natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark ‘NASDAQ' appears almost daily in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe. 
Vložnik ugovora je predložil dokaze, iz katerih je razvidno, da se znamka „NASDAQ“ pojavlja skoraj vsak dan v številnih časopisih in na televizijskih programih, ki jih je mogoče brati oziroma gledati po vsej Evropi.
Therefore, the Board was right to hold that the reputation of the trade mark ‘NASDAQ' had to be determined for European consumers not only among the professional public, but also in an important subsection of the general public (paras 47 and 51). 
Zato je odbor pravilno odločil, da je treba ugled blagovne znamke „NASDAQ“ pri evropskih potrošnikih ugotoviti ne le pri strokovni javnosti, ampak tudi v pomembnem poddelu splošne javnosti (točki 47 in 51).
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 The evidence submitted in respect of reputation supports and reinforces the fact that the relevant public for theatre productions is the public at large and not a limited and exclusive circle. 
06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348 Dokazi, predloženi v zvezi z ugledom, podpirajo in potrjujejo dejstvo, da je upoštevna javnost za produkcije gledaliških predstav širša javnost in ne omejen in izbran krog ljudi.
The intervener's activities were advertised, presented and commented on in numerous newspapers targeting the public at large. 
Intervenientove dejavnosti so se oglaševale, predstavljale in komentirale v številnih časopisih, namenjenih širši javnosti.
The intervener toured different regions throughout the United Kingdom and performed before a wide public in the United Kingdom. 
Intervenient je gostoval v različnih regijah po vsem Združenem kraljestvu in imel predstave pred širšim občinstvom v Združenem kraljestvu.
An activity on a large scale and, hence, a service offered to the public at large, is reflected both in the high turnover and the high box-office sales. 
Velik obseg dejavnosti in torej tudi storitev, namenjenih širši javnosti, je razviden iz velikih prihodkov od prodaje in velikega števila prodanih vstopnic.
Furthermore, it is clear from the documents submitted by the intervener that the intervener received substantial annual sponsorship income from undertakings in diverse sectors that also reach the public at large, such as banks, undertakings in the alcoholic drinks sector and car manufacturers (paras 35 and 36). 
Poleg tega je iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil intervenient, razvidno, da je prejel znaten letni prihodek iz pokroviteljstva podjetij v različnih sektorjih, ki dosegajo tudi širšo javnost, kot so banke, podjetja v sektorju alkoholnih pijač in avtomobilski proizvajalci (točki 35 in 36).
28/04/2011, R 1473/20101, SUEDTIROL / SÜDTIROL (fig.) et al. The opposition was dismissed since the earlier marks were not registered for the services that, according to the opponent, enjoy a reputation. 
28/04/2011, R 1473/20101, SUEDTIROL / SÜDTIROL (fig.) et al. Ugovor je bil zavrnjen, ker prejšnje znamke niso bile registrirane za storitve, ki imajo po mnenju vložnika ugovora ugled.
Article 8(5) EUTMR can only be invoked if the trade mark affirmed to be well known/renowned is a registered trade mark and if the goods/services for which this reputation/renown is claimed appear on the certificate (para. 49). 
Sklicevanje na člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je mogoče samo, če je znamka, ki je potrjeno dobro znana/slavna, registrirana znamka, in če so blago/storitve, v zvezi s katerimi se trdi, da imajo ugled/sloves, navedeni v potrdilu (točka 49).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe The goods that were assessed to be reputed in Germany by the decision and order referred to only concern articles of skin and body care and children's cream. 
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Blago, ki je bilo v navedenem sklepu in odločbi ocenjeno kot ugledno v Nemčiji, se nanaša samo na izdelke za nego kože in telesa ter otroške kreme.
These articles are not identical to the earlier mark's goods in Class 3, make-up products; nail treating products; namely nail lacquer and remover. 
Ti izdelki niso enaki blagu iz prejšnje znamke iz razreda 3, izdelki za ličenje; izdelki za nego nohtov; in sicer lak za nohte in odstranjevalec laka za nohte.
Therefore, the opponent did not prove reputation for the earlier German mark in the relevant territories (para. 31). 
Vložnik ugovora zato ni dokazal ugleda prejšnje nemške znamke na upoštevnih ozemljih (točka 31).
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE The Board concluded that the enhanced distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier marks did not concern the opponent's G&S, which were considered to be identical or similar to the contested G&S. 
14/06/2011, R 1588/20094, PINEAPPLE / APPLE Odbor je ugotovil, da se povečani razlikovalni učinek in ugled prejšnjih znamk nista nanašala na blago in storitve vložnika ugovora, ki so se obravnavali kot enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu in storitvam.
For these G&S no enhanced distinctiveness or reputation was proven, with the exception of computer software in Class 9 (para. 43). 
Za to blago in storitve ni bil dokazan povečani razlikovalni učinek ali ugled, razen za računalniško programsko opremo iz razreda 9 (točka 43).
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 & R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. The evidence submitted sufficiently demonstrated that the ‘ARENA' brand was known by a significant part of the relevant public. 
10/12/2009, R 1466/20082 in R 1565/20082, COMMERZBANK ARENA / ARENA et al. Predloženi dokazi so zadovoljivo pokazali, da je znamka „ARENA“ znana znatnemu delu upoštevne javnosti.
However, the evidence did not include any relevant information that could allow the level of brand awareness of the ‘ARENA' brand in sectors other than swimwear and swimming articles to be determined (paras 58 and 60). 
Vendar dokazi niso vsebovali pomembnih informacij, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče določiti stopnjo poznavanja znamke „ARENA“ v drugih sektorjih, ki niso sektor kopalke in izdelki za plavanje (točki 58 in 60).
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 The case concerned a European Union trade mark with a reputation throughout Austria. 
06/10/2009, C301/07, Pago, EU:C:2009:611 Zadeva se je nanašala na blagovno znamko Evropske unije z ugledom v Avstriji.
The Court indicated that a European Union trade mark must be known in a substantial part of the EU by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark. 
Sodišče je navedlo, da mora biti blagovna znamka Evropske unije znana v znatnem delu EU in znatnemu delu javnosti, ki so ji namenjeni blago ali storitve, ki jih ta znamka vključuje.
In view of the facts of the particular case, the territory of the Member State in question (Austria) was considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the EU (paras 29 and 30). 
Glede na dejstva v tej zadevi se je ozemlje zadevne države članice (Avstrije) obravnavalo kot znaten del ozemlja EU (točki 29 in 30).
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Although the evidence submitted showed use of the mark in 17 restaurants in France in 2002, this figure was considered rather low for a country of 65 million inhabitants. 
21/08/2009, R 1283/20064, RANCHO PANCHO (fig.) / EL RANCHO Čeprav je bilo iz predloženih dokazov razvidno, da se je znamka leta 2002 uporabljala v 17 restavracijah v Franciji, se je to število obravnavalo kot nizko za državo s 65 milijoni prebivalcev.
Therefore, the reputation was not proven (para. 22). 
Zato ugled ni bil dokazan (točka 22).
22/03/2011, R 1718/20081, LINGLONG / LL (fig.) et al. Most of the documents submitted related to countries outside the European Union, mainly China, the opponent's home country, and other Asian countries. 
22/03/2011, R 1718/20081, LINGLONG / LL (fig.) et al. Večina predloženih dokumentov je bila povezana z državami zunaj Evropske unije, predvsem Kitajsko, matično državo vložnika ugovora, in drugimi azijskimi državami.
Consequently, the opponent cannot successfully claim to hold a well-known mark in the EU (para. 53). 
Posledično vložnik ugovora ne more uspešno dokazati, da ima znano znamko v EU (točka 53).
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (appeal dismissed in 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) The respondent maintained in the notice of cancellation that reputation was claimed for the territory of the UK. 
14/06/2010, R 1795/20084, ZAPPER-CLICK, (pritožba zavrnjena s sodbo z dne 03/10/2012, T360/10, ZAPPER-CLICK, EU:T:2012:517) Pritožnik je v obvestilu o izbrisu trdil, da se je ugled dokazoval za ozemlje Združenega kraljestva.
However, the international registration only designated Spain, France and Portugal and, therefore, did not extend to the territory of the UK. 
Vendar so bile v mednarodni registraciji imenovane samo Španija, Francija in Portugalska, zato ni zajemala ozemlja Združenega kraljestva.
In addition, the respondent did not file any evidence of a reputation in the Member States designated by the international registration (para. 45). 
Poleg tega pritožnik ni predložil nobenega dokaza o ugledu v državah članicah, imenovanih v mednarodni registraciji (točka 45).
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA The evidence showed that the mark ‘BRAVIA/BRAVIA' was used for LCD televisions in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey. 
15/03/2010, R 55/20092, BRAVIA / BRAVIA Iz dokazov je bilo razvidno, da se je znamka „BRAVIA/BRAVIA“ uporabljala za LCD televizorje v Avstriji, na Češkem, v Franciji, Nemčiji, na Madžarskem, v Italiji, na Nizozemskem, Poljskem, Portugalskem, Slovaškem in v Turčiji.
However, none of the documents were dated. 
Vendar noben dokument ni bil datiran.
The opponent failed to submit any information regarding duration. 
Vložnik ugovora ni predložil nobenih informacij o trajanju.
Therefore, the evidence, taken as whole, was insufficient to prove reputation in the European Union (paras 27 and 28). 
Zato dokazi kot celota niso zadostovali za dokazovanje ugleda v Evropski uniji (točki 27 in 28).
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe In the Board's view, a judgment from 1972 was not able to prove enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing the mark, that is, 20/10/2006. 
09/11/2010, R 1033/20094, PEPE / bebe Po mnenju odbora s sodbo iz leta 1972 ni bil dokazan povečan razlikovalni učinek ob vložitvi prijave znamke, to je 20. oktobra 2006.
Furthermore, ‘it follows from the decision of the [Court] [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] that the reputation of the earlier mark has been assessed as from 13 June 1996, i.e. more than ten years before the reputation date to be taken into consideration' (para. 31). 
Poleg tega iz odločitve Sodišča [21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140] sledi, da se je ugled prejšnje znamke presojal od 13. junija 1996, tj. več kot deset let pred datumom, ki ga je treba upoštevati za opredelitev ugleda (točka 31).
The appellant failed to prove that its earlier mark was already well known on the application date of the contested mark. 
Pritožnik ni dokazal, da je bila prejšnja znamka že znana na datum vložitve prijave za izpodbijano znamko.
The certificates regarding the reputation of the ‘Mustang designation' refer neither to the ‘Calzados Mustang' figurative mark asserted by the applicant nor to the time when reputation must be determined (para. 28). 
Potrdila v zvezi z ugledom „oznake Mustang“ se ne nanašajo niti na figurativno znamko „Calzados Mustang“, za katero prijavitelj uveljavlja pravice, niti na obdobje, v zvezi s katerim je treba opredeliti ugled (točka 28).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Although the reputation of an earlier mark must be established at the filing date of the contested mark, documents bearing a later date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date (para. 52). 
16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potrjena z dne 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Čeprav je treba ugled prejšnje znamke opredeliti na datum vložitve prijave sporne znamke, ni mogoče zanikati dokazne vrednosti dokumentov s poznejšim datumom, če je mogoče na podlagi njih sprejeti ugotovitev v zvezi s stanjem na ta datum (točka 52).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed by 10/05/2012, C100/11 P The press articles submitted proved that there was significant media coverage of the products marketed under the trade mark BOTOX on the filing date of the disputed marks (para. 53). 
16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potrjena z dne 10/05/2012, C100/11 P S predloženimi članki je bilo dokazano, da so mediji na datum prijave spornih znamk veliko poročali o izdelkih, ki so se tržili pod znamko BOTOX (točka 53).
17/03/2015, T611/11, Manea Spa, EU:T:2015:152 (Relevant Classes 3, 24, 25, 43 and 44) The word mark ‘Spa' was used as part of another registration combining the word element with the logo of a pantomime character, as reproduced here . 
17/03/2015, T611/11, Manea Spa, EU:T:2015:152 (Upoštevni razredi 3, 24, 25, 43 in 44) Besedna znamka „Spa“ se je uporabljala kot del druge registracije in je besedni element združila z logotipom pantomimskega lika, kot je prikazano tu .
The word element occupies a central position in the complex sign, and therefore plays a ‘distinct and predominant' role. 
Besedni element ima osrednji položaj v sestavljenem znaku in ima tako „izrazito in prevladujočo vlogo“.
17/02/2011, T10/09, F1-Live, EU:T:2011:45; 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314 (Relevant Classes 16, 38 and 41) and 21/05/2005, T55/13, F1H20 / F1 et al., EU:T:2015:309 (Relevant Classes 9, 25, 38 and 41) On the other hand, in case T10/09 it was held that the evidence of reputation referred to the earlier figurative mark ‘F1 Formula 1' and not to the earlier word marks, ‘F1'. 
17/02/2011, T10/09, F1-Live, EU:T:2011:45; 24/05/2012, C196/11 P, F1-Live, EU:C:2012:314 (upoštevni razredi 16, 38 in 41) ter 21/05/2005, T55/13, F1H20 / F1 et al., EU:T:2015:309 (upoštevni razredi 9, 25, 38 in 41) Po drugi strani je bilo v zadevi T10/09 ugotovljeno, da se dokazi glede ugleda nanašajo na prejšnjo figurativno znamko „F1 Formula 1“ , in ne na prejšnje besedne znamke „F1“.
Without its particular logotype the text ‘Formula 1' and its abbreviation ‘F1' are perceived as descriptive elements for a category of racing cars or races involving those cars. 
Brez značilnega logotipa besedilo „Formula 1“ in njegova okrajšava „F1“ delujeta kot opisna elementa za kategorijo dirkalnih avtomobilov ali dirke s temi avtomobili.
The reputation was not proven for the word marks (see paras 53, 54 and 67). 
Ugled za besedne znamke ni bil dokazan (glej točke 53, 54 in 67).
In case T55/13, the Court held that the reputation with which the complex sign ‘F1' is associated did not benefit the word element alone, which does not play a ‘predominant or even significant' role in the earlier figurative mark (see para. 47). 
Sodišče je v zadevi T55/13 odločilo, da ugled, s katerim se povezuje sestavljeni znak „F1“, ni koristil samo besednemu elementu, ki nima „prevladujoče ali celo pomembne“ vloge v prejšnji figurativni znamki (glej točko 47).
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 The same conclusion applies to a ‘winged hourglass' figurative element used in a complex mark in association with the word ‘Longines'. 
12/02/2015, T76/13, QUARTODIMIGLIO QM, EU:T:2015:94 Enaka ugotovitev velja za figurativni element „peščena ura s krili“, uporabljen v sestavljeni znamki v povezavi z besedo „Longines“ .
The figurative element remains clearly ancillary and in the background in the overall impression conveyed by the complex mark (paras 104 to 106). 
Jasno je, da figurativni element ostaja zgolj pomožen in v ozadju celotnega vtisa, ki ga daje sestavljena znamka (točke od 104 do 106).
The Court found that the opponent had failed to submit opinion polls showing the recognition of the ‘winged hourglass' logo independently of the word element, and the use of this figurative element alone in a limited number of documents was found insufficient from both a quantitative and qualitative point of view (paras 91 to 93 and para. 112). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da vložnik ugovora ni predložil javnomnenjskih raziskav, ki bi kazale prepoznavnost logotipa „peščene ure s krili“ neodvisno od besednega elementa, za uporabo samo tega figurativnega elementa v omejenem številu dokumentov pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da je nezadostna s kvantitativnega in kvalitativnega vidika (točke od 91 do 93 in 112).
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The opponent provided detailed evidence relating to the intensity, geographical extent and duration of use of its trade mark, Nasdaq, as well as to the amount spent in promoting it, demonstrating that it was known by a significant part of the relevant public. 
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Vložnik ugovora je zagotovil podrobne dokaze o intenzivnosti, geografskem obsegu in trajanju uporabe svoje znamke Nasdaq ter dokaze o znesku, ki ga je porabil za njeno promocijo, ter s tem dokazal, da je bila znana znatnemu delu upoštevne javnosti.
The Court considered that the fact that it did not produce figures regarding market share did not call this finding into question (para. 51). 
Sodišče je menilo, da nepredložitev podatkov o tržnem deležu ni sprožilo dvomov v zvezi s to ugotovitvijo (točka 51).
The Court concluded that, first, the factors to be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the reputation of an earlier mark only serve as examples, as all relevant evidence in the case must be taken into consideration and, second, the other detailed and verifiable evidence produced by the intervener is already sufficient in itself to conclusively prove the reputation of its mark, Nasdaq (para. 52). 
Ugotovilo je, da se, prvič, dejavniki, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri ugotavljanju ugleda prejšnje znamke, uporabljajo samo kot primer za ponazoritev, saj je treba upoštevati vse pomembne dokaze v zadevi, vsi drugi podrobni in preverljivi dokazi, ki jih je predložil intervenient, pa že sami po sebi zadostujejo za prepričljivo potrditev ugleda njegove znamke Nasdaq (točka 52).
24/02/2010, R 765/20091, Bob the Builder (fig.) / BOB et al. The evidence submitted proved that the earlier mark enjoyed a very significant reputation in Sweden for jellies, jams, fruit stews, fruit drinks, concentrates for production of drinks and juice'. 
24/02/2010, R 765/20091, Bob the Builder (fig.) / BOB et al. Iz predloženih dokazov je bilo razvidno, da je imela prejšnja znamka precejšen ugled na Švedskem na področju želejev, džemov, sadnih omak, sadnih pijač ter koncentratov za izdelavo pijač in sokov.
According to the survey conducted by TNS Gallup, spontaneous awareness (answers by telephone to the question ‘What brands for - ‘the relevant group of products is mentioned' - have you heard about or do you know about?') of the trade mark ‘BOB' varied between 25 % and 71 %, depending on the goods: apple sauces, jams, marmalades, soft drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices. 
Po raziskavi, ki jo je opravila družba TNS Gallup, se je naključno poznavanje (odgovori po telefonu na vprašanje Za katere znamke - nato je bila omenjena zadevna skupina izdelkov - ste že slišali ali jih poznate?) znamke „BOB“ gibalo med 25 in 71 %, odvisno od blaga: jabolčne omake, džemi, marmelade, brezalkoholne pijače, sadni napitki in sadni sokovi.
Supported awareness (answers to a questionnaire showing the products bearing the mark) varied between 49 % and 90 %, depending on the goods. 
Spodbujeno poznavanje (odgovori na vprašalnik, na katerem so bili prikazani proizvodi z znamko) se je gibalo med 49 in 90 %, odvisno od blaga.
Furthermore, the market share for 2001 to 2006 averaged 30-35 % in the above product groups (para. 34). 
Poleg tega je tržni delež te znamke med letoma 2001 in 2006 v povprečju znašal 30-35 % v zgoraj navedenih skupinah izdelkov (točka 34).
13/12/2004, T08/03, Emilio Pucci, EU:T:2004:358 The Court considered that the opponent failed to prove the enhanced distinctiveness or reputation of its earlier trade marks, since the evidence submitted (advertisements, seven letters from a number of advertising directors and a video cassette) did not include adequately substantiated or verifiable objective evidence to make it possible to assess the market share held by the marks Emilio Pucci in Spain, how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the marks had been, or the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting them (para. 73). 
13/12/2004, T08/03, Emilio Pucci, EU:T:2004:358 Sodišče je menilo, da vložnik ugovora ni dokazal povečanega razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda v zvezi s svojimi prejšnjimi znamkami, saj predloženi dokazi (oglasi, sedem dopisov različnih založnikov medijev in videokaseta) niso vsebovali dovolj utemeljenih ali preverljivih objektivnih dokazov, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče presoditi tržni delež, ki ga imajo znamke Emilio Pucci v Španiji, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje njihove uporabe ali obseg naložb podjetja v njihovo promocijo (točka 73).
29/05/2012, R 1659/20112, KENZO / KENZO KENZO identifies, in the eyes of the European public, a pre-eminent provider of recognised fashion and luxury items in the form of perfumes, cosmetics and clothing. 
29/05/2012, R 1659/20112, KENZO / KENZO Znamka KENZO v očeh evropske javnosti označuje uglednega dobavitelja priznanih modnih in luksuznih izdelkov, kot so parfumi, kozmetični izdelki in oblačila.
The relevant public however was considered to be the general public (para. 29). 
Upoštevna javnost pa je bila v tem primeru splošna javnost (točka 29).
12/01/2011, R 446/20101, TURBOMANIA / TURBOMANIA The limited presence of the product on the market by no means prevented it from becoming well known by the relevant public. 
12/01/2011, R 446/20101, TURBOMANIA / TURBOMANIA Omejena navzočnost izdelka na trgu nikakor ni bila razlog, da izdelek ne bi postal dobro znan pri upoštevni javnosti.
The evidence clearly showed that the trade mark appeared continuously in specialist magazines for the market from December 2003 to March 2007 (the date of the EUTM application). 
Iz dokazov je bilo jasno razvidno, da se je znamka nenehno pojavljala v specializiranih revijah za ta trg od decembra 2003 do marca 2007 (datum prijave blagovne znamke EU).
That meant that the public targeted by the magazines had constant, ongoing exposure to the opponent's trade mark over a long period covering more than 3 years prior to the relevant date. 
To je pomenilo, da je bila ciljna javnost teh revij nenehno izpostavljena znamki vložnika ugovora v daljšem obdobju, ki je zajemalo več kot tri leta pred upoštevnim datumom.
Such a huge presence in the press specifically targeting the relevant public was more than sufficient evidence that the relevant public was aware of the trade mark (para. 31). 
Tako velika navzočnost v tisku, ki je bila posebej usmerjena v upoštevno javnost, je bila več kot zadosten dokaz, da je upoštevna javnost poznala znamko (točka 31).
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq The opponent submitted evidence showing that the mark Nasdaq appeared almost daily, particularly with reference to the Nasdaq indices, in many newspapers and on many television channels that can be read/viewed throughout Europe. 
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq Vložnik ugovora je predložil dokaze, iz katerih je bilo razvidno, da se je znamka Nasdaq, zlasti v zvezi z indeksi Nasdaq, skoraj vsak dan pojavljala v številnih časopisih in na televizijskih programih, ki jih je mogoče brati oziroma gledati po vsej Evropi.
The opponent also submitted evidence of substantial investments in advertising. 
Vložnik ugovora je predložil tudi dokaze o znatnih naložbah v oglaševanje.
The Court found reputation proven, even though the opponent did not submit any market share figures (paras 47 to 52). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je ugled dokazan, čeprav vložnik ugovora ni predložil podatkov o tržnem deležu (točke od 47 do 52).