natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The differences between them, essentially the fact that the fir tree in the Aire Limpio mark contained a comically-drawn character and a word element, would not prevent that likelihood of confusion because it could be perceived by the public concerned as an amusing and animated variant of the earlier mark, particularly when the similarity between the products covered is taken into account. 15
Razlike med njima, ki temeljijo predvsem na dejstvu, da je jelka pri znamki Aire Limpio vsebovala komično narisan lik in besedni element, ne bi mogle preprečiti verjetnosti zmede, saj bi jo zadevna javnost lahko razumela kot zabavno in animirano različico prej�nje znamke, zlasti ob upo�tevanju podobnosti blaga, ki ga označujeta. 15
The Court of First Instance decided that the rule in Article 7(2) of the Regulation should apply by analogy to the relative grounds of refusal in Article 8.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da je pravilo iz člena 7(2) Uredbe po analogiji treba uporabiti za relativne razloge za zavrnitev iz člena.
18It then noted that the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that the conflicting marks were conceptually similar and that there was a likelihood of
18 Nato je navedlo, da je ugotovitev odbora za pritožbe, da sta si nasprotujoči si znamki pojmovno podobni in da obstaja verjetnost zmede, izhajala iz njegove ugoto-
The Board of Appeal therefore annulled the opposition division’s decision in part, and
Odbor za pritožbe je zato delno razveljavil odločbo oddelka za ugovore in zavrnil
16 — Other aspects of the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal are not in issue in this appeal.
16 – Drugi vidiki odločb oddelka za ugovore in odbora za pritožbe za to pritožbo niso pomembni.
17 — Case T-168/04 L & D v OHIM — Sämann (Aire Limpio) [2006] ECR II-2699. 14 — Points 30 to 32.15 — Point 33.
17 – Sodba z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi L & D proti UUNT – Sämann (Aire Limpio) (T-168/04, ZOdl., str. II-2699). 14 – Točke od 30 do 32.15 – Točka 33.
18 — See points 4 and 6 above.
18 – Glej točki 4 in 6 zgoraj.
21 confusion followed from its finding that the silhouette mark had a particularly distinctive character in Italy.
21 vitve, da ima znamka v obliki obrisa v Italiji poseben razlikovalni učinek.
That finding was based in turn on the acceptance of the prolonged use and wide reputation in Italy of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark having the same shape of a fir tree and an additional word element.
Ta ugotovitev pa je temeljila na dolgotrajni uporabi in velikem ugleda znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE v Italiji, ki ima enako obliko jelke in dodaten besedni element.
It was therefore necessary to determine whether that latter finding was correct, in particular whether it was possible to hold that the silhouette mark had been able to acquire a particularly distinctive character owing to the use of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark. 19
Zato je bilo treba ugotoviti, ali je slednja ugotovitev pravilna, zlasti ali je mogoče sprejeti, da je znamka v obliki obrisa pridobila poseben razlikovalni značaj zaradi uporabe znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE. 19
The Board of Appeal’s conclusion from the evidence — that, as part of the registered ARBRE MAGIQUE mark, the silhouette mark was the subject of prolonged use in Italy, was well known there and therefore had a particularly distinctive character — was also correct.
Ugotovitev odbora za pritožbe na podlagi dokazov – to je, da je znamka v obliki obrisa kot del registrirane znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE v Italiji dolgotrajno v uporabi, da je splo�no znana in ima zato poseben razlikovalni učinek – je bila prav tako pravilna.
It was based on ‘the fact that annual sales of the goods marketed under that mark exceed 45 million units and sales in Italy thus represented a market share exceeding 50% in 1997 and in 1998’, and on advertising expenditure in Italy of over ITL 7 billion in 1996 and 1997.
Temeljila je na „dejstvu, da letna prodaja proizvodov, ki se tržijo pod to znamko, presega 45 milijonov enot in da je prodaja v Italiji tako v letih 1997 in 1998 presegala 50-odstotni tržni delež“ in da so stro�ki ogla�evanja v Italiji v letih 1996 in 1997 presegli 7 milijard ITL.
The fact that the figures covered periods subsequent to the filing of the application for the Aire Limpio mark did not invalidate them.
Dejstvo, da so se �tevilke nana�ale na obdobja po vložitvi prijave za znamko Aire Limpio, teh �tevilk ne izniči.
Data subsequent to the filing of an application can be taken into account where it can be used to draw conclusions on the situation as it was on that date.
Podatke, poznej�e od dneva vložitve prijave, je mogoče upo�tevati, če omogočajo sklepanje o položaju, kot je bil na ta datum.
22A market share of 50% in 1997 and 1998 could have been acquired only progressively.
22Petdesetod-stotni tržni delež v letih 1997 in 1998 je bilo mogoče doseči zgolj postopno.
The Board of Appeal therefore did not err in holding that the situation was not appreciably different in 1996. 23
Odbor za pritožbe se torej ni zmotil, ko je ugotovil, da položaj ni bil občutno drugačen leta 1996. 23
The Court considered that a mark may acquire distinctive character as a result of its use as part of another registered trade mark if, in consequence of such use, the relevant class of persons perceives the product or service designated by the marks as originating from a given undertaking.
Sodi�če je menilo, da znamka lahko pridobi razlikovalni učinek zaradi njene uporabe kot dela druge registrirane znamke, če kot posledico take uporabe upo�tevna javnost zazna proizvod ali storitev, označen z znamkami, kot da izvira iz določenega podjetja.
20 The Board of Appeal rightly took the view that the silhouette of a fir tree, which played a significant or even predominant role in the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark, corresponded to the silhouette mark.
20Odbor za pritožbe je pravilno menil, da je obris jelke, ki je imel pomembno ali celo prevladujočo vlogo pri znamki ARBRE MAGIQUE, ustrezal znamki v obliki obrisa.
It was thus entitled to hold that the silhouette mark constituted part of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark.
Zato je upravičeno ugotovil, da je bila znamka v obliki obrisa del prej�nje znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE.
Since it could have acquired distinctive character through use as part of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark, the Board of Appeal was right to examine evidence relating to the use and reputation of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark in order to
Ker bi lahko pridobila razlikovalni učinek zaradi uporabe kot dela znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE, je odbor za pritožbe pravilno preizkusil vse dokaze v zvezi z uporabo in ugledom znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE, da bi ugotovil dolgotrajno
19 — Paragraphs 67 to 71 of the judgment under appeal.
19 – Točke od 67 do 71 izpodbijane sodbe.
22 — Case C-192/03 P Alcon v OHIM [2004] ECR I-8993, paragraph 41 and the caselaw cited; Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology [2004] ECR I-1159, paragraph 31.
I-8993, točka 41 in navedena sodna praksa); sklep z dne 27. januarja 2004 v zadevi La Mer Technology (C-259/02, Recueil, str. I-1159, točka 31).
20 — Case C-353/03 Nestlé [2005] ECR I-6135, paragraphs 30 and 32.
20 – Sodba z dne 7. julija 2005 v zadevi Nestlé (C-353/03, ZOdl., str. I-6135, točki 30 in 32).
23 — Paragraphs 78 to 84 of the judgment under appeal.
23 – Točke od 78 do 84 izpodbijane sodbe.
Next, having noted that it was common ground that the goods in question were similar, 27the Court of First Instance examined the similarity of the marks.
Dalje, potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo, da ni sporno, da so zadevni proizvodi podobni, 27je preizkusilo podobnost znamk.
It considered that two marks are similar where, from the point of view of the relevant public, they are at least partially identical as regards one or more relevant aspects. 28
Ugotovilo je, da sta znamki podobni, kadar za upo�tevno javnost med njima obstaja vsaj delna podobnost pri enem ali več upo�tevnih vidikih. 28
Although it had been held that distinct- ive character cannot be shown to exist solely by reference to general, abstract data, such as predetermined percentages, 24that caselaw concerned the question whether a mark which is the subject of an application for registration has acquired distinct- ive character and not whether a registered mark which has already acquired distinct- ive character is well known.
Čeprav je bilo ugotovljeno, da razlikovalnega učinka ni mogoče dokazati zgolj na podlagi splo�nih in abstraktnih podatkov, kot so določeni odstotki, 24se sodna praksa nana�a na vpra�anje, ali je znamka, ki je predmet zahteve za registracijo, pridobila razlikovalni učinek, ne pa, ali je registrirana znamka, ki je že pridobila razlikovalni učinek, splo�no znana.
In any event, the Board of Appeal also took account of the undisputed prolonged use of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark. 25
V vsakem primeru je odbor za pritožbe upo�teval nesporno dolgotrajno uporabo znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE. 25
Nor did the Board of Appeal wrongly rely on the fact that the earlier mark had had protection in an essentially identical form since 1954, as the CAR-FRESHNER mark, without any proof as to its use since its registration.
Odbor za pritožbe se prav tako ni napačno skliceval na dejstvo, da je imela prej�nja znamka za�čito v bistvu v enaki obliki od leta 1954 kot znamka CAR-FRESHNER, ne da bi bil predložen kakr�en koli dokaz glede njene uporabe od njene registracije.
It relied on the established use in Italy of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark, not the CAR-FRESHNER mark.
Skliceval se je na dokazano uporabo znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE v Italiji, ne pa na uporabo znamke CAR-FRESHNER.
Although its decision states that the CAR-FRESHNER mark had been registered since 1954, as regards prolonged use it refers to the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark.
Čeprav v svoji odločbi ugotavlja, da je bila znamka CAR-FRESHNER registrirana od leta 1954, se glede dolgotrajne uporabe sklicuje na znamko ARBRE MAGIQUE.
The Board of Appeal was thus correct in holding that the prolonged use and reputation of the ARBRE MAGIQUE mark, and consequently of the silhouette mark, in Italy, which were perceived as indicating the origin of the goods from a specific undertaking, were sufficiently proven and in finding that the silhouette mark had a par -ticularly distinctive character in Italy. 26
Odbor za pritožbe je torej pravilno ugotovil, da sta bila dolgotrajna uporaba in ugled znamke ARBRE MAGIQUE v Italiji ter posledično znamke v obliki obrisa, ki ju je mogoče zaznavati, kot da označujeta poreklo proizvodov določenega podjetja, zadostno dokazana in da ima znamka v obliki obrisa v Italiji poseben razlikovalni učinek. 26
On a visual level, the graphic element in the Aire Limpio mark was dominant in the overall impression and prevailed over the rather indistinct verbal element, with its small characters placed inside the fir tree.
Na vidni ravni je grafični element znamke Aire Limpio očitno prevladujoč v celotnem vtisu in prevladuje nad precej nerazlikovalnim besednim elementom v obliki majhnih črk, zapisanih v jelki.
The overall impression was not of a comical character but of an image resembling a fir tree.
Celotni vtis ni vtis �aljivega lika, ampak vtis podobe, ki spominja na jelko.
The face and arms were integrated into the central part of the tree and the two shoes formed a base.
Obraz in roke so vključeni v osrednji del drevesa, dva čevlja pa predstavljata podstavek.
The comical, animated appearance of the character gave a fanciful impression to that representation, and the mark could be regarded by the public as an amusing and animated variant of the silhouette mark.
Komični in animirani videz lika dajeta domi�ljijski vtis tej upodobitvi, javnost pa lahko znamko razume kot zabavno in animirano različico znamke v obliki obrisa. Znamka je sestavljena iz znaka, katerega prevladujoči element je obris, ki spominja na jelko in ki je bistveni element znamke v obliki obrisa.
That dominant element would mainly be perceived by the consumer and would determine his choice, particularly for everyday articles sold on a self-service basis. 29
Potro�nik bo zaznal zlasti ta prevladujoči element in bo izbral na njegovi podlagi, zlasti glede proizvodov vsakdanje potro�nje, ki se prodajajo v samopostrežnih trgovinah. 29
27 — Paragraphs 89 and 90.28 — Paragraph 91.29 — Paragraphs 92 to 94.
24 – Sodba z dne 18. junija 2002 v zadevi Philips (C-299/99, Recueil, str.
24 — Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 62.25 — Paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal.26 — Paragraphs 86 to 88.
25 – Točka 85 izpodbijane sodbe.26 – Točke od 86 do 88.
On a conceptual level, the signs in question were both associated with the silhouette of a fir tree.
Na pojmovni ravni se oba zadevna znaka ujemata z obrisom jelke.
In view of the impression given and the fact that the expression ‘aire limpio’ had no particular meaning for the Italian public, the Board of Appeal was entitled to hold that they were conceptually similar.
Ob upo�tevanju vtisa, ki pri tem nastane, in dejstva, da izraz „aire limpio“ za italijansko javnost nima posebnega pomena, je odbor za pritožbe upravičeno ugotovil, da sta si pojmovno podobna.
On a phonetic level, there was a difference because the silhouette mark could be transmitted orally by way of a description, whereas the Aire Limpio mark could be expressed orally by reading out its verbal element. 30
Na sli�ni ravni obstaja razlika, ker se lahko znamka v obliki obrisa prenese ustno z opisom, medtem ko se znamka Aire Limpio izrazi ustno z navedbo njenega besednega elementa. 30
Given that the goods in question were in everyday use, the relevant public was the average consumer who, although deemed to be reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect, would not pay particular attention at the time of purchasing such goods.
Glede na to, da so zadevni proizvodi proizvodi vsakdanje potro�nje, je upo�tevna javnost povprečen potro�nik, ki, čeprav �teje za normalno obve�čenega in razumno pazljivega ter preudarnega, ne bo kazal posebne pazljivosti pri njihovem nakupu.
He would normally choose the goods himself and would tend to trust mainly the image of the mark applied to them, namely the silhouette of a fir tree.
Običajno bo sam izbral zadevne proizvode in se bo torej zanesel zlasti na podobo znamke, uporabljene na tem proizvodu, namreč na obris jelke.
Consequently, in view of, first, the similarity of the goods and the visual and conceptual similarity of the marks and, second, the fact that the earlier mark had a particularly distinctive character in Italy, the Board of Appeal did not err in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion. 32
Posledično ob upo�tevanju po eni strani podobnosti proizvodov ter vidne in pojmovne podobnosti znamk in po drugi strani ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da ima prej�nja znamka v Italiji poseben razlikovalni učinek, odbor za pritožbe ni napačno ugotovil, da obstaja verjetnost zmede. 32
The Court of First Instance then dismissed a number of L & D’s arguments. 34.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato zavrnilo več utemeljitev družbe L & D. 34.
The argument that the silhouette mark had weak distinctive character because its shape was descriptive of the goods in
Utemeljitev, da naj bi znamka v obliki obrisa imela majhen razlikovalni učinek, ker naj bi njena oblika opisovala zadevne
As regards likelihood of confusion, the Court of First Instance first recalled the caselaw to the effect that such likelihood exists if the relevant public might believe that the products in question come from the same undertaking, or from economically-linked undertakings.
Glede verjetnosti zmede je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej opozorilo na sodno prakso, v skladu s katero taka verjetnost obstaja, če bi upo�tevna javnost lahko razumela, da zadevno blago ponuja isto podjetje ali gospodarsko povezana podjetja.
The assessment must be global, on the basis of the public’s perception of both signs and products, taking account of all relevant factors, including the interdependence between similarity of the signs and similarity of the products.
Presoja mora biti celovita, glede na to kako javnost zaznava oba znaka in proizvode, in ob upo�tevanju vseh relevantnih dejavnikov, vključno s soodvisnostjo med podobnostjo znakov in podobnostjo blaga.
As regards similarity between signs, it must be based on the overall impression given, bearing in mind the signs’ distinctive and dominant components.
Podobnost znakov pa mora temeljiti na celotnem vtisu, upo�tevajoč zlasti njihove razlikovalne in prevladujoče elemente.
The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion.
Verjetnost zmede je toliko večja, kolikor bolj je prej�nja znamka razlikovalna.
Conceptual similarity resulting from the use of images with analogous semantic content may thus give rise to likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularly
Pojmovna podobnost, ki je posledica uporabe podob, ki se ujemata v pomenski vsebini, lahko povzroči verjetnost zmede v primeru, da ima prej�nja znamka poseben razlikovalni
32 — Paragraphs 100 to 102 of the judgment under appeal.
32 – Točke od 100 do 102 izpodbijane sodbe.
L & D v OHIM question was unfounded. The silhouette mark was not a faithful representation of a fir tree but stylised, with a very short trunk on a rectangular base, and had acquired a particularly distinctive character. Reference in that regard to United Kingdom Patent Office guidelines was irrelevant because the Community trade mark regime is autonomous and applies independently of any national system. And the argument that the silhouette mark should not have been registered, because it was essentially only the shape of the product and because that shape was necessary to obtain the technical result sought by the product could not, as an absolute ground for refusal precluding valid registration of a sign, be raised in opposition proceedings. 33 36.
L & D PROTI UUNT proizvode, ni utemeljena. Znamka v obliki obrisa ni stvaren prikaz jelke, temveč stiliziran prikaz z zelo kratkim deblom na pravokotnem podstavku in je pridobila poseben razlikovalni učinek. Sklicevanje na smernice patentnega urada Združenega kraljestva v zvezi s tem ni pomembno, ker je sistem znamke Skupnosti samostojen sistem in se uporablja neodvisno od katerega koli nacionalnega sistema. Na utemeljitev, da naj znamka v obliki obrisa ne bi smela biti registrirana, ker v bistvu predstavlja obliko proizvoda in ker je ta oblika nujna, da se doseže tehnični učinek proizvoda, pa se kot na absolutne razloge za zavrnitev ni mogoče sklicevati v postopku z ugovorom. 33 36.
The Court of First Instance noted that the statement of reasons required by Article 73 must show the reasoning clearly and unequivocally, the purpose being both to allow interested parties to know the justification for the decision in order to protect their rights, and to enable the Community judicature to review its legality.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je opozorilo, da mora obrazložitev, ki jo zahteva člen 73, jasno in nedvoumno prikazati razloge za odločitev, da bi se zainteresirane stranke zaradi za�čite svojih pravic seznanile z utemeljitvijo odločitve in da bi sodi�če Skupnosti lahko nadziralo njeno zakonitost.
34In addition, decisions of OHIM may be based only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments.
34Poleg tega lahko odločbe UUNT temeljijo zgolj na razlogih ali dokazih, na katere so imele zadevne stranke priložnost podati pripombe.
That relates both to factual and legal reasons and to evidence.
To se nana�a tako na dejanske in pravne razloge kot na dokaze.
However, the right to be heard extends only to the factual and legal factors on which the decision is based, not to the final position which the authority intends to adopt.
Vendar se pravica biti sli�an nana�a zgolj na dejanske in pravne elemente, na katerih temelji odločba, ne pa na končno stali�če, ki ga organ namerava sprejeti.
In the present case, the Board of Appeal’s decision showed its reasoning clearly and unequivocally.
V obravnavanem primeru so bili razlogi za sprejetje odločbe prikazani jasno in nedvoumno.
L & D had an opportunity to present its comments on all the factors on which the decision was based and on the use by the Board of Appeal of the evidence relating to the use of the earlier marks. 35 Alleged infringement of Article 73
Družba L & D je imela priložnost, da poda svoje pripombe na vse elemente, na katerih je odločba temeljila, in na to, kako je odbor za pritožbe uporabil dokaze glede uporabe prej�njih znamk. 35 Domnevna kršitev člena 73
The Court of First Instance therefore dismissed the action and ordered L & D to pay the costs. L & D has appealed against that judgment. 35.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje tožbo zavrnilo in družbi L & D naložilo plačilo stro�kov. Družba L & D se je na navedeno sodbo pritožila. 35.
L & D had argued that the grounds of the Board of Appeal’s decision concerned earlier marks which the Board had itself excluded from the comparative analysis in order to determine the existence of a likelihood of confusion. 34 — Case C-447/02 P KWS Saat v OHIM [2004] ECR I-10107, paragraphs 64 and 65.
Družba L & D je trdila, da so se razlogi za odločbo odbora za pritožbe nana�ali na prej�nje znamke, ki jih je odbor izključil iz primerjalne analize, da bi ugotovil obstoj verjetnosti zmede. 34 – Sodba z dne 21. oktobra 2004 v zadevi KWS Saat proti UUNT (C-447/02 P, ZOdl., str. I-10107, točki 64 in 65).
35 — Paragraphs 113 to 117 of the judgment under appeal.
35 – Točke od 113 do 117 izpodbijane sodbe.
Court of Justice of factual assessments made by the Court of First Instance, in particular the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and, on the other hand, unfounded in each of its submissions.
Preizkus pritožbe nadzor nad dejansko presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zlasti nad oceno verjetnosti zmede, po drugi strani pa v zvezi z vsemi pritožbenimi razlogi neutemeljena.
It is of course true that assessment of the likelihood of confusion or association between two marks is a factual matter, to be based on what is likely to be the overall impression of the relevant average consumer.
Res je, da je ocena verjetnosti zmede ali povezovanja med znamkama dejansko vpra�anje, kaj naj bi bil celoten vtis upo�tevnega povprečnega potro�nika.
It necessarily includes a subjective element, so that there will always be some scope for disagreement.
Nujno vključuje subjektivni element, tako da bo vedno predmet posameznih nestrinjanj.
L & D asks the Court to quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance in its entirety, to annul the Board of Appeal’s decision in so far as it partly annuls the opposition division’s decision, refuses registration of the Aire Limpio mark for goods in classes 3 and 5 and orders the parties to pay their own costs, and to order OHIM to pay all the costs. OHIM and Sämann ask the Court to dismiss the appeal and order L & D to pay the costs. 42.
Družba L & D Sodi�ču predlaga, naj v celoti razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, razveljavi odločbo odbora za pritožbe v delu, v katerem je bila z njo razveljavljena odločba oddelka za ugovore, zavrnjena registracija znamke Aire Limpio za proizvode v razredih 3 in 5 in strankam naloženo plačilo njihovih stro�kov, ter UUNT naloži plačilo vseh stro�kov. UUNT in družba Sämann Sodi�ču predlagata, naj pritožbo zavrne in družbi L & D naloži plačilo stro�kov. 42.
In an appeal, the Court of Justice must ignore any perception that the likelihood of confusion may have been more accurately assessed on the facts by the opposition division, by the Board of Appeal or by the Court of First Instance, as the case may be.
Sodi�če v pritožbenem postopku ne sme upo�tevati nobenega suma, da bi oddelek za ugovore, odbor za pritožbe ali Sodi�če prve stopnje, odvisno od primera, verjetnost zmede lahko točneje presodilo na podlagi dejstev.
It must confine its review to points of law: lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, breach of procedure before it or, most importantly, infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. 36
Svojo presojo mora omejiti na pravna vpra�anja: nepristojnost Sodi�ča prve stopnje, kr�itev postopka pred tem sodi�čem ali, najpomembneje, kr�itev prava Skupnosti s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje. 36