natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This would be clearly inconsistent with the wording and spirit of Article 8(5) EUTMR, because in such a case reputation would become the sole requirement, rather than being only one of several conditions provided for therein. 
To pa bi bilo seveda neskladno z ubeseditvijo in bistvom člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj bi v tem primeru ugled postal edina zahteva, in ne le eden od pogojev iz tega člena.
Therefore, where the opponent claims actual detriment or unfair advantage, it must submit indications and evidence of the kind of detriment suffered, or of the nature of the unfair advantage taken by the applicant. 
Kadar vložnik ugovora uveljavlja dejansko oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje, mora torej predložiti podatke in dokaze o vrsti povzročenega oškodovanja ali vrsti neupravičenega izkoriščanja, ki ga je povzročil prijavitelj.
The opponent must also show that this resulted from use of the sign applied for. 
Dokazati mora tudi, da je to posledica uporabe znaka, za katerega je vložena prijava.
In doing so, the opponent may rely on a variety of indications, depending on the kind of detriment or unfair advantage pleaded, such as a considerable decrease in sales of the goods bearing the mark, or a loss of clientele, or a decline of the degree of recognition of the earlier mark among the public. 
Pri tem se lahko opre na različne podatke glede na vrsto oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja, ki ga uveljavlja, na primer bistveno zmanjšanje prodaje blaga, označenega z znamko, izgubo strank ali znižanje stopnje prepoznavnosti prejšnje znamke v javnosti.
However, in the case of potential detriment or unfair advantage, the exercise will necessarily be more abstract, as the detriment or unfair advantage in question has to be evaluated ex ante. 
Vendar je v primeru morebitnega oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja uveljavljanje bistveno bolj abstraktno, saj je treba zadevno oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje predhodno ovrednotiti.
To that end, the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to demonstrate actual and present harm to its mark. 
Zato imetniku prejšnje znamke ni treba dokazati obstoja dejanskega in sedanjega oškodovanja njegove znamke.
When it is foreseeable that such injury would ensue from the use that might be made of the EUTM application, the proprietor of the earlier mark is not required to wait for it actually to occur in order to be able to prohibit registration of the EUTM application. 
Kadar je mogoče predvideti, da bi zaradi morebitne uporabe blagovne znamke EU, za katero je vložena prijava, nastala taka kršitev, imetniku prejšnje znamke ni treba čakati, da bi se to dejansko zgodilo, zato da lahko prepreči registracijo blagovne znamke EU, za katero je vložena prijava.
The proprietor of the earlier mark must, however, prove that there is a serious risk that such an injury will occur in the future (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 38; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 33; 29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 61 (appeal dismissed 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300); 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 25). 
Imetnik prejšnje znamke pa mora dokazati, da obstaja resno tveganje takšne kršitve v prihodnosti (27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 38; 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 33; 29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 61 (pritožba zavrnjena s sodbo z dne 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300); 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 25/01/2012, T332/10, Viaguara, EU:T:2012:26, § 25).
Such a finding may be established, in particular, on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 54, upheld on appeal 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; 16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
To se lahko dokaže predvsem na podlagi logičnih sklepanj, ki izhajajo iz analize možnosti, in ob upoštevanju običajne prakse v upoštevni gospodarski panogi ter vseh drugih okoliščin obravnavanega primera (10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131, § 54, potrjena v pritožbenem postopku z dne 12/03/2009, C320/07 P, Nasdaq, EU:C:2009:146; 16/04/2008, T181/05, Citi, EU:T:2008:112, § 78; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
However, considering that in such cases what has to be proved is the likelihood of a future event and that, by definition, the opponent's arguments cannot in themselves amount to evidence, it will often be necessary to base certain conclusions on legal presumptions, that is, on logical assumptions or deductions resulting from the application of the rules of probability to the facts of the specific case. 
Ker se v takih primerih dokazuje verjetnost prihodnjega dogodka in trditve vložnika ugovora same po sebi glede na pojmovanje ne morejo zadostovati kot dokaz, je treba nekatere ugotovitve pogosto utemeljiti s pravnimi domnevami, torej logičnimi domnevami ali sklepanji, izpeljanimi iz uporabe pravil verjetnosti v zvezi z dejstvi obravnavanega primera.
One such presumption was mentioned by the Court, when it stated 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' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30). 
Eno od takih domnev je Sodišče navedlo v trditvi, da pomembnejša ko sta razlikovalni značaj in ugled prejšnje znamke, lažje bo nastala kršitev (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 30).
It is also clear from case-law that the more immediately and strongly the mark is brought to mind by the sign, the greater the likelihood that current or future use of the sign takes, or will take, unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 54; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 44; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69). 
Iz sodne prakse izhaja še, da hitreje in močneje ko se ob znaku vzbudi misel na znamko, večje je tveganje, da sedanja ali prihodnja uporaba znaka neupravičeno izkorišča ali oškoduje razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 54; 18/06/2009, C487/07, L'Oréal, EU:C:2009:378, § 44; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 67-69).
These are rebuttable presumptions, which the applicant may contest and disprove by submitting appropriate evidence; they are not conclusive. 
To so izpodbojne domneve, ki jih lahko prijavitelj izpodbija in zavrne s predložitvijo ustreznih dokazov; niso neizpodbojne.
In addition, if the type of detriment or unfair advantage argued in the specific case is of such a nature to presuppose the fulfilment of certain particular conditions of fact (e.g. exclusive character of the earlier mark, qualitative aspects of reputation, a given image, etc.), these facts will also have to be proven by the opponent by submitting appropriate evidence. 
Če je poleg tega zatrjevana vrsta oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja v posameznem primeru takšna, da je pogoj zanjo izpolnitev nekaterih posebnih pogojev dejanskega stanja (npr. ekskluzivnost prejšnje znamke, kakovostni vidiki ugleda, določena podoba itd.), mora vložnik ugovora ta dejstva tudi dokazati s predložitvijo ustreznih dokazov.
Finally, as noted by the Court in its judgment of 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 57, 58, although likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue is not required to demonstrate that the later mark takes unfair advantage of the earlier mark, where such likelihood is established on the basis of facts, this will be taken as proof that unfair advantage has been taken or that, at least, there is a serious risk of such injury in the future. 
Nazadnje, kot je Sodišče ugotovilo v sodbi 07/12/2010, T59/08, Nimei La Perla Modern Classic, EU:T:2010:500, § 57, 58, tudi če se verjetnost zmede med spornima znamkama ne zahteva kot dokaz, da poznejša znamka neupravičeno izkorišča prejšnjo znamko, se taka verjetnost, če se ugotovi na podlagi dejstev, upošteva kot dokaz o obstoju neupravičenega izkoriščanja ali vsaj o resnem tveganju za tako kršitev v prihodnosti.
3.4.4.2 Means of evidence 
Dokazi
Where the opponent claims potential detriment or unfair advantage, it must prove any conditions of fact that might be necessary in particular cases for giving rise to a serious, non-hypothetical risk of detriment or unfair advantage, by submitting evidence of the kind mentioned in the paragraph below on proving actual detriment or unfair advantage. 
Kadar vložnik ugovora trdi, da gre za morebitno oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje, mora dokazati dejansko stanje, ki je v posebnih primerih potrebno za nastanek resnega tveganja oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja, ki ni hipotetično, s predložitvijo dokazov takšne vrste, ki so navedeni v odstavku o dokazovanju dejanskega oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja v nadaljevanju.
Conclusions as to the risk of future injury may also be established on the basis of logical deductions made from an analysis of the probabilities and by taking account of normal practice in the relevant commercial sector as well as of all the other circumstances of the case (16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 82; 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43). 
Ugotovitve glede tveganja kršitve se prav tako lahko dokažejo na podlagi logičnih sklepanj, ki izhajajo iz analize možnosti, in ob upoštevanju običajne prakse v upoštevni gospodarski panogi ter vseh drugih okoliščin obravnavanega primera (16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 82; 06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 53; 14/11/2013, C383/12 P, Répresentation d'une tête de loup, EU:C:2013:741, § 42-43).
Where the opponent claims actual detriment or unfair advantage, it can use all the means of evidence provided for in Article 97 EUTMR for proving this. 
Kadar vložnik ugovora uveljavlja dejansko oškodovanje ali neupravičeno izkoriščanje, lahko za dokazovanje uporabi vse dokaze iz člena 97 Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
For example, it may prove an actual decrease of trade mark awareness by reference to opinion polls and other documentary evidence. 
Na primer, dokaže lahko dejansko zmanjšanje poznanosti znamke z javnomnenjskimi raziskavami in drugimi dokumentarnimi dokazi.
The rules governing the evaluation and probative value of such evidence are the same as those mentioned in paragraph 3.1.4.3 and paragraph 3.1.4.4 above in relation to evidence required for proving reputation. 
Pravila o ovrednotenju in dokazni vrednosti takih dokazov so enaka pravilom iz odstavkov 3.1.4.3 in 3.1.4.4 zgoraj v zvezi z zahtevanimi dokazi za dokazovanje ugleda.
3.5 Use without due cause 
Uporaba brez upravičenega razloga
The last condition for the application of Article 8(5) EUTMR is that use of the sign applied for should be without due cause. 
Zadnji pogoj za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU je, da mora biti uporaba znaka, za katerega je vložena prijava, brez upravičenega razloga.
However, if it is established that none of the three types of injury exists, the registration and use of the mark applied for cannot be prevented, as the existence or absence of due cause for use of the mark applied for is, in those circumstances, irrelevant (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51). 
Če se izkaže, da ne obstaja nobena izmed teh treh vrst kršitev, ni mogoče preprečiti registracije in uporabe prijavljene znamke, saj obstoj ali neobstoj upravičenih razlogov za uporabo prijavljene znamke v tem primeru ni upošteven (22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 60; 07/07/2010, T124/09, Carlo Roncato, EU:T:2010:290, § 51).
The existence of a cause justifying use of the trade mark applied for is a defence that the applicant may raise. 
Prijavitelj lahko v zagovor navede razlog, ki upravičuje uporabo blagovne znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
Therefore, it is up to the applicant to show that it has due cause to use the mark applied for. 
Torej mora dokazati, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke, za katero je vložena prijava.
This is an application of the general rule according to which ‘he who asserts must prove', which is the expression of the ancient rule ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23). 
Gre za uporabo splošnega pravila, v skladu s katerim mora oseba, ki nekaj trdi, to tudi dokazati in ki izhaja iz starega pravila ei qui affirmat incumbit probatio (01/03/2004, R 145/20032, T CARD OLYMPICS (fig.) / OLYMPIC, § 23).
Case-law clearly establishes that when the proprietor of the earlier mark has shown that there is either actual and present injury to its mark or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury will occur in the future, it is for the proprietor of the later mark to establish that there is due cause for the use of that mark (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39). 
Sodna praksa jasno določa, da kadar imetniku prejšnje znamke uspe dokazati obstoj bodisi dejanske in sedanje kršitve njegove znamke bodisi, če te ni, resnega tveganja za nastanek take kršitve v prihodnosti, potem mora imetnik poznejše znamke dokazati, da se ta znamka uporablja z upravičenim razlogom (06/07/2012, T60/10, Royal Shakespeare, EU:T:2012:348, § 67; 27/11/2008, C252/07, Intel, EU:C:2008:655, § 39).
In the absence of any indications in the evidence providing an apparent justification for the applicant's use of the contested mark, lack of due cause must be generally presumed (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 and case-law cited therein; 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, dismissing the appeal). 
Če v dokazih ni navedb, ki bi jasno upravičile uporabo izpodbijane znamke s strani prijavitelja, je treba na splošno domnevati neobstoj upravičenih razlogov (29/03/2012, T369/10, Beatle, EU:T:2012:177, § 76 in navedena sodna praksa, in 14/05/2013, C294/12 P, Beatle, EU:C:2013:300, o zavrnitvi pritožbe).
However, the applicant may avail itself of the possibility of rebutting such a presumption by showing that it has a legitimate justification that entitles it to use the mark. 
Vendar lahko prijavitelj izkoristi možnost izpodbijanja take domneve, tako da dokaže, da ima upravičen razlog za uporabo znamke.
For example, such a situation could be envisaged if the applicant had been using the sign for dissimilar goods in the relevant territory before the opponent's mark was applied for, or acquired a reputation, especially where such coexistence has not in any way affected the distinctiveness and repute of the earlier mark. 
To se lahko na primer zgodi, če je prijavitelj uporabljal znak za različno blago na upoštevnem ozemlju, preden je bila vložena prijava za znamko vložnika ugovora ali preden je ta pridobila ugled, zlasti kadar tak soobstoj ni nikakor vplival na razlikovalni učinek in ugled prejšnje znamke.
Interpreting Article 5(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (whose legislative content is essentially identical to that of Article 8(5) EUTMR), the Court ruled that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation might be obliged, pursuant to the concept of ‘due cause' within the meaning of that provision, to tolerate use by a third party of a sign similar to that mark in relation to a product that was identical to that for which that mark had been registered, if it was demonstrated that the sign was being used before the mark had been filed and that use of the sign in relation to the identical product was in good faith (06/02/2014, C65/12, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, § 60). 
Sodišče je v razlagi člena 5(2) Direktive Sveta 89/104/EGS (katerega zakonodajna vsebina je v bistvu enaka zakonodajni vsebini člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU) odločilo, da ima lahko imetnik ugledne znamke na podlagi upravičenega razloga v smislu te določbe obveznost, da tretji osebi dopusti uporabo znaka, ki je podoben tej znamki, za proizvod, ki je enak proizvodu, za katerega je bila navedena znamka registrirana, če se dokaže, da se je ta znak uporabljal pred prijavo navedene znamke in da je bila njegova uporaba za enak proizvod dobroverna (06/02/2014, C65/12, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries, EU:C:2014:49, § 60).
The Court gave further detailed factors to be considered when assessing due cause on account of prior use. 
Sodišče je podrobno navedlo dejavnike, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri presoji upravičenega razloga za uporabo.
The case-law below shows that due cause may be found where the applicant establishes that it cannot reasonably be required to abstain from use of the mark (for example, because its use of the sign is a generic use to indicate the type of goods and services - whether by generic words or generic figurative devices), or where it has some specific right to use the mark for the goods and services (for example, it shows that a relevant coexistence agreement permits its use of the sign). 
Iz v nadaljevanju navedene sodne prakse je razvidno, da je mogoče ugotoviti obstoj upravičenega razloga, kadar prijavitelj dokaže, da od njega ni mogoče razumno zahtevati, naj ne uporablja znamke (ker se na primer znak uporablja na splošno za označevanje vrste blaga in storitev - bodisi z občimi besedami ali občimi figurativnimi elementi), ali kadar ima posebno pravico do uporabe znamke za blago in storitve (če na primer dokaže, da lahko znak uporablja v skladu z ustreznim sporazumom o soobstoju).
The condition of due cause is not fulfilled merely by the fact that (a) the sign is particularly suitable for identifying the products for which it is used, (b) the applicant has already used this sign for these products or similar products within and/or outside the relevant territory of the European Union, or (c) the applicant invokes a right ensuing from a filing over which the filing of the opponent's trade mark takes precedence (inter alia 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.) 
Pogoj upravičenega razloga ni izpolnjen samo zato, ker (a) je znak posebej primeren za označevanje izdelkov, za katere se uporablja, ker (b) prijavitelj že uporablja ta znak za te ali podobne izdelke na upoštevnem ozemlju Evropske unije in/ali zunaj tega ozemlja ali ker (c) prijavitelj uveljavlja pravico, ki izhaja iz vložitve, pred katero ima vložitev znamke vložnika ugovora prednost (med drugim 23/11/2010, R 240/20042, WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH (fig.) / WATERFORD; 15/06/2009, R 1142/20052, (fig.)
Mere use of the sign is not enough - what must be shown is a valid reason justifying that use. 
Samo uporaba znaka ne zadostuje - treba je dokazati utemeljen razlog, ki upravičuje to uporabo.
3.5.1 Examples of due cause 
Primeri upravičenega razloga
3.5.1.1 Due cause was accepted 
Upravičen razlog je bil potrjen
3.5.1.2 Due cause was not accepted 
Upravičen razlog ni bil potrjen
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.) / FERNANDO ALONSO All the evidence submitted by the opponent related to the fame of Fernando Alonso as a champion racing driver and to the use of his image by different undertakings to promote their goods and services. 
22/07/2010, R 11/20084, CASAS DE FERNANDO ALONSO (fig.)/FERNANDO ALONSO Vsi dokazi, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, so se nanašali na slavo Fernanda Alonsa kot dirkaškega prvaka in uporabo njegove podobe, s katero so različna podjetja promovirala svoje blago in storitve.
There was no proof of reputation for use of the earlier mark as registered for the relevant goods and services (paras 44 and 48). 
Ni pa bilo dokaza o ugledu za uporabo prejšnje znamke, kot je registrirana za zadevno blago in storitve (točki 44 in 48).
The only items of evidence regarding reputation of the earlier mark submitted within the time limit, namely a page showing websites containing the word ‘BALMAIN', a Wikipedia extract about the French designer Pierre Balmain, and five extracts from the website www.style.com referring to the ‘BALMAIN' wear collection, were clearly not sufficient to establish the reputation of the earlier mark in the EU. 
Edini v roku predloženi dokazi o ugledu prejšnje znamke, in sicer stran s spletnimi mesti, ki vsebujejo besedo „BALMAIN“, izvleček iz Wikipedije o francoskem oblikovalcu Pierru Balmainu in pet izvlečkov s spletnega mesta www.style.com, ki se nanašajo na kolekcijo oblačil „BALMAIN“, očitno niso zadostovali za ugotovitev ugleda prejšnje znamke v EU.
Therefore, the opposition was rejected as unsubstantiated (paras 36 and 37). 
Zato je bil ugovor zavrnjen kot neutemeljen (točki 36 in 37).
The documents submitted by the opponent showed promotional efforts in such a way that the distinctiveness was increased through use. 
Iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, je razvidno, da so prizadevanja za promocijo takšna, da se z uporabo poveča razlikovalni učinek.
However, the use was not enough to reach the threshold of reputation. 
Vendar uporaba ni bila dovolj za doseganje praga ugleda.
None of the documents referred to the recognition of the earlier trade mark by the relevant end consumers; nor was any evidence submitted about the market share of the opponent's goods (para. 61). 
V nobenem dokumentu ni bilo sklicevanja na prepoznavnost prejšnje znamke med upoštevnimi končnimi potrošniki, prav tako niso bili predloženi dokazi o tržnem deležu blaga vložnika ugovora (točka 61).
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Taking into account the nature of the goods for which the opponent claims reputation, namely mineral water, the relevant public is the public at large (para. 44). 
04/08/2011, R 1265/20102, MATTONI (fig.) / MATTONI Glede na vrsto blaga, za katerega vložnik ugovora trdi, da ima ugled, in sicer mineralna voda, je upoštevna javnost širša javnost (točka 44).
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. The goods for which the sign enjoys reputation are medicinal preparations for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. 
15/09/2011, R 2100/20101, SEXIALIS / CIALIS et al. Blago, v zvezi s katerim ima znak ugled, so zdravilni pripravki za zdravljenje spolne disfunkcije.
The relevant public is the general public and professionals with a high level of attention (para. 64). 
Upoštevna javnost je splošna javnost in strokovnjaki, ki temu namenjajo posebno pozornost (točka 64).
16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl The goods for which the earlier mark enjoys reputation are pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of wrinkles. 
16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl; Potrjena z dne 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl Blago, v zvezi s katerim ima prejšnja znamka ugled, so farmacevtski pripravki za odpravljanje gub.
The evidence of the promotion of the earlier mark ‘BOTOX' in English in the scientific and general-interest press was sufficient to establish the mark's reputation amongst both the general public and health-care professionals (C100/11 P, paras 65 to 67). 
Dokazi o promociji prejšnje znamke „BOTOX“ v angleškem jeziku v znanstvenem in splošnem tisku so zadostovali za ugotovitev ugleda znamke pri splošni javnosti in med strokovnimi zdravstvenimi delavci (C100/11 P, točke 65 to 67).
Therefore, both these categories of consumers have to be taken into account. 
Zato je treba upoštevati obe navedeni kategoriji potrošnikov.
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 The relevant services are stock exchange price quotation services in Classes 35 and 36, which normally target professionals. 
10/05/2007, T47/06, Nasdaq, EU:T:2007:131 Zadevne storitve so storitve kotacije cene na borzi v razredih 35 in 36, ki so navadno namenjene strokovnjakom.