Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Other Added - Intellectual Property: Community Trade Marks – Registration Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Let's begin by setting some limits. If you're like me, you like to keep it simple. All we're doing is collecting email addresses together for our mailing list, so biochemical engineering is out the window. If you're using Thunderbird (or that MS product), you can send nicely formatted newsletters out and retain all of the other awesome features of your email program so there's really no need for datab
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require p
I have encountered so many rude customer service people over the phone. Those rude and impatient people shouldn't have been hired to be there in the first place. I learned over the years to only hire high quality people to run your company and business.If you hire the wrong kind of people to do the wrong kind of job, that’s when your business and company will suffer the consequences sooner or lat
In 1998, Alcon filed an application for registration of the word mark TRAVATAN in respect of goods within Class 5, in particular ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations.
In 1999, Biofarma SA filed an opposition against registration of TRAVATAN, arguing that there would be confusion with the word mark TRIVASTAN, registered in Italy in 1986. This earlier trade mark was also registered under Class 5 covering pharmaceutical, veterinary, hygiene products and others.
In compliance with Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94, Alcon requested that Biofarma furnish proof that the TRIVASTAN mark been put to genuine use in Italy. Biofarma sent the requested documents to OHIM, demonstrating genuine use of TRIVASTAN in Italy.
In September 2001, the Opposition Division of OHIM found that use of TRIVASTAN was proven in respect of a pharmaceutical product within Class 5. The Opposition Division therefore refused registration of TRAVATAN on the grounds that there was likely to be confusion because of the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks. Alcon appealed this decision to the Third Board of Appeal who also rejected the appeal on the same grounds as the Opposition Division. Alcon then applied to the Court of First Instance to annul the decision.
Alcon claimed that:-
▪ Article 42(2) and (3) had been infringed because Biofarma failed to submit evidence of actual use rather than potential use of TRIVASTAN in respect of ophthalmic products; and
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require pr
A correspondent to AdBriefing, my monthly newsletter, has posed a very sticky question. How, she asks, can you tell whether a headline you have written is a good one…or not? What she means by this, I imagine, is whether the headline will actually help to make sales, rather than just act as a passing amusement to its readers.The latter precept, that a headline should actually try to sell something
In compliance with Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94, Alcon requested that Biofarma furnish proof that the TRIVASTAN mark been put to genuine use in Italy. Biofarma sent the requested documents to OHIM, demonstrating genuine use of TRIVASTAN in Italy.
In September 2001, the Opposition Division of OHIM found that use of TRIVASTAN was proven in respect of a pharmaceutical product within Class 5. The Opposition Division therefore refused registration of TRAVATAN on the grounds that there was likely to be confusion because of the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks. Alcon appealed this decision to the Third Board of Appeal who also rejected the appeal on the same grounds as the Opposition Division. Alcon then applied to the Court of First Instance to annul the decision.
Alcon claimed that:-
▪ Article 42(2) and (3) had been infringed because Biofarma failed to submit evidence of actual use rather than potential use of TRIVASTAN in respect of ophthalmic products; and
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require p
In part 1 of this article I started to look at the financial implications of giving up the day job to instead start trading full time for a living. There are more than just monetary considerations as we will see later, but for now, there are some more costs to ponder.More Costs!Let’s move on to equipment. Presumably you already have a PC and internet connection by virtue of the fact you ar
In September 2001, the Opposition Division of OHIM found that use of TRIVASTAN was proven in respect of a pharmaceutical product within Class 5. The Opposition Division therefore refused registration of TRAVATAN on the grounds that there was likely to be confusion because of the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks. Alcon appealed this decision to the Third Board of Appeal who also rejected the appeal on the same grounds as the Opposition Division. Alcon then applied to the Court of First Instance to annul the decision.
Alcon claimed that:-
▪ Article 42(2) and (3) had been infringed because Biofarma failed to submit evidence of actual use rather than potential use of TRIVASTAN in respect of ophthalmic products; and
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require p
You can read about niche marketing everywhere around the internet. This is, it seems, the best way to earn money fast! The general idea is to find a business affiliate program, join in, and start to make money online serious. Could it really be that simple? It can, and here is what you need to know.First of all niche affiliate marketing programs are so successful because webmasters actually do a
Alcon claimed that:-
▪ Article 42(2) and (3) had been infringed because Biofarma failed to submit evidence of actual use rather than potential use of TRIVASTAN in respect of ophthalmic products; and
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require p
Most people get to a stage when they want to take control over their own lives and start a business of their own. This requires a lot of dedication and hard work. It is not easy to get any sort of business off the ground successfully without a lot of hard work.Before embarking on such a venture first investigate the market, and see where there is a gap that you can fill. Do market research and
▪ there has been an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) because the goods at issue were not sufficiently similar.
The Court of First Instance ruled that:-
▪ the evidence submitted by Biofarma demonstrated genuine use of TRIVASTAN was in respect of a medicinal product to treat vascular disorders of the eye, and it would be superfluous to require proof that the product was actually used by patients for this purpose;
▪ a likelihood of confusion results if the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same company;
▪ a likelihood of confusion is assessed based upon the perception of the public of the marks and goods and services in question; and
▪ the signs in question were visually and phonetically similar and there was a high degree of similarity between the products which would result in a likelihood of confusion.
The application was therefore dismissed.
Comment: Ensure that a sought trade mark will not be confused with another mark in regards to the type of product or actual mark.
Email: enquiries@rtcoopers.com
© RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.
For help with registering your trade mark please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.otheradded.com/article/130168/otheradded-Intellectual-Property-Community-Trade-Marks--Registration-Refusal--Likelihood-of-Confusion.html">Intellectual Property: Community Trade Marks – Registration Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.otheradded.com/article/130168/otheradded-Intellectual-Property-Community-Trade-Marks--Registration-Refusal--Likelihood-of-Confusion.html]Intellectual Property: Community Trade Marks – Registration Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion[/url]
Related Articles:
7 Ways to Make a Profit With Online Business
Auto Financing with Bad Credit
Bookmark it:
|