natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although that global assessment implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and a low degree of similarity between the marks may therefore be offset by the strong distinctive character of the earlier mark … the fact remains that where there is no similarity between the earlier mark and the challenged mark, the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark and the fact that the goods or services respectively covered are identical or similar are not sufficient for it to be found that … the relevant public makes a link between them ... 
Čeprav ta celovita presoja predpostavlja nekaj soodvisnosti med dejavniki, ki se upoštevajo, saj lahko nizko stopnjo podobnosti med znamkami odtehta velik razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke [...] pa to še ne pomeni, da to, da je prejšnja znamka, če med njo in [izpodbijano] znamko ni podobnosti, splošno znana ali da ima ugled, ter enakost oziroma podobnost zadevnih proizvodov ali storitev ne zadostujeta za ugotovitev, da obstaja [...] verjetnost, da ju zadevna javnost poveže [...]
The General Court also found that the existence of a family of marks was a factor to be taken into account in assessing the establishment, on the part of the relevant public, of a link between the marks at issue (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73). 
Splošno sodišče je odločilo tudi, da je obstoj družine znamk dejavnik, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri ugotavljanju, ali bo upoštevna javnost povezala zadevni znamki (05/07/2016, T518/13, MACCOFFEE, EU:T:2016:389, § 73).
Case-law has made it clear that a link is not sufficient, in itself, to establish that there may be one of the forms of damage referred to in Article 8(5) EUTMR (26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96, and the case-law cited therein). 
Iz sodne prakse je razvidno, da zveza sama po sebi ne zadostuje za ugotovitev obstoja ene od oblik oškodovanja iz člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (26/09/2012, T301/09, Citigate, EU:T:2012:473, § 96, in tam navedena sodna praksa).
However, as will be explained in detail under paragraph 3.4, ‘The risk of injury', below, the existence of a link (or association) between the signs is necessary before it can be determined whether detriment or unfair advantage is likely. 
Vendar kot je podrobno pojasnjeno v spodnjem odstavku 3.4 Tveganje kršitve, mora med znakoma obstajati zveza (ali asociacija), preden se lahko ugotavlja verjetnost oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja.
Examples where a link was found between the signs 
Primeri, v katerih je bila ugotovljena zveza med znaki
The following are examples where it was found that the degree of similarity between the signs (together with further factors) was sufficient to conclude that consumers would establish a link between them. 
V naslednjih primerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da stopnja podobnosti med znaki (skupaj z dodatnimi dejavniki) zadostuje za ugotovitev, da jih bodo potrošniki povezali.
Examples where no link was found between the signs 
Primeri, v katerih zveza med znaki ni bila ugotovljena
The following are examples where an overall assessment of all of the relevant factors showed that it was unlikely that a link would be established between the signs. 
V naslednjih primerih je celovita presoja vseh upoštevnih dejavnikov pokazala, da ni verjetno, da bi se vzpostavila zveza med znaki.
3.4 The risk of injury 
Tveganje kršitve
[4: For the purposes of these Guidelines, the term ‘injury' covers taking ‘unfair advantage' even though in such cases there is not necessarily an ‘injury' in the sense of detriment either to the distinctive character or repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor.] 
[4: Za namene teh Smernic pojem „kršitev“ zajema „neupravičeno izkoriščanje“, čeprav v teh primerih ne gre nujno za „kršitev“ v smislu oškodovanja razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda znamke ali, splošneje, njenega imetnika.]
3.4.1 Protected subject matter 
Predmet varstva
Article 8(5) EUTMR does not protect the reputation of the earlier mark as such, in the sense that it does not intend to prevent the registration of all marks identical with or similar to a mark with reputation. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne ščiti ugleda prejšnje znamke kot takega, saj ni namenjen preprečevanju registracije vseh znamk, ki so enake ali podobne znamki z ugledom.
In addition, there must be a likelihood that use of the contested application without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. 
Poleg tega mora obstajati verjetnost, da bo uporaba znamke, za katero je vložena izpodbijana prijava, brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje znamke.
The Court confirmed this by stating that once the condition as to the existence of reputation is fulfilled, the examination has to proceed regarding the condition that the earlier mark must be detrimentally affected without due cause (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30). 
Sodišče je to potrdilo z navedbo, da je treba začeti preizkušanje, ko je izpolnjen pogoj glede obstoja ugleda, vendar mora biti prejšnja znamka oškodovana brez upravičenega razloga (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
The Court did not set out in more detail exactly what would count as detriment or unfair advantage, even though it stated in Sabèl that Article 8(5) EUTMR ‘[does] not require proof of likelihood of confusion', thereby stating the obvious, namely that the enlarged protection granted to reputed marks is not concerned with their function of origin (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 20). 
Sodišče ni podrobneje opredelilo, kaj natančno šteje za škodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje, čeprav je v sodbi v zadevi Sabèl navedlo, da se v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne zahteva dokaz o verjetnosti zmede, kar je jasno, saj razširjeno varstvo znamk z ugledom ni odvisno od njihove funkcije označevanja izvora (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 20).
However, in a series of previous decisions, the Court stated that apart from indicating origin, a trade mark may also fulfil other functions worthy of protection. 
Vendar je Sodišče v več predhodnih odločbah navedlo, da ima lahko znamka poleg označevanja izvora tudi druge funkcije, ki jih je vredno zaščititi.
More particularly, it confirmed that a trade mark can offer a guarantee that all the goods coming from a single undertaking have the same quality (guarantee function) and that it can serve as an advertising instrument by reflecting back the goodwill and prestige it has acquired in the market (advertising function) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 & C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82). 
Natančneje, Sodišče je potrdilo, da lahko blagovna znamka jamči (funkcija jamstva) enako kakovost vsega blaga istega podjetja in se lahko uporablja kot orodje za oglaševanje z odražanjem dobrega imena in prestiža, ki ju je pridobila na trgu (funkcija oglaševanja) (17/10/1990, C10/89, Hag II, EU:C:1990:359; 11/07/1996, C427/93, C429/93 in C436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S, EU:C:1996:282; 11/11/1997, C349/95, Ballantine, EU:C:1997:530; 04/11/1997, C337/95, Dior, EU:C:1997:517; 23/02/1999, C63/97, BMW, EU:C:1999:82).
It follows that trade marks serve not only to indicate the origin of a product, but also to convey a certain message or image to the consumer, which is incorporated in the sign mostly through use and, once acquired, forms part of its distinctiveness and repute. 
Iz tega sledi, da se znamke ne uporabljajo samo za označevanje izvora izdelkov, ampak potrošniku tudi sporočajo neko sporočilo ali podobo, ki se znaku pripišeta predvsem z uporabo ter tako postaneta del njegovega razlikovalnega učinka in ugleda.
In most cases of reputation these features of the trade mark will be particularly developed, as the commercial success of a brand is usually based on product quality, successful promotion, or both, and, for this reason, will be especially valuable to the trade mark owner. 
V večini primerov, povezanih z ugledom, so te značilnosti znamke še posebno poudarjene, saj tržni uspeh znamke navadno temelji na kakovosti izdelka, uspešni promociji ali obojem hkrati, zaradi česar so te značilnosti za imetnika znamke posebno dragocene.
This added value of a mark with reputation is precisely what Article 8(5) EUTMR intends to protect against undue detriment or unfair advantage. 
Ta dodana vrednost znamke z ugledom je natančno to, čemur je namenjeno varstvo pred neupravičenim oškodovanjem ali neupravičenim izkoriščanjem v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Hence, the protection under Article 8(5) EUTMR extends to all cases where the use of the contested trade mark applied for is likely to have an adverse effect on the earlier mark, in the sense that it would diminish its attractiveness (detriment to distinctiveness) or devalue the image it has acquired among the public (detriment to repute), or where use of the contested mark is likely to result in misappropriation of its powers of attraction or exploitation of its image and prestige (taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute). 
Zato se varstvo na podlagi člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU nanaša na vse primere, kadar lahko uporaba izpodbijane znamke, za katero je vložena prijava, škoduje prejšnji znamki, tako da zmanjša njeno privlačnost (oškodovanje razlikovalnega učinka) ali razvrednoti podobo, ki jo je prejšnja znamka pridobila v javnosti (oškodovanje ugleda), ali kadar lahko uporaba izpodbijane znamke neupravičeno prisvoji njeno privlačnost ali izkoristi njeno podobo in prestiž (neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda).
Given also that a very strong reputation is both easier to harm and more tempting to take advantage of, owing to its great value, the Court underlined that ‘the stronger the earlier mark's distinctive character and reputation the easier it will be to accept that detriment has been caused to it' (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41). 
Glede na to, da je zelo velik ugled lažje oškodovati in tudi privlačneje izkoristiti zaradi njegove velike vrednosti, je Sodišče poudarilo, da „[p]omembnejša ko sta razlikovalni značaj in ugled prejšnje znamke, lažje bo nastala kršitev“ (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67, 74; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 41).
Even though the Court did not say so expressly, the same must be accepted as regards the unfair advantage that the applicant might enjoy at the expense of the earlier mark. 
Čeprav Sodišče tega ni izrecno navedlo, je treba enako ugotovitev sprejeti tudi v zvezi z neupravičeno koristjo, ki jo lahko prijavitelj pridobi v škodo prejšnje znamke.
3.4.2 Assessment of the risk of injury 
Ocena tveganja kršitve
In Chevy (General Motors), the Court did not deal with the assessment of detriment and unfair advantage in great detail, as this issue was not part of the question referred to it. 
Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors) ni podrobno presojalo oškodovanja in neupravičenega izkoriščanja, saj ta presoja ni bila del vprašanja, ki mu je bilo predloženo v obravnavo.
It only stated that it ‘is only where there is a sufficient degree of knowledge of that mark that the public, when confronted by the later trade mark, may possibly make an association between the two trade marks … and that the earlier trade mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23). 
Navedlo je samo, da le, če je prejšnja znamka dovolj poznana, lahko javnost ob stiku s poznejšo blagovno znamko poveže blagovni znamki [...], kar lahko škoduje prejšnji blagovni znamki (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
Even though this statement is too limited to serve as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of the existence of a risk of injury, it gives at least a significant indication, namely that detriment or unfair advantage must be the consequence of an association between the conflicting marks in the minds of the public, made possible by the similarities between the marks, their distinctiveness, the reputation and other factors (see paragraph 3.3 above). 
Čeprav je ta trditev preveč omejena, da bi lahko na njej temeljila celovita analiza obstoja tveganja kršitve, pa vsaj pomembno nakazuje, da mora biti oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje posledica asociacije med nasprotujočima si znamkama v zavesti javnosti, ki jo omogočajo podobnosti med znamkama, njun razlikovalni učinek, ugled in drugi dejavniki (glej odstavek 3.3 zgoraj).
Thus, if the alleged detriment or unfair advantage is not the result of an association between the marks, but is due to other, extraneous reasons, it is not actionable under Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Če torej domnevno oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje ne izhaja iz asociacije med znamkama, ampak iz drugih razlogov, ga ni mogoče izpodbijati v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Furthermore, as the Court observed, an association between the marks requires that the part of the public that is already familiar with the earlier mark is also exposed to the later mark. 
Kot je poleg tega navedlo Sodišče, mora biti za obstoj asociacije med znamkama del javnosti, ki že pozna prejšnjo znamko, izpostavljen tudi poznejši znamki.
This will be easier to establish where the earlier mark is known to the public at large, or where the consumers of the respective goods and services largely overlap. 
Ta obstoj je lažje ugotoviti, kadar je prejšnja znamka znana širši javnosti ali kadar se potrošniki zadevnega blaga in storitev precej prekrivajo.
However, in cases where the goods and services are significantly different from each other and such a connection between the respective publics is not obvious, the opponent must justify why the marks will be associated, by reference to some other link between its activities and those of the applicant, for example where the earlier mark is exploited outside its natural market sector, for instance, by licensing or merchandising (see paragraph 3.3 above). 
Kadar pa se blago in storitve med seboj bistveno razlikujejo in taka povezava med upoštevnima javnostma ni očitna, mora vložnik ugovora utemeljiti, zakaj bo nastala asociacija med znamkama, tako da se sklicuje na neko drugo povezavo med svojimi dejavnostmi in dejavnostmi prijavitelja, kadar se na primer prejšnja znamka izkorišča zunaj običajnega naravnega tržnega sektorja, na primer z licenciranjem ali trženjem (glej odstavek 3.3 zgoraj).
The more immediately and strongly the earlier mark is brought to mind by the later sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign is taking, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or is, or will be, detrimental to it (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43). 
Hitreje in močneje ko se ob poznejšem znaku vzbudi misel na prejšnjo znamko, večje je tveganje, da sedanja ali prihodnja uporaba znaka neupravičeno izkorišča ali oškoduje oziroma bo neupravičeno izkoriščala ali oškodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 41, 43).
Therefore, the evaluation of detriment or unfair advantage must be based on an overall assessment of all the factors relevant to the case (including in particular the similarity of signs, the reputation of the earlier mark, and the respective consumer groups and market sectors), with a view to determining whether the marks may be associated in a way that may adversely affect the earlier trade mark. 
Zato mora ovrednotenje oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja temeljiti na celoviti presoji vseh dejavnikov, pomembnih za obravnavani primer (zlasti vključno s podobnostjo znakov, ugledom prejšnje znamke, zadevnimi skupinami potrošnikov in tržnimi sektorji), da se ugotovi, ali je mogoče znamki povezati tako, da bi to škodovalo prejšnji blagovni znamki.
3.4.3 Types of injury 
Vrste kršitev
Article 8(5) EUTMR refers to the following types of injury: ‘take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark'. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU glede vrst kršitev določa: „na nepošten način izkoriščal ali oškodoval razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke“.
Therefore, Article 8(5) EUTMR applies if any of the following three alternative requirements is fulfilled, namely if use of the contested mark would: 
Zato se člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uporablja, če je izpolnjena katera od treh nadomestnih zahtev, in sicer če bi uporaba izpodbijane znamke:
take unfair advantage of the distinctiveness, or the repute of the earlier mark; 
neupravičeno izkoriščala razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje znamke,
cause detriment to the distinctiveness; 
oškodovala razlikovalni učinek,
cause detriment to the repute. 
oškodovala ugled.
As regards the first type of injury, the wording of Article 8(5) EUTMR suggests the existence of two kinds of unfair advantage, but settled case-law treats both as a single injury under Article 8(5) EUTMR (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47). 
V zvezi s prvo vrsto kršitve sta iz ubeseditve člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU razvidni dve vrsti neupravičenega izkoriščanja, vendar se v uveljavljeni sodni praksi obe vrsti obravnavata kot ena kršitev v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 47).
For the sake of completeness, both aspects of the same injury will be dealt with under paragraph 3.4.3.1 below. 
Zaradi celovitosti se oba vidika iste kršitve obravnavata v odstavku 3.4.3.1 v nadaljevanju.
As demonstrated in the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, likelihood of confusion relates only to confusion about the commercial origin of goods and services. 
Kot je navedeno v Smernicah, delu C: Ugovor, razdelku 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, se verjetnost zmede nanaša samo na zmedo glede tržnega izvora blaga in storitev.
Article 8(5) EUTMR, in contrast, protects earlier reputed marks in cases of association or confusion that does not necessarily relate to the commercial origin of goods/services. 
Nasprotno pa člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU prejšnje znamke z ugledom ščiti v primerih asociacije ali zmede, ki ni nujno povezana s tržnim izvorom blaga ali storitev.
Article 8(5) EUTMR protects the heightened effort and financial investment that is involved in creating and promoting trade marks to the extent that they become reputed by protecting these marks against later similar marks taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ščiti povečana prizadevanja in finančne naložbe, vključene v oblikovanje in promocijo znamk za pridobitev ugleda, tako da te znamke ščiti pred poznejšimi podobnimi znamkami, ki neupravičeno izkoristijo ali oškodujejo razlikovalni značaj ali ugled prejšnje blagovne znamke.
There is a rich lexicon of vocabulary that is used in relation to this area of trade mark law. 
V zvezi s tem področjem se v pravu blagovnih znamk uporablja bogato besedišče.
The most common terms are set out below. 
Najpogostejši izrazi so navedeni v nadaljevanju.
3.4.3.1 Taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute 
Neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda
The nature of the injury 
Vrsta kršitve
The notion of taking unfair advantage of distinctiveness or repute covers cases where the applicant benefits from the attractiveness of the earlier right by affixing on its goods/services a sign that is similar (or identical) to one widely known in the market and, thus, misappropriating its attractive powers and advertising value or exploiting its reputation, image and prestige. 
Pojem neupravičenega izkoriščanja razlikovalnega učinka ali ugleda se nanaša na primere, kadar prijavitelj izkoristi privlačnost prejšnje pravice, tako da svoje blago ali storitve označi z znakom, podobnim (ali enakim) znaku, ki je na trgu zelo znan, in si tako neupravičeno prisvoji njegovo privlačnost in oglaševalsko vrednost ali izkoristi njegov ugled, podobo in prestiž.
This may lead to unacceptable situations of commercial parasitism, where the applicant is allowed to take a ‘free ride' on the investment of the opponent in promoting and building up goodwill for its mark, as it may stimulate sales of the applicant's products to an extent that is disproportionately high in comparison with the size of its promotional investment. 
To lahko vodi v nesprejemljive razmere tržnega parazitstva, v katerih lahko prijavitelj „parazitsko“ izkorišča naložbe vložnika ugovora v promocijo in ustvarjanje dobrega imena znamke, saj lahko te spodbudijo prodajo prijaviteljevih izdelkov v nesorazmerno velikem obsegu v primerjavi z obsegom njegovih naložb v promocijo.
In its judgment of 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, the Court indicated that unfair advantage exists where there is a transfer of the image of the mark or of the characteristics that it projects to the goods identified by the identical or similar sign. 
Sodišče je v sodbi 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, navedlo, da neupravičeno izkoriščanje obstaja, kadar se podoba znamke ali značilnosti, ki jih predstavlja, prenesejo na blago, označeno z enakim ali podobnim znakom.
By riding on the coat-tails of the reputed mark, the applicant benefits from the power of attraction, reputation and prestige of the reputed mark. 
Prijavitelj z obešanjem na ugled prejšnje znamke izkorišča njeno privlačnost, ugled in prestiž.
The applicant also exploits, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the image of that mark (§ 41, 49). 
Brezplačno izkorišča tudi trženjska prizadevanja imetnika znamke, namenjena izoblikovanju in ohranjanju podobe te znamke (točki 41 in 49).
Relevant consumer 
Upoštevni potrošnik
The concept of ‘unfair advantage' focuses on benefit to the later mark rather than harm to the earlier mark; what is prohibited is the exploitation of the earlier mark by the proprietor of the later mark. 
Pojem „neupravičeno izkoriščanje“ je usmerjen v korist poznejše znamke in ne v oškodovanje prejšnje znamke; prepovedano je, da bi imetnik poznejše znamke izkoriščal prejšnjo znamko.
Accordingly, the existence of the injury consisting of unfair advantage obtained from the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark must be assessed by reference to average consumers of the goods or services for which the later mark is applied for (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35). 
Ustrezno je treba obstoj kršitve, ki obsega neupravičeno izkoriščanje razlikovalnega značaja ali ugleda prejšnje znamke, presojati z vidika povprečnega potrošnika blaga ali storitev, za katere je vložena prijava poznejše znamke (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 35-36; 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146, § 46-48; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 35).
The assessment of unfair advantage 
Presoja neupravičenega izkoriščanja