BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> PROLONID (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2000] UKIntelP o47800 (21 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o47800.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o47800 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o47800
Result
Section 47(1) & 3(6) - Invalidity failed
Section 47(2) & 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a) - Invalidity failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - it was established that the applicants had used their HEALONID mark prior to any use by the registered proprietors; that such use was significant and that the goods traded by the two parties were identical - a solution of sodium hyaluronate as a viscous preparation for use during eye surgery. The Hearing Officer accepted that the applicants had a goodwill in their mark at the relevant date but doubted that they had, as claimed, a separate reputation in the LONID element. In any case he was provided with details about the purchasing of these specialist products and came to the view that confusion as to origin was not likely. The applicants therefore failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks PROLONID and HEALONID and came to the conclusion that they are orally, visually and conceptually different and therefore unlikely to be confused. Again he referred to the procurement procedures relating to pharmaceutical products though he noted that the consideration under this ground was wider in view of the wording of the respective specifications.
As regards Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer accepted that the adoption of a similar suffix by the registered proprietors was perhaps more then a coincidence but there was insufficient surrounding evidence to justify a finding of bad faith.
