točki 46 in 48) in obstaja samo ena šibka pojmovna podobnost (točka 52).
The likelihood of confusion is excluded (para. 57) 
Verjetnost zmede je izključena (točka 57).
G&S: Classes 9, 41, 42 in relation to games Territory: EU Assessment: The word ‘bingo' is descriptive of the corresponding game of chance, the English word ‘spin' alludes to a rotating object or to the action of spinning something (para. 36). 
Blago in storitve: razredi 9, 41, 42 v zvezi z igrami Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Beseda „bingo“ je opisna in ustreza igri na srečo, angleška beseda „spin“ pa namiguje na vrteči se predmet ali dejanje vrtenja nečesa (točka 36).
The Court confirmed the Board's finding that there was a low degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between the signs at issue, despite the fact that they contain the expression ‘spin bingo'. 
Sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev Urada, da gre med zadevnimi znaki za šibko vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobnost, čeprav vsebujejo izraz „spin bingo“.
On a visual level, the degree of similarity is low because, regarding the earlier sign, the public would pay attention to the more distinctive element ‘zitro', which is devoid of any meaning in the relevant languages and is at the beginning of the sign. 
Na vizualni ravni je podobnost šibka, saj bo v zvezi s prejšnjim znakom javnost pozornost namenila bolj razlikovalnemu elementu „zitro“, ki v upoštevnih jezikih nima pomena in je na začetku znaka.
Concerning the contested sign, consumers will pay as much attention to the different colour elements of the device which are the circles and the reel on which there is a representation of a smiling face. 
Pri izpodbijanemu znaku bodo potrošniki enako pozornost namenili različnim barvnim elementom predmeta, ki ponazarjajo kroge in kolut, na katerem je prikazan smejoči se obraz.
On the aural level, the similarity was weak as well in the light of the descriptive meaning of the expression ‘spin bingo', and the fact that the public will pay attention to the more distinctive element ‘zitro'. 
Na zvočni ravni je bila podobnost šibka tudi glede na opisni pomen izraza „spin bingo“ in dejstvo, da bo javnost pozornost namenila bolj razlikovalnemu elementu „zitro“.
On the conceptual level, the word ‘zitro' was dominant and was not conceptually similar to the contested sign (paras 11, 44). 
Na pojmovni ravni je beseda „zitro“ prevladala in ni bila pojmovno podobna izpodbijanemu znaku (točki 11 in 44).
There is no likelihood of confusion. 
Ni verjetnosti zmede.
CLUB GOURMET 28/07/2011, R1946/2010-1, confirmed 20/03/2013, T571/11, appealed, 06/02/2014, C301/13 P 
CLUB GOURMET 28/07/2011, R1946/2010-1, potrjena 20/03/2013, T571/11, pritožba 06/02/2014, C301/13 P
G&S: Classes 16, 21, 29, 30, 32, 33 Territory: Spain Assessment: The conflicting signs only share the two words ‘CLUB' and ‘GOURMET'. 
Blago in storitve: razredi 16, 21, 29, 30, 32 in 33 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Nasprotujočima si znakoma sta skupni samo dve besedi „CLUB“ in „GOURMET“.
However, they differ in all their other characteristics. 
Razlikujeta pa se v vseh svojih drugih značilnostih.
First, the dominant and distinctive element of the earlier sign is not reproduced in the contested sign. 
Prvič, izpodbijani znak ne reproducira prevladujočega in razlikovalnega elementa prejšnjega znaka.
Second, the verbal element ‘CLUB GOURMET' differs from the verbal element ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET': the earlier sign has fourteen letters (whilst the contested sign has eleven) and it is separated by the word ‘DEL' and followed by a comma. 
Drugič, besedni element „CLUB GOURMET“ se razlikuje od besednega elementa „CLUB DEL GOURMET“: prejšnji znak je imel štirinajst črk (izpodbijani jih ima enajst) ter je razdeljen z besedo „DEL“ in na koncu ima vejico.
The common elements ‘CLUB' and ‘GOURMET' only have a weak distinctive character in relation to the goods and services at issue. 
Skupna elementa „CLUB“ in „GOURMET“ imata samo šibek razlikovalni značaj v zvezi z zadevnim blagom in storitvami.
Indeed, there exists, for the relevant consumer, a strong conceptual link between the verbal element ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET' and the goods provided for by the opponent's services, which mainly consist of food and beverages. 
Za upoštevnega potrošnika je prisotna močna pojmovna povezava med besednima elementoma „CLUB DEL GOURMET“ in blagom, ki ga zagotavlja vložnik ugovora in ki v glavnem zajema hrano in pijačo.
In the consumer's mind, ‘GOURMET' refers to the idea of a connoisseur or lover of good food or a person with a discerning palate, that is to say, someone who appreciates good food and drink. 
Ob besedi „GOURMET“ bodo potrošniki pomislili na poznavalca ali ljubitelja dobre hrane ali osebo z izbranim okusom, tj. nekoga, ki ceni dobro hrano in pijačo.
Although it sounds and is of French origin, the meaning will be immediately grasped by the Spanish consumer (paras 39, 40). 
Čeprav zveni in tudi je francoskega porekla, je španski potrošnik takoj dojel pomen besede (točki 39 in 40).
There is a [average] visual similarity and a high degree of phonetic and conceptual similarity (paras 36, 38, 40). 
Obstajata [povprečna] vizualna podobnost in visoka stopnja zvočne in pojmovne podobnosti (točke 36, 38 in 40).
There is a likelihood of confusion for identical and similar goods, namely building materials, not of metal, parquet flooring of plastic and wood, flooring of wood, cork and laminate; subfloors; transportable floors, not of metal. 
Obstaja verjetnost zmede v primeru enakega in podobnega blaga, tj. nekovinski gradbeni materiali, parketi iz plastike, parketne lesene talne obloge, parketna tla iz plute, večslojni parketi; slepi pod; nekovinska prenosna tla.
G&S: Class 7 Territory: EU Assessment: while the element ‘Perfect' has a laudatory character, the fact remains that none of the other elements in the signs can be considered to have a greater distinctive character or be dominant. 
Blago in storitve: razred 7 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Element „Perfect“ ima poveličevalni značaj, a dejstvo je, da se nobeden od drugih elementov v znakih ne more šteti kot bolj razlikovalen ali prevladujoč.
The elements ‘aqua' and ‘water' also have a weak distinctive character owing to the fact that they will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning ‘water' and the goods covered all involve, in one way or another, water (para. 42). 
Tudi elementa „aqua“ in „water“ imata šibek razlikovalni značaj, saj ju bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala v pomenu „vode“, vse zajeto blago pa na tak ali drugačen način vključuje vodo (točka 42).