natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
10/03/2011, R 555/20092, BACI MILANO (fig.) / BACI & ABBRACCI The reputation of the earlier trade mark in Italy was proven by the copious amount of documentation submitted by the opponent, which included, inter alia, an article from Economy revealing that in 2005 the ‘BACI & ABBRACCI' trade mark was one of the fifteen most counterfeited fashion brands in the world; an article published in Il Tempo on 05/08/2005, in which the ‘BACI & ABBRACCI' trade mark is mentioned alongside others, including Dolce & Gabbana, Armani, Lacoste and Puma, as being targeted by counterfeiters; an article published in Fashion on 15/06/2006, in which the trade mark is defined as ‘a true market phenomenon'; publicity campaigns from 2004 to 2007, with testimonials from entertainment and sports celebrities; and a market survey conducted by the renowned independent agency Doxa in September 2007, from which it emerges that the trade mark is ‘top of mind' in the fashion sector for 0.6 % of the Italian public (para. 35). 
10/03/2011, R 555/20092, BACI MILANO (fig.) / BACI in ABBRACCI Ugled prejšnje znamke v Italiji je bil dokazan z obsežno dokumentacijo, ki jo je predložil vložnik ugovora in je med drugim vključevala članek iz revije Economy, v katerem je bilo objavljeno, da je bila znamka „BACI & ABBRACCI“ leta 2005 ena od petnajstih najpogosteje ponarejenih modnih znamk na svetu; članek, objavljen v časopisu Il Tempo 5. avgusta 2005, v katerem je zapisano, da je ta znamka poleg drugih, vključno z znamkami Dolce & Gabbana, Armani, Lacoste in Puma, tarča ponarejevalcev; članek, objavljen v reviji Fashion 15. junija 2006, v katerem je znamka opredeljena kot „pravi tržni fenomen“; oglaševalske kampanje od leta 2004 do leta 2007 s priporočili slavnih oseb iz sveta zabave in športa; in tržna raziskava, ki jo je septembra 2007 opravila priznana neodvisna agencije Doxa, iz katere je razvidno, da je znamka za 0,6 % italijanske javnosti „najbolj priznana“ v modnem sektorju (točka 35).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, confirmed by 10/05/2012, C100/11 P The inclusion of a word in a dictionary is the expression of a fair amount of recognition on the part of the public. 
16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, potrjena dne 10/05/2012, C100/11 P Vključitev besede v slovar pomeni precejšnjo stopnjo prepoznavnosti v javnosti.
The references in the 2002 and 2003 editions of a number of dictionaries published in the United Kingdom constitute one of the items of evidence that may establish the reputation of the trade mark BOTOX in that country or amongst the English-speaking public of the European Union (paras 55 and 56). 
Navedbe v izdajah več slovarjev, objavljenih v Združenem kraljestvu v letih 2002 in 2003, pomenijo enega od dokazov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče opredeliti ugled znamke BOTOX v tej državi ali pri angleško govoreči javnosti v Evropski uniji (točki 55 in 56).
14/04/2011, R 1272/20101, GRUPO BIMBO (fig.) / BIMBO et al. (08/07/2015, T357/11 INTP, GRUPO BIMBO (fig.) / BIMBO et al., EU:T:2015:534) The evidence submitted shows a high level of recognition of the mark on the Spanish market. 
14/04/2011, R 1272/20101, GRUPO BIMBO (fig.) / BIMBO et al. (08/07/2015, T357/11 INTP, GRUPO BIMBO (fig.) / BIMBO et al., EU:T:2015:534) Iz predloženih dokazov je razvidna visoka stopnja prepoznavnosti znamke na španskem trgu.
The total invoices on the Spanish tin-loaf market in 2004 amounted to EUR 346.7 million, of which the opponent's invoices amounted to EUR 204.9 million. 
Vsi izdani računi za kruh iz modla na španskem trgu so leta 2004 znašali 346,7 milijona EUR, pri čemer je delež izdanih računov vložnika ugovora znašal 204,9 milijona EUR.
The invoices submitted cover advertisements on TV, as well as in newspapers and magazines. 
Predloženi računi vključujejo oglase na televiziji, v časopisih in revijah.
Therefore, the reputation of ‘BIMBO' in Spain for industrially produced bread has been substantiated (para. 64). 
Zato je bil ugled znamke „BIMBO“ v Španiji v zvezi z industrijsko izdelanim kruhom potrjen (točka 64).
The Court did not address this point. 
Sodišče tega ni obravnavalo.
10/01/2011, R 43/20104, FFR (fig.) / CONSORZIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO (fig.), (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645) The documents submitted show that the device of a black rooster has acquired reputation and will be associated with wines from the Chianti Classico region. 
10/01/2011, R 43/20104, FFR (fig.) / CONSORZIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO (fig.), (05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645) Iz predloženih dokumentov je razvidno, da je logotip črnega petelina pridobil ugled in se povezuje z vinom iz regije Chianti Classico.
The opponent provided several copies of advertisements in newspapers and magazines, showing its promotional activity, as well as independent articles displaying a black rooster in connection with the Chianti Classico region. 
Vložnik ugovora je predložil več kopij oglasov iz časopisov in revij, iz katerih je razvidna njegova promocijska dejavnost, ter neodvisne članke, ki prikazujejo črnega petelina v povezavi z regijo Chianti Classico.
However, given that the reputation only pertains to the device of a black rooster and given that this device is only one part of the earlier marks, serious doubts arise about whether reputation can be attributed to the marks as a whole. 
Vendar se glede na to, da se ugled nanaša samo na logotip črnega petelina, ki pa je samo del prejšnjih znamk, pojavljajo resni dvomi, ali je mogoče ugled pripisati znamkam kot celoti.
Moreover, for the same reason, doubt also arises about which marks the reputation could be attributed to, given that the opponent owns several marks. 
Poleg tega se iz istega razloga pojavijo tudi dvomi o tem, katerim znamkam je mogoče pripisati ugled, saj je vložnik ugovora imetnik več znamk (točki 26 in 27).
(paras 26 and 27). 
Sodišče ni presojalo dokazov o ugledu.
The Court did not assess the evidence on reputation. 
Prejšnji znak z ugledom Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
The trade mark BOTOX had a reputation for pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles in the United Kingdom on the filing date of the contested marks, which cover a range of goods in Class 3. 
Znamka BOTOX je imela ugled v zvezi s farmacevtskimi pripravki za odpravljanje gub v Združenem kraljestvu na datum vložitve prijave za sporni znamki, ki označujeta več vrst blaga iz razreda 3.
The General Court confirmed the Board's finding that there is a certain overlap between the goods, namely a low degree of similarity between the opponent's pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles and the contested cosmetics among other creams, whereas the remaining contested goods, namely perfumes, suntanning milks, shampoos, bath salts, etc., are dissimilar. 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora, da se blago nekoliko prekriva, in sicer gre za nizko stopnjo podobnosti med farmacevtskimi pripravki za odpravljanje gub vložnika ugovora in spornimi kozmetičnimi izdelki, med drugim kremami, medtem ko je preostalo sporno blago, in sicer parfumi, mleko za sončenje, šamponi, kopalne soli itd., različno.
Nevertheless, the goods at issue concern related market sectors. 
Vsekakor je sporno blago povezano s povezanimi tržnimi sektorji.
The General Court confirmed the Board's finding that the relevant public - practitioners as well as the general public - would not fail to notice that both the trade marks applied for, BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL, begin with ‘BOTO-', which comprises almost the whole of the mark BOTOX, which is well known to the public. 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora, da upoštevna javnost - strokovni delavci in splošna javnost - ne bi prezrla, da se obe znamki, za kateri je vložena prijava, BOTOLIST in BOTOCYL, začneta s predpono „BOTO-“, ki sestavljajo skoraj celotno ime znamke BOTOX, znane v javnosti.
The General Court pointed out that ‘BOTO- is not a common prefix, either in the pharmaceutical field or in the cosmetic field and that it has no descriptive meaning. 
Splošno sodišče je poudarilo, da BOTO- ni običajna predpona niti na farmacevtskem niti na kozmetičnem področju in nima opisnega pomena.
Even if the sign BOTOX could be broken down into ‘bo' for ‘botulinum' and ‘tox' for ‘toxin', in reference to the active ingredient that it uses, that word would then have to be considered to have acquired a distinctive character, inherent or through use, at least in the United Kingdom. 
Tudi če bi bilo mogoče znak BOTOX razdeliti na „bo“ za „botulin“ in „tox“ za „toksin“ glede na aktivno snov, ki jo vsebuje, bi bilo treba to beseda nato obravnavati, kot da ima razlikovalni značaj, ki ga je pridobila sama po sebi ali z uporabo, vsaj v Združenem kraljestvu.
In light of all the relevant factors, the public would naturally be led to establish a link between the marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL and the reputed mark BOTOX (paras 65 to 79). 
Glede na vse upoštevne dejavnike bi javnost seveda vzpostavila zvezo med znamkama BOTOLIST in BOTOCYL ter znamko BOTOX z ugledom (točke od 65 do 79).
Earlier reputed sign EUTM application Case No 
Prejšnji znak z ugledom Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
The Board found that a link would be established between RED DOG and RED BULL because (i) the marks have some relevant common features, (ii) the conflicting goods in Classes 32-33 are identical, (3) the RED BULL mark is reputed, (iv) the RED BULL mark has acquired a strong distinctive character through use and (v) there might be a possibility of confusion (para. 19). 
Odbor je ugotovil, da bi se vzpostavila zveza med znamkama RED DOG in RED BULL, saj (i) imata nekaj pomembnih skupnih značilnosti, (ii) nasprotujoče si blago v razredih 32 in 33 je enako, (iii) znamka RED BULL ima ugled, (iv) znamka RED BULL je pridobila močan razlikovalni značaj z uporabo in (v) lahko bi obstajala verjetnost zmede (točka 19).
It is reasonable to assume that the average consumer of beverages, who knows the reputed RED BULL mark and sees the RED DOG marks on the same kind of beverages would immediately recall the earlier mark. 
Smiselno je predvidevati, da bi se povprečni potrošnik pijač, ki pozna ugledno znamko RED BULL, ob pogledu na znamko RED DOG za isto vrsto pijače takoj spomnil na prejšnjo znamko.
According to the Intel judgment, this is ‘tantamount to the existence of a link' between the marks (para. 24). 
V skladu s sodbo v zadevi Intel to pomeni „obstoj zveze“ med znamkama (točka 24).
The trade marks are highly similar overall (para. 42). 
Znamki sta si na splošno zelo podobni (točka 42).
Visually, all the letters of the earlier trade mark are present in the contested one, and the first four and final two are in the same order. 
Vizualno so vse črke prejšnje znamke v imenu izpodbijane znamke, prve štiri in zadnji dve pa si sledijo v enakem vrstnem redu.
There is visual similarity, especially since the public tends to pay more attention to the beginnings of words (paras 35 and 36). 
Obstaja vizualna podobnost, zlasti ker javnost večjo pozornost navadno namenja začetkom besed (točki 35 in 36).
The identity of the first and last syllable, together with the fact that the middle syllables have the sound [g] in common, leads to a high degree of phonetic similarity (paras 38 and 39). 
Enakost prvega in zadnjega zloga ter dejstvo, da oba srednja zloga vsebujeta glas [g], pomenita, da gre za visoko stopnjo zvočne podobnosti (točki 38 in 39).
Neither of the signs has a meaning and, therefore, the public will not differentiate them conceptually (para. 40). 
Nobeden od znakov nima pomena, zato ju javnost ne bo pojmovno razlikovala (točka 40).
The earlier mark covers pharmaceuticals for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions in Class 5, whereas the contested mark covers non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks in Classes 32 and 33. 
Prejšnja znamka označuje farmacevtske izdelke za zdravljenje erektilne disfunkcije iz razreda 5, izpodbijana znamka pa označuje brezalkoholne in alkoholne pijače iz razredov 32 in 33.
The reputation of the earlier sign for the goods mentioned is not disputed. 
Ugled prejšnjega znaka v zvezi z navedenim blagom je nesporen.
The General Court found that although no direct connection can be established between the goods covered by the marks in dispute since they are dissimilar, an association with the earlier mark remains possible, taking into account the high degree of similarity between the signs and the strong reputation acquired by the earlier mark. 
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da čeprav ni mogoče ugotoviti neposredne zveze med blagom, ki ga označujeta znamki, ki sta predmet spora, saj sta različni, je asociacija na prejšnjo znamko kljub temu mogoča, in sicer ob upoštevanju visoke stopnje podobnosti med znakoma in velikega ugleda, ki ga je pridobila prejšnja znamka.
Therefore, the General Court concludes that a link is likely to be established between the marks (para. 52). 
Zato Splošno sodišče ugotavlja, da je vzpostavitev zveze med znamkama verjetna (točka 52).
As the contested trade mark is exclusively made up of the central and distinctive element of the earlier trade mark, namely the expression ‘royal shakespeare', the signs at issue are visually, phonetically and conceptually similar. 
Ker je izpodbijana znamka sestavljena izključno iz osrednjega in razlikovalnega elementa prejšnje znamke, in sicer izraza „royal shakespeare“, sta si sporna znaka vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobna.
Therefore, the average consumer will establish a link between those signs (para. 29). 
Povprečni potrošnik bo zato povezoval zadevna znaka (točka 29).
The earlier mark covers services in Class 41, including theatre productions, whereas the contested mark covers non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks in Classes 32 and 33 and providing of food and drink, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels; temporary accommodation in Class 42. 
Prejšnja znamka označuje storitve iz razreda 41, vključno s produkcijami gledaliških predstav, medtem ko izpodbijana znamka označuje brezalkoholne in alkoholne pijače iz razredov 32 in 33 ter nudenje hrane in pijače, restavracije, bare, kantine, hotele; začasno nastanitev iz razreda 42.
The General Court confirmed the Board's finding of the ‘exceptional' reputation of the earlier mark in the United Kingdom for theatre productions. 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo ugotovitev odbora o „izjemnem“ ugledu prejšnje znamke v Združenem kraljestvu v zvezi s produkcijami gledaliških predstav.
The relevant public for the contested trade mark is the same as the relevant public for the earlier trade mark, namely the public at large (para. 58). 
Upoštevna javnost za sporno znamko je ista kot upoštevna javnost za prejšnjo znamko, in sicer širša javnost (točka 58).
Although the contested goods in Classes 32-33 do not appear to be directly and immediately linked to the opponent's theatre productions, there is a certain proximity and link between them. 
Čeprav se izpodbijano blago iz razredov 32 in 33 ne zdi neposredno povezano s produkcijami gledaliških predstav vložnika ugovora, je med njima neka stopnja bližine in zveze.
The General Court refers to the judgment of 04/11/2008, T161/07, Coyote ugly, EU:T:2008:473, § 31-37, where a certain similarity between entertainment services and beer was found due to their complementarity. 
Splošno sodišče se sklicuje na sodbo 04/11/2008, T161/07, Coyote ugly, EU:T:2008:473, § 3137, v kateri je bila ugotovljena določena stopnja podobnosti med razvedrilom in pivom zaradi njunega dopolnjevanja.
The General Court added that it is common practice, in theatres, for bar and catering services to be offered either alongside and during the interval of a performance. 
Splošno sodišče je dodalo, da se v gledališčih običajno zagotavljata tudi strežba pijače in hrane med predstavami ali v odmorih.
Moreover, irrespective of the above, in view of the established reputation of the earlier trade mark, the relevant public, namely the public at large in the United Kingdom, would be able to make a link with the intervener when seeing a beer with the contested trade mark in a supermarket or in a bar (para. 60). 
Poleg tega lahko upoštevna javnost, torej širša javnost v Združenem kraljestvu, ne glede na zgornje navedbe zaradi potrjenega ugleda prejšnje znamke vzpostavi zvezo z intervenientom, ko v trgovini ali baru vidi pivo, označeno z izpodbijano znamko (točka 60).
The signs only have a certain degree of visual and aural similarity. 
Znaka sta si le nekoliko vizualno in zvočno podobna.
The Board confirms that the reputation of the earlier marks has been proven solely for distribution of energy services. 
Odbor potrjuje, da je bil ugled prejšnjih znamk dokazan samo v zvezi distribucijo energije.
These services are completely different from the goods for which protection is requested in Classes 18, 20, 24 and 27. 
Te storitve so popolnoma drugačne od blaga, za katerega se zahteva varstvo v razredih 18, 20, 24 in 27.
The relevant section of the public is the same, given that the services for which a reputation has been proven, namely distribution of energy services, are aimed at the general public and the goods in dispute are also aimed at the average consumer who is reasonably observant and circumspect. 
Upoštevni del javnosti je enak, saj so storitve, v zvezi s katerimi je bil dokazan ugled, torej distribucija energije, namenjene splošni javnosti, blago ki je predmet spora, pa je prav tako namenjeno povprečnemu potrošniku, ki je razmeroma pozoren in dovzeten.
However, even if the relevant section of the public for the goods or services for which the conflicting marks are registered is the same or overlaps to some extent, those goods or services may be so dissimilar that the later mark is unlikely to bring the earlier mark to the mind of the relevant public. 
Tudi če je upoštevni del javnosti v zvezi z blagom ali storitvami, za katere sta registrirani nasprotujoči si znamki, enak ali se nekoliko prekriva, pa so lahko to blago ali storitve tako različni, da ni verjetno, da bi poznejša znamka upoštevno javnost spomnila na prejšnjo znamko.
The huge differences in usage between the goods in dispute and the services for which reputation has been proven make it very unlikely that the public will make a link between the signs in dispute, which is essential for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR and for unfair advantage to be taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. 
Zaradi velikih razlik v uporabi blaga, ki je predmet spora, in storitev, v zvezi s katerimi je bil dokazan ugled, je malo verjetno, da bo javnost vzpostavila zvezo med znakoma, ki sta predmet spora, kar je bistveno za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke.
It is even less likely that, when intending to purchase a bag or item of furniture, the relevant public will link these goods to a trade mark that is very well known, but for services in the energy sector (paras 69 and 79). 
Še manj verjetno pa je, da bi upoštevna javnost, ki namerava kupiti torbo ali kos pohištva, to blago povezala z znamko, ki je dobro znana, vendar v zvezi s storitvami na področju energetike (točke od 69 do 79).
Earlier reputed signs EUTM application Case No 
Prejšnja znaka z ugledom Prijava blagovne znamke EU Št. zadeve
G-STAR and 21/01/2010, T309/08, EU:T:2010:22 
G-STAR in 21/01/2010, T309/08, EU:T:2010:22
Visually the signs give a different overall impression, due to the figurative element of a Chinese dragon's head placed at the beginning of the mark applied for. 
Vizualno dajeta znaka različen skupni vtis zaradi figurativnega elementa glave kitajskega zmaja na začetku znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
Aurally, there is a rather close aural similarity between the marks at issue. 
Med spornima znamkama je precejšnja zvočna podobnost.
The signs are conceptually different, since the element ‘star' of the earlier marks is a word that is part of basic English vocabulary, the meaning of which is widely understood throughout the EU. 
Znaka sta pojmovno različna, saj je element prejšnjih znamk „star“ beseda, ki je del osnovnega angleškega besedišča in katere pomen je splošno znan po vsej EU.
Therefore, the earlier marks will be perceived as referring to a star or a famous person. 
Zato se prejšnje znamke zaznavajo, kot da se nanašajo na zvezdo ali slavno osebo.
It is possible that a part of the relevant public will attribute to the element ‘stor' of the contested mark the sense of the Danish and Swedish word ‘stor', meaning ‘big, large', or will regard it as a reference to the English word ‘store' meaning ‘shop, storage'. 
Zgodi se lahko, da bo del upoštevne javnosti elementu izpodbijane znamke „stor“ pripisal pomen danske in švedske besede „stor“, ki pomeni „velik“, „obsežen“, ali pa jo bo povezal z angleško besedo „store“, ki pomeni „trgovino, skladišče“.
It is, however, more likely that the majority of the relevant public will not attribute any particular meaning to that element. 
Verjetneje je, da večina upoštevne javnosti temu elementu ne bo pripisala posebnega pomena.
Therefore, the relevant public will perceive the marks at issue as conceptually different inasmuch as the earlier marks have a clear meaning throughout the EU, while the mark applied for has either a different meaning for part of the relevant public or no meaning. 
Zato bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala sporne znamke kot pojmovno različne, saj imajo prejšnje znamke jasen pomen v vsej EU, medtem ko ima znamka, za katero je bila vložena prijava, drugačen pomen za del upoštevne javnosti ali ga sploh nima.
According to settled case-law, where the meaning of at least one of the two signs at issue is clear and specific so that it can be grasped immediately by the relevant public, the conceptual differences between those signs may counteract the visual and aural similarities between them. 
Kadar je v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso pomen vsaj enega od spornih znakov jasen in poseben, tako da ga lahko upoštevna javnost takoj zazna, lahko pojmovne razlike prevladajo nad vizualnimi in zvočnimi podobnostmi med znakoma.
The Board of Appeal was right to find that the visual and conceptual differences between the marks prevented any assumption of a possible link between them (paras 25 to 36). 
Odbor za pritožbe je pravilno ugotovil, da vizualne in pojmovne razlike med znamkama preprečujejo domnevo o morebitni zvezi med njima (točke od 25 do 36).
ONLY 07/10/2010, R 1556/20092 (confirmed 08/12/2011, T586/10, EU:T:2011:722) 
ONLY 07/10/2010, R 1556/20092 (potrjena s sodbo z dne 08/12/2011, T586/10, EU:T:2011:722)
The goods in Class 3 are identical and target the same public. 
Blago iz razreda 3 je enako in namenjeno isti javnosti.
There is a slight degree of visual and conceptual similarity between the signs at issue and a moderate degree of aural similarity. 
Sporna znaka sta si vizualno in pojmovno nekoliko podobna, vendar je več zvočne podobnosti.
Even if the earlier marks had a reputation, the differences between the signs, in particular due to the conceptual unit created by the combination of the element ‘only' and the distinctive dominant element ‘givenchy', would be significant enough for the public not to make any connection between them. 
Tudi če so prejšnje znamke imele ugled, so razlike med znakoma dovolj velike, da ju javnost ne bi povezala, zlasti zaradi pojmovne enote, ki jo sestavljata element „only“ in razlikovalni prevladujoči element „givenchy“.
Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that one of the conditions for applying Article 8(5) EUTMR, namely that the signs be sufficiently similar to lead the relevant public to make a connection between them, has not been met (paras 65 and 66). 
Zato je odbor za pritožbe pravilno ugotovil, da eden od pogojev za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, tj. da si morata biti znaka dovolj podobna, da ju upoštevna javnost poveže, ni izpolnjen (točki 65 in 66).
KARUNA 29/06/2010, R 696/20094, (confirmed 20/06/2012, T357/10, EU:T:2012:312) 
KARUNA 29/06/2010, R 696/20094, (potrjena s sodbo z dne 20/06/2012, T357/10, EU:T:2012:312)
The goods concerned, chocolate in Class 30, are identical. 
Zadevno blago, čokolada iz razreda 30, je enako.