natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Certain goods that are often coordinated with each other but do not fall within the scope of other similarity factors were determined by the Court to have ‘aesthetic complementarity' (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 62; 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 35-39; 11/07/2007, T443/05, Pirañam, EU:T:2007:219, § 49-50; 20/10/2011, T214/09, Cor II, EU:T:2011:612, § 32-37). 
Sodišče je za nekatero blago, ki se pogosto medsebojno usklajuje, vendar ne spada na področje uporabe drugih dejavnikov podobnosti, določilo, da ima „estetsko dopolnjevanje“ (01/03/2005, T169/03, Sissi Rossi, EU:T:2005:72, § 62; 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 35-39; 11/07/2007, T443/05, Pirañam, EU:T:2007:219, § 49-50; 20/10/2011, T214/09, Cor II, EU:T:2011:612, § 32-37).
This relationship between the goods falls outside the existing definition of complementarity. 
Razmerje med zadevnim blagom ne spada v obstoječo opredelitev dopolnjevanja.
Handbags (Class 18) and clothing (Class 25) are closely connected but not complementary, since one is not essential for the use of the other. 
Ročne torbice (razred 18) in oblačila (razred 25) so tesno povezani, vendar se ne dopolnjujejo, ker eno ni nujno potrebno za uporabo drugega.
They are merely often used in combination. 
Gre samo za to, da se pogosto uporabljajo v kombinaciji.
They are, however, similar because of the fact that they may well be distributed by the same or linked manufacturers, bought by the same public and can be found in the same sales outlets. 
Lahko pa so si podobni, če jih distribuirajo isti ali povezani proizvajalci, če jih kupuje ista javnost in če so na voljo v istih trgovinah.
3.2.4.2 Ancillary goods/services: not complementary 
Pomožno blago ali storitve: nedopolnjevalno
When certain goods and/or services only support or supplement another product or service, they are not considered to be complementary within the meaning of the caselaw. 
Če nekatero blago in/ali storitve le podpirajo ali dopolnjujejo drug proizvod ali storitev, se v zvezi z njimi ne šteje, da so dopolnjevalni v smislu sodne prakse.
Ancillary goods are typically those used for packaging (e.g. bottles, boxes, cans) or for promotion (e.g. leaflets, posters, price lists). 
Pomožno blago je običajno blago, ki se uporablja za embalažo (npr. steklenice, škatle, pločevinke) ali oglaševanje (npr. prospekti, plakati, ceniki).
Equally, goods/services offered for free in the course of a merchandising campaign are usually not similar to the primary product or service. 
Poleg tega tudi blago ali storitve, ki se brezplačno ponujajo med trženjem, običajno niso podobne osnovnemu proizvodu ali storitvi.
Organisation and conducting of exhibitions is not similar to printed matter, including event notes (Class 16), since the goods merely serve to promote and announce the specific event. 
Organizacija in izvajanje razstav ni podobno tiskovinam, vključno z obvestili o dogodkih (razred 16), ker se blago uporablja le za oglaševanje in napovedovanje specifičnega dogodka.
These goods and services are not complementary. 
Ti proizvodi in storitve niso dopolnjevalni.
Herbal nutritional supplements in Class 5 are not indispensable or important for the use of beers, mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices, syrups and other preparations for making beverages in Class 32. 
Zeliščna prehranska dopolnila iz razreda 5 niso nepogrešljiva ali pomembna za uporabo piva, mineralne in gazirane vode in drugih brezalkoholnih pijač, sadnih sokov [pija﻿ , sirupov in drugih preparatov za izdelavo pijač iz razreda 32.
Any combined consumption of those products is merely ancillary. 
Vsakršno kombinirano uživanje teh proizvodov je le pomožno.
Therefore, these goods are not complementary. 
Ti proizvodi zato niso dopolnjevalni.
Furthermore, since their purpose, distribution channels and usual producers are different, and they are not in competition, these goods are not similar (23/01/2014, T221/12, Sun fresh, EU:T:2014:25, § 84). 
Ker so poleg tega njihov namen, distribucijske poti in običajni proizvajalci različni ter ker si niso konkurenčni, si niso podobni (23/01/2014, T221/12, Sun fresh, EU:T:2014:25, § 84).
3.2.4.3 Raw materials, parts, components and fittings: not complementary 
Surovine, sestavni deli, komponente in spojni elementi: nedopolnjevalno
Lastly, where the goods concern raw materials, the complementarity criterion is not applicable in the analysis of similarity. 
Nazadnje, če se blago nanaša na surovine, se merilo dopolnjevanja v analizi podobnosti ne uporablja.
Raw materials as a significantly important basic component of an end product may be found similar to that product, but not on the basis of complementarity. 
Lahko se ugotovi, da so surovine kot bistveno pomembna osnovna komponenta končnega proizvoda podobne navedenemu proizvodu, vendar ne na podlagi dopolnjevanja.
Similar considerations apply to parts, components and fittings (see also Annex I, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Annex II, paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2). 
Podobni premisleki se uporabljajo za sestavne dele, komponente in spojne elemente (glej tudi odstavka 1 in 2 Priloge I ter odstavka 5.1 in 5.2 Priloge II).
Plastic or synthetic products used as raw or semi-finished material (in Classes 1 and 17) cannot be regarded as complementary to finished products (made from these materials in Classes 9 and 12) on the ground that the raw materials are intended to be turned into the finished products (09/04/2014, T288/12, Zytel, EU:T:2014:196, § 39). 
V zvezi s plastičnimi materiali ali sintetičnimi izdelki, ki se uporabljajo kot surovine ali polizdelki (v razredih 1 in 17), se ne more šteti, da dopolnjujejo končne proizvode (izdelane iz teh materialov v razredih 9 in 12), saj je namen surovin ta, da se preoblikujejo v končne proizvode (09/04/2014, T288/12, Zytel, EU:T:2014:196, § 39).
3.2.5 In competition 
Medsebojna konkurenčnost
Goods/services are in competition with each other when one can substitute the other. 
Blago ali storitve so si medsebojno konkurenčne, če lahko ena nadomesti drugo.
That means that they serve the same or a similar purpose and are offered to the same actual and potential customers. 
To pomeni, da imajo enak ali podoben namen ter da se zagotavljajo istim dejanskim in morebitnim strankam.
In such a case, the goods/services are also defined as ‘interchangeable' (04/02/2013, T504/11, Dignitude, EU:T:2013:57, § 42). 
V takšnem primeru so blago ali storitve opredeljene tudi kot „zamenljive“ (04/02/2013, T504/11, Dignitude, EU:T:2013:57, § 42).
Wallpaper (Class 27) and paints (Class 2) are in competition because both cover or decorate walls. 
Tapete (razred 27) in barve in vodni premazi (razred 2) so si med seboj konkurenčni, ker se oboje uporablja za prekrivanje ali oblaganje sten.
Rental of movies (Class 41) and services of a cinema (Class 41) are in competition because they both allow you to watch a film. 
Izposoja filmov (razred 41) in kino gledališča (razred 41) so si med seboj konkurenčni, saj oboje omogoča ogled filmov.
Electric shavers and razor blades (both in Class 8) are in competition because they serve the same purpose. 
Električni brivski aparati in rezila za britev (oboje razred 8) so si med seboj konkurenčni, ker imajo enak namen.
In some cases the price of goods/services in competition may differ significantly, but this fact alone does not affect the analysis of whether they are in competition with each other or not. 
V nekaterih primerih se lahko cene konkurenčnega blaga ali storitev zelo razlikujejo, vendar le to dejstvo ne vpliva na analizo, ali so si blago ali storitve konkurenčne ali ne.
Jewellery made of gold and fashion jewellery (both in Class 14) are in competition even though their price (and value) may greatly differ. 
Nakit iz zlata in bižuterija (oboje razred 14) sta si med seboj konkurenčna, čeprav se lahko njuna cena (in vrednost) zelo razlikujeta.
[4: Fashion/costume jewellery is understood to be jewellery made from inexpensive metals and imitation gems or semi-precious stones, worn for decorative purposes.] 
[4: Razume se, da je bižuterija nakit iz cenenih kovin in imitacij dragih kamnov ali poldragih kamnov, ki se nosi za okras.]
3.2.6 Distribution channel 
Distribucijska pot
Although ‘distribution channel' is not explicitly mentioned in the Canon judgment, it is widely used internationally and nationally in the assessment of whether two goods/services are similar. 
Čeprav „distribucijska pot“ v sodbi v zadevi Canon ni izrecno navedena, se na mednarodni in nacionalni ravni pogosto uporablja pri presoji, ali sta si dva proizvoda ali storitvi podobni.
It has been taken into account as an additional factor in several judgments of EU courts (21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140, § 53). 
Kot dodatni dejavnik je bila upoštevana v več sodbah sodišč EU (21/04/2005, T164/03, monBeBé, EU:T:2005:140, § 53).
The reasoning for this is as follows. 
Razlogi za to so naslednji.
If the goods/services are made available through the same distribution channels, the consumer may be more likely to assume that the goods or services are in the same market sector and are possibly manufactured by the same entity and vice versa. 
Če se blago ali storitve dajejo na voljo po istih distribucijskih poteh, lahko potrošnik z večjo verjetnostjo domneva, da so blago ali storitve iz istega tržnega sektorja in da jih mogoče zagotavlja isti subjekt in obratno.
The term ‘distribution channel' does not refer so much to the way of selling or promoting a company's product as to the place of distribution. 
Izraz „distribucijska pot“ se ne nanaša toliko na način prodaje ali oglaševanja proizvoda podjetja, ampak bolj na kraj distribucije.
For the analysis of the similarity of goods/services, the distribution system - whether direct or indirect - is not decisive. 
Distribucijski sistem, neposredni ali posredni, ni odločilen za analizo podobnosti blaga ali storitev.
The question to be asked is rather: do the goods/services have the same points of sale, or are they usually provided or offered at the same or similar places? 
Namesto tega se je treba vprašati: Ali imajo blago ali storitve ista prodajna mesta in ali se običajno zagotavljajo ali izvajajo na istih ali podobnih mestih?
However, too much emphasis should not be placed on this factor as modern supermarkets, drugstores and department stores sell goods of all kinds. 
Vendar se temu dejavniku ne bi smel pripisovati prevelik pomen, saj sodobni supermarketi, drogerije in veleblagovnice prodajajo blago vseh vrst.
The relevant public is aware that the goods sold in these places come from a multitude of independent undertakings. 
Upoštevna javnost se zaveda, da blago, ki se prodaja na teh mestih, izvira iz številnih neodvisnih podjetij.
Therefore, the point of sale is less decisive when deciding whether the relevant public considers that goods share a common origin merely because they are sold at the same outlet. 
Zato je prodajno mesto manj odločilno pri določitvi, ali upoštevna javnost meni, da ima blago skupni izvor le zato, ker se prodaja v isti trgovini.
Only where the goods in question are offered in the same section of such shops, where homogeneous goods are sold together, will this favour similarity. 
Samo če se zadevno blago daje na voljo na istem oddelku takšnih trgovin, kjer se homogeno blago prodaja skupaj, to potrjuje podobnost.
In such cases it must be possible to identify the section by its territorial and functional separation from other sections (e.g. dairy section of a supermarket, the cosmetics section of a department store). 
V takšnih primerih mora biti mogoče oddelek opredeliti z njegovo prostorsko in funkcionalno ločitvijo od drugih oddelkov (npr. oddelek z mlečnimi izdelki v supermarketu, oddelek s kozmetičnimi izdelki v veleblagovnici).
Similarly, this factor may apply in cases in which goods are sold exclusively or commonly in specialised shops. 
Podobno se lahko ta dejavnik uporablja v primerih, kadar se blago prodaja izključno ali običajno v specializiranih trgovinah.
In that event, consumers may tend to believe the origin of the goods to be the same if they are both sold in the same specialised shops and may tend to deny that mutual origin if they are not usually sold in the same shops. 
V navedenem primeru potrošniki pogosto mislijo, da je izvor dveh proizvodov isti, če se prodajata v istih specializiranih trgovinah, in pogosto zanikajo navedeni skupni izvor, če se običajno ne prodajata v istih trgovinah.
Conversely, different sales outlets may weigh against the similarity of goods. 
Nasprotno pa lahko različne trgovine pomenijo, da blago ni podobno.
Wheelchairs versus bicycles. 
Vozički za prevoz invalidov v primerjavi s kolesi.
Although both fall under vehicles in Class 12, they will not be found at the same outlets. 
Čeprav oboje spada pod vozila iz razreda 12, se ne prodaja v istih trgovinah.
Bicycles are usually sold either in specialist bicycle stores or in a retail store where sporting equipment is available. 
Kolesa se običajno prodajajo v specializiranih prodajalnah koles ali v trgovinah s športno opremo.
By contrast, the distribution channels for wheelchairs are the specialised distributors of medical equipment and devices that supply hospitals, and specialised shops where devices for disabled or physically handicapped people are sold. 
Nasprotno so distribucijske poti vozičkov za prevoz invalidov specializirani distributerji medicinske opreme in pripomočkov, ki oskrbujejo bolnišnice in specializirane trgovine, v katerih prodajajo pripomočke za invalide ali telesno prizadete osebe.
3.2.7 Relevant public 
Upoštevna javnost
The relevant public, such as the actual and potential customers of the goods and services in dispute, constitutes another factor to be dealt with in the analysis of similarity (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 3, Relevant Public and Degree of Attention). 
Upoštevna javnost, tj. dejanske in morebitne stranke, ki so kupile izpodbijano blago in storitve, je še en dejavnik, ki ga je treba obravnavati pri analizi podobnosti (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 3: Upoštevna javnost in stopnja pozornosti).
The relevant public can be composed of: 
Upoštevno javnost lahko sestavljajo:
the general public (public at large) or 
širša javnost (splošna javnost) ali
a professional public (business customers or specialised public). 
strokovna javnost (poslovne stranke ali specializirana javnost).
The relevant public does not necessarily mean the end user; for instance, the end users of food for animals in Class 31 are animals, not the relevant public. 
Upoštevna javnost ne pomeni nujno končnega uporabnika; na primer, končni uporabniki živil in krme za živali iz razreda 31 so živali, ne pa upoštevna javnost.
The relevant public in this case would be the general consumer. 
V tem primeru je upoštevna javnost splošni potrošnik.
The mere fact that the potential customers coincide does not automatically constitute an indication of similarity. 
Le dejstvo, da gre za iste morebitne stranke, samodejno ne kaže na podobnost.
The same group of customers may be in need of goods or services of the most diverse origin and nature. 
Ista skupina strank lahko potrebuje blago ali storitve, ki se kar najbolj razlikujejo po izvoru in naravi.
The fact that, for example, television sets, cars and books are bought by the same relevant public, namely the public at large, has no impact on the analysis of similarity. 
Dejstvo, da na primer televizijske sprejemnike, avtomobile in knjige kupuje ista upoštevna javnost, in sicer širša javnost, ne vpliva na analizo podobnosti.
In many cases, either one or both lists of goods/services under comparison target the public at large, but the purpose (of covering customers' needs) is different in each case. 
V številnih primerih sta en ali oba seznama blaga ali storitev, ki se primerjajo, namenjena širši javnosti, vendar je namen (izpolnjevanje strankinih potreb) v vsakem primeru drugačen.
Such circumstances weigh against similarity. 
Takšne okoliščine ne potrjujejo podobnosti.
While a coincidence in the relevant public is not necessarily an indication of similarity, largely diverging publics weigh heavily against similarity. 
Ujemanje upoštevne javnosti ne kaže nujno na podobnost, zelo različne javnosti pa močno potrjujejo podobnost.
Diverging customers can be found in the following cases, where: 
Različne stranke je mogoče ugotoviti v naslednjih primerih, kadar:
(a) the goods/services of both lists are directed at the public at large, who can, however, be clearly categorised by their different (personal) needs, ages, etc. 
so blago ali storitve iz obeh seznamov namenjene širši javnosti, ki pa jo je mogoče jasno razvrstiti po različnih (osebnih) potrebah, starosti itd.
Example: chemicals used in forestry versus solvents for the lacquer industry (Class 1). 
Primer: kemikalije, ki se uporabljajo v gozdarstvu v primerjavi s topili za industrijo lakov (razred 1).
(c) one relevant public consists of general consumers and the other of business customers. 
eno upoštevno javnost sestavljajo splošni potrošniki, drugo pa poslovne stranke.
Example: containers for contact lenses (in Class 9) versus surgical apparatus and instruments (in Class 10). 
Primer: posodice za kontaktne leče (razred 9) v primerjavi s kirurškimi aparati in instrumenti (razred 10).
3.2.8 Usual origin (producer/provider) 
Običajni izvor (proizvajalec/izvajalec)
Although the Court of Justice did not explicitly mention this factor in its Canon judgment, it follows from the general concept of likelihood of confusion that the usual origin of the goods and services is of particular importance for the analysis of similarity. 
Čeprav Sodišče tega dejavnika v sodbi v zadevi Canon ni izrecno navedlo, iz splošnega pojma verjetnost zmede izhaja, da je običajni izvor blaga in storitev zlasti pomemben pri analizi podobnosti.
As the Court has stated, it is ‘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, [that] constitutes a likelihood of confusion' (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29). 
Kot je navedlo Sodišče, „verjetnost zmede pomeni verjetnost, da bi javnost lahko mislila, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega podjetja ali, glede na primer, gospodarsko povezanih podjetij“ (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 29).
Hence, there is a strong indication of similarity when, in the mind of the relevant public, the goods/services have the same usual origin. 
Če upoštevna javnost meni, da imajo blago ali storitve isti običajni izvor, to jasno kaže na podobnost.
However, this should not be misinterpreted as turning the examination of likelihood of confusion and similarity of goods/services upside down: the finding of a likelihood of confusion depends on many other factors (such as the similarity of signs and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark) and is not exclusively determined by the usual origin, which as such is only one factor in the analysis of the similarity of goods/services. 
Vendar se to ne sme razlagati napačno, kot da bi s tem preizkus verjetnosti zmede in podobnosti blaga ali storitev postavili na glavo: ugotovitev verjetnosti zmede je odvisna od številnih drugih dejavnikov (kot sta podobnost znakov in razločevalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke) in se ne določi izključno z običajnim izvorom, ki je kot tak samo eden od dejavnikov pri analizi podobnosti blaga ali storitev.
A finding that consumers will not be confused about the origin of the goods/services is not an argument appropriate to the comparison of goods/services. 
Ugotovitev, da potrošniki ne bodo zmedeni glede izvora blaga ali storitev, ni utemeljitev, ki bi bila ustrezna za primerjavo blaga ali storitev.
This finding should be mentioned in the overall assessment of likelihood of confusion. 
To ugotovitev bi bilo treba navesti v celoviti presoji verjetnosti zmede.
Origin, in this context, relates mainly to the manufacturing sector (industry) or kind of undertaking producing the goods or offering the services in question rather than to the identity of the producer. 
V tem okviru se izvor nanaša predvsem na proizvodni sektor (gospodarsko panogo) ali vrsto podjetja, ki proizvaja zadevno blago ali izvaja zadevne storitve, ne pa na identiteto proizvajalca.
The ‘origin' is not merely defined by the actual place of production/provision (e.g. factory, workshop, institute or laboratory) but primarily by taking into consideration who manages and/or controls the production/provision of the goods/services. 
„Izvor“ ni opredeljen le z dejanskim krajem proizvodnje/izvajanja (npr. tovarna, delavnica, inštitut ali laboratorij), temveč predvsem z upoštevanjem, kdo upravlja in/ali nadzoruje proizvodnjo/zagotavljanje blaga ali storitev.
In other words, the question to be asked is: who is responsible for manufacturing the product or providing the service? 
Z drugimi besedami, treba se je vprašati: Kdo je odgovoren za izdelavo proizvoda ali izvajanje storitve?
In the ELS judgment, the Court held that even goods and services can have the same origin if it is common for the same type of company to produce/provide both. 
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi ELS odločilo, da imajo lahko tudi blago in storitve isti izvor, če je običajno, da jih proizvaja/zagotavlja podjetje iste vrste.
Educational textbooks (Class 16) were considered to have the same origin as provision of correspondence courses (Class 41) since ‘undertakings offering any kind of course often hand out those products to pupils as support learning materials' (23/10/2002, T388/00, ELS, EU:T:2002:260, § 55). 
Za učbenike (razred 16) se je štelo, da imajo isti izvor kot dopisno izobraževanje (razred 41), ker „podjetja, ki izvajajo kakršen koli tečaj, navedene proizvode pogosto izročijo učencem kot pomožno učno gradivo“ (23/10/2002, T388/00, ELS, EU:T:2002:260, § 55).
The criterion ‘usual origin' has to be applied in a restrictive way in order not to dilute it. 
Merilo „običajni izvor“ je treba uporabljati omejeno, da se ne razvodeni.
If all kinds of goods/services deriving from one large (multinational) company or holding were found to have the same origin, this factor would lose its significance. 
Če bi se za vse vrste blaga ali storitev, ki izvirajo iz ene velike (multinacionalne) družbe ali holdinga, ugotovilo, da imajo isti izvor, ta dejavnik ne bi bil več pomemben.
Cosmetics (Class 3) and foodstuffs (Classes 29 to 31) may be produced under the umbrella of one company but this does not reflect common trade customs, according to which these types of goods have different producers, each belonging to a specific industry. 
Kozmetični izdelki (razred 3) in živila in krma (razredi od 29 do 31) se lahko proizvajajo pod okriljem enega podjetja, vendar to ne izraža splošnega poslovnega običaja, v skladu s katerim ima tovrstno blago različne proizvajalce, od katerih vsak spada v posebno gospodarsko panogo.
3.2.8.1 Features defining a common origin 
Značilnosti, ki določajo skupni izvor
When determining the usual origin of a product/service the following features might be relevant. 
Za določitev običajnega izvora proizvoda ali storitve so lahko ustrezne naslednje značilnosti.
Manufacturing sites 
Proizvodni obrati
Varnishes, lacquers, colorants and mordants (Class 2) are typically produced by the same production enterprises, normally specialised chemical companies. 
Lake, firneže, barvila in lužila (razred 2) običajno proizvajajo ista proizvodna podjetja, navadno specializirana kemična podjetja.
The place of production can be a strong indicator that the goods/services in question come from the same source. 
Kraj proizvodnje je lahko močan pokazatelj, da zadevno blago ali storitve izvirajo iz istega vira.
However, while the same manufacturing sites suggest a common usual origin, different manufacturing sites do not exclude that the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings. 
Isti proizvodni obrati kažejo na skupni običajni izvor, različni proizvodni obrati pa ne izključujejo možnosti, da blago izvira iz istega podjetja ali gospodarsko povezanih podjetij.