natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The reason for the principle that only non-registered marks are covered by these latter provisions results indirectly both from the spirit and the ratio legis of these provisions. 
Sklepanje, da se zadnje navedeni določbi nanašata samo na neregistrirane znamke, izhaja posredno iz bistva in ratio legis teh določb.
As regards the Paris Convention, the purpose of the provision of Article 6bis, introduced for the first time in the Convention in 1925, was to prevent the registration and use of a trade mark liable to create confusion with another mark already well known in the country of such registration, even where the latter well-known mark was not, or not yet, protected in that country by registration. 
Kar zadeva Pariško konvencijo, je bil namen določbe člena 6bis, ki je bil v Konvencijo vključen leta 1925, preprečiti registracijo in uporabo blagovne znamke, ki bi lahko povzročila zmedo v zvezi z drugo znamko, ki je že dobro znana v državi take registracije, tudi če ta dobro znana znamka ni ali še ni zaščitena z registracijo v tej državi.
As regards the EUTMR, the purpose was to close a legal gap as Article 8(5) EUTMR protects only registered EUTMs. 
Kar zadeva Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU, je bil namen zapolniti pravno vrzel, saj člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ščiti samo registrirane blagovne znamke EU.
Without Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, reputed non-registered trade marks would have remained without protection (apart from that of Article 8(4) EUTMR). 
Brez člena 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU bi neregistrirane blagovne znamke z ugledom ostale brez varstva (razen varstva v smislu člena 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
In order to close this legal gap, the EUTMR provided for the protection of well-known marks within the sense of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, as this Article had been drawn up mainly to afford protection to non-registered trade-marks with a well-known character. 
Za zapolnitev te pravne vrzeli je bilo v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU omogočeno varstvo dobro znanih znamk v smislu člena 6bis Pariške konvencije, saj je bil ta člen namenjen predvsem zagotavljanju varstva neregistriranim znamkam z dobro znanim značajem.
Consequently, on the one hand, well-known marks that are not registered in the relevant territory cannot be protected under Article 8(5) EUTMR against dissimilar goods. 
Zato na eni strani dobro znanih znamk, ki niso registrirane na upoštevnem ozemlju, ni mogoče zaščititi za različno blago v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
They can only be protected against identical or similar goods if there is a likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, to which Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR refers for determining the scope of protection. 
Zaščitijo se lahko samo za enako ali podobno blago, če obstaja verjetnost zmede v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, na katerega se člen 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU sklicuje za določitev obsega varstva.
However, this is without prejudice to the fact that well-known marks, to the extent that they are not registered, may also be protected under Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Vendar to ne vpliva na dejstvo, da so lahko dobro znane znamke, če niso registrirane, zaščitene tudi v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
Therefore, if the relevant national law affords them protection against dissimilar goods and services, such enhanced protection may also be invoked under Article 8(4) EUTMR. 
Če jim ustrezna nacionalna zakonodaja zagotavlja varstvo pred različnim blagom in storitvami, se lahko tako okrepljeno varstvo zato uveljavlja tudi v skladu s členom 8(4) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
On the other hand, where well-known marks have been registered, either as EUTMs, or as national marks in one of the Member States, they can be invoked under Article 8(5) EUTMR, but only if they also fulfil the requirements of reputation. 
Če so bile na drugi strani dobro znane znamke registrirane kot blagovne znamke EU ali nacionalne znamke v eni od držav članic, se lahko uveljavijo v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, vendar samo, če izpolnjujejo tudi zahteve glede ugleda.
Even though the terms ‘well known' (a traditional term used in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention) and ‘reputation' denote distinct legal concepts, there is a substantial overlap between them, as shown by a comparison of how well-known marks are defined in the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provision on the Protection of Well-Known Marks with how reputation was described by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22 (concluding that the different terminology is merely a ‘…nuance, which does not entail any real contradiction …'). 
Čeprav izraza „dobro znan“ (tradicionalen izraz, uporabljen v členu 6bis Pariške konvencije) in „ugled“ označujeta različna pravna pojma, se precej prekrivata, kot je razvidno iz primerjave med tem, kako so dobro znane znamke opredeljene v skupnem priporočilu organizacije WIPO glede zagotavljanja zaščite dobro znanih znamk, in tem, kako je ugled opisalo Sodišče v sodbi 14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22 (in ugotovilo, da gre pri razliki med izrazoma samo za „[...] odtenek, ki ne pomeni bistvenega protislovja [...]“).
In practical terms, the threshold for establishing whether a trade mark is well known or enjoys reputation will usually be the same. 
V praksi je prag za določitev, ali je znamka dobro znana oziroma ali ima ugled, navadno enak.
Therefore, it will not be unusual for a mark that has acquired well-known character to have also reached the threshold laid down by the Court in Chevy (General Motors) for marks with reputation, given that in both cases the assessment is principally based on quantitative considerations regarding the degree of knowledge of the mark among the public, and that the thresholds required for each case are expressed in quite similar terms (‘known …' or ‘well known in at least one relevant sector of the public ' for well-known marks, and ‘known by a significant part of the public concerned' for marks with reputation). 
Zato ni nenavadno, da znamka, ki je že pridobila status dobro znane znamke, doseže tudi prag, ki ga je Sodišče določilo v sodbi v zadevi Chevy (General Motors) za znamke z ugledom, če presoja v obeh primerih temelji predvsem na kvantitativni opredelitvi stopnje poznanosti znamke v javnosti in sta praga, ki se zahtevata v obeh primerih, opredeljena s podobnimi izrazi („znana“ ali „dobro znana pri vsaj enem upoštevnem delu javnosti“ za dobro znane znamke v primerjavi z znana znatnemu delu upoštevne javnosti, kar zadeva znamke z ugledom).
[2: Article 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks.] 
[2: Člen 2(2)(b) in (c) skupnega priporočila organizacije WIPO glede zagotavljanja zaščite dobro znanih znamk.]
This has also been confirmed by case-law. 
To potrjuje tudi sodna praksa.
In its judgment of 22/11/2007, C328/06, Fincas Tarragona, EU:C:2007:704, the Court qualified the notions of ‘reputation' and ‘well known' as kindred concepts, underlining in this way the substantial overlap and relationship between them (para. 17). 
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 22/11/2007, C328/06, Fincas Tarragona, EU:C:2007:704, pojma „ugled“ in „dobro znan“ opredelilo kot sorodna pojma, s čimer je poudarilo pomembno prekrivanje in povezavo med njima (točka 17).
See also the judgment of 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 56-57. 
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 11/07/2007, T150/04, Tosca Blu, EU:T:2007:214, § 56-57.
The overlap between marks with reputation and registered well-known marks has repercussions when grounds of opposition are raised, in the sense that it should not matter for the applicability of Article 8(5) EUTMR if the opponent calls its earlier registration a well-known mark instead of a mark with reputation. 
Prekrivanje med znamkami z ugledom in registriranimi dobro znanimi znamkami vpliva na utemeljitev ugovora, saj za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne bi smelo biti pomembno, če vložnik ugovora svojo prejšnjo registracijo namesto znamka z ugledom imenuje dobro znana znamka.
For this reason, the terminology used must be carefully scrutinised, especially where the grounds of the opposition are not clearly explained, and a flexible approach should be taken where appropriate. 
Zato je treba uporabljeno izrazje previdno proučiti, zlasti kadar razlogi za ugovor niso jasno obrazloženi, in po potrebi uporabiti prožen pristop.
In the context of Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, the requirements for applying Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and Article 8(1)(a) or (b) EUTMR are the same, although the terminology used is different. 
V smislu člena 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU so zahteve za uporabo člena 6bis Pariške konvencije in člena 8(1)(a) ali (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU enake, čeprav je uporabljeno drugačno izrazje.
Both provisions require similarity or identity between the goods or services, and similar or identical signs (Article 6bis uses the terms ‘reproduction', which is equivalent to identity, and ‘imitation', which refers to similarity). 
Obe določbi zahtevata podobnost ali enakost blaga ali storitev in podobne ali enake znake (v členu 6bis se uporabljata izraza „reprodukcija“, ki je enakovreden enakosti, in „posnemanje“, ki se nanaša na podobnost).
Both Articles also require a likelihood of confusion (‘liable to create confusion' is the phrase used in Article 6bis). 
V skladu s členoma se zahteva tudi verjetnost zmede (besedna zveza „ki lahko ustvari zmedo“ je izraz, uporabljen v členu 6bis).
However, while, according to Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, a well-known mark can serve as an earlier right and, thus, as the basis of an opposition, the grounds for an opposition under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR are (solely) Article 8(1)(a) or (b) EUTMR. 
Dobro znana znamka se lahko v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU uveljavlja kot prejšnja pravica in tako kot podlaga za ugovor, ugovor pa lahko v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU temelji (izključno) na členu 8(1)(a) ali (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
For example, if the opponent bases the opposition on (i) an earlier registration invoking Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR and Article 8(5) EUTMR and (ii) an identical earlier well-known mark in the same territory under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR, the earlier right must be examined: 
Na primer, če vložnik ugovor utemelji (i) s prejšnjo registracijo ob sklicevanju na člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU in člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU o ter (ii) z enako prejšnjo dobro znano znamko na istem ozemlju v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba prejšnjo pravico proučiti:
1. under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as an earlier registration with enhanced distinctiveness (in view of its well-known character); 
v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot prejšnjo registracijo s povečanim razlikovalnim učinkom (glede na njen dobro znani značaj);
2. under Article 8(5) EUTMR, as an earlier registration with reputation; 
v skladu s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot prejšnjo registracijo z ugledom;
3. under Article 8(2)(c) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR as an earlier non-registered well-known mark (which will only be useful if registration is not proven, as otherwise the outcome is the same as in bullet point 1. above). 
v skladu s členom 8(2)(c) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v povezavi s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU kot prejšnjo neregistrirano dobro znano znamko (kar je koristno samo, če registracija ni dokazana, saj je izid v nasprotnem primeru enak tistemu iz alineje 1 zgoraj).
Even if the opponent has not expressly based its opposition on Article 8(5) EUTMR, the contents of the notice and the wording of the explanation of grounds must be carefully analysed with a view to objectively establishing whether the opponent also wants to rely on Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Tudi če vložnik ugovora tega ne utemelji izrecno s členom 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, je treba vsebino ugovora in ubeseditev pojasnila razlogov previdno analizirati, da se objektivno ugotovi, ali želi vložnik ugovora uveljavljati tudi člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
2.2 Applicability to similar and identical goods and services 
Uporaba za podobno in enako blago in storitve
According to the clear wording of the current version of Article 8(5) EUTMR, the protection provided by this provision is ‘irrespective of whether the goods or services for which [the later mark] is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered'. 
V skladu z jasno ubeseditvijo sedanje različice člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ta določba zagotavlja zaščito „ne glede na to, ali so blago ali storitve, za katere je vložena prijava [poznejše znamke], enake, podobne ali niso podobne tistim, za katere je registrirana prejšnja blagovna znamka“.
This is a codification of the case-law of the Court of Justice, interpreting the previous version of the provision. 
To je kodifikacija sodne prakse Sodišča, ki razlaga predhodno različico določbe.
[3: Judgment of 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.] 
[3: Sodba z dne 09/01/2003, C292/00, Davidoff, EU:C:2003:9.]
3 Conditions of Application 
Pogoji uporabe
The following conditions need be met for Article 8(5) EUTMR to apply (16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, confirmed 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:C:2012:285): 
Za uporabo člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji (16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, potrjena 10/05/2012, C100/11 P, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:C:2012:285):
1. earlier registered mark with reputation in the relevant territory; 
prejšnja registrirana znamka z ugledom na upoštevnem ozemlju;
2. identity or similarity between the contested EUTM application and the earlier mark; 
enakost ali podobnost izpodbijane prijave blagovne znamke EU;
3. use of the sign applied for must be capable of taking an unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier mark; 
uporaba znaka, za katerega je bila vložena prijava, mora biti takšna, da bi lahko izkoristila ali oškodovala razlikovalni učinek ali ugled prejšnje znamke;
4. such use must be without due cause. 
takšna uporaba mora biti brez upravičenega razloga.
These conditions are cumulative and failure to satisfy any one of them is sufficient to render that provision inapplicable (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 & T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41). 
Ti pogoji so kumulativni, neizpolnjevanje katerega koli od njih pa zadostuje, da se ta določba ne uporablja (25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 30; 22/03/2007, T215/03, Vips, EU:T:2007:93, § 34; 16/12/2010, T345/08 in T357/08, Botolist / Botocyl, EU:T:2010:529, § 41).
The order in which these requirements are examined may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. 
Vrstni red preizkušanja teh zahtev se lahko razlikuje glede na okoliščine posameznega primera.
For instance, the examination may start by assessing the similarities between the signs, especially where there is little or nothing to say on the subject, either because the marks are identical or because they are patently similar or dissimilar. 
Na primer, preizkušanje se lahko začne s presojo podobnosti znakov, zlasti kadar v zvezi s tem ni dvoma ali skoraj nobenega dvoma, ker sta znamki enaki ali jasno podobni ali različni.
3.1 Earlier mark with reputation 
Prejšnja znamka z ugledom
3.1.1 Nature of reputation 
Vrsta ugleda
The nature and scope of reputation are not defined by either the EUTMR or the TMD. 
Vrsta in obseg ugleda nista opredeljena niti v Uredbi o blagovni znamki EU niti v direktivi o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami.
Furthermore, the terms used in the different language versions of these texts are not fully equivalent, which has led to considerable confusion as to the true meaning of the term ‘reputation', as admitted by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion of 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36. 
Poleg tega izrazi, uporabljeni v različnih jezikovnih različicah teh besedil, niso popolnoma enakovredni, kar je povzročilo precejšnjo zmedo glede resničnega pomena izraza „ugled“, kot je generalni pravobranilec Jacobs priznal v svojem mnenju z dne 26/11/1998, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1998:575, § 34-36.
Given the lack of statutory definition, the Court defined the nature of reputation by reference to the purpose of the relevant provisions. 
Ker zakonske opredelitve tega izraza ni, je Sodišče vrsto ugleda opredelilo s sklicevanjem na namen zadevnih določb.
In interpreting Article 5(2) TMD, the Court held that the text of the TMD ‘implies a certain degree of knowledge of the earlier trade mark among the public' and explained that it ‘is only where there is a sufficient degree of knowledge of that mark that the public, when confronted by the later trade mark, may possibly make an association between the two trade marks … and that the earlier mark may consequently be damaged' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23). 
Sodišče je pri razlagi člena 5(2) direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami odločilo, da se besedilo navedene direktive nanaša na določeno stopnjo poznanosti prejšnje blagovne znamke v javnosti, in pojasnilo, da le, če je prejšnja znamka dovolj poznana, lahko javnost ob srečanju s poznejšo znamko poveže znamki [...], kar lahko škoduje prejšnji znamki (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 23).
In view of these considerations, the Court concluded that reputation is a knowledge threshold requirement, implying that it must be principally assessed on the basis of quantitative criteria. 
Sodišče je ob upoštevanju teh premislekov ugotovilo, da gre pri ugledu za zahtevo glede praga poznanosti, kar pomeni, da ga je treba načeloma presojati na podlagi kvantitativnih meril.
In order to satisfy the requirement of reputation, the earlier mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the goods or services covered by that trade mark (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34). 
Pogoj glede ugleda je izpolnjen, če je prejšnja znamka poznana velikemu delu zadevne javnosti za proizvode in storitve, ki jih zajema (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 22-23; 25/05/2005, T67/04, Spa-Finders, EU:T:2005:179, § 34).
Moreover, if reputation is to be assessed on the basis of quantitative criteria, arguments or evidence relating to the esteem in which the public might hold the mark, rather than to its recognition, are not directly relevant for establishing that the earlier mark has acquired sufficient reputation for the purposes of Article 8(5) EUTMR. 
Poleg tega za presojo ugleda na podlagi kvantitativnih meril, trditev ali dokazov, ki so povezani z morebitnim ugledom znamke v javnosti, in ne z njeno prepoznavnostjo, niso neposredno pomembni za ugotovitev, da je prejšnja znamka pridobila dovolj ugleda za namene člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU.
However, as the economic value of reputation is also the protected subject-matter of this provision, any qualitative aspects thereof are relevant when assessing the possibility of detriment or unfair advantage (see also paragraph 3.4 below). 
Ker je tržna vrednost ugleda tudi predmet varstva v skladu s to določbo, so njegovi kvalitativni vidiki pomembni za presojo možnosti oškodovanja ali neupravičenega izkoriščanja (glej tudi odstavek 3.4 v nadaljevanju).
Article 8(5) EUTMR protects ‘famous' marks not as such, but rather for the success and renown (‘goodwill') they have acquired in the market. 
Člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU ne ščiti „slavnih“ znamk kot takih, ampak zaradi uspeha in slovesa (dobrega imena), ki so ga pridobile na trgu.
A sign does not enjoy any reputation inherently, for example, simply because it refers to a renowned person or event, but only for the goods and services it designates and the use that has been made of it. 
Znak sam po sebi nima ugleda samo zato, ker se na primer nanaša na slavno osebo ali dogodek, ampak ga ima samo v zvezi z blagom in storitvami, ki jih označuje, ter zaradi svoje uporabe.
3.1.2 Scope of reputation 
Obseg ugleda
3.1.2.1 Degree of recognition 
Stopnja prepoznavnosti
Having defined reputation as a knowledge threshold requirement, the question that necessarily follows is how much awareness the earlier mark must attain among the public in order to pass this threshold. 
Po opredelitvi ugleda kot zahteve glede praga poznanosti, neizogibno sledi vprašanje, kolikšno stopnjo poznavanja mora imeti prejšnja znamka v javnosti, da preseže ta prag.
The Court held in this respect that the ‘degree of knowledge required must be considered to be reached when the earlier trade mark is known by a significant part of the public' and added that it ‘cannot be inferred from either the letter or the spirit of Article 5(2) [TMD] that the trade mark must be known by a given percentage of the public' (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25-26; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 45). 
Sodišče je v zvezi s tem odločilo, da je zahtevana stopnja poznanosti dosežena, če prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, in dodalo, da niti na podlagi besedila niti bistva člena 5(2) [direktive o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami] ni mogoče sklepati, da mora znamko poznati določen odstotek javnosti (14/09/1999, C375/97, Chevy, EU:C:1999:408, § 25-26; 16/11/2011, T500/10, Doorsa, EU:T:2011:679, § 45).
By refraining from defining in more detail the meaning of the term ‘significant' and by stating that the trade mark does not have to be known by a given percentage of the public, the Court in substance advised against the use of fixed criteria of general applicability, since a predetermined degree of recognition may not be appropriate for a realistic assessment of reputation if taken alone. 
Ker Sodišče ni podrobneje opredelilo pomena izraza „znaten“ in je navedlo, da se ne zahteva, da znamko pozna določen odstotek javnosti, je vsebinsko odsvetovalo uporabo splošno veljavnih določenih meril, saj predhodno določena stopnja prepoznavnosti, če se uporablja sama, ni nujno primerna za realno presojo ugleda.
Hence, in determining whether the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public, account must be taken not only of the degree of awareness of the mark, but also of any other factor relevant to the specific case. 
Zato je treba pri ugotavljanju, ali prejšnjo znamko pozna znaten del javnosti, upoštevati tako stopnjo poznavanja znamke, kot tudi vse druge dejavnike, ki so pomembni za specifičen primer.
For more about the relevant factors and their interplay, see paragraph 3.1.3 below. 
Za več informacij o upoštevnih dejavnikih in njihovem medsebojnem učinku glej odstavek 3.1.3 v nadaljevanju.
However, where goods or services concern quite small groups of consumers, the limited overall size of the market means that a significant part thereof is also restricted in absolute numbers. 
Vendar kadar so blago ali storitve namenjeni zelo majhni skupini potrošnikov, omejena skupna velikost trga pomeni, da je v smislu absolutnih številk omejen tudi znaten del tega trga.
Hence, the limited size of the relevant market should not be regarded in itself as a factor capable of preventing a mark from acquiring a reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) EUTMR, as reputation is more a question of proportions and less of absolute numbers. 
Zato se omejena velikost upoštevnega trga kot taka ne bi smela šteti za dejavnik, ki lahko prepreči, da bi znamka dobila ugled v smislu člena 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, saj je ugled bolj odvisen od deležev kot absolutnih številk.