natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should also be emphasised that if the complex stylisation of the verbal element of a sign does not make it totally illegible, but merely lends itself to various interpretations, the comparison must take into account the different realistic interpretations. 
Treba je tudi poudariti, pri primerjavi upoštevati vse različne načine razumevanja, ki so verjetni, kadar besedni element znaka zaradi zapletene stilizacije ni povsem neberljiv, temveč ga je le mogoče razumeti na več načinov.
Thus, it is only in the - rather rare - case where the legibility of the sign is truly unrealistic, without being assisted by a mark description or the other mark, that the verbal element will be disregarded in the comparison. 
Besedni element se tako pri primerjavi ne upošteva le v precej redkem primeru, ko res ni verjetno pričakovati, da bo potrošnik lahko prebral znak, ne da bi si pomagal z opisom znamke ali drugo znamko.
4.2.4 Overlap in other irrelevant aspects 
Prekrivanje drugih nepomembnih vidikov
The fact that there is some coincidence between the signs does not necessarily lead to a finding of similarity. 
Dejstvo, da se znaka v nečem ujemata, še ne pomeni, da bo ugotovljena podobnost med njima.
This is in particular the case when the overlapping part is not perceived independently within the overall impression of the marks. 
To velja zlasti, kadar se del, ki se prekriva, v okviru celotnega vtisa znamk ne zaznava neodvisno.
The Court considered the following signs dissimilar despite the overlap in a sequence of letters. 
Sodišče je menilo, da so naslednji znaki različni, čeprav se prekriva zaporedje črk.
The same applies to similarities in the figurative elements that are of minor impact. 
Enako velja, kadar so podobni figurativni elementi, ki imajo le majhen vpliv.
The decision must contain a thorough reasoning, in the comparison of signs, as to why the overlap in particular aspects is considered irrelevant. 
Odločba mora pri primerjavi znakov vsebovati temeljito obrazložitev, zakaj se prekrivanje določenih vidikov šteje kot nepomembno.
4.2.5 Overlap in a non-distinctive element 
Prekrivanje nerazlikovalnega elementa
If the signs overlap exclusively in an element that is descriptive or non-distinctive for the relevant goods and services in all parts of the relevant territory, and both contain other distinctive element(s) capable of differentiating between the signs, they can be considered dissimilar. 
Če se pri znakih prekriva izključno element, ki je v zvezi z zadevnim blagom in storitvami v vseh delih upoštevnega ozemlja opisen ali nerazlikovalen, ter oba vsebujeta drug(-e) razlikovalni(-e) element(-e), po katerem(-ih) je mogoče razlikovati med znakoma, se lahko znaka štejeta kot različna.
It follows that two conditions have to be fulfilled in order to find dissimilarity in this context: 
Iz tega izhaja, da morata biti za ugotovitev različnosti v takem primeru izpolnjena dva pogoja:
the coinciding element must be non-distinctive (if the coinciding element has some, even very low distinctiveness, the signs cannot be found dissimilar); 
element, ki se ujema, mora biti nerazlikovalen (če ima element, ki se ujema, neki razlikovalni učinek, tudi če je ta zelo šibak, ne more biti ugotovljena različnost med znakoma),
both signs must contain other elements that are distinctive and capable of differentiating the marks. 
oba znaka morata vsebovati druge elemente, ki so razlikovalni in po katerih je mogoče razlikovati med znamkama.
Therefore, two signs may be dissimilar for some of the goods and services but not for others. 
Znaka sta tako lahko različna za nekatero blago in storitve, za drugo blago in storitve pa ne.
Furthermore, if in part of the relevant territory the overlapping element is not perceived as descriptive or non-distinctive (e.g. due to non-understanding of the term), the signs cannot be considered dissimilar. 
Poleg tega se znaka ne moreta šteti kot različna, če se na delu upoštevnega ozemlja element, ki se prekriva, ne zaznava kot opisen ali nerazlikovalen (npr. ker tam javnost izraza ne razume).
The following invented examples illustrate cases where the coincidence in one element cannot lead to any similarity because that element is non-distinctive and the other elements, which are clearly different, allow the public to differentiate sufficiently between the marks. 
V naslednjih izmišljenih primerih je navedeno, kdaj zaradi ujemanja v enem elementu ne more biti ugotovljena podobnost, ker je ta element nerazlikovalen in ker javnost lahko zadostno razlikuje med znamkama po drugih elementih, ki so jasno različni.
Examples from case-law 
Primeri iz sodne prakse
According to the rules established on the beginning of signs, despite a lack of distinctive character of the elements in common, it would not be appropriate to conclude on dissimilarity, where: 
V skladu s pravili, ki veljajo za začetek znakov, čeprav skupni elementi nimajo razlikovalnega učinka, ne bi bilo ustrezno ugotoviti, da sta znaka različna:
the particular combination of the elements confer some distinctiveness on the signs (i.e. the combination would be protected) 
kadar imata znaka razlikovalni učinek zaradi določene kombinacije elementov (tj. kadar bi bila zaščitena kombinacija),
the other element that is supposed to distinguish between the signs is perceived as an insignificant figurative detail, or is otherwise non-distinctive (see paragraph 3.2.3.1 above) 
kadar se drugi element, po katerem naj bi javnost razlikovala med znakoma, zaznava kot nepomembna figurativna podrobnost ali je drugače nerazlikovalen (glej odstavek 3.2.3.1 zgoraj),
the non-distinctive elements constituting (forming exclusively) the sign are entirely incorporated in the other sign 
nerazlikovalni elementi, ki sestavljajo znak (ta ne vsebuje drugih elementov), so v celoti vključeni v drugem znaku.
In summary, the finding of ‘dissimilar overall' on account of an overlap exclusively in non-distinctive elements should be limited to evident cases where the other element serves to safely distinguish between the signs. 
Skratka, ugotovitev, da sta znaka „na splošno različna“, ker se prekrivajo izključno nerazlikovalni elementi, bi morala biti omejena na primere, v katerih drugi element očitno omogoča zanesljivo razlikovanje med znamkama.
In less evident cases low similarity should be attributed to the marks. 
V primerih, v katerih je to manj očitno, bi bilo treba znamkama pripisati nizko stopnjo podobnosti.
The examination will then proceed and the cases will be solved at the stage of the global assessment (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 2, Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 7, Global Assessment, paragraph 6.2). 
Preizkus se nato nadaljuje in zadeve se rešijo v fazi celovite presoje (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 2: Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede, poglavje 7: Celovita presoja, odstavek 6.2).
It must also be borne in mind that a finding of dissimilarity in the context of Article 8(1)(a) or (b) EUTMR is also binding for other grounds of refusal on which the opposition is based. 
Treba je upoštevati tudi, da je ugotovitev različnosti v okviru člena 8(1)(a) ali (b) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU zavezujoča tudi v zvezi z drugimi razlogi za zavrnitev, na katerih temelji ugovor.
It applies especially to Article 8(5) EUTMR, with the result that if the marks are found dissimilar, the protection on this ground is excluded (see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR), paragraph 3.2). 
To velja zlasti za člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU, kar pomeni, da je zaščita na podlagi tega razloga izključena, če je ugotovljeno, da sta znamki različni (glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU), odstavek 3.2).
Earlier sign Contested sign Case No 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 The words ‘by missako' are almost illegible: the size and script make them difficult to decipher. 
(GREEN BY MISSAKO) 11/11/2009, T162/08, EU:T:2009:432 Besedi „by missako“ sta skoraj neberljivi: zaradi velikosti in pisave ju je težko razbrati.
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 The element ‘Rótulos Luna S.A.' was considered negligible. 
LUNA 12/12/2011, R 2347/20102 Element „Rótulos Luna S.A.“ se je štel za zanemarljivega.
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 The Board described the contested sign in full, but negligible elements such as '70 cl' were not included in the comparison. 
MAGNA 17/05/2006, R 1328/20052 Odbor je izpodbijani znak opisal v celoti, vendar zanemarljivi elementi, kot je „70 cl“, v primerjavo niso bili vključeni.
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 The elements other than ‘cachaça'/‘pirassununga' and ‘51', the latter written in white within a circle that is itself partially within a broad band running from one side of the sign to the other, are negligible in the overall impression created by those marks (para. 65). 
03/09/2010, T472/08, EU:T:2010:347 Elementi, razen „cachaça/pirassununga“ in „51“, pri čemer je zadnji napisan v beli barvi v krogu, ki je delno v širokem traku, ki poteka od ene strani znaka do druge, so zanemarljivi v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata ti znamki (točka 65).
Earlier sign Contested sign and comments Case No 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak in pripombe Št. zadeve
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED It was found that ‘the signs at stake were obviously not identical', even if ‘Insurance company limited' was descriptive in English for the related services. 
Millenium MILLENIUM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Ugotovljeno je bilo, da „sporna znaka očitno nista enaka“, čeprav je „Insurance company limited“ opis v angleščini za zadevne storitve.
Earlier sign Contested sign 
Prejšnji znak Izpodbijani znak
The Court considered that the fact that ‘the proprietor of a mark may use it in a colour or a combination of colours and obtain for it, as the case may be, protection under the relevant applicable provisions … does not mean … that the registration of a mark which does not designate any specific colour covers all colour combinations which are enclosed with the graphic representation' (para. 39). 
Sodišče je menilo, da dejstvo, „da lahko imetnik znamke [znamko] uporablja v eni barvi ali v kombinaciji barv, ter v zvezi s to barvo ali kombinacijo barv, če je to potrebno, pridobi varstvo v skladu z upoštevnimi predpisi“, ne pomeni, „da bi registracija znamke, ki posebej ne prikazuje nobene barve, vključevala vse kombinacije barv, ki so zajete v grafičnem prikazu“ (točka 39).
In this particular case, the Court considered that the Board was right in finding ‘that one difference between the mark applied for and the first and second earlier marks lay in the fact that the mark applied for consisted, in part, of a yellow background with white vertical stripes' (para. 40). 
V tej zadevi je Sodišče menilo, da je odbor pravilno ugotovil, „da je bila razlika med prijavljeno znamko in prvo ter drugo prejšnjo znamko v tem, da je bila prijavljena znamka delno sestavljena iz rumenega ozadja z belimi navpičnimi črtami“ (točka 40).
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: EU Assessment of the components ‘frut' and ‘sol': ‘… it is necessary to distinguish between the perception by the public in those Member States, such as Italy and Spain, where the elements “sol” and “frut” are generally recognisable and can be understood as alluding to “sun” and “fruit” respectively, and the perception by the public in those Member States, such as Hungary, Finland and Lithuania, where those elements have no such close equivalent in their national languages'. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: EU Presoja sestavnih delov „frut“ in „sol“: „[…] treba je razlikovati med zaznavanjem javnosti v državah članicah, kot sta Italija in Španija, kjer sta elementa ,sol‘ in ,frut‘ na splošno prepoznavna in ju je mogoče razumeti kot povezana s soncem oziroma sadjem, ter zaznavanjem javnosti v državah članicah, kot so Madžarska, Finska in Litva, kjer navedena elementa v njihovih nacionalnih jezikih nimata takšne ustreznice“.
In the first category of Member States, consumers are liable to associate both marks with the notions of ‘fruit' and ‘sunshine'. 
Za potrošnike v prvi skupini držav članic je verjetno, da obe znamki povezujejo s pojmoma sadje in sonce.
There will consequently be a certain level of conceptual similarity between them. 
Zato bo med njima neka stopnja pojmovne podobnosti.
In Member States of the second category, consumers will not perceive any conceptual similarity between the signs since they will not attach any particular meaning to the constituent parts of either sign (paras 21-24). 
Potrošniki v državah članicah iz druge skupine ne zaznavajo pojmovne podobnosti med znakoma, ker sestavnim delom znakov ne pripisujejo nobenega določenega pomena (točke 21-24).
G&S: Class 3 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘products': ‘… the term “products” is not distinctive enough to be taken into consideration by the consumers' (para. 39). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 3 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa Products: „[…] izraz ,Products‘ ni dovolj razlikovalen, da bi ga potrošniki upoštevali“ (točka 39).
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU Assessment of ‘CAPITAL MARKETS': ‘the relevant public, consisting of consumers who are very attentive, well-informed and familiar with basic English financial terminology, will attach little significance to the meaning of the words “capital” and “markets”, which are descriptive of those services and which do not enable the commercial origin of the trade marks at issue to be identified' (para. 59). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU Presoja sestavnih delov „CAPITAL MARKETS“: „za upoštevno javnost, v katero spadajo potrošniki, ki so zelo pozorni, dobro obveščeni in seznanjeni z osnovno angleško finančno terminologijo, pomen izrazov ,capital‘ in ,markets‘, ki opisujeta navedene storitve in ji ne omogočata, da ugotovi tržno poreklo zadevnih znamk, ne bo zelo pomemben“ (točka 59).
G&S: Classes 3 and 5 Territory: EU Assessment of the earlier right: even though the signs have some similarities, the expression ‘NATURAL BRONZE' is descriptive of the purpose of the goods (tanning) for the goods in Class 3 (para. 31). 
Blago in storitve: Razreda 3 in 5 Ozemlje: EU Presoja prejšnje pravice: čeprav imata znaka nekaj podobnosti, je izraz „NATURAL BRONZE“ opisen glede na namen blaga (porjavitev) za blago iz razreda 3 (točka 31).
G&S: Classes 38 and 41 Territory: Spain Assessment of the element ‘CINE': the word ‘cine' has a descriptive meaning in the sense of ‘cinema (film)'. 
Blago in storitve: Razreda 38 in 41 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja elementa „CINE“: beseda „cine“ ima opisen pomen v smislu besede „cinema“ (film).
Therefore, this component has only limited relevance in the perception of the signs (para. 36). 
Zato ima ta sestavni del v zaznavanju znakov samo omejen pomen (točka 36).
G&S: Classes 3 and 5 Territory: Germany Assessment of the element ‘NATURAL BEAUTY': the element ‘NATURAL BEAUTY' is a plain and essential indication of the kind and quality of the goods. 
Blago in storitve: Razreda 3 in 5 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja elementa „NATURAL BEAUTY“: element „NATURAL BEAUTY“ je jasna in ključna označba vrste in kakovosti blaga.
The German public understands the meaning of these two basic words as well as the combination thereof (paras 31-35). 
Nemška javnost razume pomen teh dveh osnovnih besed in njuno kombinacijo (točke 31-35).
G&S: Classes 9 and 12 Territory: EU Assessment: the word ‘force', synonymous with strength and power, can describe one of the characteristics of the goods concerned. 
Blago in storitve: Razreda 9 in 12 Ozemlje: EU Presoja: beseda „force“, ki pomeni silo ali moč, lahko opisuje eno od značilnosti zadevnega blaga.
Furthermore, for some goods in Class 12, it must be held that that word can also designate one of their purposes. 
Poleg tega je treba za nekatere proizvode iz razreda 12 poudariti, da lahko ta beseda označuje tudi enega od njihovih namenov.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the evidence adduced by the applicant, the word ‘force' is commonly used, on the European market, in trade marks in the domain of cycling, thus rendering it banal (paras 38-39). 
Kot je razvidno iz dokazil, na katere se sklicuje prijavitelj, se beseda „force“ na evropskem trgu pogosto uporablja v blagovnih znamkah na področju kolesarstva, zaradi česar je vsakdanja (točki 38 in 39).
G&S: Class 12 Territory: Spain Assessment of the element ‘MAGIC': the word ‘magic' will be perceived by the relevant public as a simple qualifier for the word ‘seat' on account of its resemblance to the Spanish word ‘mágico', which is purely laudatory (para. 39). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 12 Ozemlje: Španija Presoja elementa „MAGIC“: Upoštevna javnost besedo „magic“ zaradi njene podobnosti s špansko besedo „mágico“, ki je izključno poveličevalna, razume le kot kvalifikator besede „seat“ (točka 39).
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘STAR': the word element ‘STAR' is laudatory, as it merely constitutes (together with the remaining elements of the signs) a reference to high-quality food products (para. 52). 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa „STAR“: besedni element „STAR“ je poveličevalen, saj označuje (skupaj z drugimi elementi znakov) le visokokakovostna živila (točka 52).
G&S: Class 36 Territory: EU Assessment of the element ‘LINK': the element ‘LiNK' of the earlier mark is not immediately descriptive of inter alia ‘banking services for the dispensing of cash; funds transfer and payment services; financial information services' (Class 36) covered by the earlier mark, but merely allusive in relation to them (para. 68 et seq.). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 36 Ozemlje: EU Presoja elementa „LINK“: element prejšnje znamke „LiNK“ med drugim ni neposredno opisen za „bančne storitve za izdajanje gotovine, prenose sredstev in plačilne storitve, finančno informiranje“ (razred 36), ki jih označuje prejšnja znamka, temveč je v zvezi z njimi samo namigovalen (točka 68 in naslednje).
G&S: Class 9 Territory: EU Assessment of figurative elements: the verbal elements of the two signs coincide. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 9 Ozemlje: EU Presoja figurativnih elementov: besedna elementa obeh znakov sta enaka.
Even if it is not negligible in terms of its size, the figurative element of the contested EUTM is likely to be perceived by consumers essentially as a mere decorative element, and not as an element indicating the commercial origin of the goods (para. 43). 
Za figurativni element izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU je verjetno, da ga potrošniki zaznavajo zlasti kot le okrasni element, in ne kot element, ki označuje komercialni izvor blaga, čeprav po svoji velikosti ni zanemarljiv (točka 43).
The marks are visually highly similar and phonetically and conceptually identical (paras 45-48). 
Znamki sta vizualno zelo podobni, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaki (točke 45-48).
iHotel T277/11, paras 83-84 The Court did not assess the distinctiveness of the coinciding word elements, orange, with the explanation that the differentiating elements (the way of writing and the orange background) are only an insignificant difference. 
iHotel T277/11, točki 83 in 84 Sodišče ni presodilo razlikovalnega učinka besednih elementov, ki se ujemata, kar je pojasnilo tako, da so elementi, ki se razlikujejo (način zapisa in oranžno ozadje) le nepomembna razlika.
G&S: Classes 29, 30 and 32 Territory: the Czech Republic Assessment: ‘The Board also notes that the earlier mark “Glanc” is registered in the Czech Republic for the goods in question and, therefore, for the purpose of the present proceedings, it must be deemed to be endowed with at least some degree of distinctive character'. 
Blago in storitve: Razredi 29, 30 in 32 Ozemlje: Češka Presoja: Odbor ugotavlja še, da je prejšnja znamka „Glanc“ registrirana na Češkem za upoštevno blago in se mora tako za namen tega postopka šteti, da ima vsaj neko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
Sign Dominant component and reasoning Case No 
Znak Prevladujoči sestavni del in obrazložitev Št. zadeve
RPT: ‘the dominant element of the earlier marks is the acronym RPT, in which the letter “p” predominates' (para. 33). 
RPT: „prevladujoči element prejšnjih znamk je kratica RPT, v kateri prevlada črka ,p‘“ (točka 33).
Free: ‘the word “free” dominates the visual impression created by the mark of which it forms part, because it is considerably larger than the other components and, in addition, is much easier to remember and pronounce than the slogan in question' (para. 39). 
Free: „beseda ‚free‘ prevladuje v vizualnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarja znamka, katere del je, ker je precej večja od drugih sestavnih delov, poleg tega pa si jo je tudi lažje zapomniti in izgovoriti kot zadevni slogan“ (točka 39).
Xtreme: ‘On the visual level, it must be concluded that in the mark applied for, the term “XTREME” occupies a central position. 
Xtreme: „Na vizualni ravni je mogoče ugotoviti, da izraz ‚XTREME‘ v znamki, za katero je bila vložena prijava, zavzema osrednji položaj.
Indeed, the size of its typeface is bigger than that of the other verbal elements, and the word is highlighted with a white outline … The other verbal components “RIGHT GUARD” and “SPORT”, are written in a much smaller type and are shifted to the right and towards the edge of the sign' (para. 55). 
Velikost njegove pisave je večja od velikosti pisave drugih besedilnih elementov, sama beseda pa je poudarjena z belo obrobo […] Druga besedilna elementa ‚RIGHT GUARD‘ in ‚SPORT‘ sta zapisana v veliko manjši pisavi ter sta zamaknjena v desno in proti robu znaka“ (točka 55).
(by missako) GREEN by missako: ‘It must be noted, as a first point, that the representation of the sun has an important place within the mark applied for, in that it is positioned in the centre and covers almost two thirds of the area. 
(by missako) GREEN by missako: „Najprej je treba opaziti, da ima prikaz sonca pomembno mesto v znamki, za katero je bila vložena prijava, saj je postavljen v sredino in zajema skoraj dve tretjini znaka.
Next, the position of the word element “green” is also important within the mark, as it is portrayed in large-typeface, stylised upper case letters in black and takes up about one third of the area. 
Poleg tega je prav tako pomembna postavitev besednega elementa ‚green‘ v znamki, saj je prikazan z veliko pisavo in velikimi stiliziranimi črkami črne barve, zavzema pa približno tretjino znaka.
As observed by the Board of Appeal in para. 28 of the contested decision, those two elements thus occupy the major portion of the mark applied for and are, therefore, striking in the overall impression of the mark. 
Kot je odbor za pritožbe ugotovil v točki 28 izpodbijane odločbe, ta dva elementa tako zavzemata velik del znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava, in zato izstopata v celotnem vtisu znamke.
Lastly, as regards the word element “by missako”, the Board of Appeal correctly held, in para. 28 of the contested decision, that those words were almost illegible because of their size and that the handwriting made them difficult to decipher. 
Nazadnje, v zvezi z besednim elementom ‚by missako‘ je odbor za pritožbe v točki 28 izpodbijane odločbe pravilno menil, da sta ti besedi zaradi svoje velikosti skoraj neberljivi in da ju je bilo težko prebrati, ker sta zapisani v rokopisu.
It follows, first, that the dominant nature of the word “green” and of the representation of the sun are thereby further reinforced and, secondly, that the word element “by missako” is negligible in nature' (paras 37-39). 
Iz tega sledi, prvič, da je prevladujoča narava besede ‚green‘ in prikaza sonca s tem še dodatno okrepljena in, drugič, da je besedni element ‚by missako‘ glede na naravo zanemarljiv” (točke 37-39).
BÜRGER: The dominant element of the mark applied for is undeniably the word element in upper case letters that stands out, simply because of its position and the very large size of its lettering, from all the other elements that make up the label (para. 38). 
BÜRGER: Prevladujoči element znamke, za katero je bila vložena prijava, je nedvomno besedni element, zapisan z velikimi črkami, ki med vsemi drugimi elementi, ki sestavljajo znak, izstopa zaradi svoje postavitve in zelo velike pisave (točka 38).