natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, even in a case involving an earlier mark of weak distinctive character, there may be a likelihood of confusion on account, in particular, of a high degree of similarity between the signs and between the goods or services covered (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70). 
Tako bi lahko, tudi če bi prejšnja znamka imela šibak razlikovalni učinek, obstajala verjetnost zmede, zlasti zaradi podobnosti med znakoma in zajetim proizvodi ali storitvami (13/12/2007, T134/06, Pagesjaunes.com, EU:T:2007:387, § 70).
The likelihood of confusion was affirmed for similar and identical goods, when the trade marks differed only in stylisation or non-distinctive figurative elements and showed therefore a high degree of similarity. 
Verjetnost zmede je bila potrjena za podobno in enako blago, kadar sta se blagovni znamki razlikovali samo v stilizaciji ali nerazlikovalnih figurativnih elementih ter sta zato imeli visoko stopnjo podobnosti.
However, the likelihood of confusion was excluded even for identical goods in cases where the degree of similarity between the marks was low due to differences resulting from an additional fully distinctive element: 
Verjetnost zmede pa je bila izključena celo za enako blago v primerih, v katerih je bila stopnja podobnosti med znamkama nizka zaradi razlik, ki so izhajale iz dodatnega povsem razlikovalnega elementa:
2.2.3 Specific themes 
Posebne teme
2.2.3.1 One-letter signs, numerals and short signs 
Znaki, sestavljeni iz ene črke ali številk, in kratki znaki
The Court, in its judgment of 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, held that the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks must be assessed according to an examination based on the facts, focusing on the goods or services concerned and the same criteria that apply to other word marks (paras 33-39). 
Sodišče EU je v sodbi z dne 09/09/2010, C265/09 P, α, EU:C:2010:508, razsodilo, da je treba razlikovalni učinek blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke, presoditi s preizkusom, ki temelji na dejstvih ter je osredotočen na zadevno blago ali storitve in enaka merila, kot se uporabljajo za druge besedne znamke (točke 33-39).
Although that judgment deals with absolute grounds, the Office considers that the principle established by the Court (i.e. that the application of the criterion of distinctiveness must be the same for all marks) also applies in inter partes cases when it comes to determining the distinctiveness of single-letter trade marks. 
Čeprav so v navedeni sodbi obravnavani absolutni razlogi, Urad meni, da se načelo, ki ga je vzpostavilo Sodišče EU (tj. da mora biti uporaba merila razlikovalnega učinka enaka pri vseh znamkah), uporablja tudi v primerih inter partes za določitev razlikovalnega učinka blagovnih znamk, sestavljenih iz ene same črke.
The Court, while acknowledging that it may prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness for marks consisting of a single letter than for other word marks, held that these circumstances do not justify laying down specific criteria supplementing or derogating from application of the criterion of distinctiveness as interpreted in the case-law. 
Sodišče EU je kljub priznavanju, da se lahko izkaže, da je ugotavljanje razlikovalnega učinka težje za znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, kot za druge besedne znamke, razsodilo, da te okoliščine ne upravičujejo določitve posebnih meril, ki bi dopolnjevala uporabo merila razlikovalnega učinka, kot se to razlaga v sodni praksi, ali od njega odstopala.
The Office considers the ruling to mean that, when establishing the distinctiveness of an earlier mark, it is not correct to rely on assumptions such as a priori statements that consumers are not in the habit of perceiving single letters as trade marks or on generic arguments such as that relating to the availability of signs, given the limited number of letters. 
Urad meni, da ta sodba pomeni, da se pri določanju razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke ni pravilno zanašati na predpostavke, kot so neutemeljene (a priori) trditve, da potrošniki navadno ne zaznavajo ene same črke kot blagovno znamko, ali splošne trditve, kot je trditev v zvezi z razpoložljivostjo znakov, glede na omejeno število črk.
In its judgment of 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202, the General Court dismissed the applicant's argument that single letters are generally per se devoid of distinctive character and that therefore only their graphic representation would be protected (paras 38, 49). 
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 10/05/2011, T187/10, G, EU:T:2011:202 zavrnilo trditev prijavitelja, da so posamične črke na splošno same po sebi brez razlikovalnega učinka in da naj se zato zaščiti samo njihov grafični prikaz (točki 38 in 49).
Consequently, whilst registered earlier trade marks consisting of a single letter (or numeral) represented in standard characters enjoy a presumption of validity, ultimately their degree of inherent distinctiveness will have to be assessed with reference to the goods and/or services concerned. 
Čeprav se za registrirane prejšnje blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke (ali številke), predstavljene v standardnih znakih, uporablja domneva veljavnosti, je treba zato na koncu njihovo stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka presoditi v zvezi z zadevnim blagom in/ali storitvami.
If the corresponding claim is made, account should be taken of evidence submitted by the opponent that demonstrates that its registered trade mark consisting of a single letter has acquired enhanced distinctiveness. 
Če se predloži ustrezna trditev, je treba upoštevati dokazila, ki jih predloži vložnik ugovora in dokazujejo, da je njegova registrirana blagovna znamka, ki je sestavljena iz ene same črke, pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek.
This circumstance could lend the earlier trade mark a broader scope of protection. 
Ta okoliščina bi lahko pripomogla k širšemu obsegu varstva prejšnje blagovne znamke.
The above considerations apply both to single-letter/numeral trade marks represented in standard characters (i.e. word marks) and to stylised single-letter/numeral trade marks. 
Zgoraj navedeno velja za blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke/številke, predstavljene v standardnih znakih (tj. besedne znamke), in stilizirane blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke/številke.
Where the opponent has successfully proven that its single-letter trade mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness through intensive use, the impact thereof on the final outcome has to be carefully assessed. 
Če vložnik ugovora uspešno dokaže, da je njegova blagovna znamka, sestavljena iz ene same črke, z intenzivno uporabo pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek, je treba skrbno pretehtati njegov vpliv na končni izid.
Firstly, enhanced distinctiveness on the part of the earlier single-letter trade mark cannot justify a finding of likelihood of confusion if the overall visual impression conveyed by the signs is so different as to safely set them apart. 
Prvič, zaradi povečanega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, ni upravičeno ugotoviti verjetnost zmede, če je celotni vizualni vtis znakov tako različen, da ju je mogoče zanesljivo ločiti.
Secondly, if the evidence shows use of a single-letter trade mark that is stylised or accompanied by additional figurative elements, the benefit of the resulting broader scope of protection accrues to the form in which it was used and not to the single letter as such or any other stylised variation. 
Drugič, če se dokazila nanašajo na uporabo blagovne znamke, sestavljene iz ene same črke, ki je stilizirana ali jo spremljajo dodatni figurativni elementi, širši obseg varstva uživa oblika, v kateri se je uporabljala, ne pa črka kot taka ali katera koli druga stilizirana različica.
Furthermore, in accordance with the α judgment, as regards short signs, unless a letter combination, as such, is intrinsically non-distinctive for the goods and services (e.g. ‘S' or ‘XL' for goods in Class 25), these signs are not necessarily distinctive only to a low degree. 
Poleg tega v skladu s sodbo v zadevi α kratki znaki nimajo nujno le nizke stopnje razlikovalnega učinka, razen če je kombinacija črk kot taka svojstveno nerazlikovalna za blago in storitve (na primer S ali XL za blago iz razreda 25).
2.2.3.2 Collective marks 
Kolektivne znamke
Where the mark on which the opposition is based is a collective mark, its inherent distinctiveness is to be assessed in the usual way. 
Če je znamka, na kateri temelji ugovor, kolektivna znamka, je treba njen svojstveni razlikovalni učinek presoditi po običajni poti.
The mark may have a low or even very low degree of inherent distinctiveness when it refers to the nature or other characteristics of the goods concerned. 
Znamka ima lahko nižjo ali celo zelo nizko stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, če se nanaša na vrsto ali druge značilnosti zadevnega blaga.
The fact that the mark is a collective mark does not imply that its scope of protection is broader (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61). 
Dejstvo, da je znamka kolektivna, ne pomeni, da je njen obseg varstva širši (13/06/2012, T534/10, Hellim, EU:T:2012:292, § 49-52; 05/12/2012, T143/11, F.F.R., EU:T:2012:645, § 61).
2.3 Examination of enhanced distinctiveness 
Preizkus povečanega razlikovalnega učinka
After the obligatory examination of inherent distinctiveness, the second step is to check - provided the opponent has made the corresponding claim - whether the earlier mark has acquired enhanced distinctiveness at the time of filing (or priority date) of the contested EUTM application as a consequence of the use that the opponent has made of it. 
Po obveznem preizkusu svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka se opravi drugi korak, ki vključuje preveritev (če je vložnik ugovora predložil ustrezno trditev), ali je prejšnja znamka pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek ob vložitvi prijave (ali na datum prednostne pravice) izpodbijane blagovne znamke EU zaradi uporabe s strani vložnika ugovora.
[5: See the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 1, Procedural Matters.] 
[5: Glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 1: Postopkovne zadeve.]
The distinctiveness of the earlier mark always has to be taken into account when deciding on likelihood of confusion. 
Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke je treba pri ugotavljanju verjetnosti zmede vselej upoštevati.
The more distinctive the earlier trade mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (11/11/1997, C251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 24). 
Verjetnost zmede je toliko večja, kolikor je večji razlikovalni učinek prejšnje blagovne znamke (sodba z dne 11. novembra 1997, Sabèl, C251/95, EU:C:1997:528, točka 24).
Therefore, marks with a highly distinctive character, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18). 
Znamke z večjim razlikovalnim učinkom imajo tako širše varstvo kot znamke z manjšim razlikovalnim učinkom (29/09/1998, C39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 18).
In practice, this means that the fact that an earlier trade mark enjoys enhanced distinctive character or reputation is an argument in favour of finding a likelihood of confusion. 
V praksi to pomeni, da je dejstvo, da ima prejšnja blagovna znamka povečani razlikovalni učinek ali ugled, argument v prid ugotovitvi verjetnosti zmede.
Enhanced distinctiveness requires recognition of the mark by the relevant public. 
Za povečani razlikovalni učinek se zahteva, da upoštevna javnost prepozna znamko.
This recognition may enhance the distinctiveness of marks with little or no inherent distinctiveness or those that are inherently distinctive. 
Ta prepoznavnost lahko poveča razlikovalni učinek znamk, ki imajo malo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka ali ga sploh nimajo, ali tistih, ki imajo svojstveni razlikovalni učinek.
The Court has given some guidance in respect of the evaluation of distinctiveness acquired through use of the earlier mark and provided a non-exhaustive list of factors. 
Sodišče EU je podalo nekatere smernice v zvezi s presojo razlikovalnega učinka, pridobljenega z uporabo prejšnje znamke, in zagotovilo neizčrpen seznam dejavnikov.
In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered; the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public which, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations. 
Pri navedeni presoji bi bilo treba upoštevati zlasti lastnosti znamke, vključno s tem, ali vsebuje element, ki opisuje blago ali storitve, za katere je bila registrirana, ali ne, tržni delež, ki ga ima znamka, intenzivnost, geografski obseg in trajanje uporabe te znamke, pomembnost naložb, ki jih podjetje opravi za uveljavljanje znamke, delež upoštevnega dela javnosti, ki na podlagi znamke ugotovi, da blago ali storitve izvirajo iz določenega podjetja, ter izjave gospodarskih in industrijskih zbornic ali drugih poklicnih združenj
The evidence of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use must refer to both (i) the relevant geographical area and (ii) the relevant goods and services. 
Dokazila o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku, pridobljenem z uporabo, se morajo nanašati na (i) upoštevno geografsko območje ter (ii) upoštevno blago in storitve.
The opponent may claim enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark for only part of the registered goods and services. 
Vložnik ugovora lahko uveljavlja povečani razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke samo za del registriranega blaga in storitev.
According to the evidence submitted, the Office must establish precisely for which goods and services distinctiveness has been acquired. 
Urad mora na podlagi predloženih dokazil natančno določiti, za katero blago in storitve se je pridobil razlikovalni učinek.
The nature, factors, evidence and assessment of enhanced distinctiveness are the same as for reputation. 
Vrsta, dejavniki, dokazila in presoja povečanega razlikovalnega učinka so enaki kot pri ugledu.
For further details on the evidence required and its assessment see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR). 
Za dodatne podrobnosti o zahtevanih dokazilih in njihovi presoji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).
However, a finding of reputation requires that a certain threshold of recognition be met whilst, as set out above, the threshold for a finding of enhanced distinctiveness may be lower. 
Za ugotovitev ugleda se zahteva izpolnitev določenega praga prepoznavnosti, kot je navedeno zgoraj, prag za ugotovitev povečanega razlikovalnega učinka pa je lahko nižji.
Enhanced distinctiveness is anything above inherent distinctiveness. 
Povečani razlikovalni učinek je vse, kar je nad svojstvenim razlikovalnim učinkom.
Importantly, acquisition of enhanced distinctive character by a mark may be a result of its use as part of another registered trade mark (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432, § 30-32; 07/09/2006, T168/04, Aire limpio, EU:T:2006:245, § 74). 
Poudariti je treba, da je lahko pridobitev razlikovalnega učinka znamke rezultat njene uporabe kot dela druge registrirane blagovne znamke (07/07/2005, C353/03, Have a break, EU:C:2005:432, § 30-32; 07/09/2006, T168/04, Aire limpio, EU:T:2006:245, § 74).
The outcome of the examination of enhanced distinctiveness will be one of the following. 
Izid preizkusa povečanega razlikovalnega učinka je lahko eden od naslednjih.
Where there is no evidence of enhanced distinctiveness as regards the relevant goods and services or the territory, or the evidence is insufficient, the level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark will be its inherent distinctiveness (less than normal or normal). 
Če ni dokazil o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku v zvezi z upoštevnim blagom in storitvami ali ozemljem ali če dokazila niso zadostna, bo stopnja razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke ustrezala njenemu svojstvenemu razlikovalnemu učinku (nižja od običajne ali običajna).
Where there is evidence of enhanced distinctiveness as regards all or some of the relevant goods and services and the territory, and the evidence is sufficient: 
Če obstajajo dokazila o povečanem razlikovalnem učinku za vse upoštevno blago in storitve ali njihov del ter ozemlje in če so dokazila zadostna:
○ if the earlier mark has less than normal inherent distinctiveness, the mark/component may have acquired a normal or even a high degree of distinctiveness, depending on the evidence submitted ; or 
če je stopnja svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka prejšnje znamke nižja od običajne, je lahko znamka/sestavni del pridobil običajno ali celo visoko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka, odvisno od predloženih dokazil, ali
[6: For further details on the evidence required and its assessment see the Guidelines, Part C, Opposition, Section 5, Trade Marks with Reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR).] 
[6: Za dodatne podrobnosti o zahtevanih dokazilih in njihovi presoji glej Smernice, del C: Ugovor, razdelek 5: Blagovne znamke z ugledom (člen 8(5) Uredbe o blagovni znamki EU).]
○ if the earlier trade mark has normal inherent distinctiveness, it may have acquired high distinctiveness. 
če ima prejšnja blagovna znamka običajno stopnjo svojstvenega razlikovalnega učinka, je lahko pridobila visoko stopnjo razlikovalnega učinka.
It must be recalled that although a mark as a whole may have acquired enhanced distinctiveness, there may be descriptive elements that will have less than normal or no distinctiveness. 
Opozoriti je treba, da lahko znamka vključuje opisne elemente, ki imajo razlikovalni učinek, ki je manjši od običajnega, ali ga sploh nimajo, čeprav je morda kot celota pridobila povečani razlikovalni učinek.
The fact that the mark at issue consists of the same word sign as the earlier word mark and differs from it solely by a figurative element without particular meaning could be perceived as a particular configuration of the earlier word mark (paras 73, 77). 
Blago in storitve: Razred 43 in drugi razredi, povezani s potovalnimi in hotelirskimi storitvami Ozemlje: EU Presoja: Blagovni znamki sta si vizualno zelo podobni, zvočno in pojmovno pa enaki.
Earlier mark Contested sign Case No 
Prejšnja znamka Izpodbijani znak Št. zadeve
POST TPG POST 13/05/2015, T102/14, EU:T:2015:279 
SHE 15/10/2015, T642/13, EU:T:2015:781
G&S: Class 39 and others related to postal services Territory: Germany, EU Assessment: the earlier mark has limited distinctiveness. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 25 Ozemlje: Nemčija Presoja: Blagovni znamki sta si vizualno in pojmovno podobni, zvočno pa enaki.
The differences between the marks due to the addition of the distinctive element ‘TPG' will be perceived visually, phonetically and conceptually (paras 61, 68. 
Trditev, da je prejšnja besedna znamka povsem opisna in ima zato majhen razlikovalni učinek, ugotovitve verjetnosti zmede ne postavlja pod vprašaj.
F1 F1H2O 21/05/2005, T55/13, EU:T:2015:309 
POST TPG POST 13/05/2015, T102/14, EU:T:2015:279
G&S: Class 9, 25, 38, 41 Territory: IT, UK and others Assessment: the visual and phonetic similarity is low, the signs are conceptually dissimilar. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 39 in drugi razredi, povezani s poštnimi storitvami Ozemlje: Nemčija, EU Presoja: Razlikovalni učinek prejšnje znamke je omejen.
G&S: Class 33 Territory: France Assessment: (earlier mark ‘CRISTAL') ‘As regards the claim that “Cristal” is a descriptive word for the goods at issue (sparkling wines with crystalline character), the Board cannot accept it. 
Blago in storitve: Razred 33 Ozemlje: Francija Presoja: (Prejšnja znamka CRISTAL) „Odbor se ne more strinjati s trditvijo, da je ,Cristal‘ opisna beseda za zadevno blago (peneča vina s kristalno čistim značajem).
On the one hand, it is an evocative indication which suggests the crystalline character of wines, but which in no way describes the product. 
Po eni strani je to evokativna označba, ki namiguje na kristalno čist značaj vin, vendar nikakor ne opisuje proizvoda.
On the other hand, [the Board] considers that a highly distinctive character of the mark CRISTAL on the French market had been shown. 
Po drugi strani pa [odbor] meni, da je bil na francoskem trgu dokazan visok razlikovalni učinek znamke CRISTAL.
' (para. 31) 
“ (točka 31)
Guidelines for Examination in the Office, Part C, Opposition Page 2 
Smernice za preizkušanje v Uradu, del C, Ugovor stran 1
Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion - Other Factors 
Dvojna enakost in verjetnost zmede - Drugi dejavniki
PART C 
(EUIPO)
OPPOSITION 
DEL C
SECTION 2 
UGOVOR
DOUBLE IDENTITY AND 
RAZDELEK 2
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION 
DVOJNA ENAKOST IN VERJETNOST ZMEDE
OTHER FACTORS 
DRUGI DEJAVNIKI
2 Family of Marks/Series of Marks 3 
2 Družina znamk/serija znamk 3
3 Coexistence of Conflicting Marks on the Market in the Same Territory 6 
3 Soobstoj nasprotujočih si znamk na trgu na istem ozemlju 6
3.1 Coexistence between the marks involved in the opposition 6 
3.1 Soobstoj znamk, ki sta obravnavani v ugovoru 6
4 Incidences of Actual Confusion 8 
4 Dejanski primeri zmede 8
5 Prior Decisions by EU or National Authorities Involving Conflicts Between the Same (or Similar) Trade Marks 9 
5 Predhodne odločbe organov EU ali nacionalnih organov, v katerih je bilo obravnavano navzkrižje med enakimi (ali podobnimi) blagovnimi znamkami 9
5.1 Prior Office decisions 9 
5.1 Predhodne odločbe Urada 9
5.2 Prior national decisions and judgments 10 
5.2 Prejšnje nacionalne odločbe in sodbe 9
6 Irrelevant Arguments for Assessing Likelihood of Confusion 11 
6 Brezpredmetne utemeljitve za presojanje verjetnosti zmede 11
6.1 Specific marketing strategies 11 
6.1 Posebne strategije trženja 11
6.2 Reputation of EUTM application 12 
6.2 Ugled prijave blagovne znamke EU 11
The Office normally examines the most salient and habitually relevant factors relating to likelihood of confusion under separate headings before the chapter on global assessment. 
Urad navadno prouči dejavnike, ki najbolj izstopajo in so običajno najbolj pomembni pri presojanju verjetnosti zmede, pod posameznimi naslovi, šele nato preide na poglavje o celoviti presoji.
These factors have been treated in the preceding chapters of these Guidelines. 
Ti dejavniki so bili obravnavani v predhodnih poglavjih teh Smernic.
However, the global assessment also takes into account other factors, based on arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, which are relevant for deciding on likelihood of confusion. 
Pri celoviti presoji se upoštevajo tudi drugi dejavniki, ki temeljijo na utemeljitvah in dokazih, ki so jih predložile stranke, ter so pomembni pri odločanju, ali obstaja verjetnost zmede.
This chapter deals with the frequent arguments/claims raised by the parties. 
To poglavje obravnava pogoste utemeljitve/trditve strank.
2 Family of Marks/Series of Marks 
Družina znamk/serija znamk
When an opposition to an EUTM application is based on several earlier marks and those marks display characteristics that give grounds for regarding them as forming part of a single ‘series' or ‘family', a likelihood of confusion may be created by the possibility of association between the contested trade mark and the earlier marks forming part of the series. 
Kadar ugovor zoper prijavo blagovne znamke EU temelji na več prejšnjih znamkah in imajo te znamke lastnosti, zaradi katerih je mogoče šteti, da so del ene „serije“ ali „družine“ znamk, lahko nastane verjetnost zmede zaradi povezave med izpodbijano blagovno znamko in prejšnjimi znamkami, ki so del serije.