natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.2 Distinctive elements of the marks 
Razlikovalni elementi znamk
In the Sabèl judgment (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23), the Court held that ‘… (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, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components'. 
V sodbi v zadevi Sabèl (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23), je Sodišče menilo, da „[…] mora celovita presoja vizualne, zvočne ali pojmovne podobnosti zadevnih znamk temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, ki ga ti ustvarjata, pri čemer je treba upoštevati zlasti njune razlikovalne in prevladujoče elemente“.
Therefore, the degree of distinctiveness of the various components of composite marks is an important criterion that must be considered within the trade mark comparison. 
Stopnja razlikovalnega učinka različnih sestavnih delov sestavljenih znamk je torej pomembno merilo, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri primerjavi blagovnih znamk.
When assessing the similarity of signs, the degree of distinctiveness of their coinciding and differing components should be established because distinctiveness is one of the factors that determine the importance of those elements in each sign and, accordingly, the impact of the commonalities/differences in the overall impression of the signs. 
Pri presoji podobnosti znakov je treba določiti stopnjo podobnosti sestavnih delov, ki se ujemajo, in različnih sestavnih delov, saj je razlikovalni učinek eden od dejavnikov, s katerimi se določi pomembnost teh elementov v posameznem znaku in s tem vpliv, ki ga imajo skupne točke ali razlike na celotni vtis znakov.
A coincidence in a distinctive element and/or a difference in an element with no or little distinctiveness tend to increase the degree of similarity. 
Če se razlikovalni element ujema in/ali če se element z nič ali le malo razlikovalnega učinka razlikuje, se stopnja podobnosti navadno zviša.
A difference in a distinctive element tends to decrease the degree of similarity. 
Če se razlikovalni element razlikuje, se stopnja podobnosti navadno zniža.
The same applies where the coincidence found concerns an element with no or reduced distinctiveness. 
Enako velja, kadar je ugotovljeno ujemanje v elementu, ki nima razlikovalnega učinka ali ima zmanjšan razlikovalni učinek.
Consequently, although trade mark proprietors commonly use non-distinctive or weak elements as part of a trade mark to inform consumers about certain characteristics of the relevant goods or services, it may be more difficult to establish that the public may be confused as to origin due to similarities that solely pertain to non-distinctive or weak elements. 
Posledično je morda, čeprav imetniki blagovnih znamk pogosto uporabljajo opisne, nerazlikovalne ali šibke elemente kot sestavni del blagovne znamke za obveščanje potrošnikov o nekaterih značilnostih zadevnega blaga ali storitev, težje določiti, da bi lahko bila javnost zmedena glede izvora zaradi podobnosti, ki se nanašajo izključno na nerazlikovalne ali šibke elemente.
Therefore, in principle, the distinctiveness of all components of both the earlier and of the contested mark should be examined. 
Zato je treba načeloma proučiti razlikovalni učinek vseh sestavnih delov prejšnje in izpodbijane znamke.
It is important to distinguish between the analysis of the distinctive character of (i) the component of a mark and (ii) the earlier mark as a whole. 
Pomembno je razlikovati med analizo razlikovalnega učinka (i) sestavnega dela znamke in (ii) prejšnje znamke kot celote.
Analysing the components determines whether the signs in conflict coincide in a component that is distinctive (and therefore important), non-distinctive or weak (therefore being of less importance in the trade mark comparison). 
Z analizo sestavnih delov se določi, ali se sovpadajoča znaka ujemata v sestavnem delu, ki je razlikovalen (in s tem pomemben), nerazlikovalen ali šibek (zaradi česar je manj pomemben za primerjavo blagovnih znamk).
The analysis of the earlier mark as a whole determines the scope of protection afforded to that mark, which is a separate consideration within the likelihood of confusion, independent from the comparison of the trade marks (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark). 
Z analizo prejšnje znamke kot celote se določi obseg varstva, podeljenega tej znamki, kar je ločen vidik v okviru verjetnosti zmede, ki je neodvisen od primerjave blagovnih znamk (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
However, if either mark consists of one element only, the decision in the part dealing with the comparison of signs will establish whether the distinctiveness of that element is normal or lower than normal. 
Če pa prejšnjo znamko sestavlja le en element, se v delu odločbe, ki obravnava primerjavo znakov, določi, ali je razlikovalni učinek tega elementa običajen ali manjši od običajnega.
In this case, it cannot be found that the element lacks distinctiveness. 
V tem primeru ni mogoče ugotoviti, da element nima razlikovalnega učinka.
Regarding the earlier mark, this would amount to denying its distinctive character (for details, see paragraph 3.2.3.4 below). 
V zvezi s prejšnjo znamko bi se s tem zanikal njen razlikovalni učinek (za podrobnosti glej odstavek 3.2.3.4 v nadaljevanju).
As regards the contested sign, this would mean that a new examination of absolute grounds would have to be carried out. 
V zvezi z izpodbijanim znakom bi to pomenilo, da je treba opraviti nov preizkus absolutnih razlogov.
3.2.1 What is a component of a sign? 
Kaj je sestavni del znaka?
The Court has not defined what is to be regarded as a ‘component' or ‘element' of a sign. 
Sodišče še ni opredelilo, kaj se šteje za „sestavni del“ ali „element“ znaka.
It is easy to identify components when a sign is visually divided into different parts (e.g. separate figurative and verbal components). 
Opredelitev sestavnih delov je preprosta, če je znak vizualno razdeljen na različne dele (na primer na ločene figurativne in besedne sestavne dele).
However, the term ‘component' encompasses more than these visual distinctions. 
Vendar izraz sestavni del vključuje več kot takšne vizualne razlike.
Ultimately, the perception of the sign by the relevant public is decisive and a component exists wherever the relevant public perceives one. 
Nazadnje, zaznavanje znaka je pri upoštevni javnosti odločilno, sestavni del obstaja, kadar ga zaznava upoštevna javnost.
For example, the relevant public will often regard one-word signs as being composed of different components, in particular, where one part has a clear and evident meaning while the rest is meaningless or has a different meaning (e.g. in the mark EUROFIRT, ‘Euro' will be widely understood as referring to Europe whereas ‘Firt' is meaningless, giving this word mark two components: ‘Euro' and ‘Firt'). 
Na primer, upoštevna javnost enobesedne znake pogosto šteje za sestavljene iz različnih sestavnih delov, zlasti če ima en sestavni del jasen in očiten pomen, medtem ko so drugi brez pomena ali pa imajo drugačen pomen (na primer v znamki EUROFIRT se „Euro“ na splošno razume, kot da se nanaša na Evropo, „Firt“ pa je brez pomena, besedna znamka ima tako dva sestavna dela: „Euro“ in „Firt“).
In such cases, the elements of one-word signs could be regarded as ‘components' in the terminology of the Court. 
V takšnih primerih bi se lahko elementi enobesednih znakov v terminologiji Sodišča šteli za sestavne dele.
However, words should not be artificially dissected. 
Besed ne bi smeli umetno razčlenjevati.
Dissection is not appropriate unless the relevant public will clearly perceive the components in question as separate elements. 
Razčlenjevanje ni primerno, če upoštevna javnost sestavnih delov ne bi jasno zaznavala kot ločenih elementov.
A case-by-case assessment is required as to whether the division of a sign into components is artificial (e.g. whether splitting the word ‘LIMEON' for fruit into the components ‘LIME' and ‘ON' would be artificial or not) (see also paragraphs 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.5.1 below). 
Za vsak primer posebej je treba presoditi, ali je razdelitev znaka na sestavne dele umetna (na primer, ali bi bila razdelitev besede „LIMEON“ za sadje na sestavna dela „LIME“ in „ON“ umetna ali ne) (glej tudi odstavka 3.4.3.2 in 3.4.5.1 v nadaljevanju).
3.2.2 Examination of distinctiveness 
Preizkus razlikovalnega učinka
3.2.2.1 What is distinctiveness? 
Kaj je razlikovalni učinek?
The Court has defined distinctiveness in the following manner: 
Sodišče je razlikovalni učinek opredelilo tako:
In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, the national court must make an overall assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings (emphasis added). 
Nacionalno sodišče mora za določitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke in posledično za presojo, ali ima močan razlikovalni učinek, splošno presoditi večjo ali manjšo sposobnost znamke, da blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, označuje kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, in je torej namenjena razlikovanju tega blaga ali storitev od tistih iz drugih podjetij (dodan poudarek)
Importantly, distinctive character is a matter of degree and, when analysing distinctiveness, a sliding scale applies whereby a component of a sign can lack distinctiveness entirely, be fully distinctive (to a normal degree) or be at any point in-between. 
Poudariti je treba, da je pri razlikovalnem učinku pomembna stopnja, zato se pri analizi razlikovalnega učinka uporabi drseča lestvica, po kateri je lahko sestavni del znaka brez kakršnega koli razlikovalnega učinka, je povsem razlikovalen (do običajne stopnje) ali pa je nekje vmes.
At this point, it must be noted that it is not, in principle, the Office's practice to recognise a higher than average degree of inherent distinctiveness for individual components of signs. 
Na tem mestu je treba omeniti, da Urad načeloma ne priznava nadpovprečne stopnje svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka posameznih sestavnih delov znakov.
Any higher degree of distinctiveness (enhanced distinctiveness, reputation) is related to actual recognition of the mark by the relevant public, and is eventually examined only with respect to the earlier mark (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 5, Distinctiveness of the Earlier Mark). 
Morebitna višja stopnja razlikovalnega učinka (povečani razlikovalni učinek, ugled) je povezana s tem, da jo dejansko priznava upoštevna javnost, in se po potrebi preizkusi le glede na prejšnjo znamko (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 5: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke).
A mark or, by analogy, its components will not have a higher degree of distinctive character just because there is no conceptual link to the relevant goods and services (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H / Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71). 
Znamka in s tem njeni sestavni deli nimajo višje stopnje razlikovalnega učinka samo zato, ker niso pojmovno povezani z zadevnim blagom in storitvami (16/05/2013, C379/12 P, H / Eich, EU:C:2013:317, § 71).
An element of a sign is not distinctive if it is exclusively descriptive of the goods and services themselves or of the characteristics of those goods and services (such as their quality, value, purpose, provenance, etc.) and/or if its use in trade is common for those goods and services. 
Element znaka ni razlikovalen, če le opisuje blago in storitve ali njihove značilnosti (kot so njihova kakovost, vrednost, namen, izvor itd.) in/ali če je njegova uporaba v gospodarskem prometu značilna za zadevno blago in storitve.
Similarly, an element of a sign that is generic (such as a common shape of a container or a common colour) will also lack distinctiveness. 
Podobno je brez razlikovalnega učinka tudi element znaka, ki je generičen (kot na primer običajna oblika zabojnika ali običajna barva).
An element of a sign may be distinctive to a low degree (weak) if it refers to (but it is not exclusively descriptive of) characteristics of the goods and services. 
Element znaka ima lahko nižjo stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (je šibek), če se nanaša na (vendar ne le opisuje) značilnosti blaga in storitev.
If the allusion to the goods and services is sufficiently imaginative or clever, the mere fact that there is an allusion to characteristics of the goods might not materially affect distinctiveness, as in the following examples. 
Če je namigovanje na blago in storitve dovolj domiselno ali bistroumno, samo dejstvo, da namiguje na značilnosti blaga, nima nujno pomembnega vpliva na razlikovalni učinek, kot v naslednjih primerih.
‘Billionaire' for gaming services is allusive in a manner that would affect distinctiveness, because it implies, for instance, that you may become a billionaire. 
Beseda „Billionaire“ za igre na srečo je namigovalna na tak način, da bi vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, saj na primer pomeni, da lahko potrošnik postane milijarder.
‘Billy O'Naire', which sounds identical to ‘billionaire' in English, would be allusive for gaming services as a clever word-play on Irish names, in a manner that would not affect distinctiveness in a material way; it would be considered to have a ‘normal' degree of distinctiveness. 
Besedna zveza „Billy O'Naire“, ki se v angleščini sliši enako kot „billionaire“, pa bi na igre na srečo namigovala kot domiselna besedna igra, ki se nanaša na irska imena, ne da bi pomembno vplivala na razlikovalni učinek, zaradi česar bi se štelo, da ima običajno stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
An element of a sign that is neither non-distinctive nor weakly distinctive possesses a ‘normal' degree of inherent distinctiveness. 
Element znaka, ki ni ne nerazlikovalen ne šibko razlikovalen, ima „običajno“ stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka.
This means that the element of a sign in question is fully distinctive, in the sense that its capacity to identify the goods and services covered by the mark as coming from a particular undertaking is not in any way diminished or impaired. 
To pomeni, da je zadevni element znaka v celoti razlikovalen v smislu, da njegova sposobnost označevanja blaga in storitev, ki jih znamka zajema, kot blago ali storitve, ki izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, nikakor ni zmanjšana ali oslabljena.
One of the most frequent arguments brought by applicants is that the earlier trade mark or one of its components has a low distinctive character given that there are many trade marks that consist of, or include, the element in question. 
Prijavitelji najpogosteje navajajo trditev, da ima prejšnja blagovna znamka ali kateri od njenih sestavnih delov majhen razlikovalni učinek, ker je veliko blagovnih znamk, ki so sestavljene iz zadevnega elementa ali ga vključujejo.
Where this argument is supported only by the applicant referring to trade mark registrations, the Office takes the view that the existence of several trade mark registrations is not per se particularly conclusive, as it does not necessarily reflect the situation in the market. 
Če je ta trditev podprta samo s sklicevanjem prijavitelja na registracije blagovnih znamk, Urad zavzame stališče, da obstoj registracij več blagovnih znamk sam po sebi ni posebno odločilen, ker morda ne izraža stanja na trgu.
In other words, on the basis of registered data only, it cannot be assumed that all the trade marks have been effectively used. 
Z drugimi besedami, samo na podlagi registriranih podatkov ni mogoče predpostavljati, da se vse blagovne znamke dejansko uporabljajo.
It follows that the evidence submitted must demonstrate that consumers have been exposed to widespread use of, and become accustomed to, trade marks that include the element in question in order to prove that the element in question has a low degree of distinctive character (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79). 
Zato je treba predložiti dokaze, da so bili potrošniki izpostavljeni zelo razširjeni uporabi blagovnih znamk, ki vključujejo zadevni element, in da so se nanje navadili, s čimer bi se dokazalo, da ima zadevni element nizko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka (13/04/2011, T358/09, Toro de Piedra, EU:T:2011:174, § 35; 08/03/2013, T498/10, David Mayer, EU:T:2013:117, § 77-79).
3.2.2.2 Relevant point in time 
Upoštevni trenutek
The inherent distinctiveness of the components should be assessed at the time of the decision. 
Svojstveni razlikovalni učinek sestavnih delov bi bilo treba presoditi ob izdaji odločbe.
Establishing the precise point in time for evaluating distinctiveness is important because the degree of distinctiveness of the marks is not constant, but varies depending on the perception of the public. 
Natančna določitev trenutka za presojo razlikovalnega učinka je pomembna, saj stopnja razlikovalnega učinka znamk ni stalna, ampak se spreminja glede na zaznavanje javnosti.
This perception may change not only due to the nature of the use of the specific mark, but also due to other factors (all these elements can only be considered from the evidence submitted by the parties). 
To zaznavanje se lahko spreminja ne samo zaradi vrste uporabe določene znamke, temveč tudi zaradi drugih dejavnikov (vse te elemente je mogoče proučiti samo na podlagi dokazov, ki jih predložijo stranke).
For instance, the public's perception may change where a mark or some component thereof has been used in the meantime in a similar way by various businesses/traders in the relevant market sector. 
Na primer, zaznavanje javnosti se lahko spremeni, če so znamko ali kateri njen sestavni del medtem podobno uporabljala različna podjetja/gospodarski subjekti v upoštevnem tržnem sektorju.
This common use of a sign can erode the uniqueness of a sign and, consequently, its ability to indicate the origin of the goods and services. 
Takšna splošna uporaba znaka lahko zmanjša njegovo edinstvenost in posledično njegovo zmožnost označevanja izvora blaga in storitev.
In this context, it is important to assess carefully whether the situation described exists in all the relevant geographical areas and with regard to all the relevant goods and services. 
V zvezi s tem je pomembno skrbno presoditi, ali opisano stanje obstaja na vseh upoštevnih geografskih območjih ter za vse upoštevno blago in storitve.
As an example, due to technological changes in the field of IT, there has been an increased number of instances where components such as ‘I' (internet), ‘E' (electronic) and ‘M' (mobile) are used adjoined to a meaningful word. 
Zaradi tehnoloških sprememb na področju informacijske tehnologije se je na primer povečalo število primerov, v katerih se poleg pomenske besede uporabljajo sestavni deli, kot so „I“ (internet), „E“ (elektronski) in „M“ (mobilni).
In the context of electronic communications, they are currently found to be descriptive (19/04/2004, R 758/20022, ITUNES, § 11), whereas previously they were considered distinctive. 
Zdaj se zanje ugotavlja, da so v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijami opisni (19/04/2004, R 758/20022, ITUNES, § 11), prej pa so se šteli za razlikovalne.
3.2.2.3 Relevant goods and services 
Upoštevno blago in storitve
The assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the components is carried out only for the goods or services that are identical or similar, that is: 
Presoja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka sestavnih delov se izvede samo za blago ali storitve, ki so enaki ali podobni, kar pomeni, da se:
the earlier mark is assessed with respect to the registered goods and services that are identical or similar to the contested goods and services; 
prejšnja znamka presodi v zvezi z registriranim blagom in storitvami, ki so enaki ali podobni izpodbijanemu blagu in storitvam,
the contested trade mark is assessed with respect to the contested goods or services that are identical or similar to those of the earlier mark. 
izpodbijana blagovna znamka presodi v zvezi z izpodbijanim blagom ali storitvami, ki so enaki ali podobni blagu ali storitvam prejšnje znamke.
3.2.2.4 General principles of examination of distinctiveness 
Splošna načela za preizkušanje razlikovalnega učinka
The examination of inherent distinctiveness is carried out in two phases: first, it should be determined whether the relevant public recognises semantic content of the element at issue and, second, whether or not the semantic content perceived is related to and/or commonly used in trade for the identical or similar goods and services. 
Preizkus svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka se izvede v dveh fazah: v prvi je treba določiti, ali upoštevna javnost prepoznava semantično vsebino zadevnega sestavnega dela, v drugi pa, ali je zaznana semantična vsebina povezana z gospodarskim prometom in/ali se pri tem pogosto uporablja za enako ali podobno blago in storitve.
As regards the first phase, that is to say, whether the relevant public recognises a semantic content, the inherent distinctiveness of the components of the marks has to be evaluated by taking into account (each of) the relevant geographical area(s) and their different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. 
Kar zadeva prvo fazo, v kateri se določi, ali upoštevna javnost prepoznava semantično vsebino, je treba svojstveni razlikovalni učinek sestavnih delov znamk presoditi tako, da se upošteva (vsako) upoštevno geografsko območje ter njihova različna jezikovna in kulturna okolja.
As such, the public in some parts of the relevant territory might not understand the descriptive content that a mark may have in other parts. 
Javnost v nekaterih delih upoštevnega ozemlja morda ne razume opisne vsebine, ki jo znamka lahko ima v drugih delih.
In these cases, the distinctiveness of the mark in one area is not affected by the fact that it may be perceived differently in other areas. 
V takšnih primerih na razlikovalni učinek znamke na enem območju ne vpliva drugačno zaznavanje na drugih območjih.
Below is an example of a case where linguistic considerations were vital to the issue of distinctiveness. 
V nadaljevanju je naveden primer, v katerem so bili jezikovni vidiki ključni za vprašanje razlikovalnega učinka.
The second phase consists of correlating any meaning that the public perceives in the components with the identical or similar goods and services in dispute. 
Druga faza obsega primerjavo vseh pomenov, ki jih javnost zaznava v sestavnih delih, z enakim ali podobnim spornim blagom in storitvami.
If the relevant public perceives this meaning as descriptive, laudatory or allusive (in a manner that materially affects distinctiveness), etc. for these goods and services, then its distinctiveness will be diminished accordingly. 
Če upoštevna javnost takšen pomen zaznava kot opisen, poveličevalen ali namigovalen (na način, ki pomembno vpliva na razlikovalni učinek) itd. za to blago in storitve, se bo njen razlikovalni učinek ustrezno zmanjšal.
It may be necessary to distinguish between the various goods and services involved because the finding of no or limited distinctiveness might relate to only part of those goods and services. 
Pri tem je morda treba razlikovati med različnim zadevnim blagom in storitvami, ker se lahko ugotovitev, da razlikovalni učinek ne obstaja ali da je omejen, nanaša samo na del navedenega blaga in storitev.
In the event that no meaning can be attributed to a verbal element, it cannot be descriptive, laudatory or allusive in any way and as such is considered distinctive. 
Če besednemu elementu ni mogoče pripisati nobenega pomena, ne more nikakor biti opisen, poveličevalen ali namigovalen in se zato šteje kot razlikovalen.