natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The average consumer is assumed to be ‘reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect', even though in purely factual terms some consumers are extremely observant and well informed, whilst others are careless and credulous (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32). 
Za povprečnega potrošnika se šteje, da je „povprečno obveščen ter razumno pozoren in pazljiv“, čeprav so nekateri potrošniki v resnici izjemno pozorni in dobro obveščeni, drugi pa so brezbrižni in lahkoverni (10/07/2007, R 40/20064, SDZ DIRECT WORLD / SAZ, § 32).
Therefore, incidences of actual confusion can influence the finding of likelihood of confusion only if it is proven that these incidences usually accompany the existence of the conflicting trade marks in the market in the typical situation in trade involving the goods and/or services concerned. 
Zato lahko dejanski primeri zmede vplivajo na odločitev o verjetnosti zmede samo, če se dokaže, da so ti primeri pri obstoju nasprotujočih blagovnih znamk na trgu običajni v običajnih okoliščinah pri trgovanju z navedenim blagom in/ali storitvami.
To properly weigh evidence on the number of occasions when actual confusion has arisen, the assessment must be made in the light of the number of opportunities for confusion. 
Za ustrezno upoštevanje dokazov o številu primerov, ko je dejansko nastopila zmeda, je treba presojo utemeljiti na številu priložnosti za zmedo.
If the business transactions are voluminous but the instances of confusion are sparse, this evidence will have little weight in the assessment of likelihood of confusion. 
Če je poslovnih transakcij veliko, primeri zmede pa so redki, bodo imeli ti dokazi majhno težo pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede.
Lack of actual confusion has been treated in the context of coexistence, in paragraph 3 above. 
Odsotnost dejanske zmede se je obravnavala v okviru soobstoja v odstavku 3 zgoraj.
5 Prior Decisions by EU or National Authorities Involving Conflicts Between the Same (or Similar) Trade Marks 
Predhodne odločbe organov EU ali nacionalnih organov, v katerih je bilo obravnavano navzkrižje med enakimi (ali podobnimi) blagovnimi znamkami
5.1 Prior Office decisions 
Predhodne odločbe Urada
As regards previous decisions of the Office in conflicts between identical or similar trade marks, the General Court has stated that: 
Splošno sodišče je v zvezi s predhodnimi odločbami Urada v sporih med enakimi ali podobnimi blagovnimi znamkami navedlo:
… it is settled case-law … that the legality of the decisions of the [Office] is to be assessed purely by reference to [the EUTMR] and not the Office's practice in earlier decisions. 
[…] na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse […] se zakonitost odločb [Urada] presoja izključno glede na [Uredbo o blagovni znamki EU], in ne glede na prakso Urada v prejšnjih odločbah
Accordingly, the Office is not bound by its previous decisions, since each case has to be dealt with separately and with regard to its particularities. 
V skladu s tem Urada njegove prejšnje odločbe ne zavezujejo, saj je treba vsak primer obravnavati posebej in ob upoštevanju njegovih posebnosti.
Notwithstanding the fact that previous decisions of the Office are not binding, their reasoning and outcome should still be duly considered when deciding upon the case in question. 
Pri obravnavanju zadevnega primera je treba, ne glede na to, da prejšnje odločbe Urada niso zavezujoče, kljub temu ustrezno upoštevati njihovo utemeljevanje in izid.
This was reinforced in the judgment of 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75: 
To je bilo podkrepljeno s sodbo 10/03/2011, C51/10 P, 1000, EU:C:2011:139, § 73-75:
The Office is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. 
Urad mora izvajati svoje pristojnosti v skladu s splošnimi načeli prava Evropske unije, kot sta načelo enakega obravnavanja in načelo dobrega upravljanja.
In the light of those two principles, the Office must, when examining an application for registration of a European Union trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not … 
Glede na ti načeli mora Urad v okviru preizkusa zahteve za registracijo blagovne znamke Evropske unije upoštevati odločbe, ki so že bile sprejete o podobnih zahtevah, in posebno pozornost nameniti vprašanju, ali je treba odločiti v enakem smislu …
That said, the way in which the principles of equal treatment and sound administration are applied must be consistent with respect for legality. 
Poleg tega morata biti načeli enakega obravnavanja in dobrega upravljanja usklajeni s spoštovanjem zakonitosti.
The indicative value of the previous decisions will in principle be limited to cases that bear a sufficiently close resemblance to the case in question. 
Vrednost prejšnjih odločb bo načeloma omejena na primere, ki so dovolj podobni zadevnemu primeru.
However, according to Article 95(1) EUTMR, in opposition proceedings the Office is restricted in the examination of the case to the facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. 
Vendar je Urad v skladu s členom 95(1) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU v postopku ugovora pri tem preizkusu omejen na dejstva, dokaze in utemeljitve, ki so jih predložile stranke.
For this reason, even in cases based on comparable facts and involving similar legal problems, the outcome may still vary due to the different submissions made by the parties and the evidence they present. 
Zato se lahko izid celo v zadevah, ki temeljijo na primerljivih dejstvih in vključujejo podobne pravne težave, razlikuje glede na stališča in dokaze, ki jih predložijo stranke.
5.2 Prior national decisions and judgments 
Prejšnje nacionalne odločbe in sodbe
Decisions of national courts and of national offices in cases regarding conflicts between identical or similar trade marks on the national level do not have a binding effect on the Office. 
Odločbe nacionalnih sodišč in nacionalnih uradov v zadevah, ki se nanašajo na spore med enakimi ali podobnimi blagovnimi znamkami na nacionalni ravni, za Urad niso zavezujoče.
According to case-law, the European Union trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it and applies independently of any national system. 
Glede na sodno prakso je ureditev, ki se uporablja na področju blagovnih znamk Evropske unije, avtonomen sistem z lastnimi cilji in posebnimi pravili ter se uporablja neodvisno od vseh nacionalnih sistemov.
Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a European Union trade mark is to be assessed on the basis of the relevant legislation alone (13/09/2010, T292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399, § 84; 25/10/2006, T13/05, Oda, EU:T:2006:335, § 59). 
V skladu s tem je treba o možnosti registracije znaka kot blagovne znamke Evropske unije presojati le na podlagi ustrezne zakonodaje (13/09/2010, T292/08, Often, EU:T:2010:399, § 84; 25/10/2006, T13/05, Oda, EU:T:2006:335, § 59).
Therefore, the decisions adopted in a Member State or in a state that is not a member of the European Union are not binding for the Office (24/03/2010, T363/08, Nollie, EU:T:2010:114, § 52). 
Zato odločbe, ki se sprejmejo v državi članici ali nečlanici Evropske unije, za Urad niso zavezujoče (glej 24/03/2010, T363/08, Nollie, EU:T:2010:114, § 52).
Still, their reasoning and outcome should be duly considered, particularly when the decision has been taken in the Member State that is relevant to the proceedings. 
Kljub temu je treba ustrezno upoštevati njihovo utemeljitev in izid, zlasti če je bila odločba sprejeta v državi članici, ki je pomembna za postopek.
National courts have a thorough knowledge of the specific characteristics of their Member State, in particular as regards the marketplace reality in which goods and services are marketed and the customer perception of signs. 
Nacionalna sodišča dobro poznajo posebnosti svoje države članice, zlasti glede dejanskega stanja na trgu, kjer se prodajajo blago in storitve, ter glede tega, kako znak dojemajo stranke.
This may, in particular cases, be relevant for the assessment made by the Office. 
To je lahko v nekaterih primerih pomembno za presojo, ki jo opravi Urad.
Whilst it is, in principle, permissible to take into account decisions of national courts and authorities, these decisions should be examined with all the required care and in a diligent manner (15/07/2011, T108/08, Good Life, EU:T:2011:391, § 23). 
Čeprav je načeloma dovoljeno upoštevati odločbe nacionalnih sodišč in organov, je treba te odločbe preveriti z vso zahtevano skrbnostjo in vestnostjo (15/07/2011, T108/08, Good Life, EU:T:2011:391, § 23).
Usually the understanding of such a decision will require the submission of sufficient information, in particular about the facts on which the decision was based. 
Razumevanje takšne odločbe navadno zahteva, da se predložijo zadostne informacije, zlasti o dejstvih, na katerih je temeljila odločba.
Their indicative value will therefore be limited to the rare cases when the factual and legal background of the case was presented completely in the opposition proceedings and is conclusive, clear and not disputed by the parties. 
Njihova povedna vrednost bo torej omejena na redke primere, v katerih sta bila dejansko in pravno ozadje zadeve v postopku ugovora predstavljena v celoti ter sta prepričljiva, jasna in jima stranke niso ugovarjale.
The above guidelines are without prejudice to the effects of the judgments of EUTM courts dealing with counterclaims for revocation or for a declaration of invalidity of EUTMs. 
Zgornje smernice ne posegajo v učinke sodb sodišč glede blagovnih znamk EU, v katerih so bile obravnavane nasprotne tožbe za razveljavitev ali ugotovitev ničnosti blagovnih znamk EU.
6 Irrelevant Arguments for Assessing Likelihood of Confusion 
Brezpredmetne utemeljitve za presojanje verjetnosti zmede
6.1 Specific marketing strategies 
Posebne strategije trženja
The examination of the likelihood of confusion carried out by the Office is a prospective examination. 
Preizkušanje verjetnosti zmede, ki ga izvede Urad, je vnaprejšnje preizkušanje.
In contrast to trade mark infringement situations - where the courts deal with specific circumstances in which the particular facts and the specific nature of use of the trade mark are crucial - the deliberations of the Office on likelihood of confusion are carried out in a more abstract manner. 
V nasprotju s kršitvami blagovne znamke, pri katerih sodišča obravnavajo posebne okoliščine, v katerih so bistvena določena dejstva in posebna uporaba blagovne znamke, so presoje Urada o verjetnosti zmede težje razumljive.
For this reason, specific marketing strategies are not relevant. 
Zato posebne strategije trženja niso pomembne.
The Office must take the usual circumstances in which the goods covered by the marks are marketed as its benchmark, that is, those circumstances that are expected for the category of goods covered by the marks. 
Urad mora kot primerjalno merilo uporabiti običajne okoliščine, v katerih se trži blago, ki ga zajemata znamki, tj. okoliščine, ki se pričakujejo za kategorijo blaga, ki ga zajemata znamki.
The particular circumstances in which the goods covered by the marks are actually marketed have, as a matter of principle, no impact on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion because they may vary in time depending on the wishes of the proprietors of the trade marks (15/03/2007, C171/06 P, Quantum, EU:C:2007:171, § 59; 22/03/2012, C354/11 P, G, EU:C:2012:167, § 73; 21/06/2012, T276/09, Yakut, EU:T:2012:313, § 58). 
Okoliščine, v katerih se blago, ki ga zajemata znamki, dejansko trži, načeloma ne vplivajo na presojo verjetnosti zmede, ker se lahko sčasoma spremenijo glede na želje imetnikov blagovnih znamk (15/03/2007, C171/06 P, Quantum, EU:C:2007:171, § 59; 22/03/2012, C354/11 P, G, EU:C:2012:167, § 73; 21/06/2012, T276/09, Yakut, EU:T:2012:313, § 58).
For example, the fact that one party offers its everyday consumer goods (wines) for sale at a higher price than competitors is a purely subjective marketing factor that is, as such, irrelevant when assessing the likelihood of confusion (14/11/2007, T101/06, Castell del Remei Oda, EU:T:2007:340, § 52). 
Tako je na primer dejstvo, da ena stranka svoje blago za vsakdanjo potrošnjo (vina) prodaja po višji ceni kot konkurenti, popolnoma subjektiven dejavnik trženja, ki je kot tak nepomemben za presojanje verjetnosti zmede (14/11/2007, T101/06, Castell del Remei Oda, EU:T:2007:340, § 52).
6.2 Reputation of EUTM application 
Ugled prijave blagovne znamke EU
Applicants sometimes argue that there will be no likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark because the EUTM application has a reputation. 
Prijavitelji včasih trdijo, da ne bo verjetnosti zmede v povezavi s prejšnjo znamko, saj prijava blagovne znamke EU uživa ugled.
Therefore, when considering whether or not the EUTM falls under any of the relative grounds for refusal, events or facts that happened before the filing date of the EUTM are irrelevant because the opponent's rights, insofar as they predate the EUTM, are earlier than the applicant's EUTM. 
Zato pri presojanju, ali je mogoče pri blagovni znamki EU upoštevati katerega od relativnih razlogov za zavrnitev, dogodki ali dejstva, ki so nastopili pred prijavo blagovne znamke EU, niso pomembni, saj so pravice vložnika ugovora, če so starejše od blagovne znamke EU, starejše od prijaviteljeve blagovne znamke EU.
Earlier signs Contested sign Case No 
Prejšnji znaki Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
G&S: Class 5 Territory: Germany Assessment: the Board held that the differences between the signs were such as to exclude the likelihood that the contested mark would be perceived as belonging to the opponent's family of marks (assuming the existence of this had been established). 
Blago in storitve: razred 5 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Odbor je menil, da razlike med znakoma izključujejo verjetnost, da bi se lahko izpodbijana znamka štela za del družine znamk, katerih imetnik je vložnik ugovora (ob predpostavki, da je bil obstoj družine ugotovljen).
When ‘ophtal' is combined with ‘Pan-',‘ Crom-' and ‘ Visc-', these partly disjointed prefixes become of greater distinctive value, affecting quite significantly the overall impression made by each of the marks as a whole, and in each case providing initial elements quite clearly different from the first half - ‘Alerg' - of the mark applied for. 
Kadar se „ophtal“ uporablja v kombinaciji s „Pan-“, „Crom-“ in „Visc-“, imajo te delno ločene predpone večjo razlikovalno vrednost in precej pomembno vplivajo na splošen vtis, ki ga ima vsaka od znamk kot celota, vsekakor pa se prvi del precej jasno loči od prve polovice („Alerg“) prijavljene znamke.
The German consumer, upon seeing ‘Alergoftal' would not think of dividing it into two elements, as opposed to being invited to do so when encountering marks made up of two elements separated by a hyphen (paras 14, 18). 
Če bi nemški potrošnik videl besedo „Alergoftal“, ne bi dobil vtisa, da je sestavljena iz dveh elementov, česar pa ne bi mogli trditi za primere znamk, sestavljenih iz dveh elementov, ki sta ločena z vezajem (točki 14 in 18).
G&S: Class 5 Territory: EU Assessment: the element ‘Ophtal', which denotes ophthalmologic preparations, is a weak element in the family of marks. 
Blago in storitve: razred 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Element „Ophtal“, ki označuje oftalmološke pripravke, je v družini znamk šibek.
The elements TIM, SIC and LAC are the distinctive elements (paras 92-93). 
Elementi TIM, SIC in LAC so razlikovalni (točki 92 in 93).
UNIZINS, UNIFONDS and UNIRAK UNIWEB 16/06/2011, C317/10 P 
UNIZINS, UNIFONDS in UNIRAK UNIWEB 16/06/2011, C317/10 P
G&S: Class 36 (financial services) Territory: Germany Assessment: in this judgment the Court annulled a decision of the GC since it had not duly assessed the structure of the marks to be compared, nor the influence of the position of their common element on the perception of the relevant public (para. 57). 
Blago in storitve: razred 36 (finančne storitve) Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Sodišče je v tej sodbi razveljavilo odločbo Splošnega sodišča, saj to ni ustrezno presodilo o zgradbi znakov, ki jih je treba primerjati, niti o vplivu položaja elementa, ki jim je skupen, na to, kako jih lahko dojema upoštevna javnost (točka 57).
Earlier signs Contested sign Case No 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
G&S: Class 36 (financial services) Territory: Germany Assessment: the Board considered that the opponent had in fact submitted sufficient evidence, by submitting, in particular, references from the relevant specialist press, such as FINANZtest, and by referring to its considerable 17.6 % market share of ‘Uni' investment funds amongst German fund management companies, to show that it uses the prefix ‘UNI' for a number of well-known investment funds. 
Blago in storitve: razred 36 (finančne storitve) Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Odbor je menil, da je vložnik ugovora predložil zadostne dokaze, saj je predložil zlasti navedbe iz ustreznega specializiranega tiska, kot je FINANZtest, in se skliceval na tržni delež naložbenega sklada „Uni“, ki med nemškimi družbami za upravljanje skladov znaša kar 17,6 %, s čimer je dokazal, da uporablja predpono „UNI“ za več znanih naložbenih skladov.
Earlier signs Contested sign Case No 
UNIFIX, BRICOFIX, MULTIFIX, CONSTRUFIX, TRABAFIX itd.
G&S: Classes 1, 17 and 19 (adhesives) Territory: Spain Assessment: the Board considered that the opponent had proven the existence of a family of marks. 
Blago in storitve: razredi 1, 17 in 19 (lepila) Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Odbor je menil, da je vložnik ugovora dokazal obstoj družine znamk.
Firstly, the Board discarded that the common element ‘FIX' would be non-distinctive, given that it is not a Spanish word and even its Spanish meaning ‘fijar' is not one that spontaneously comes to mind to average Spanish consumers in the context of glues and adhesives, since verbs like ‘pegar', ‘encolar' or ‘adherir' are used more regularly in this context. 
Prvič, zavrgel je trditev, da bo skupni element „FIX“ nerazlikovalen, saj ne gre za špansko besedo in tudi njegov pomen „fijar“ v španščini ni nekaj, na kar bi povprečen španski potrošnik spontano pomislil v zvezi z lepili: v tem kontekstu se namreč pogosteje uporabljajo glagoli, kot so „pegar“, „encolar“ in „adherir“.
Secondly, the opponent duly proved that all the marks forming the family are being used. 
Drugič, vložnik ugovora je ustrezno dokazal, da se uporabljajo vse znamke v družini.
Invoices and promotional literature duly show that goods bearing these marks are available to consumers on the market. 
Izdani računi in promocijsko gradivo jasno kažejo, da je blago s temi znamkami na voljo potrošnikom na trgu.
Consumers, therefore, are aware that there is a family of marks. 
Potrošniki so torej seznanjeni, da obstaja družina znamk.
Thirdly, ZENTRIFIX has characteristics that replicate those of the trade marks in the family. 
Tretjič, ime ZENTRIFIX ima lastnosti, ki posnemajo lastnosti blagovnih znamk v družini.
The FIX element is placed at the end; the element that precedes it alludes to something that has some relevance to glues; the two elements are juxtaposed without any punctuation signs, dashes or physical separation; the typeface used for the two elements is the same (paras 43-44). 
Element FIX stoji na koncu, element, ki stoji pred njim, pa se nanaša na nekaj, kar je povezano z lepili, pri čemer elementa nista ločena fizično, med njima ni niti ločil ali pomišljajev, za oba se uporablja ista pisava (točki 43 in 44).
G&S: Classes 9, 16 (potentially finance-related goods) Territory: EU Assessment: the Board considered that the evidence - consisting in particular of extracts from the opponents' websites, annual reports, press advertisements and so forth - is littered with references to the trade marks CITICORP, CITIGROUP, CITICARD, CITIGOLD, CITIEQUITY. 
Blago in storitve: razreda 9 in 16 (blago, ki je lahko povezano s področjem financ) Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Odbor je menil, da dokazi (ki zajemajo predvsem izvlečke s spletnih strani, iz letnih poročil, tiskanih oglasov vložnika ugovora itd.) vsebujejo precej sklicevanj na blagovne znamke CITICORP, CITIGROUP, CITICARD, CITIGOLD in CITIEQUITY.
The evidence demonstrates that CITIBANK is in the nature of a ‘house mark' or basic brand and that the opponents have developed a whole series of sub-brands based on the CITI concept. 
Dokazi kažejo, da je CITIBANK po naravi „krovna znamka“ oziroma osnovna znamka in da so vložniki ugovora razvili niz podrejenih znamk, ki temeljijo na konceptu CITI.
The contested mark CITIGATE is the sort of mark that the opponents might add to their portfolio of CITI marks, in particular if they wished to offer a new service to customers and place the emphasis on the idea of access (paras 23-24). 
Izpodbijana znamka CITIGATE je takšna, da bi jo lahko vložniki ugovora dodali v svoj portfelj znamk CITI, zlasti če bi želeli strankam ponuditi novo storitev in poudariti koncept dostopa (točki 23 in 24).
G&S: Class 14 Territory: Spain Assessment: the Court did not see the relevance of Spanish case-law, according to which an average member of the Spanish public has some knowledge of English for the assessment of the particular case: In the present case, the applicant has not put forward any factual or legal consideration, deriving from the national case-law relied upon, which is capable of providing helpful guidance for determination of the case … . 
Blago in storitve: razred 14 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja: Sodišče ni upoštevalo španske sodne prakse, v skladu s katero zna vsak povprečni član španske javnosti nekaj angleščine, kot pomembne za presojanje posebne zadeve: v obravnavanem primeru tožeča stranka ne navaja nobene dejanske ali pravne trditve iz nacionalne sodne prakse, na katero se sklicuje in ki bi lahko dala uporabni podatek za rešitev obravnavanega primera ...
The mere finding that certain English words are known to the Spanish consumer, namely the words ‘master', ‘easy' and ‘food', even if that is clear from the national case-law in question, cannot lead to the same conclusion as regards the word ‘often' (para. 85). 
Le na podlagi ugotovitve, da španski potrošnik pozna nekatere angleške besede, kot so „master“, „easy“ in „food“ - čeprav izhaja iz zadevne nacionalne sodne prakse -, namreč ni mogoče sklepati, da pozna besedo „often“ (točka 85).
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 12 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 1
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Global Assessment 
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Celovita presoja
DOUBLE IDENTITY AND 
DVOJNA ENAKOST IN
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION 
VERJETNOST ZMEDE
GLOBAL ASSESSMENT 
CELOVITA PRESOJA
1.1 Nature of global assessment 3 
1.1 Narava celovite presoje 3
2 Interdependence Principle 3 
2 Načelo soodvisnosti 3
3 Imperfect Recollection 4 
3 Nepopoln priklic v spomin 4
4 Impact of the Method of Purchase of Goods and Services 5 
4 Učinek načina kupovanja blaga in storitev 4
4.1 Visual similarity 5 
4.1 Vizualna podobnost 5
4.2 Aural similarity 7 
4.2 Zvočna podobnost 7
4.3 Conclusion 9 
4.3 Sklepna ugotovitev 8
5 Impact of the Conceptual Similarity of the Signs on Likelihood of Confusion 9 
5 Učinek pojmovne podobnosti znakov na verjetnost zmede 8
6 Impact on Likelihood of Confusion of Components that are Non-distinctive or Distinctive Only to a Low Degree 10 
6 Vpliv na verjetnost zmede sestavnih delov z nerazlikovalnim učinkom ali samo šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom 10
6.1 Common components with a low degree of distinctiveness 11 
6.1 Skupni sestavni deli s šibkim razlikovalnim učinkom 10
6.3 Distinctiveness of the earlier mark versus distinctiveness of the common component 15 
6.3 Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke proti razlikovalnemu učinku skupnega sestavnega dela 14
7 Specific cases 16 
7 Posebni primeri 15
7.1 Short signs 16 
7.1 Kratki znaki 15
7.2 Name/Surnames 17 
7.2 Imena/priimki 16
7.2.1 Names 17 
7.2.1 Imena 16
7.2.2 Business names in combination with other components 17 
7.2.2 Imena podjetij v povezavi z drugimi sestavnimi deli 16
7.2.3 First and family names 18 
7.2.3 Imena in priimki 17