natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Courts have given clear indications on the two cumulative conditions that have to be satisfied (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 123-127, confirmed 13/09/2007, C234/06 P, Bainbridge, EU:C:2007:514, § 63). 
Sodišča so jasno navedla dva kumulativna pogoja, ki morata biti izpolnjena (23/02/2006, T194/03, Bainbridge, EU:T:2006:65, § 123-127, potrjena z dne 13/09/2007, C234/06 P, Bainbridge, EU:C:2007:514, § 63).
Firstly, the proprietor of a series of earlier marks must submit proof of use of all the marks belonging to the series or, at the very least, of a number of marks capable of constituting a ‘series' (i.e. at least three). 
Prvič, imetnik serije prejšnjih znamk mora predložiti dokaz o uporabi vseh znamk, ki so del serije, ali vsaj za več znamk, ki bi lahko sestavljale „serijo“ (tj. najmanj tri).
Secondly, the trade mark applied for must not only be similar to the marks belonging to the series, but must also display characteristics capable of associating it with the series. 
Drugič, ne le da mora biti prijavljena blagovna znamka podobna znamkam, ki so del serije, ampak mora imeti tudi lastnosti, zaradi katerih jo je mogoče povezati s serijo.
Association must lead the public to believe that the contested trade mark is also part of the series, that is to say, that the goods and services could originate from the same or connected undertakings. 
Povezava mora javnost voditi k prepričanju, da je tudi izpodbijana blagovna znamka del iste serije, tj. da bi lahko blago in storitve izvirali od istega podjetja ali od povezanih podjetij.
This may not be the case where, for example, the element common to the earlier series of marks is used in the contested trade mark, either in a different position from that in which it usually appears in the marks belonging to the series, or with a different semantic content. 
To na primer ni mogoče, kadar se skupni element prejšnje serije znamk uporabi v izpodbijani blagovni znamki, in sicer v drugačni postavitvi od tiste, v kakršni se navadno pojavlja v znamkah v seriji, ali z drugačno semantično vsebino.
The argument that there is a ‘family of marks' must be claimed before the expiry of the time limit set for substantiating the opposition. 
Zato se je treba na trditev, da gre za „družino znamk“, sklicevati še pred iztekom roka za utemeljitev ugovora.
The opponent must prove within the same time limit that it has used the marks forming the alleged family in the marketplace to such an extent that the relevant public has become familiar with this family of marks as designating the goods and/or services of a particular undertaking. 
Vložnik ugovora mora v istem roku dokazati, da znamke, ki tvorijo domnevno družino na trgu, uporablja v takšnem obsegu, da se je upoštevna javnost lahko seznanila s to družino znamk kot z znamkami, ki označujejo blago in/ali storitve določenega podjetja.
A positive finding that the opponent has a family of marks entails the use of at least three marks, the minimum threshold for such an argument to be taken into due consideration. 
Pozitivna ugotovitev, da je vložnik ugovora imetnik družine znamk, pomeni, da se uporabljajo vsaj tri znamke, kar je najnižji prag za upoštevanje takšne utemeljitve.
Proof of use relating to only two trade marks cannot substantiate the existence of a series of marks. 
Z dokazom o uporabi samo dveh blagovnih znamk ni mogoče potrditi obstoja serije znamk.
Normally, the trade marks constituting a ‘family' and used as such are all registered marks. 
Blagovne znamke, ki sestavljajo „družino“ in se tako tudi uporabljajo, so običajno vse registrirane.
However, it cannot be precluded that the ‘family of marks' doctrine may also include non-registered trade marks. 
Vendar ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da doktrina o „družini znamk“ lahko vključuje tudi neregistrirane blagovne znamke.
When the opponent has proven the existence of a family of marks, it would be wrong to compare the contested application individually with each of the earlier marks making up the family. 
Kadar vložnik ugovora dokaže, da obstaja družina znamk, ne bi bilo pravilno, če bi izpodbijano prijavo primerjali z vsako od prejšnjih znamk v družini posebej.
Rather, the assessment of similarity should be conducted to make a comparison between the contested mark and the family taken as a whole, in order to establish if the contested sign displays those characteristics that are likely to trigger the association with the opponent's family of marks in consumers' minds. 
Presojati je treba podobnost izpodbijane znamke in družine kot celote, da se ugotovi, ali ima izpodbijani znak tiste lastnosti, zaradi katerih bi ga lahko potrošniki povezali z družino znamk, katere imetnik je vložnik ugovora.
In fact, an individual comparison between the conflicting signs might even lead to a finding that the signs are not sufficiently similar to lead to a likelihood of confusion, whereas the association of the contested sign with the earlier family of marks might be the decisive factor that tips the balance to a finding of likelihood of confusion. 
Pravzaprav je mogoče celo, da bi pri posameznih primerjavah nasprotujočih si znakov ugotovili, da si znaka nista dovolj podobna, da bi to privedlo do verjetnosti zmede, povezava izpodbijanega znaka s prejšnjo družino znamk pa je lahko odločilen dejavnik, na podlagi katerega se sprejme odločitev o verjetnosti zmede.
An assumption of a family of marks on the part of the public requires that the common denominator of the contested application and the earlier family of marks must have a distinctive character, either per se or acquired through use, to allow a direct association between all of these signs. 
Za veljavnost domneve, da javnost pozna družino znamk, mora imeti skupni imenovalec izpodbijane prijave in prejšnje družine znamk razlikovalni značaj, ki je znamki lasten ali je nastal z uporabo in omogoča neposredno povezavo med vsemi temi znaki.
Likewise, there will be no assumption of a family of marks where the further components of the earlier signs have a greater impact in the overall impression of those signs. 
Domneva o družini znamk ne bo niti veljavna, če obstajajo dodatni elementi prejšnjih znakov, ki imajo večji vpliv pri splošnem vtisu teh znakov.
The finding that a particular mark forms part of a family of marks requires that the common component of the signs is identical or very similar. 
Ugotovitev, da je neka znamka del družine znamk, zahteva, da je skupni element znakov enak ali zelo podoben.
The signs must contain the same distinctive element, and this element must play an independent role in the sign as a whole. 
Znaki morajo vsebovati isti razlikovalni element, ki mora imeti neodvisno vlogo v znaku kot celoti.
Minor graphical differences in the common component may not exclude an assumption of a series of marks, when these differences may be understood by the public to be a modern presentation of the same product line. 
Ni nujno, da manjše razlike v grafiki skupnega elementa izključujejo domnevo o seriji znamk, če jih lahko javnost razume kot sodobno upodobitev iste proizvodne linije.
In contrast, letters that are different from or additional to the common component generally do not allow an assumption of a family of marks. 
Po drugi strani drugačne ali dodatne črke v skupnem elementu načeloma ne omogočajo domneve o obstoju družine znamk.
Normally, the common element that characterises the family appears in the same position within the marks. 
Skupni element, ki je značilen za družino, se pri znamkah običajno pojavlja na istem mestu.
Therefore, the same (or very similar) element appearing in the same position in the contested sign will be a strong indicator that the later mark could be associated with the opponent's family of marks. 
Isti (ali zelo podoben) element, ki se v izpodbijanem znaku pojavlja na istem mestu, pa močno kaže, da je mogoče kasnejšo znamko povezati z družino znamk, katere imetnik je vložnik ugovora.
However, the common element appearing in a different position in the contested sign weighs heavily against such an association being established in the consumers' minds. 
Vendar je malo verjetno, da bi potrošniki o takšni povezavi sklepali na podlagi skupnega elementa, ki se v izpodbijanem znaku pojavlja na drugem mestu.
For example, the contested sign ISENBECK is not likely to be associated with a family of BECK- marks where the element BECK is at the beginning of the signs making up the family. 
Tako je na primer malo možnosti, da bi izpodbijani znak ISENBECK povezali z družino znamk BECK-, v kateri element BECK stoji na začetku znakov, ki sestavljajo družino.
Examples where the Boards considered that a family of marks had been established 
Primeri, v katerih so odbori menili, da je bila ugotovljena družina znamk
3 Coexistence of Conflicting Marks on the Market in the Same Territory 
Soobstoj nasprotujočih si znamk na trgu na istem ozemlju
The EUTM applicant may claim that the conflicting trade marks coexist in the relevant territory. 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU lahko trdi, da na upoštevnem ozemlju soobstajata nasprotujoči si blagovni znamki.
Usually the coexistence argument comes up when the applicant owns a national trade mark corresponding to the EUTM application in the territory where the opposing trade mark is protected. 
Utemeljitev o soobstoju se navadno poda, kadar je prijavitelj imetnik nacionalne blagovne znamke, ki ustreza prijavi blagovne znamke EU na ozemlju, kjer je zaščitena nasprotujoča blagovna znamka.
The applicant may also refer to coexistence with a trade mark owned by a third party. 
Prijavitelj se lahko na soobstoj sklicuje tudi, kadar je imetnik blagovne znamke tretja oseba.
Therefore, two different situations, both referred to as ‘coexistence' by the parties, should be distinguished: 
Zato je treba razlikovati med položajema, za katera stranke uporabljajo izraz „soobstoj“:
coexistence between the two marks involved in the opposition can be persuasive of the absence of a likelihood of confusion in the relevant public's perception (see below); 
soobstoj dveh znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru, lahko nakazuje, da v dojemanju upoštevne javnosti ni verjetnosti zmede (glej v nadaljevanju),
where many similar marks (other than the two marks involved in the opposition) are used by competitors, the coexistence may affect the scope of protection of the earlier right. 
kadar konkurenti uporabljajo veliko podobnih znamk (razen dveh znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru), lahko soobstoj vpliva na obseg varstva iz prejšnje pravice.
See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark. 
Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke.
3.1 Coexistence between the marks involved in the opposition 
Soobstoj znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru
In opposition proceedings, it is most commonly argued by the EUTM applicant that the conflicting marks coexist on a national level and that the coexistence is tolerated by the opponent. 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU v postopku ugovora najpogosteje trdi, da na nacionalni ravni obstajajo nasprotujoče znamke in da vložnik ugovora nima nič proti soobstoju.
Occasionally, it is argued that coexistence is accepted by the parties in a coexistence agreement. 
Občasno se pojavijo tudi trditve, da soobstoj sprejemajo stranke, ki so sklenile sporazum o soobstoju.
The possibility cannot be ruled out that the coexistence of two marks on a particular market might, together with other elements, contribute to diminishing the likelihood of confusion between those marks on the part of the relevant public (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82). 
Ne more biti popolnoma izključeno, da lahko soobstoj dveh znamk na določenem trgu skupaj z drugimi elementi prispeva k zmanjšanju verjetnosti zmede med tema znamkama pri upoštevni javnosti (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82).
In certain cases, the coexistence of earlier marks in the market could reduce the likelihood of confusion that the Office finds between two conflicting marks (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86). 
V nekaterih primerih lahko soobstoj prejšnjih znamk na trgu zmanjša verjetnost zmede med nasprotujočima si znamkama, ki jo je ugotovil Urad (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86).
However, the indicative value of coexistence should be treated with caution. 
Včasih pa je treba dejstva, ki kažejo na soobstoj, obravnavati previdno.
There might be different reasons why the two signs coexist on a national level, for example, a different legal or factual situation in the past or prior rights agreements between the parties involved. 
Za soobstoj dveh znakov na nacionalni ravni lahko obstaja več razlogov, na primer pravno ali dejansko različen položaj v preteklosti ali sporazumi o prejšnjih pravicah med vpletenimi strankami.
Therefore, whilst the impact of coexistence on the finding of likelihood of confusion is accepted in theory, the conditions for this coexistence to be persuasive of the absence of a risk of confusion are, in practice, very difficult to establish and seldom prevail. 
Zato je vpliv soobstoja na ugotovitev o verjetnosti zmede priznan teoretično, v praksi pa je pogoje, da zaradi tega soobstoja ni tveganja za zmedo, zelo težko ugotoviti in so redko odločilni.
For the EUTM applicant to prove that the coexistence was based upon the absence of any likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, certain conditions must be met. 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU lahko dokaže, da soobstoj temelji na neobstoju verjetnosti zmede pri upoštevni javnosti, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji:
Comparable situation. 
primerljiv položaj.
The earlier (‘coexisting') marks and the marks at issue are identical to those involved in the opposition before the Office (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) and cover the same goods or services as those in conflict (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14). 
Prejšnje znamke (ki soobstajajo) in zadevne znamke so enake znamkama, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru pred Uradom (11/05/2005, T31/03, Grupo Sada, EU:T:2005:169, § 86; 18/09/2012, T460/11, Bürger, EU:T:2012:432, § 60-61) in zajemata blago ali storitve, ki je enako nasprotujočem blagu ali storitvam (30/03/2010, R 1021/20091, ECLIPSE / ECLIPSE (fig.), § 14),
The coexistence concerns the relevant countries in the case (e.g. alleged coexistence in Denmark is irrelevant when the opposition is based on a Spanish trade mark; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85). 
soobstoj se nanaša na upoštevne države, ki so v zadevi pomembne (npr. domnevni soobstoj na Danskem ni pomemben, če ugovor temelji na španski blagovni znamki; 13/07/2005, T40/03, Julián Murúa Entrena, EU:T:2005:285, § 85).
If the earlier trade mark is an EUTM, the EUTM applicant must show coexistence in the entire EU. 
Če je prejšnja znamka blagovna znamka EU, mora prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU dokazati soobstoj v vsej EU,
Only coexistence in the marketplace can be taken into account. 
upoštevati je mogoče samo soobstoj na trgu.
The mere fact that both trade marks exist in the national register (formal coexistence) is insufficient. 
Zgolj dejstvo, da sta obe blagovni znamki vpisani v nacionalni register (formalni soobstoj), ni dovolj.
The EUTM applicant has to prove that the trade marks were actually used (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34). 
Prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU mora dokazati, da sta se blagovni znamki dejansko uporabljali (13/04/2010, R 1094/20092, BUSINESS ROYALS (fig.) / ROYALS (fig.), § 34).
Coexistence should be understood as ‘co-use' of concurrent and supposedly conflicting marks (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE. 
Soobstoj je treba razumeti kot „souporabo“ znamk, ki obstajata hkrati in si domnevno nasprotujeta (08/01/2002, R 360/20004, NO LIMITS / LIMMIT, § 13; 05/09/2002, R 1/20023, CHEE.
The period of coexistence must be taken into consideration: in the judgment of 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, the alleged coexistence of only 4 months was considered obviously too short. 
upoštevati je treba obdobje soobstoja: v sodbi z dne 01/03/2005, T185/03, Enzo Fusco, EU:T:2005:73, je bilo odločeno, da so samo štirje meseci domnevnega soobstoja odločno prekratko obdobje.
Moreover, the coexistence of the trade marks has to relate to a period close to the filing date of the EUTM application (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39). 
Poleg tega se mora soobstoj blagovnih znamk nanašati na obdobje, ki ni preveč oddaljeno od datuma prijave blagovne znamke EU (12/05/2010, R 607/20091, ELSA ZANELLA (fig.) / ZANELLA et al., § 39),
The absence of a likelihood of confusion may be only inferred from the ‘peaceful' nature of the coexistence of the marks at issue on the market concerned (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64). 
o odsotnosti verjetnosti zmede je mogoče sklepati samo na podlagi „mirnega“ soobstoja zadevnih znamk na zadevnem trgu (03/09/2009, C498/07 P, La Española, EU:C:2013:302, § 82; 08/12/2005, T29/04, Cristal Castellblanch, EU:T:2005:438, § 74; 24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 64).
This is not the case when the conflict has been an issue before the national courts or administrative bodies (infringement cases, oppositions or applications for annulment of a trade mark). 
To pa ne drži, če so spor obravnavala že nacionalna sodišča ali upravni organi (postopki v primeru kršitev, ugovori ali zahteve za razveljavitev blagovne znamke),
Moreover, the peaceful coexistence of the trade marks in the relevant national market does not outweigh the likelihood of confusion if it is based on prior rights agreements between the parties, including agreements settling disputes before national courts, since these agreements, even if based on the assessment of the legal situation made by the parties, may have purely economic or strategic reasons. 
poleg tega nemoten soobstoj blagovnih znamk na upoštevnem nacionalnem trgu ne prevlada nad verjetnostjo zmede, če temelji na sporazumih glede prejšnjih pravic, ki sta jih sklenili stranki, vključno s sporazumi o poravnavi sporov pred nacionalnimi sodišči, saj so lahko razlogi za sklenitev takšnih sporazumov, tudi če temeljijo na presoji pravnega položaja, ki sta ga ustvarili stranki, le gospodarski ali strateški.
However, exceptional situations are possible. 
Seveda so mogoče izjemne okoliščine.
In its preliminary ruling of 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, the Court of Justice ruled that two identical trade marks designating identical goods can coexist on the market to the extent that there has been a long period of honest concurrent use of those trade marks and that use neither has nor is liable to have an adverse effect on the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee consumers the origin of the goods and services. 
Sodišče je v svoji predhodni sodbi z dne 22/09/2011, C482/09, Budweiser, EU:C:2011:605, odločilo, da lahko enaki blagovni znamki, ki označujeta enako blago, soobstajata na trgu ob njuni dolgotrajni pošteni sočasni uporabi ter če uporaba ne vpliva ali ne more vplivati na bistveno funkcijo blagovne znamke, tj. potrošnikom jamčiti za izvor blaga in storitev.
As regards coexistence agreements between the parties, when assessing likelihood of confusion, the Office's policy is that these agreements may be taken into account like any other relevant factor, but they are in no way binding on the Office. 
V zvezi s sporazumi o soobstoju, ki jih skleneta stranki, Urad pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede upošteva politiko, da je mogoče te sporazume upoštevati tako kot vsak drug pomemben dejavnik, vendar niso v nobenem primeru zavezujoči za Urad.
This is particularly true when the application of the relevant provisions of the EUTMR and the established case-law lead to a conclusion that is not in accordance with the content of the agreement. 
Tako je zlasti, kadar se na podlagi ustreznih določb Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in ustaljene sodne prakse sprejme odločitev, ki ni v skladu z vsebino sporazuma.
If an agreement is disputed before national instances or there are pending court proceedings and the Office estimates that the outcome could be relevant for the case at issue, it may decide to suspend the proceedings. 
Če glede sporazuma poteka spor pred nacionalnimi organi ali če v zvezi s tem poteka sodni postopek in Urad ocenjuje, da bi lahko bil izid pomemben za obravnavano zadevo, lahko sprejme odločitev o začasni prekinitvi postopka.
In addition, as a general rule, nothing precludes the opponent from filing an opposition against an EUTM application, whether or not it previously opposed other (national) marks of the applicant. 
Poleg tega vložniku ugovora načeloma nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi vložil ugovora zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU, ne glede na to, ali je že prej ugovarjal drugim (nacionalnim) znamkam prijavitelja ali ne.
This cannot be considered as ‘contradictory behaviour' and interpreted to the opponent's disadvantage, especially since in opposition proceedings, unlike invalidity proceedings, the defence of ‘acquiescence' is not available (the rules for opposition proceedings do not contain an equivalent to Article 61 EUTMR, according to which an EUTM proprietor may invoke as a defence the fact that the applicant for invalidity has acquiesced to the use of the EUTM for more than 5 years). 
To se ne more šteti za „protislovno ravnanje“ in se ne more razlagati v škodo vložnika ugovora, zlasti zato, ker v postopku ugovora v nasprotju s postopkom za ugotovitev ničnosti ni na voljo obramba „privolitve“ (pravila za postopek ugovora ne vsebujejo določbe, ki bi ustrezala členu 61 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim lahko imetnik v svoj zagovor navede dejstvo, da je vložnik zahteve za ugotovitev ničnosti privolil v uporabo blagovne znamke EU za več kot pet let).
4 Incidences of Actual Confusion 
Dejanski primeri zmede
Likelihood of confusion means a probability of confusion on the part of the relevant consumer and does not require actual confusion. 
Verjetnost zmede pomeni, da pri upoštevnem potrošniku obstaja možnost za zmedo, ni pa nujno, da zmeda dejansko nastopi.
As expressly confirmed by the Court: ‘… it is not necessary to establish the existence of actual confusion, but the existence of a likelihood of confusion' (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69). 
Kot je izrecno potrdilo Sodišče: „[…] ni treba ugotoviti obstoja dejanske zmede, temveč obstoj verjetnosti zmede“ (24/11/2005, T346/04, Arthur et Félicie, EU:T:2005:420, § 69).
In the global assessment of likelihood of confusion, all relevant factors have to be taken into consideration. 
Pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede je treba upoštevati vse pomembne dejavnike.
Evidence of actual confusion is a factor that may weigh in favour of likelihood of confusion; its indicative value should not, however, be overestimated for the following reasons: 
Dokaz o dejanski zmedi je lahko dejavnik, ki potrjuje verjetnost zmede, vendar mu iz naslednjih razlogov ne bi smeli pripisovati prevelikega pomena:
in everyday life there are always people who confuse and misconstrue everything, and others who are extremely observant and very familiar with every trade mark. 
v vsakdanjem življenju so ljudje, ki vse zamešajo ali si napačno razlagajo, in ljudje, ki so izjemno pozorni in poznajo vsako blagovno znamko.
Therefore, there is no legal value in highlighting the existence of these people since it could lead to subjective results; 
Zato pri poudarjanju obstoja teh ljudi ni nobene pravne veljavnosti, ker bi to lahko privedlo do subjektivnih rezultatov,
insofar as the targeted consumer's perception is concerned, the assessment is normative. 
presoja glede dojemanja ciljnega potrošnika je normativna.