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 >> OROPRAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o20802 (8 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o20802.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o20802 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o20802
Result
Appeal successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
This was an appeal to the Appointed Person against the decision of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer (see BL O/501/01); in particular, the appellants disputed the Hearing Officer’s findings in respect of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, OROPRAM v SEROPRAM. The Hearing Officer had failed to note that both marks had three syllables (not two, as stated in his decision) and he had made no finding as to the distinctive character of the opponents’ mark SEROPRAM. The Appointed Person noted that both marks have the strings RO-PRAM in common, rather than just the suffixes -PRAM. She also found that the mark SEROPRAM had a “high distinctive character” for the goods concerned. In the result the Appointed Person, taking into account the suggestion of oral delivery in the mark OROPRAM, the similarity of the marks, the identicality of the goods and the high distinctiveness of the mark SEROPRAM, found that the opposition case had been made out and the appeal succeeded accordingly.
Regarding the debate over differing theresholds in conflicts between pharmaceutical marks, however, the Appointed Person said she did not believe different standards existed or were necessary. "The test of likelihood of confusion is flexible enough to allow each case to be judged according to its own peculiar facts."
