natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
trade marks with a highly distinctive character enjoy broader protection than trade marks with a less distinctive character (see in this regard Canon, para. 18) 
blagovne znamke, ki imajo močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom (glej v zvezi s tem sodbo v zadevi Canon, točka 18),
however, the scope of protection of trade marks with low distinctive character will be narrower. 
bo obseg varstva blagovnih znamk z majhnim razlikovalnim učinkom ožji.
One consequence of these findings is that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark may be a decisive factor towards establishing a likelihood of confusion when the similarity between the signs and/or the goods and services is low (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22). 
Ena od posledic teh ugotovitev je, da je povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke lahko odločilni dejavnik za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede, če je stopnja podobnosti med zadevnimi znaki in/ali blagom in storitvami nizka (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22).
When the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark is low, this may be a factor weighing against likelihood of confusion. 
Če je razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke majhen, je to lahko dejavnik proti verjetnosti zmede.
3.4 Likelihood of confusion: questions of fact and questions of law 
Verjetnost zmede: vprašanja dejstev in vprašanja prava
The concept of likelihood of confusion is a legal concept rather than a mere factual evaluation of the rational judgments and emotional preferences that inform the consumer's cognitive behaviour and purchasing habits. 
Pojem verjetnost zmede je pravni pojem in ne dejanska presoja racionalnih mnenj in čustvenih preferenc, ki vplivajo na kognitivno vedenje in nakupovalne navade potrošnikov.
Therefore, assessment of likelihood of confusion depends on both legal questions and facts. 
Zato je presoja verjetnosti zmede odvisna od pravnih vprašanj in dejstev.
3.4.1 Fact and law - similarity of goods/services and of signs 
Dejstva in pravo - podobnost blaga ali storitev in znakov
Determining the relevant factors for establishing likelihood of confusion and whether they exist is a question of law, that is to say, these factors are established by the relevant legislation, namely, the EUTMR and case-law. 
Opredelitev ustreznih dejavnikov za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede in njihovega obstoja je pravno vprašanje, kar pomeni, da te dejavnike določa ustrezna zakonodaja, in sicer Uredba o blagovni znamki EU in sodna praksa.
For instance, Article 8(1) EUTMR establishes that the identity/similarity of goods/services is a condition for likelihood of confusion. 
Tako na primer člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU določa, da je enakost/podobnost blaga/storitev pogoj za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede.
The identification of the relevant factors for evaluating whether this condition is met is also a question of law. 
Vprašanje prava je tudi opredelitev ustreznih dejavnikov za presojo, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen.
The Court has identified the following factors for determining whether goods/services are similar: 
Sodišče EU je opredelilo naslednje dejavnike za ugotavljanje podobnosti blaga ali storitev:
their nature 
njihova narava,
their intended purpose 
njihov namen,
their method of use 
način njihove uporabe,
whether they are complementary or not 
njihova dopolnilnost,
whether they are in competition or interchangeable 
njihova konkurenčnost ali zamenljivost,
their distribution channels/points of sale 
njihove distribucijske poti/prodajne točke,
their relevant public 
njihova zadevna javnost,
their usual origin. 
njihov običajni izvor
All these factors are legal concepts and determining the criteria to evaluate them is also a question of law. 
Vsi ti dejavniki so pravni pojmi, opredelitev meril za njihovo presojo pa je prav tako vprašanje prava.
However, it is a question of fact whether, and to what degree, the legal criteria for determining, for instance, ‘nature', are fulfilled in a particular case. 
Vendar je vprašanje dejstev, ali in v kakšnem obsegu so v konkretnem primeru izpolnjena pravna merila za opredelitev na primer „narave“.
By way of example, cooking fat does not have the same nature as petroleum lubricating oils and greases even though both contain a fat base. 
V ponazoritev, maščobe za kuhanje nimajo enake narave kot mazalna olja in maščobe, čeprav vsebujejo maščobe.
Cooking fat is used in preparing food for human consumption, whereas oils and greases are used for lubricating machines. 
Maščobe za kuhanje se uporabljajo pri pripravi živil za prehrano ljudi, medtem ko se olja in maščobe uporabljajo za mazanje strojev.
Considering ‘nature' to be a relevant factor in the analysis of similarity of goods/services is a matter of law. 
Obravnava „narave“ kot ustreznega dejavnika v analizi podobnosti blaga ali storitev je vprašanje prava.
However, it is a matter of fact to state that cooking fat is used in preparing food for human consumption and that oils and greases are used for machines. 
Vendar je vprašanje dejstev, če se navede, da se maščobe za kuhanje uporabljajo pri pripravi živil za prehrano ljudi, olja in maščobe pa se uporabljajo za stroje.
Similarly, when it comes to the comparison of signs, Article 8(1) EUTMR establishes that the identity/similarity of signs is a condition for likelihood of confusion. 
Podobno člen 8(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v zvezi s primerjavo znakov določa, da je podobnost ali enakost znakov pogoj za verjetnost zmede.
It is a question of law that a conceptual coincidence between signs may render them similar for the purposes of the EUTMR, but it is a question of fact, for instance, that the word ‘fghryz' does not have any meaning for the Spanish public. 
Vprašanje prava je, da so si lahko znaki podobni zaradi pojmovne enakosti za namene Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, medtem ko je vprašanje dejstev, da na primer beseda „fghryz“ španski javnosti ne pomeni ničesar.
3.4.2 Fact and law - evidence 
Dejstva in pravo - dokazi
In opposition proceedings, the parties must allege and, where necessary, prove the facts in support of their arguments. 
V postopku ugovora morata stranki po potrebi dokazati dejstva v podporo svojim navedbam.
This follows from Article 95(1) EUTMR, according to which, in opposition proceedings, the Office is restricted in its examination to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought. 
To izhaja iz člena 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, v skladu s katerim je Urad v postopku ugovora pri preizkusu omejen na zahtevani ukrep in na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih predložile stranke.
Therefore, it is up to the opponent to state the facts on which the claim of similarity is based and to submit supporting evidence. 
Zato je vložnik ugovora tisti, ki mora navesti dejstva, na katerih temelji trditev o podobnosti, in predložiti dokaze.
For instance, where wear-resistant cast iron is to be compared with medical implants, it is not up to the Office to answer the question of whether wear-resistant cast iron is actually used for medical implants. 
Kadar je treba na primer primerjati lito železo, odporno na obrabo in medicinske vsadke, Uradu ni treba odgovoriti na vprašanja, ali se lito železo, odporno na obrabo, dejansko uporablja za medicinske vsadke.
This must be demonstrated by the opponent as it seems improbable (14/05/2002, R 684/20004, Tinox / TINOX). 
To mora dokazati vložnik ugovora, ker se tovrstna uporaba zdi neverjetna (14/05/2002, R 684/20004, Tinox / TINOX).
An admission by the applicant of legal concepts is irrelevant. 
Dejstvo, da prijavitelj sprejme pravne pojme, ni pomembno.
It does not discharge the Office from analysing and deciding on these concepts. 
To ne pomeni, da Uradu ni treba analizirati teh pojmov in o njih odločati.
This is not contrary to Article 95(1) EUTMR, which is binding on the Office only as regards the facts, evidence and arguments and does not extend to the legal evaluation of the same. 
To ni v nasprotju s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, ki je za Urad zavezujoč le v zvezi z dejstvi, dokazi in navedbami, ne zajema pa njihove pravne presoje.
Therefore, the parties may agree as to which facts have been proven or not, but they may not determine whether or not these facts are sufficient to establish the respective legal concepts, such as similarity of goods/services, similarity of the signs, and likelihood of confusion. 
Zato lahko stranke soglašajo, katera dejstva so bila dokazana, ne morejo pa določiti, ali zadoščajo za opredelitev zadevnih pravnih pojmov, kot so podobnost blaga ali storitev, podobnost znakov in verjetnost zmede.
Article 95(1) EUTMR does not prevent the Office from taking into consideration, on its own initiative, facts that are already notorious or well known or that may be learnt from generally accessible sources, for example, that PICASSO will be recognised by EU consumers as a famous Spanish painter (22/06/2004, T185/02, Picaro, EU:T:2004:189; 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25). 
Člen 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU Uradu ne preprečuje, da na svojo pobudo obravnava dejstva, ki so že splošno razširjena ali znana ali jih je mogoče izvedeti iz splošno dostopnih virov, na primer, da bodo potrošniki EU besedo PICASSO prepoznali kot besedo, ki označuje znanega španskega slikarja (22/06/2004, T185/02, Picaro, EU:T:2004:189; 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25).
However, the Office cannot quote ex officio new facts or arguments (e.g. reputation or degree of knowledge of the earlier mark). 
Vendar se Urad po uradni dolžnosti ne more sklicevati na nova dejstva ali navedbe (npr. ugled ali stopnjo poznavanja prejšnje blagovne znamke).
Moreover, even though certain trade marks are sometimes used in daily life as generic terms for the goods and services that they cover, this should never be taken as fact by the Office. 
Poleg tega, tudi če se nekatere blagovne znamke včasih uporabljajo v vsakdanjem življenju kot splošni izrazi za blago in storitve, ki jih označujejo, Urad tega ne sme nikoli sprejeti kot dejstvo.
In other words, trade marks should never be referred to (or interpreted) as if they were a generic term or a category of goods or services. 
Z drugimi besedami, blagovnih znamk se ne sme nikoli navajati (ali jih razlagati), kot da so splošen izraz ali kategorija blaga ali storitev.
For instance, the fact that in daily life part of the public refers to ‘X' when talking about yoghurts (‘X' being a trade mark for yoghurts) should not lead to using ‘X' as a generic term for yoghurts. 
Tako na primer dejstvo, da del javnosti v vsakdanjem življenju uporablja ime X, kadar govori o jogurtih (X je blagovna znamka jogurtov), ne sme povzročiti, da se ime X uporablja kot splošen izraz za jogurte.
4 Evaluation of the Relevant Factors for Establishing a Likelihood of Confusion 
Presoja zadevnih dejavnikov za ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede
4.1 The relevant point in time 
Zadevni trenutek
The relevant moment in time for assessing a likelihood of confusion is the date the opposition decision is taken. 
Zadevni trenutek za presojo verjetnosti zmede je datum sprejetja odločitve o ugovoru.
Where the opponent relies on enhanced distinctiveness of an earlier trade mark, the conditions for this must have been met on or before the filing date of the EUTM application (or any priority date) and must still be fulfilled at the point in time the decision is taken. 
Kadar se vložnik ugovora sklicuje na povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke, so morali biti pred datumom ali na datum vložitve prijave blagovne znamke EU (ali kateri koli datum prednostne pravice) izpolnjeni ustrezni pogoji, ki pa morajo biti izpolnjeni tudi ob sprejetju odločitve.
Office practice is to assume that this is the case, unless there are indications to the contrary. 
Praksa Urada je domnevati, da je ta pogoj izpolnjen, razen če ne obstajajo navedbe o nasprotnem.
Where the EUTM applicant relies on a reduced scope of protection (weakness) of the earlier trade mark, only the date of the decision is relevant. 
Če prijavitelj blagovne znamke EU kot razlog navaja zmanjšan obseg varstva (pomanjkljivost) prejšnje blagovne znamke, se upošteva le datum sprejetja odločitve.
4.2 List of factors for assessing the likelihood of confusion 
Seznam dejavnikov za presojo verjetnosti zmede
The likelihood of confusion is assessed in the following steps, taking into account multiple factors. 
Verjetnost zmede se presoja v naslednjih korakih ob upoštevanju več dejavnikov:
Comparison of goods and services 
primerjava blaga in storitev,
Relevant public and degree of attention 
zadevna javnost in stopnja pozornosti,
Comparison of signs 
primerjava znakov,
Distinctiveness of the earlier mark 
razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke,
Any other factors 
vsi drugi dejavniki,
Global assessment of likelihood of confusion. 
celovita presoja verjetnosti zmede.
A separate chapter of the Guidelines is dedicated to each of the above factors and its specifics. 
Vsakemu od zgoraj navedenih dejavnikov in njegovim podrobnostim je namenjeno posebno poglavje Smernic.
Annex 
Priloga
General principles coming from case-law (these are not direct citations). 
Splošna načela, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse (to niso dobesedni citati).
The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (para. 22). 
Verjetnost zmede je treba presojati celovito, pri čemer se upoštevajo vsi dejavniki, ki so pomembni za okoliščine zadeve (točka 22).
The appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, on the association that the public might make between the two marks and on the degree of similarity between the signs and the goods (para. 22). 
Presoja verjetnosti zmede je odvisna od številnih elementov, zlasti od prepoznavnosti blagovne znamke na trgu, povezovanja med zadevnima dvema blagovnima znamkama, kar se lahko zgodi v javnosti, in stopnje podobnosti med znaki in blagom (točka 22).
The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components (para. 23). 
Celovita presoja vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti zadevnih blagovnih znamk mora temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, ki ga ti ustvarjata, pri čemer je treba upoštevati njune razlikovalne in prevladujoče elemente (točka 23).
The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details (para. 23). 
Povprečni potrošnik navadno zaznava blagovno znamko kot celoto in ne preverja njenih posameznih podrobnosti (točka 23).
The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (para. 24). 
Verjetnost zmede je toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (točka 24).
It is not impossible that the conceptual similarity resulting from the fact that two marks use images with analogous semantic content may give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character (para. 24). 
Ni izključeno, da lahko pojmovna podobnost, ki je posledica dejstva, da blagovni znamki uporabljata znaka, ki se ujemata v semantični vsebini, povzroči verjetnost zmede, če ima prejšnja blagovna znamka posebni razlikovalni učinek (točka 24).
However, where the earlier mark is not especially well known to the public and consists of an image with little imaginative content, the mere fact that the two marks are conceptually similar is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (para. 25). 
Vendar kadar prejšnja blagovna znamka v javnosti ne uživa posebnega ugleda in je sestavljena iz slike, na kateri ni veliko domišljijskih elementov, sama podobnost med blagovnima znamkama ni dovolj, da bi povzročila verjetnost zmede (točka 25).
The concept of likelihood of association is not an alternative to likelihood of confusion, but serves to define its scope (para. 18). 
Pojem verjetnost povezovanja ni nadomestna možnost za pojem verjetnost zmede, temveč se uporablja za opredelitev njegovega obsega (točka 18).
The mere association that the public might make between two marks as a result of their analogous semantic content is not in itself a sufficient ground for concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion (para. 26). 
Preprosto povezovanje med dvema blagovnima znamkama, kar se lahko v javnosti zgodi zaradi ujemanja njunih pomenskih vsebin, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja verjetnosti zmede (točka 26).
The risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion (para. 29). 
Verjetnost zmede pomeni verjetnost, da bi javnost mislila, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij (točka 29).
By contrast, there can be no such likelihood where the public does not think that the goods come from the same undertaking (or from economically linked undertakings) (para. 30). 
V nasprotju s tem takšna verjetnost ne more obstajati, če javnost ne misli, da blago izvira iz istega podjetja (ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij) (točka 30).
In assessing the similarity of the goods and services, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account (para. 23). 
Pri presoji podobnosti med blagom in storitvami je treba upoštevati vse zadevne dejavnike, ki so značilni za razmerje med tem blagom ali storitvami (točka 23).
Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, the purpose for which they are used (the translation ‘end users' in the official English language version is not correct) and their method of use, and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (para. 23). 
Ti dejavniki med drugim vključujejo naravo, namen, za katerega se uporabljajo (prevod končni uporabniki v uradni angleški jezikovni različici ni pravilen), in uporabo tega blaga ali storitev ter tudi to, ali gre za konkurenčno ali dopolnjujoče se blago ali storitve (točka.
A lesser degree of similarity between the goods may be offset by a greater degree of similarities between the marks and vice versa (para. 17). 
Nizka stopnja podobnosti med blagom se lahko izravna z visoko stopnjo podobnosti med blagovnimi znamkami in obratno (točka 17).
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 (para. 18). 
Blagovne znamke, ki imajo same po sebi ali zaradi svojega ugleda na trgu močan razlikovalni učinek, uživajo širše varstvo kot blagovne znamke s šibkejšim razlikovalnim učinkom (točka 18).
Registration of a trade mark may have to be refused, despite a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services covered, where the marks are very similar and the earlier mark, in particular its reputation, is highly distinctive (para. 19). 
Registracija blagovne znamke se lahko zavrne kljub nižji stopnji podobnosti med označenim blagom ali storitvami, kadar je podobnost med blagovnima znamkama velika ter kadar je razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke močan in zlasti njen ugled velik (točka 19).
The distinctive character of the earlier mark and in particular its reputation must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods and services is enough to give rise to the likelihood of confusion (para. 24). 
Pri ugotavljanju, ali podobnost med blagom in storitvami zadošča za povzročitev verjetnosti zmede, je treba upoštevati razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke in zlasti njen ugled (točka 24).
There may be a likelihood of confusion, even if the public thinks that these goods have different places of production (para. 30). 
Verjetnost zmede lahko obstaja tudi, če javnost misli, da to blago prihaja iz različnih krajev proizvodnje (točka 30).
The level of attention of the average consumer, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, varies according to the category of the goods and services in question (para. 26). 
Stopnja pozornosti povprečnega potrošnika, za katerega se šteje, da je razumno obveščen, pozoren in pazljiv, se razlikuje glede na kategorijo zadevnega blaga in storitev (točka 26).
However, account should be taken of the fact that average consumers rarely have the chance to make a direct comparison between different marks and must trust in their imperfect recollection of them (para. 26). 
Vendar je treba upoštevati, da imajo povprečni potrošniki redko možnost neposredno primerjati različne blagovne znamke, zato se morajo zanesti na njihovo nepopolno podobo, ki so jo ohranili v spominu (točka 26).
When assessing the degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity it can be appropriate to evaluate the importance attached to each by reference to the category of goods and the way they are marketed (para. 27). 
Pri presoji vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti je morda ustrezno ovrednotiti pomen, ki se pripisuje posamezni blagovni znamki z upoštevanjem kategorije blaga in načina trženja (točka 27).
It is possible that mere aural similarity could lead to a likelihood of confusion (para. 28). 
Tudi le zvočna podobnost bi lahko povzročila verjetnost zmede (točka 28).
In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, an overall assessment needs to be made of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods and services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking (para. 22). 
Pri opredelitvi razlikovalnega učinka blagovne znamke in posledično pri presoji, ali ima velik razlikovalni učinek, je treba izvesti celovito presojo večje ali manjše sposobnosti blagovne znamke, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, identificira kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja (točka 22).
In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered; the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public who, because of the mark, identifies the goods and services as originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations (para. 23). 
Pri tej presoji je treba upoštevati zlasti bistvene lastnosti blagovne znamke, vključno z dejstvom, da je ali ni brez vsakršnega opisnega elementa blaga ali storitev, za katere je bila registrirana, njen tržni delež, intenzivnost, ozemeljsko razsežnost in dolžino uporabe te blagovne znamke, višino naložb, ki so jih podjetja namenila njeni promociji, obseg zainteresiranega okolja, ki zaradi blagovne znamke blago in storitve identificira kot izvirajoče iz določenega podjetja, ter izjave gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih panožnih in poklicnih združenj (točka 23).
It is not possible to state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive character (para. 24). 
Na splošno ni mogoče navesti, na primer s sklicevanjem na določen odstotek zadevne javnosti, ki pozna blagovno znamko, da ima blagovna znamka velik razlikovalni učinek (točka 24).
The reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming the existence of a likelihood of confusion simply because of the existence of a likelihood of association in the strict sense (para. 41). 
Ugled blagovne znamke ne omogoča domneve obstoja verjetnosti zmede samo zaradi obstoja verjetnosti povezovanja v strogem pomenu besede (točka 41).