natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The signs differ visually not only because of the figurative elements in the sign applied for, but also because of their verbal elements. 
Znaka se vizualno razlikujeta ne le zaradi figurativnih elementov znaka, za katerega je vložena prijava, ampak tudi zaradi besednih elementov.
Even though the verbal elements of the marks at issue have three letters out of six in common, a difference arises because the earlier marks begin with the letters ‘ka' while the mark applied for begins with the letters ‘co', and because the consumer normally attaches more importance to the first part of words. 
Čeprav imata besedna elementa spornih znamk skupne tri črke od šestih, se razlikujeta, saj se prejšnja znamka začne s črkama „ka“, znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, pa se začne s črkama „co“, vendar potrošniki navadno večji pomen pripišejo prvemu delu besed.
There is a low degree of phonetic similarity between the signs taken as a whole. 
Med znakoma je na splošno nizka stopnja zvočne podobnosti.
Conceptually, the word ‘corona', meaning ‘crown' in Spanish, does not have any meaning in Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. 
Pojmovno beseda „corona“, ki v španščini pomeni „krona“, nima pomena v estonščini, latvijščini ali litovščini.
Accordingly, no conceptual comparison is possible between the signs at issue in the three Baltic States. 
V skladu s tem ni mogoča pojmovna primerjava med spornima znakoma v treh baltskih državah.
The mere fact that the Lithuanian word ‘karūna' means ‘crown' is not sufficient to establish that the relevant public associates the terms ‘karuna' or ‘karūna' with the word ‘corona', which remains a foreign word. 
Dejstvo, da litovska beseda „karūna“ pomeni „krono“, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev, da upoštevna javnost izraza „karuna“ ali „karūna“ povezuje z besedo „corona“, ki je še vedno tuja beseda.
To conclude, the General Court reiterated that if the condition of similarity of the signs is not met under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, it must also be held, on the basis of the same analysis, that that condition is not met under Article 8(5) EUTMR either (paras 30 to 34 and 49). 
Nazadnje je Splošno sodišče znova poudarilo, da je treba, če pogoj glede podobnosti znakov ni izpolnjen v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, na podlagi iste analize ugotoviti tudi, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen niti v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU(točke od 30 do 34 in 49).
Repute for services in Classes 38, 42 and 45, inter alia, a website for social networking Classes 14, 18 and 25 
Ugled v zvezi s storitvami iz razredov 38, 42 in 45, med drugim spletno mesto za družbena omrežja Razredi 14, 18 in 25
The Board defined the relevant public as the average European consumer of the goods applied for, which are ordinary goods meant for the general public. 
Odbor je upoštevno javnost opredelil kot povprečne evropske potrošnike blaga, za katero je bila vložena prijava, in sicer običajnega blaga, namenjenega splošni javnosti.
The Board found it likely that the applicant's goods could be seen as merchandising products coming from the opponent. 
Ugotovil je, da bi se lahko blago prijavitelja verjetno zaznavalo kot izdelki za trženje, ki jih proizvaja vložnik ugovora.
Items such as t-shirts, key chains, watches, hand bags, jewellery, caps, etc., are very frequently used as marketing means bearing trade marks that relate to entirely distinct goods and services. 
Izdelki, kot so majice, obeski za ključe, ročne ure, torbice, nakit, čepice itd., se zelo pogosto uporabljajo kot sredstva za trženje, ki predstavljajo znamke, povezane s povsem različnim blagom in storitvami.
Upon encountering the sign TWITTER used on a watch, a scarf or a t-shirt, the relevant consumer would inevitably make a mental connection with the opponent's sign and the services it offers, on account of the reputation of the opponent's mark. 
Upoštevni potrošniki bi znak TWITTER, ki bi ga videli na uri, šalu ali majici, neizogibno miselno povezali z znakom in storitvami vložnika ugovora zaradi ugleda njegove znamke.
This would give the applicant a competitive advantage since its goods would benefit from the extra attractiveness they would gain from the association with the opponent's older mark. 
S tem bi prijavitelj pridobil konkurenčno prednost, saj bi njegovo blago izkoristilo dodatno privlačnost zaradi asociacije na prejšnjo znamko vložnika ugovora.
Buying a TWITTER watch as a present for someone who is known to be a TWITTER user is, for example, an action motivated by the fondness for the earlier mark (para. 40). 
Nakup ročne ure TWITTER kot darilo za uporabnika TWITTERJA je na primer dejanje, ki ga je spodbudila priljubljenost prejšnje znamke (točka 40).
Terms in Article 8(5) EUTMR Commonly used equivalents 
Izrazi iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Pogosto uporabljeni enakovredni izrazi
Unfair advantage Free-riding, riding on the coat-tails 
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje Parazitstvo, obešanje na ugled
Detriment to distinctiveness Dilution by blurring, dilution, blurring, watering down, debilitating, whittling away 
Oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka Oslabitev z zabrisom, oslabitev, zabris, razvodenitev, izčrpavanje, izpodjedanje
Detriment to repute Dilution by tarnishing, tarnishment, degradation 
Oškodovanje ugleda Oslabitev z očrnitvijo, očrnitev, razvrednotenje
The concept of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark must be intended to encompass instances where there is clear exploitation and riding on the coat-tails of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation (see to that effect Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Adidas, para. 39) (para. 51). 
Izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke vključuje vse primere očitnega izkoriščanja in parazitstva slavne znamke ali poskusov izkoriščanja njenega slovesa (v tem smislu glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v sodbi Adidas, točka 39) (točka 51).
The unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark consists in the fact that the image of the mark with a reputation or the characteristics that it projects will be transferred to the goods covered by the mark applied for, with the result that the marketing of those goods can be made easier by the association with the earlier mark with a reputation (para. 48). 
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke pomeni, da se podoba znamke z ugledom ali značilnosti, ki jih ta znamka sporoča, prenesejo na blago, označeno z znamko, za katero je vložena prijava, tako da lahko postane trženje tega blaga lažje zaradi asociacije na prejšnjo znamko z ugledom (točka 48).
In her opinion in the Intel preliminary ruling, Advocate General Sharpston referred to unfair advantage as follows: ‘The concepts of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the mark in contrast must be intended to encompass “instances where there is clear exploitation and free-riding on the coattails of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon its reputation”. 
Generalna pravobranilka Eleanor Sharpston je v svojem mnenju o predhodni odločbi v zadevi Intel v zvezi z neupravičenim izkoriščanjem navedla naslednje: „Nepošteno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda je treba razumeti tako, da vključuje ‚primere očitnega izkoriščanja in obešanja na ugled znane znamke ali poskuse izkoriščanja njenega ugleda‘.
Thus by way of example Rolls Royce would be entitled to prevent a manufacturer of whisky from exploiting the reputation of the Rolls Royce mark in order to promote his brand. 
Tako bi bila na primer družba Rolls Royce upravičena preprečiti, da bi proizvajalec viskija izkoristil ugled znamke Rolls Royce za promocijo lastne znamke.
It is not obvious that there is any real difference between taking advantage of a mark's distinctive character and taking advantage of its repute; since however nothing turns on any such difference in the present case, I shall refer to both as free-riding' (para. 33). 
Ni jasno, ali se izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja znamke dejansko razlikuje od izkoriščanja njenega ugleda; ker pa v tej zadevi ta razlika ni bistvena, bom oboje označevala kot obešanje na ugled“ (točka 33).
‘… the reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK in the European Community in regard to banking services is not disputed. 
„[...] ugled znamke CITIBANK v Evropski skupnosti v sektorju bančnih storitev ni sporen.
That reputation is associated with features of the banking sector, namely, solvency, probity and financial support to private and commercial clients in their professional and investment activities. 
Na tej podlagi je ta ugled povezan z značilnostmi bančnega sektorja, in sicer s plačilno sposobnostjo, poštenostjo in finančno podporo zasebnih in poslovnih strank pri njihovi poklicni in investicijski dejavnosti.
‘In those circumstances, the Court holds that there is a high probability that the use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, by customs agencies, and therefore for financial agency activities in the management of money and real estate for clients, may lead to free-riding, that is to say, it would take unfair advantage of the well-established reputation of the trade mark CITIBANK and the considerable investments undertaken by the applicants to achieve that reputation. 
„Sodišče prve stopnje zato meni, da obstaja velika možnost, da bi uporaba prijavljene znamke CITI s strani carinarskega posrednika - in zato za dejavnosti finančnega pooblaščenca pri upravljanju denarja in nepremičnin za stranke - vodila do parazitizma, to je izkoriščanja priznanega ugleda znamke CITIBANK in večjih investicij, ki sta jih izvedli tožeči stranki za dosego tega ugleda, brez upravičenega razloga.
That use of the trade mark applied for, CITI, could also lead to the perception that the intervener is associated with or belongs to the applicants and, therefore, could facilitate the marketing of services covered by the trade mark applied for. 
Ta uporaba prijavljene znamke CITI bi lahko povzročila tudi to, da bi se intervenientko štelo kot družbenico ali del tožečih strank ter bi zato lahko olajšala trženje storitev, zajetih s prijavljeno znamko.
That risk is further increased because the applicants are the holders of several trade marks containing the component “citi”' (paras 81 to 83). 
Poleg tega je to tveganje še toliko večje, ker sta tožeči stranki imetnici več znamk, ki vsebujejo element ‚citi‘“ (točke od 81 do 83).
MINERAL SPA (for soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, dentifrices in Class 3) could take unfair advantage of the image of the earlier trade mark SPA and the message conveyed by it in that the goods covered by the contested application would be perceived by the relevant public as supplying health, beauty and purity. 
Znamka MINERAL SPA (za mila, parfume, eterična olja, pripravke za nego telesa in lepotilno nego, pripravke za lase, sredstva za čiščenje zob iz razreda 3) bi lahko neupravičeno izkoristila podobo in sporočilo prejšnje znamke SPA in sporočilo, saj bi upoštevna javnost blago, vključeno v sporno prijavo, zaznala kot blago, ki zagotavlja zdravje, lepoto in čistost.
It is not a question of whether toothpaste and perfume contain mineral water, but whether the public may think that the goods concerned are produced from or with mineral water (paras 43 and 44). 
Ni vprašanje, ali zobna pasta in parfum vsebujeta mineralno vodo, ampak ali bi lahko javnost mislila, da se zadevno blago izdeluje iz mineralne vode ali jo vsebuje (točki 43 in 44).
Earlier reputed sign Case No 
Prejšnji znak z ugledom Št. zadeve
L'Oréal et al. 12/07/2011, C324/09 (preliminary ruling) 
L'Oréal in drugi 12/07/2011, C324/09 (predhodna odločba)
According to L'Oréal et al., the defendants manufactured and imported perfume that was a ‘smellalike' of L'Oréal's fragrances but sold at a considerably lower price, using packaging that was reminiscent of the get-up covered by L'Oréal's marks. 
Po trditvah L'Oréala in drugih so tožene osebe proizvajale in uvažale parfum s podobnim vonjem kot L'Oréalove dišave, prodajale pa so ga po bistveno nižji ceni v embalaži, ki je povzemala stil, ki se uporablja za L'Oréalove znamke.
The defendants used comparison lists to present the perfumes, which they marketed as being imitations or replicas of goods bearing a trade mark with repute. 
Tožene osebe so uporabljale primerjalne sezname, na katerih so predstavljale parfume, ki so jih tržile kot ponaredek ali kopijo blaga, označenega z znamko z ugledom.
Under Council Directive 84/450/EEC, comparative advertising that presents the advertiser's products as an imitation of a product bearing a trade mark is inconsistent with fair competition and thus unlawful. 
V skladu z Direktivo Sveta 84/450/EGS je primerjalno oglaševanje, ki predstavlja oglaševalčeve izdelke kot ponaredke izdelka, označenega z znamko, neskladno s pošteno konkurenco in zato nezakonito.
Therefore, any advantage gained by the advertiser through such advertising will have been achieved as a result of unfair competition and must be regarded as taking unfair advantage of the reputation of that mark). 
Zato je kakršna koli korist, ki jo je oglaševalec pridobil s takim oglaševanjem, posledica nepoštene konkurence in jo je treba obravnavati kot neupravičeno izkoriščanje ugleda te znamke.
‘Taking account of the fact that the financial and stock market listing services supplied by the intervener under its trade mark Nasdaq and, therefore, the trade mark Nasdaq itself, undeniably present a certain image of modernity [the link between the signs] enables the transfer of that image to sports equipment and, in particular, to the high-tech composite materials which would be marketed by the applicant under the mark applied for, which the applicant appears to recognise implicitly by stating that the word ‘nasdaq' is descriptive of its main activities. 
Glede na to, da finančne storitve in storitve kotiranja na borzi, ki jih intervenient zagotavlja pod svojo znamko Nasdaq, in zato tudi sama znamka Nasdaq nedvomno predstavljajo določeno podobo sodobnosti [zveza med znaki], ki se lahko prenese na športno opremo, zlasti pa na visokotehnološke sestavljene materiale, ki bi jih prijavitelj tržil pod znamko, za katero je vložena prijava, pri čemer se zdi, da prijavitelj to implicitno priznava s trditvijo, da beseda ‚„nasdaq“ opisuje njegove glavne dejavnosti.
Therefore, in light of that evidence, and taking account of the similarity of the marks at issue, the importance of the reputation and the highly distinctive character of the trade mark Nasdaq, it must be held that the intervener has established prima facie the existence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of unfair advantage being drawn by the applicant, by the use of the mark applied for, from the reputation of the trade mark Nasdaq. 
Glede na te dokaze in ob upoštevanju podobnosti spornih znamk, pomembnosti ugleda ter zelo razlikovalnega značaja znamke Nasdaq je treba ugotoviti, da je intervenient na prvi pogled dokazal obstoj prihodnjega tveganja, ki ni hipotetično, da bo prijavitelj z uporabo znamke, za katero je vložil prijavo, neupravičeno izkoristil ugled znamke Nasdaq.
There is therefore no need to set aside the contested decision on that point' (paras 60 and 61). 
Zato v zvezi s tem ni treba razveljaviti sporne odločbe (točki 60 in 61).
There is a certain proximity and link between entertainment services and beer, even a certain similarity due to their complementarity. 
Med razvedrilom in pivom obstajata določena bližina in zveza ter celo določena stopnja podobnosti zaradi njunega dopolnjevanja.
The public in the United Kingdom would be able to make a link with the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) when seeing a beer with the contested mark Royal Shakespeare in a supermarket or in a bar. 
Javnost v Združenem kraljestvu bi lahko znamko Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) povezala s pivom sporne znamke Royal Shakespeare, ko bi ga videla v trgovini ali baru.
The contested mark would benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of the earlier mark for its own goods and services, which would attract the consumers' attention thanks to the association with RSC, thereby gaining a commercial advantage over its competitors' goods. 
Sporna znamka bi izkoristila privlačnost, ugled in prestiž prejšnje znamke za svoje blago in storitve, ki bi pritegnili pozornost potrošnikov zaradi asociacije na RSC in tako pridobili poslovno prednost pred blagom tekmecev.
The economic advantage would consist of exploiting the effort expended by RSC to establish the reputation and the image of its earlier mark without paying any compensation in exchange. 
Ekonomska prednost bi izhajala iz izkoriščanja prizadevanj, ki jih je družba RSC vložila v pridobitev ugleda in izoblikovanje podobe prejšnje znamke, ne da bi bilo treba za to plačati nadomestilo.
That equates to an unfair advantage (para. 61). 
To pa pomeni neupravičeno izkoriščanje (točka 61).
While recognising that the primary function of a trade mark was as an indicator of origin, the General Court held that a mark could also serve to transmit other messages, concerning particular qualities or characteristics of the designated goods or services, or the images and sensations projected by the mark itself, such as luxury, lifestyle, exclusivity, adventure or youth. 
Splošno sodišče je ob upoštevanju, da je prvotna funkcija blagovne znamke označba izvora, ugotovilo, da lahko znamka prenaša tudi druga sporočila v zvezi s posebnimi lastnostmi ali značilnostmi zadevnega blaga ali storitev ali podobe in vtise, ki jih odraža znamka, kot so luksuz, življenjski slog, ekskluzivnost, dogodivščina ali mladost.
In this sense, a trade mark possessed an intrinsic economic value that was autonomous and distinct to that of the goods or services for which it was registered (para. 57). 
Znamka ima v tem smislu bistveno tržno vrednost, ki je samostojna in se razlikuje od vrednosti blaga ali storitev, za katere je registrirana (točka 57).
The risk of taking unfair advantage encompasses cases of manifest exploitation or parasitism of a mark with reputation, namely the risk of transferring the image of the mark with reputation or the characteristics projected by it to the goods covered by the mark applied for, thus facilitating the marketing of those goods through association with the earlier mark with reputation (para. 59). 
Tveganje neupravičenega izkoriščanja obsega primere očitnega izkoriščanja ali parazitstva znamke z ugledom, in sicer tveganje prenosa podobe znamke z ugledom ali lastnosti, ki jih odraža, na blago, ki ga zajema znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, s tem pa se olajša trženje tega blaga zaradi povezave s prejšnjo znamko z ugledom (točka 59).
The Court concluded that, even if the drinks claimed by the mark applied for would not in reality produce the same benefit as the ‘immensely well-known' pharmaceutical for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, what was important was that the consumer, because of the transfer of positive associations projected by the image of the earlier mark, would be inclined to purchase such drinks in the expectation of finding similar qualities, such as an increase in libido (paras 52 and 67). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da čeprav pijače, ki jih zajema znamka, za katero je vložena prijava, dejansko ne bi imele enakih koristi kot „zelo znano“ zdravilo za zdravljenje erektilne disfunkcije, je pomembno predvsem, da bi se potrošnik zaradi pozitivnih asociacij, povezanih s podobo prejšnje znamke, nagibal k nakupu teh pijač v pričakovanju enakih lastnosti, kot je povečanje libida (točke od 52 do 67).
EMILIO PUCCI 27/09/2012, T373/09, Emidio Tucci, EU:T:2012:500 (18/06/2009, R 770/20082 & R 826/20082, EMIDIO TUCCI (fig.) / EMILIO PUCCI (fig.)) 
EMILIO PUCCI 27/09/2012, T373/09, Emidio Tucci, EU:T:2012:500 (18/06/2009, R 770/20082 in R 826/20082, EMIDIO TUCCI (fig.) / EMILIO PUCCI (fig.))
Although the applicant's cosmetic products are dissimilar to the opponent's clothes, they both fall squarely within the realm of products that are often sold as luxury items under famous marks of well-known designers and manufacturers. 
Čeprav prijaviteljevi kozmetični proizvodi niso enaki oblačilom vložnika ugovora, oboje nedvomno spada med proizvode, ki se pogosto prodajajo kot luksuzni proizvodi pod slavnimi znamkami znanih oblikovalcev in proizvajalcev.
Taking into account that the earlier mark is very well known and that the commercial contexts in which the goods are promoted are relatively close, BoA concluded that consumers of luxury clothes will make a connection between the applicant's mark for soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics and hair lotions in Class 3 and the famous mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI', an association that will produce a commercial benefit as per the Board's findings (BoA para. 129). 
Glede na to, da je prejšnja znamka zelo znana in da sta si tržna sektorja, v katerih se blago promovira, sorazmerno blizu, je odbor za pritožbe ugotovil, da bodo potrošniki luksuznih oblačil povezali prijaviteljevo znamko za mila, parfume, eterična olja, kozmetične proizvode in losjone za lase iz razreda 3 ter slavno znamko „EMILIO PUCCI“, kar je po ugotovitvah odbora asociacija, ki bo omogočila komercialno korist (odbor za pritožbe, točka 129).
BoA concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant could exploit the reputation of the opponent's mark for its own benefit. 
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da bi lahko prijavitelj zelo verjetno izkoristil ugled znamke vložnika ugovora.
The use of the mark applied for in connection with the goods and services mentioned above will almost certainly draw the relevant consumer's attention to the opponent's highly similar and very well-known mark. 
Uporaba znamke, za katero je vložena prijava v zvezi z navedenim blagom in storitvami, bo upoštevne potrošnike skoraj gotovo spomnila na zelo podobno in znano znamko vložnika ugovora.
The applicant will become associated with the aura of luxury that surrounds the ‘EMILIO PUCCI' brand. 
Prijavitelj bo postal povezan z luksuznim pridihom, ki obkroža znamko „EMILIO PUCCI“.
Many consumers are likely to think that there is a direct connection between the applicant's goods on the one hand, and the famous Italian fashion house on the other, perhaps in the form of a licensing agreement. 
Številni potrošniki bi lahko mislili, da je med prijaviteljevim blagom in slavno italijansko modno hišo neposredna zveza, kot je na primer licenčna pogodba.
The applicant could take unfair advantage of the fact that the public knows the trade mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI' well in order to introduce its own highly similar trade mark without incurring any great risk or the costs of introducing a totally unknown trade mark onto the market (BoA para. 130). 
Prijavitelj bi lahko dejstvo, da javnost dobro pozna znamko „EMILIO PUCCI“, neupravičeno izkoristil za predstavitev svoje zelo podobne znamke brez kakršnega koli večjega tveganja ali stroškov dajanja popolnoma neznane znamke na trg (odbor za pritožbe, točka 130).
The General Court confirmed the BoA findings. 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitve odbora za pritožbe.
The Board of Appeal found that (1) the marks have very limited similarities and are dissimilar overall; (2) use of the common designation ‘O2' is descriptive in the mark applied for; and (3) given the completely different areas of use - and the descriptive use of the common element - there can be no possibility of the applicant benefiting from the distinctive character of the earlier mark, even if there may be an overlap in the relevant public (para. 55). 
Odbor za pritožbe je ugotovil, da (1) je med znamkama zelo malo podobnosti in sta v celoti različni; da (2) je pri znamki, za katero je vložena prijava, uporaba skupne oznake „O2“ opisna, in da (3) prijavitelj glede na popolnoma različni področji uporabe - in opisno uporabo skupnega elementa - nikakor ne more izkoristiti razlikovalnega značaja prejšnje znamke, tudi če bi se upoštevna javnost prekrivala (točka 55).
The earlier mark Vips has a reputation for restaurants, in particular fast-food chains. 
Prejšnja znamka Vips ima ugled v zvezi z restavracijami, zlasti verigami restavracij s hitro hrano.