natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
G&S: Class 7 Territory: EU Assessment: visually, the initial letters ‘K' and ‘C' show a clearly different shape and can be considered only visually similar to a low degree. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 7 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Vizualno imata začetni črki „K“ in „C“ jasno različno obliko in imata le nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti.
The same degree of similarity - low - applies for the phonetic comparison. 
Enaka, tj. nizka stopnja podobnosti velja tudi za zvočno primerjavo.
Aurally, the signs will be pronounced ‘K-X' and ‘C-X' respectively, and not as words. 
Zvočno se bosta znaka izgovorila kot „K-X“ in „C-X“, ne kot besedi.
Neither of the marks has a conceptual meaning (paras 25-27). 
Nobena od znamk nima pojmovnega pomena (točke 25-27).
G&S: Classes 9, 11, 12 Territory: EU Assessment: it must be concluded that, for each of the possible perceptions by the relevant public of the mark applied for, that public will perceive significant visual differences for each of the earlier marks (para. 65). 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 9, 11 in 12 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Ugotoviti je treba, da bo upoštevna javnost pri vsaki izmed možnih zaznav znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, zaznala precejšnje vizualne razlike glede na vsako izmed prejšnjih znamk (točka 65).
Some degree of phonetic similarity between the marks at issue must be recognised, but it is not very high. 
Treba je priznati določeno stopnjo zvočne podobnosti med zadevnima znamkama, ki pa ni zelo visoka.
Without making an error, the Board of Appeal, therefore, could find that the phonetic similarity between the marks at issue was not ‘notable' (para. 71). 
Odbor za pritožbe je tako brez napake ugotovil, da zvočna podobnost med zadevnima znamkama ni „opazna“ (točka 71).
As both marks have no meaning, no conceptual comparison can be made (para. 72). 
Ker nobena od znamk nima pomena, pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča (točka 72).
G&S: Classes 16, 35, 41 Territory: Germany Assessment: two of the three letters are identical and in the same sequence; the difference in a single letter does not constitute a significant visual and aural difference. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 16, 35 in 41 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Dve od treh črk sta enaki in v istem zaporedju; razlika v eni črki ne zadostuje za večjo vizualno in zvočno razliko.
The letters ‘E' and ‘I' in Germany are pronounced similarly (paras 66-71). 
Črki „E“ in „I“ se v nemščini podobno izgovarjata (točke 66-71).
G&S: Classes 35, 38, 42 Territory: EU, Germany Assessment: the Court held that the signs in the mind of the relevant consumer, having a good command of the English language, are visually, aurally and conceptually similar (para. 55). 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 35, 38 in 42 Ozemlje: EU, Nemčija Presoja: Sodišče je menilo, da sta znaka za upoštevnega potrošnika, ki ima dobro znanje angleškega jezika, vizualno, zvočno in pojmovno podobna (točka 55).
These letters are also visually dissimilar. 
Ti črki sta tudi vizualno različni.
Furthermore, the figurative elements of the compared marks do not resemble each other (paras 17-18). 
Poleg tega si figurativni elementi primerjanih znamk med seboj niso podobni (točki 17 in 18).
G&S: Class 3 Territory: Germany Assessment: the GC considered that the signs were only aurally similar to a low degree (paras 47, 50). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 3 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Splošno sodišče je menilo, da sta znaka le nekoliko zvočno podobna (točki 47 in 50).
The relevant public in Germany will certainly notice the differences in the beginning of the signs. 
Upoštevna javnost v Nemčiji bo zagotovo opazila razlike v začetku znakov.
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (likelihood of confusion) 
13/06/2012, T277/11, EU:T:2012:295 (verjetnost zmede)
G&S: Classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 Territory: EU Assessment: the Court found the signs visually highly similar, and identical phonetically and conceptually (paras 86, 88, 91 and 93). 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 35, 39, 41, 42 in 43 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Sodišče je ugotovilo, da sta znaka vizualno zelo podobna, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaka (točke 86, 88, 91 in 93).
TRIDENT PURE 16/12/2015, T491/13, EU:T:2015:979 (No likelihood of confusion) 
TRIDENT PURE 16/12/2015, T491/13, EU:T:2015:979 (ni verjetnosti zmede)
G&S: Class 30 Territory: inter alia EU Assessment: with respect to the first earlier right, the Court established a low degree of visual similarity given that the coinciding element ‘PURE', despite being descriptive for part of the public, was not on its own sufficient to conclude that the word is negligible in the overall impression produced by the mark (para. 70). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 30 Ozemlje: med drugim EU Presoja: Kar zadeva prvo prejšnjo pravico, je Sodišče ugotovilo nizko stopnjo vizualne podobnosti, saj element „PURE“, ki se ujema, čeprav je za del javnosti opisen, ni sam po sebi zadoščal za ugotovitev, da je beseda v okviru celotnega vtisa, ki ga ustvarja znamka, zanemarljiva (točka 70).
They were deemed phonetically similar to a low degree for those who understood ‘PURE' but aurally similar to an average degree for the remaining part of the public. 
Za tiste, ki so „PURE“ razumeli, je bila ugotovljena nizka stopnja zvočne podobnosti med znakoma, za preostali del javnosti pa povprečna.
On a conceptual level, they were similar for those understanding ‘PURE' as a reference to the purity of the goods at issue and to the purity of breath' (para. 93). 
Na pojmovni ravni sta bila znaka za tiste, ki „PURE“ razumejo kot nanašanje na čistost zadevnega blaga in svežino daha, podobna (točka 93).
It was also stated that the fact that the word ‘pure' is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods in question does not alter the conceptual content of those marks. 
Sodišče je navedlo še, da dejstvo, da beseda „pure“ opisuje značilnosti zadevnega blaga, ne vpliva na pojmovno vsebino navedenih znamk.
With respect to the remaining earlier rights the degree of similarity was no greater. 
Kar zadeva preostale prejšnje pravice, stopnja podobnosti ni bila nič večja.
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (likelihood of confusion) 
16/01/2014, T149/12, EU:T:2014:11 (verjetnost zmede)
G&S: Class 9 Territory: Spain Assessment: the signs were found visually highly similar and phonetically identical, notwithstanding the descriptive character of the element ‘MICRO' (paras 54-55, 60) and taking into account that the differences were limited to banal graphical elements. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 9 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Ugotovljeno je bilo, da sta znaka vizualno zelo podobna in zvočno enaka, ne glede na opisno naravo elementa „MICRO“ (točke 54, 55 in 60) in ob upoštevanju, da se razlikujeta le v vsakdanjih grafičnih elementih.
G&S: Class 5 Territory: EU Assessment: the signs were found visually similar to a low degree due to the descriptive character of the suffix ‘GESIC', given that it refers to painkillers (paras 35, 47), as well as the different beginnings (para. 49). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Ugotovljena je bila nizka stopnja podobnosti med znakoma, ker je pripona „-GESIC“ opisna, saj se nanaša na zdravila proti bolečinam (točki 35 in 47) in ker sta začetka različna (točka 49).
Phonetically, they were found similar to an average degree (para. 51) and conceptually dissimilar, the latter again due to the descriptive content of ‘GESIC' and the differing associations that could be made with the respective prefixes of the signs (‘OXY' refers to oxygen/oxycodon and ‘MAXI' to maximum (para. 53)), with the result that a likelihood of confusion was excluded. 
Ugotovljena je bila povprečna stopnja zvočne podobnosti med znakoma (točka 51) in pojmovna različnost, slednja zaradi opisnega značaja pripone „-GESIC“ in različnih asociacij, ki jih vzbujata predponi znakov („OXY-“ se nanaša na kisik ali oksikodon, „MAXI-“ pa na maksimum (točka 53)), zaradi česar je bila verjetnost zmede izključena.
Phonetically, the signs were found similar to an average degree due to the identical pronunciation of the first two syllables (para. 34). 
Zvočno je bila ugotovljena povprečna stopnja podobnosti, saj se prva dva zloga izgovorita enako (točka 34).
Conceptually, there is at least a certain degree of similarity for a significant part of the public for whom the common element ‘bonus' conveys an identical meaning (para. 42). 
Pojmovno sta znaka za precejšnji del javnosti, za katerega ima skupni element bonus enak pomen, vsaj nekoliko podobna (točka 42).
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 The words ‘by missako' are almost illegible: the size and script make them difficult to decipher 
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 Besedi „by missako“ sta skoraj neberljivi: zaradi velikosti in pisave ju je težko razbrati.
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 The element ‘Rótulos Luna S.A.' was considered negligible 
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 Element „Rótulos Luna S.A.“ se je štel za zanemarljivega.
The conflicting signs are dissimilar (para. 87). 
Zadevna znaka sta različna (točka 87).
In the visual impression created by the marks, the beginnings ‘sto' and ‘cre' and the endings ‘tec' and ‘o' play a more important role than the syllables ‘cre' and ‘te', which are placed in the middle of the signs and are less perceived by the relevant public. 
V vizualnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata znamki, imata začetka „sto“ in „cre“ ter konca „tec“ in „o“ pomembnejšo vlogo kot zloga „cre“ in „te“, ki sta na sredini znakov ter ju upoštevna javnost manj zaznava.
Therefore, it is concluded that there is no visual similarity between the signs (para. 71). 
Zato se ugotovi, da med znakoma ni vizualne podobnosti (točka 71).
The marks are not phonetically similar, in particular on account of their different beginnings and endings (para. 72). 
Znamki si nista zvočno podobni, zlasti ker se razlikujeta na začetku in na koncu (točka 72).
The conceptual comparison remains neutral, as ‘StoCretec' and ‘CRETEO' are coined terms without any meaning in German (para. 73). 
Rezultat pojmovne primerjave je nevtralen, saj sta „StoCretec“ in „CRETEO“ na novo skovana izraza, ki v nemščini nimata pomena (točka 73).
The figurative elements and the additional word ‘foods' must not be disregarded when comparing the signs (paras 54-55). 
Pri primerjavi znakov je treba upoštevati tudi figurativne elemente in dodatno besedo „foods“ (točki 54 in 55).
The overall visual impression of the conflicting signs is clearly dissimilar (paras 59-61). 
Celotni vtis zadevnih znakov je jasno različen (točke 59-61).
The signs are not phonetically similar bearing in mind, in particular, the additional element ‘foods' of the contested mark (paras 65-66). 
Znaka nista zvočno podobna, zlasti ob upoštevanju dodatnega elementa „foods“ pri izpodbijani znamki (točki 65 in 66).
Finally, the marks are also conceptually not similar (para. 73). 
Nazadnje, znamki niti pojmovno nista podobni (točka 73).
The figurative elements of the earlier figurative marks further distinguish those marks from the mark applied for (para. 36). 
Figurativni elementi, ki so del prejšnjih figurativnih znamk, te znamke dodatno razlikujejo od prijavljene znamke (točka 36).
The signs at issue have a different rhythm of pronunciation (paras 43-44). 
Ritem izgovarjave nasprotujočih si znakov je različen (točki 43 in 44).
The words have no meaning; it is not possible to carry out a conceptual comparison (para. 54). 
Besedi sta brez pomena, pomenska primerjava ni mogoča (točka 54).
The figurative elements of the signs have the same outline, but will be perceived as different by the relevant public (paras 45-47). 
Figurativna elementa znakov imata enak obris, a ju bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala različno (točke 45-47).
The word elements are visually different since they have only two letters in common, which are also placed in distinct positions. 
Besedna elementa se vizualno razlikujeta, saj se ujemata le v dveh črkah, ki sta na povsem različnih mestih.
The marks coincide only in that the verbal elements are written in white on a contrasting grey background and the white frame that separates the verbal and the landscape elements in equal parts. 
Znamki se ujemata le v tem, da sta besedna elementa zapisana z belo barvo na kontrastnem sivem ozadju in da imata bel okvir, ki enako ločuje besedni element od krajinskega elementa.
These are commonplace figurative elements, omnipresent in marks in virtually all fields of trade. 
To so običajni figurativni elementi, ki se pojavljajo v znamkah na praktično vseh področjih trgovine.
The consumer's attention is not caught by any of these details, but rather by the fanciful term ‘tukaş' in the earlier mark and by the word ‘Ekonomik' in the contested mark. 
Pozornosti potrošnika ne pritegne nobena od teh podrobnosti, temveč jo pritegne domišljijski izraz „tukaş“ pri prejšnji znamki in beseda „Ekonomik“ pri izpodbijani znamki.
As the signs visually overlap only in irrelevant aspects and have nothing in common aurally and conceptually, they are dissimilar overall. 
Ker se prekrivajo le nepomembni vidiki znakov ter ker znaka zvočno in pojmovno nimata nič skupnega, sta na splošno različna.
G&S: provision of accommodation Territory: EU 
Blago in storitve: Nudenje nastanitev Ozemlje: EU
G&S: provision of restaurant services Territory: Spain (where ‘casa' has also the meaning ‘bar', ‘restaurant') 
Blago in storitve: Nudenje storitev restavracij Ozemlje: Španija (kjer casa pomeni tudi bar, restavracija)
G&S: telecommunications services Territory: EU 
Blago in storitve: Telekomunikacijske storitve Ozemlje: EU
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (paras 39-61) 
CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS 22/06/2010, T563/08, EU:T:2010:251 (točke 39-61)
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU (relevant public considered to be familiar with basic English financial terminology) Assessment: the common element ‘capital markets' directly describes the services. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU (šteje se, da je upoštevna javnost seznanjena z osnovno angleško finančno terminologijo) Presoja: Skupni element „capital markets“ neposredno opisuje storitve.
G&S: Classes 30, 31, 42 Territory: EU Assessment: there is some similarity between the marks. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 30, 31 in 42 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Znamki sta si nekoliko podobni.
The earlier mark consists of two elements that are non-distinctive for the goods in question - the image of a corn (descriptive for bakery products) and the laudatory word element ‘PREMIUM'. 
Prejšnja znamka je sestavljena iz dveh elementov, ki sta v zvezi z zadevnim blagom nerazlikovalna - podobe žita (ki je v zvezi s pekovskimi izdelki opisna) in poveličevalnega besednega elementa „PREMIUM“.
The combination of these elements is arbitrary (unlike the word combination ‘Capital markets' in the example above, which is an established expression). 
Kombinacija teh elementov je poljubna (v nasprotju s kombinacijo besed „capital markets“ v zgornjem primeru, ki je uveljavljen izraz).
The coincidences between the marks are therefore not limited to non-distinctive elements but extend to their particular combination. 
Ujemanje med znamkama tako ni omejeno le na nerazlikovalna elementa, temveč zajema tudi njuno kombinacijo.
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (paras 39-61) 
waterPerfect AquaPerfect 28/01/2015, T123/14, EU:T:2015:52 (točke 39-61)
Goods and services: Class 7 Territory: EU Assessment: while the element ‘Perfect' has a laudatory character, the fact remains that none of the other elements making up the same signs can be considered to have a greater distinctive character or be dominant. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 7 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Element „Perfect“ je poveličevalen, a dejstvo je, da se nobeden od drugih elementov, ki sestavljajo znaka, ne more šteti kot bolj razlikovalen ali prevladujoč.
The elements ‘aqua' and ‘water' also have a weak distinctive character owing to the fact that they will be perceived by the relevant public as meaning ‘water' and the goods covered all involve, in one way or another, water (para. 42). 
Tudi elementa „aqua“ in „water“ imata šibek razlikovalni učinek, saj ju bo upoštevna javnost zaznavala v pomenu „voda“, vse zajeto blago pa na tak ali drugačen način vključuje vodo (točka 42).
The signs were found visually, phonetically and conceptually similar to an average degree. 
Ugotovljena je bila povprečna stopnja vizualne, zvočne in pojmovne podobnosti.
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: although the element ‘post' as such is non-distinctive for postal services, it corresponds to the earlier mark, which should be attributed with a minimum degree of distinctiveness (para. 43). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 39 in drugi razredi, povezani s poštnimi storitvami Ozemlje: Nemčija, EU Presoja: Čeprav je element „post“ v zvezi s poštnimi storitvami sam po sebi nerazlikovalen, se ujema s prejšnjo znamko, ki bi ji bilo treba pripisati minimalno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (točka 43).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 1 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 90
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke
EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE 
URAD EVROPSKE UNIJE ZA INTELEKTUALNO LASTNINO
DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE EARLIER MARK 
RAZLIKOVALNI UČINEK PREJŠNJE ZNAMKE
2 Assessment of Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark 4 
2 Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 4
2.1 General issues 4 
2.1 Splošna vprašanja 4
2.1.1 Distinctiveness 4 
2.1.1 Razlikovalni učinek 4
2.1.2 Inherent and enhanced distinctiveness 6 
2.1.2 Svojstveni in povečani razlikovalni učinek 6
2.1.3 Relevant point in time 6 
2.1.3 Upoštevni trenutek 6
2.1.4 Relevant goods and services 6 
2.1.4 Upoštevno blago in storitve 7
2.2 Examination of inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark 7 
2.2 Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 7
2.2.1 General principles 7 
2.2.1 Splošna načela 7
2.2.2 Impact of the low distinctiveness of the earlier mark 8 
2.2.2 Vpliv nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke 8
2.2.3 Specific themes 9 
2.2.3 Posebne teme 9
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs 9 
2.2.3.1 Znaki, sestavljeni iz ene črke ali številk, in kratki znaki 9
2.2.3.2 Collective marks 10 
2.2.3.2 Kolektivne znamke 10
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness 11 
2.3 Preizkus povečanega razlikovalnega učinka 11
The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) held in its judgment of 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18, 24: 
Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče EU) je v sodbi z dne 29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18, 24, razsodilo:
… marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character. 
[…] znamke, ki imajo velik razlikovalni učinek bodisi same po sebi bodisi zaradi njihove prepoznavnosti na trgu, imajo širše varstvo kot znamke z manjšim razlikovalnim učinkom.
… the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion. 
[…] razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke in zlasti njen ugled je treba upoštevati pri presojanju, ali podobnost blaga in storitev, ki jih označujeta dve blagovni znamki, zadostujeta, da nastane verjetnost zmede.
The assessment of the distinctiveness of an earlier mark is especially important in cases, when there is only a low degree of similarity between the signs, as it must be assessed, whether this low degree can be compensated by the high degree of similarity between the products (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67) and vice versa. 
Presoja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke je še posebej pomembna v primerih, ko med znakoma obstaja le nizka stopnja podobnosti, saj je treba presoditi, ali to nizko stopnjo lahko nadomesti visoka stopnja podobnosti med proizvodi (11/06/2014, T281/13, Metabiomax, EU:T:2014:440, § 57; and 13/05/2015, T102/14, TPG POST / DP et al., EU:T:2015:279, § 67), in obratno.
According to the case-law, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion of the distinctive character of the earlier mark, which determines the protection afforded to that mark, and the notion of the distinctive character which an element of a composite mark possesses, which determines its ability to dominate the overall impression created by the mark (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43). 
Glede na sodno prakso je treba razlikovati med razlikovalnim učinkom prejšnje znamke, ki je povezan z varstvom take znamke, in razlikovalnim učinkom, ki ga ima element sestavljene znamke in ki opredeljuje njegovo možnost prevladovanja v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ta znamka daje (27/04/2006, C235/05 P, Flexi Air, EU:C:2006:271, § 43).
While it is true that it is necessary to examine the distinctiveness of an element of a composite mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (…), the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark is an element to be taken into account in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. 
Čeprav drži, da je treba proučiti razlikovalni učinek elementa sestavljene znamke že v fazi presoje podobnosti znakov, je stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke eden od elementov, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede.
It is therefore not appropriate to take account of what may be a low degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark at the stage of assessing the similarity of the signs (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27). 
Torej v fazi presoje podobnosti med znaki ni treba upoštevati morebitne nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka prejšnjih znamk (23/01/2014, C558/12 P, WESTERN GOLD / WeserGold et al., EU:C:2014:22, § 42-45; 25/03/2010, T5/08 & T7/08, Golden Eagle / Golden Eagle Deluxe, EU:T:2010:123, § 65; 19/05/2010, T243/08, EDUCA Memory game, EU:T:2010:210, § 27).
The Office therefore distinguishes between (i) the analysis of the distinctive character of the earlier mark as a whole, which determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark and is one of the factors in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and (ii) the analysis of the distinctive character of a component of the marks within their comparison . 
Urad tako razlikuje med (i) analizo razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke kot celote, s katero se določi obseg varstva, podeljenega tej znamki, in ki je eden od dejavnikov pri celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede, ter (ii) analizo razlikovalnega učinka sestavnega dela znamk v okviru njune primerjave.
[2: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 4, Comparison of Signs.] 
[2: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 4: Primerjava znakov.]
Whereas distinctive character must be assessed for the components of both the earlier mark and the contested mark, distinctiveness of the mark as a whole is assessed only in respect of the earlier mark . 
Za sestavne dele je treba presoditi razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke in izpodbijane znamke, razlikovalni učinek znamke kot celote pa se presodi samo v zvezi s prejšnjo znamko.
The distinctiveness of the contested mark as a whole is not relevant, as such, to the assessment of likelihood of confusion, as explained in more detail in paragraph 2.1.2 below. 
Razlikovalni učinek izpodbijane znamke kot celote za presojo verjetnosti zmede kot tak ni pomemben, kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v odstavku 2.1.2 v nadaljevanju.
Therefore, any reference below to the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole refers exclusively to the earlier mark. 
Zato se v nadaljevanju vsa sklicevanja na razlikovalni učinek znamke kot celote nanašajo izključno na prejšnjo znamko.