natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.4.3.3 The semantic content of misspelt words 
Semantična vsebina napačno zapisanih besed
It is not necessary for a word to be written properly for its semantic content to be perceived by the relevant public. 
Ni nujno, da je beseda napisana pravilno, da bi upoštevna javnost zaznala njeno semantično vsebino.
For example, while the written word ‘XTRA' is visually not the same as the ‘correct' word ‘EXTRA', because it is aurally identical to it, the concept of the ‘correct' word (extra) will normally be transferred to the misspelt word (xtra). 
Na primer, čeprav se napisana beseda „XTRA“ vizualno razlikuje od „pravilne“ besede „EXTRA“, bo pomen pravilne besede (extra) običajno prenesen na napačno zapisano besedo (xtra), ker ji je ta zvočno enaka.
The following examples illustrate this point. 
To je ponazorjeno z naslednjimi primeri:
Examiners should take care when attaching meaning to a misspelt word: the meaning is not likely to be transferable when the words are not (aurally) identical and/or when the misspelt element cannot be perceived independently. 
Preizkuševalci morajo biti posebej pozorni, ko pripisujejo pomen napačno zapisani besedi: pomena verjetno ne bo mogoče prenesti, če besedi nista (zvočno) enaki in/ali če napačno zapisanega elementa ni mogoče zaznati neodvisno.
3.4.3.4 The semantic content of names and surnames 
Semantična vsebina imen in priimkov
The General Court has accepted that names have a concept. 
Splošno sodišče je potrdilo, da imajo imena pojmovno vsebino.
Therefore, a conceptual comparison must be made when conflicting signs are composed of names (see examples below). 
Kadar sta sovpadajoča znaka sestavljena iz imen, je torej treba opraviti pojmovno primerjavo (glej spodnje primere).
Nevertheless, there are few situations where the fact that a trade mark contains a family name has conceptual significance. 
Kljub temu je malo primerov, pri katerih je dejstvo, da blagovna znamka vsebuje priimek, pomembno na pojmovni ravni.
In particular, conceptual similarity cannot result from the mere fact that both trade marks contain a name, even the same kind of name (Celtic family name, Dutch name, etc.). 
Pojmovna podobnost zlasti ne more izhajati iz dejstva, da obe blagovni znamki vsebujeta ime ali celo isto vrsto imena (keltski priimek, nizozemski priimek itd.).
The mere fact that two names can be grouped under a common generic term of ‘names' does not constitute conceptual similarity. 
Samo dejstvo, da je mogoče imeni uvrstiti pod skupni splošni izraz „imena“, ne pomeni pojmovne podobnosti.
For example, if FRANK and MIKE are compared: the fact that both are names would not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity; this is because the public is not likely to make the conceptual link between the two words. 
Na primer, če primerjamo imeni FRANK in MIKE: dejstvo, da sta obe besedi imeni, nas ne bi pripeljalo do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, ker ni verjetno, da bi javnost besedi pojmovno povezovala.
By contrast, the fact that FRANK and FRANKIE are the same name but the latter is the diminutive of the former is relevant and should lead to a finding of conceptual similarity. 
V nasprotju s tem je dejstvo, da sta FRANK in FRANKIE isto ime, le da je zadnjenavedeno pomanjševalnica prvega, pomembno in bi nas moralo pripeljati do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti.
The fact that a trade mark contains a name may have an impact on conceptual comparison in the following situations. 
Dejstvo, da blagovna znamka vsebuje ime, lahko vpliva na pojmovno primerjavo v naslednjih primerih:
When it is the name/surname of a well-known person (CERVANTES, MARCO POLO, PICASSO) 
kadar je to ime/priimek znane osebe (CERVANTES, MARCO POLO, PICASSO):
Where the two marks represent the same name but in different versions (FRANK, with FRANKIE as a diminutive) or languages 
kadar znamki ponazarjata isto ime, vendar v različnih različicah (FRANK in FRANKIE kot pomanjševalnica) ali jezikih:
When both trade marks can be understood as referring to the same person, especially when the earlier trade mark is composed solely of a family name 
kadar je mogoče obe blagovni znamki razumeti tako, kot da se nanašata na isto osebo, zlasti kadar je prejšnja blagovna znamka sestavljena samo iz priimka.
This could be the case when one name is more important than the other. 
To se lahko zgodi, kadar je eno ime pomembnejše od drugega:
If the name contained in the trade marks is meaningful in some languages, the coincidence in this meaning may lead to conceptual similarity 
če ima ime, ki ga vsebujejo blagovne znamke, v nekaterih jezikih pomen, lahko ujemanje v tem pomenu vodi do pojmovne podobnosti:
3.4.3.5 The semantic content of figurative signs, symbols, shapes and colours 
Semantična vsebina figurativnih znakov, simbolov, oblik in barv
The concepts of marks consisting of or containing figurative elements and marks consisting of shapes (three-dimensional marks) will be what those figurative elements or shapes represent, such as in the following examples. 
Pojmovno vsebino znamk, ki so sestavljene iz figurativnih elementov ali jih vsebujejo, in tistih, ki so sestavljene iz oblik (tridimenzionalne znamke), določa to, kar navedeni figurativni elementi ali oblike ponazarjajo, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
Consequently, when a mark has both words and images, all concepts have to be assessed. 
Kadar znamka vsebuje besede in slike, je treba torej presoditi vse pojme.
Finally, the semantic content (concept) of colour marks per se is that of the colour they reproduce. 
Nazadnje, semantična vsebina (pojem) barvnih znamk je vsebina barve, ki jo prikazujejo.
3.4.3.6 The semantic content of numbers and letters 
Semantična vsebina številk in črk
The concept of a word representing a number is the figure it identifies, such as in the examples below. 
Pojmovna vsebina besede, ki ponazarja številko, je številka, ki jo ta vsebina opredeljuje, kot je prikazano v spodnjih primerih.
The concept of a figure is the number it identifies, unless it suggests another concept such as a specific year. 
Pojmovna vsebina številke je število, ki ga ta vsebina opredeljuje, razen če ne namiguje na drug pojem, kot je določeno leto.
The Office follows the approach that single letters can have an independent conceptual meaning. 
Urad uporablja pristop, v skladu s katerim lahko imajo posamezne črke samostojni pojmovni pomen.
The Court has confirmed this approach (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 56; appealed 21/03/2013, C341/12 P, G, EU:C:2013:206), finding conceptual identity where both trade marks can be seen as the same letter. 
Sodišče je ta pristop potrdilo (08/05/2012, T101/11, G, EU:T:2012:223, § 56, in pritožba, obravnavana v sodbi z dne 21/03/2013, C341/12 P, G, EU:C:2013:206), pri čemer je ugotovilo pojmovno enakost, kadar je mogoče obe blagovni znamki zaznati kot isto črko.
3.4.3.7 The semantic content of geographical names 
Semantična vsebina zemljepisnih imen
The names of cities, villages, regions and other geographic areas evoke a concept that may be relevant for conceptual comparison if it is likely that the relevant public will recognise them as such. 
Imena mest, vasi, regij in drugih zemljepisnih območij izražajo pojem, ki je lahko upošteven za pojmovno primerjavo, če je verjetno, da bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala ta imena kot taka.
Usually, the general public in the European Union is familiar with the names of capitals and bigger cities as well as holiday or travel destinations. 
Širša javnost v Evropski uniji običajno pozna imena glavnih in večjih mest ter počitniških ali turističnih krajev.
If the perception of the public in a particular Member State is relevant, knowledge of the names of small cities and towns in that country can also be assumed. 
Če je pomembno zaznavanje javnosti v neki državi članici, je mogoče domnevati tudi poznavanje imen manjših mest in krajev v tej državi.
A lack of evidence or indication that the relevant public recognises the geographical name does not influence the conceptual comparison, as in the following example. 
Neobstoj dokaza ali navedbe dejstva, da upoštevna javnost pozna zemljepisno ime, ne vpliva na pojmovno primerjavo, kot je to prikazano v naslednjem primeru.
3.4.3.8 The semantic content of onomatopoeias 
Semantična vsebina onomatopejskih izrazov
The analysis of the semantic content of onomatopoeias follows the general rules for conceptual comparison: their concept will be that depicted by the onomatopoeia in question, provided it can be established that it will be recognised as such by the relevant public. 
Pri analizi semantične vsebine onomatopejskih izrazov se upoštevajo splošna pravila za pojmovno primerjavo: njihova pojmovna vsebina bo vsebina, ki jo ponazarja zadevni onomatopejski izraz, če je mogoče dokazati, da ga bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala kot takega.
For instance, ‘WOOF WOOF' represents the bark of a dog for English speakers; ‘MUUU' represents the mooing of a cow for Spanish speakers. 
Na primer, WOOF WOOF ponazarja pasji lajež za angleške govorce in MUUU kravje mukanje za španske govorce.
In some cases, the context in which the onomatopoeia will be used can be decisive for establishing whether the relevant public will recognise its meaning. 
V nekaterih primerih so lahko okoliščine, v katerih se bo uporabljal onomatopejski izraz, odločilne za to, ali bo upoštevna javnost prepoznala pomen tega izraza.
For instance, in the following case, the Board considered that the relevant public would not interpret the sign ‘PSS' as onomatopoeia in the context of information technology services. 
V naslednjem primeru je odbor menil, da upoštevna javnost znaka PSS v okviru storitev informacijske tehnologije ne bo razumela kot onomatopejski izraz.
3.4.4 How to make a conceptual comparison 
Kako opraviti pojmovno primerjavo
In essence, when making a conceptual comparison, first it has to be determined if the signs have a concept in accordance with the principles described in the previous paragraph. 
Pri pojmovni primerjavi je treba v bistvu najprej ugotoviti, ali imajo znaki pojmovno vsebino v skladu z načeli, opisanimi v predhodnem razdelku.
(i) If both signs have a concept, the conceptual comparison can lead to three possible outcomes. 
Če jo oba znaka imata, ima lahko pojmovna primerjava enega od naslednjih treh možnih izidov.
If the signs as a whole refer to the same concept, they are conceptually identical. 
Če se znaka kot celoti nanašata na isti pojem, sta pojmovno enaka.
If the signs refer to similar concepts, they are conceptually similar. 
Če se znaka nanašata na podobna pojma, sta pojmovno podobna.
If both signs have a meaning and those refer to different concepts, they are conceptually dissimilar/not similar. 
Če imata oba znaka pomen, ki pa se nanaša na različna pojma, sta pojmovno različna oziroma nista podobna.
(ii) If only one of the signs evokes a concept, the signs are not conceptually similar. 
Če pojmovno vsebino izraža samo eden od znakov, znaka pojmovno nista podobna.
On this point, the Office follows the judgment of 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25. 
Pri tem Urad sledi sodbi z dne 12/01/2006, C361/04 P, Picaro, EU:C:2006:25.
Although there is some case-law, such as the judgment of 22/10/2015, T309/13, ELMA / ELMEX, EU:T:2015:792, which came to the conclusion that ‘it was not possible to make a conceptual comparison', even though only one of the signs evoked a concept, these cases cannot be considered as a prevailing trend. 
Čeprav obstaja tudi sodna praksa, kot je sodba z dne 22/10/2015, T309/13, ELMA / ELMEX, EU:T:2015:792, v kateri se je ugotovilo, da pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča, čeprav je pojmovno vsebino izražal le eden od znakov, taki primeri ne morejo šteti kot prevladujoči trend.
It follows that the term ‘not similar' encompasses two scenarios, namely, when both signs have a concept albeit distinct or when only one of them has a concept. 
Iz tega izhaja, da izraz, da znaka „nista podobna“, zajema dvoje primerov, in sicer primere, v katerih imata oba znaka pojmovno vsebino, ki pa je različna, in primere, v katerih ima pojmovno vsebino le eden od znakov.
However the term ‘dissimilar' is reserved only for the case where both signs have a concept albeit distinct. 
Izraz „različen“ pa je omejen le na primere, v katerih imata oba znaka pojmovno vsebino, ki pa je različna.
iii) If none of the signs has any concept, a conceptual comparison is not possible (13/05/2015, T169/14, Koragel / CHORAGON, EU:T:2015:280, § 68-69). 
Če nobeden od znakov nima pojmovne vsebine, pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča (13/05/2015, T169/14, Koragel / CHORAGON, EU:T:2015:280, § 68-69).
The conceptual aspect does not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs. 
Pojmovni vidik ne vpliva na presojo podobnosti znakov.
The signs cannot be considered conceptually similar on the sole ground that a generic term covering both of them exists and/or they fall under the same general category of signs. 
Znaka se ne moreta šteti za pojmovno podobna samo zato, ker obstaja splošen izraz, ki zajema oba, in/ali ker spadata v isto splošno kategorijo znakov.
If the semantic meanings are too different, the signs may share a general concept, but one so broad that the conceptual relationship is not relevant, as in the following examples. 
Če je semantični pomen preveč različen, je lahko znakoma skupna splošna pojmovna vsebina, vendar je ta tako široka, da pojmovno razmerje ni pomembno, kot je prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
The mere fact that the two words or symbols can be grouped under a common generic term by no means constitutes a case of conceptual similarity. 
Dejstvo, da je mogoče besedi ali simbola uvrstiti pod skupni splošni izraz, nikakor ne utemeljuje pojmovne podobnosti.
For example, in the case of ‘Jaguar' v ‘Elephant', the fact that both are animals would not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity because the public is not likely to make a conceptual link between the two words. 
Na primer, pri „jaguarju“ proti „slonu“ dejstvo, da gre za živali, ne bo pripeljalo do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, ker ni verjetno, da bo javnost vzpostavila pojmovno povezavo med besedama.
In fact, because the words refer to different animals, they should be considered conceptually dissimilar. 
Pravzaprav bi bilo treba besedi šteti za pojmovno različni, ker se nanašata na različni živali.
The same happens when two signs belong to the same general category or type of mark: the fact that ‘TDL' and ‘LNF' are both three-letter abbreviations is conceptually irrelevant and therefore, a conceptual comparison is not possible. 
Enako velja, kadar znaka pripadata isti splošni kategoriji ali vrsti znamke: dejstvo, da sta „TDL“ in „LNF“ kratici s tremi črkami, s pojmovnega vidika ni pomembno, tako da pojmovna primerjava ni mogoča.
Another example of signs ‘belonging to the same category' concerns names and surnames that have a similar semantic content (see paragraph 3.4.3.4 above). 
Drug primer znakov, „ki spadajo v isto kategorijo“, se nanaša na imena in priimke, ki imajo podobno semantično vsebino (glej odstavek 3.4.3.4 zgoraj).
If FRANK and MIKE are compared, the fact that they are both names is conceptually irrelevant (since they are on completely different levels); by contrast, the fact that FRANK and FRANKIE are the same name but the latter is the diminutive of the former is relevant and should lead to a finding of conceptual similarity in that case. 
Če primerjamo FRANK in MIKE, dejstvo, da sta obe besedi imeni, s pojmovnega vidika ni pomembno (ker sta na povsem različnih ravneh); v nasprotju s tem pa je dejstvo, da sta FRANK in FRANKIE isto ime, le da je zadnjenavedeno pomanjševalnica prvega, pomembno in bi moralo v tem primeru pripeljati do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti.
In particular, the marks will be conceptually identical or similar in the following situations. 
Zlasti bosta znamki pojmovno enaki ali podobni v naslednjih primerih.
3.4.4.1 Both marks share a word and/or expression 
Znamki imata skupno besedo in/ali izraz
When the two marks share the same word or expression, the marks will be conceptually similar, as in the following examples. 
Kadar je znamkama skupna ista beseda ali izraz, bosta pojmovno enaki, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
As already mentioned, misspellings may also have a semantic content and in such cases can be compared, as in the following examples. 
Kot je bilo že navedeno, imajo lahko tudi napačno zapisane besede semantično vsebino in jih je zato mogoče primerjati, kot je to prikazano v naslednjih primerih.
3.4.4.2 Two words or terms have the same meaning but in different languages 
Besedi ali izraza imata enak pomen, vendar v različnih jezikih
It is possible for the relevant public to assign a conceptual similarity or even identity in cases of marks with elements in different languages, as long as the meanings of the words in those languages are known to that public. 
Možno je, da upoštevna javnost znamkama, ki imata elemente v različnih jezikih, pripiše pojmovno podobnost ali celo enakost, če ji je znan pomen besed v teh jezikih.
In the following example, it was found that the marks were conceptually identical because a substantial part of the Portuguese public would understand the words constituting the marks at issue given (i) the close proximity of the English word ‘vitamin' to the Portuguese equivalent term ‘vitamina', (ii) ‘water' is a basic English word likely to be understood by that part of the Portuguese public that has sufficient knowledge of the English language, (iii) that ‘aqua' is a widespread Latin expression and resembles the Portuguese equivalent term ‘água' (paras 56-60). 
V naslednjem primeru se je ugotovilo, da sta znamki pojmovno enaki, ker precejšnji del portugalske javnosti razume besede, ki sestavljajo sporni znamki, saj (i) je angleška beseda „vitamin“ zelo podobna portugalski ustreznici „vitamina“, (ii) je „water“ osnovna angleška beseda, ki jo del portugalske javnosti z zadostnim znanjem angleškega jezika verjetno razume, (iii) je „aqua“ splošno znan latinski izraz, ki je tudi podoben portugalski ustreznici água (točke 56-60).
As it is the actual understanding of the relevant public that matters, the mere fact that one term is objectively the foreign-language equivalent of the other may not be relevant at all in the conceptual comparison. 
Ker je bistveno dejansko razumevanje upoštevne javnosti, je lahko dejstvo, da je en izraz objektivno gledano tujejezična ustreznica drugega, v okviru pojmovne primerjave povsem nepomembno.
3.4.4.3 Two words refer to the same semantic term or variations thereof 
Besedi se nanašata na isti semantični izraz ali njegove različice
There is conceptual identity where synonyms are involved, that is to say where two words exist for the same semantic meaning (invented examples where English is the reference language: baggage/luggage; bicycle/bike; male horse/stallion). 
V primeru sopomenk, tj. kadar obstajata dve besedi z istim semantičnim pomenom, to pomeni pojmovno enakost (izmišljeni primeri z angleščino kot referenčnim jezikom: baggage/luggage (prtljaga), bicycle/bike (kolo), male horse/stallion (žrebec)).
Conceptual similarity was found in the following cases. 
V naslednjih primerih je bila ugotovljena pojmovna podobnost.
3.4.4.4 Two figurative signs, symbols and/or shapes represent the same object or idea 
Figurativna znaka, simbola in/ali obliki ponazarjata enak predmet ali enako zamisel
When two marks consist of or contain figurative elements and/or shapes and they represent the same or similar objects or ideas, the signs will be conceptually identical or similar. 
Kadar sta znamki sestavljeni iz figurativnih elementov in/ali oblik ali jih vsebujeta ter ti ponazarjajo enake ali podobne predmete ali zamisli, bosta znaka pojmovno enaka ali podobna.
The following are cases where conceptual identity or similarity was found. 
V nadaljevanju so navedeni primeri, v katerih je bila ugotovljena pojmovna enakost ali podobnost.
However, the fact that both signs contain the same object does not lead to a finding of conceptual similarity if the way in which the object is depicted in the conflicting trade marks is different. 
Vendar dejstvo, da znaka vsebujeta enak predmet, ne vodi do ugotovitve pojmovne podobnosti, če je ta predmet v sovpadajočih blagovnih znamkah prikazan različno.
Furthermore, even if both signs contain the same element, they may be found dissimilar if they evoke different concepts due to their overall impression. 
Poleg tega sta lahko znaka, tudi če vsebujeta enak element, ugotovljena kot različna, če zaradi celotnega vtisa izražata različno pojmovno vsebino.
3.4.4.5 When there is a word versus a figurative sign, symbol, shape and/or colour representing the concept behind the word 
Kadar gre za besedo proti figurativnemu znaku, simbolu, obliki in/ali barvi, ki ponazarja pojem za besedo
Conceptual identity also exists between a word and an image showing what the word represents (fictional examples: word mark ‘TIGER' compared with a figurative mark depicting a tiger; or word mark ‘orange' and a mark for the colour orange per se). 
Pojmovna enakost obstaja tudi med besedo in sliko, na kateri je prikazano, kaj beseda ponazarja (izmišljeni primeri: besedna znamka „TIGER“ v primerjavi s figurativno znamko, ki prikazuje tigra, ali besedna znamka „orange“ in znamka, ki ponazarja oranžno barvo).
3.4.4.6 When the signs have a meaningful word in common that is distinctive, and one of them contains an additional word or figurative element without any meaning 
Kadar je znakoma skupna beseda, ki ima pomen in razlikovalni učinek, eden od njiju pa vsebuje še dodatno besedo ali figurativni element brez kakršnega koli pomena
Where the signs have a meaningful word in common that is distinctive, and one or both of them contains an additional word element without any meaning (a fanciful word or one that will not be understood in the relevant language area), the signs are considered conceptually highly similar, and not identical. 
Kadar je znakoma skupna beseda, ki ima pomen in razlikovalni učinek, eden ali oba pa vsebujeta še dodaten besedni element brez kakršnega koli pomena (domišljijsko ali tako besedo, ki jo javnost na upoštevnem jezikovnem območju ne bo razumela), znaka štejeta kot pojmovno zelo podobna, ne pa enaka.
In such a case, even if not understood, the relevant public will note the presence of the additional term that prevents the signs from being perceived as conceptually totally identical. 
V takem primeru bo upoštevna javnost opazila dodatni izraz tudi, če ga ne razume, zaradi česar znaka ne bosta zaznana kot pojmovno povsem enaka.
However, where the word that the signs have in common is accompanied by additional figurative elements that lack any particular concept (such as a background, colours or a particular typeface), the signs are considered conceptually identical. 
Če pa besedo, ki je znakoma skupna, spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, ki nimajo posebne pojmovne vsebine (npr. ozadje, barve ali posebna pisava), se znaka štejeta kot pojmovno enaka.
In such a case, the additional figurative elements have no impact on the conceptual perception of the signs. 
V takem primeru dodatni figurativni elementi nimajo vpliva na pojmovno zaznavo znakov.
3.4.5 Impact of the distinctive and dominant character of the components on the similarity of signs 
Vpliv razlikovalnega in prevladujočega učinka sestavnih delov na podobnost znakov
At each level (visual, phonetic and conceptual) the comparison of signs will lead to a decision as to whether the marks are similar and if so, to what degree. 
Primerjava znakov na vsaki ravni posebej (vizualni, zvočni in pojmovni) privede do odločitve, ali sta znamki podobni, in če sta, koliko sta podobni.
In general, the more commonalities there are between marks, the higher their degree of similarity. 
Na splošno velja, da več ko imata znamki skupnega, višja je stopnja podobnosti med njima.