 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
1) American Home Products Corporation, US opposed to registration of the mark MINEOS in the name of the German applicant Byk Gulden Lomberg Chemische Fabrik GmbH, DE in relation to goods in class 5 on the grounds of its confusing similarity to the opponent's earlier mark MINESSE. The Appeal Board found the marks similar and refused to grant protection of the opposed mark. Motivating the decision the Board noted that both marks were similar to the eye and to the ear. Similarity was created by the same beginning, the differences at the end of the words was not sufficient to exclude confusion, particularly in relation to goods in class 5.
2) Pfizer Inc. (US), opposed to registration of the mark DIFLAZON in the name of KRKA, TOVARNA ADRAVIL, SI in relation to pharmaceutical preparations in class 5 on the grounds of its confusing similarity to the opponent's earlier mark DIFLUCAN in the same class of goods. The Board did not find the marks confusingly similar and rejected the opposition. Though the marks were of the same length and the letters at the beginning were repeated it was not sufficient to find confusing similarity. The finding was motivated by the meaning of the prefix "di-" or "dif-" commonly used in pharmaceutics. Actual comparison was made between the remaining parts of the words that were sufficiently different.
3) Egis Guogyszergyar RT (HU) opposed to registration of the mark TORVIN in class 5 in the name of LEK, tovarna farmaceutskih in kemi?nih izdelkov, d. d. (SI) - based on the confusing similarity of the mark to the opponent's earlier mark TORVAZIN. The marks were not found confusingly similar either phonetically or visually and registration of the opposed mark was refused. The finding was motivated by sufficient influence of differing second parts of the marks (-VIN and -VAZIN) on the overall impression.
4) EGIS Gyogyszergyar Rt. (HU) opposed to registration of the mark ARILIN in class 5 in the name of Dr. August Wollf GmbH&Co Arzneimittel (DE) based on the former's earlier registration of the mark EROLIN for identical and similar goods in class 5. The Board found the marks similar and refused registration of the opposed mark. The similarity finding was mainly motivated by the phonetic similarity of the marks, which presents a great risk of confusion particularly in relation to pharmaceuticals.
5) Societe des Produits Nestle SA, CH opposed to registration of NESPO in the name of AMGEN Inc. The opposition was grounded on the opponent's earlier marks NES, NESVITAL, NESTLE, NESTEA, NESFIT registered in a number of classes, including class 5. The Board found the marks dissimilar. Motivating the decision the Board noted, that though the opposed mark repeated the first three letters of the opponent's marks, the differing second parts of the words created quite a different phonetic and visual overall impression: "-po" at the end was not common for the names of pharmaceuticals, which added sufficiently to the distinctiveness of the opposed mark. The opposed mark was not found similar to the opponent's mark NES for the reason of the difference in the length of the marks. Since all the words were coined, they did not create any similar semantic associations.
6) In an opposition filed by PFIZER Products. Inc the marks VIAGRA and SOYAGRA in relation to goods in class 5 were not found to be confusingly similar. The Board found the different beginnings of the words to be most important in creating the overall impression. The Board disregarded the argument that pronounced in accordance with the rules of the Lithuanian language both words contain the same number of syllables and the stress falls on the same syllable. The Board also took into consideration the connotation of the word "soya" incorporated into the opposed mark creating different semantic perception of the marks..
7) The holder of the trademark IMIGRAN in relation to pharmaceutical preparations opposed to registration of the mark AMIGRON in relation to "homeopathic preparations for treatment of intensive headaches and migraine". Since the specification of the opponent's mark related to all pharmaceuticals and overlapped those in the specification of the opposed mark, the Board found the goods to be identical or similar. The Board found the marks to be confusingly similar mainly for the reason of the same number of letters, the majority of which being identical. The difference in the first and last but one letters was not considered to be essential for the overall impression, particularly when comparing the phonetic perception of the marks. Registration of the opposed mark was declared invalid.
8) The holder of the trademark ACTIFED opposed to registration of the mark AERIFED, both in relation to similar (pharmaceuticals) and dissimilar goods in class 5. With regard to similar goods the Board found the marks to be confusingly similar : they are of the same length, the first letter and "IFED" at the end are repeated, the differing letters occupy weak positions from the point of view of the overall perception. Besides, as established by LR official (Health Ministry) documents relating to pharmaceuticals, the abbreviation "aer" indicates the aerosol form of a pharmaceutical, consequently it should be considered as a weak element that does not add to the distinctiveness of the opposed mark.
9) The holder of the trademark KALINOR opposed to registration of the mark CALCINON,
both in relation to pharmaceuticals. The Board found the marks dissimilar, particularly
because the marks evoke associations with different chemical elements (calcium
- CA and potassium - K)
10) The holder of the trademark RAPIDOL opposed to registration of the mark
RAPIDE for pharmaceuticals. The earlier mark related to a broad specification,
while the opposed mark for "pharmaceutical preparations and substances
including analgetics and antipyretics. The goods were found similar. The opponent
insisted that the opposed mark lacks distinctiveness for the reason of descriptiveness
and genericeness. The Board rejected the allegation that the word "rapide"
was generic, however the Board agreed that it was descriptive with regard to
analgetics and antipyretics.The Board found the marks phonetically and visually
similar by the overall perception. Commenting on the semantic aspect the Board
noted that though the opposing mark was a coined word, the element "rapid"
would invoke similar conceptual associations.
11) The holder of the trademark RISPERDAL opposed to registration of the mark
RISPEDON for pharmaceuticals. The Board found the marks dissimilar. The motivation
of the dissimilarity finding was based on the weak distinctiveness of "rispe-"
being the beginning of the non-proprietary name (INN) RISPERIDON and on the
evidence that both preparations are designated for distribution exclusively
under doctor's prescription, which eliminates the risk of confusion.
12) The holder of the trademark DILRENE opposed to registration of the mark
DILCEREN for pharmaceuticals. The holder of the opposed mark insisted that "DIL-"
is a stem of INNs (non-proprietary names) standing for "vazodilators".
Consequently, when comparing the marks by the overall impression the prefix
"DIL-" should be excluded and comparison should be made between the
remaining parts of the marks: "-RENE" and "-CEREN", which
in the applicant's opinion were dissimilar. The Board rejected this allegation
noting that a combination of letters should be regarded as an INN stem with
a particular meaning only when it occupies a particular position in the word.
According to the submitted evidence - the list of stems adopted by the World
Health Organization - it is the suffix "-dil" and not the prefix that
has got the meaning of a "vazidolator", i.e. if "dil" is
used at the end of the word it should be regarded as a stem and a weak element
of a mark, though if it is used at the beginning of a word it should be regarded
just as a free combination of letters and cannot be regarded as a weak element.
Based on the overall comparison of the marks taken as a whole the Board found
the marks to be confusingly similar.
13) SANOFI-SYNTHELABO filed an opposition against registration of LODIGREL.
The opposition was based on absolute grounds - genericeness, descriptiveness
and deceptiveness due to incorporation of the INN stem "-grel" standing
for "platelet aggregation inhibitors" (which was incorporated into
a number of INNs however before the opposed mark the stem had never been used
in trademarks registered in Lithuania) and similarity to the international non-proprietary
name CLOPIDOGREL. The Board rejected the opposition noting that the opposed
mark was a coined word and thus, could not be regarded either as a generic term
or as an exclusively descriptive mark. The Board further noted that since the
mark was a coined word it could not convey any meaning and consequently, could
not be deceptive. The Board did not find similarity between LODIGREL and CLOPIDOGREL.
The opposition was totally rejected and the opposed registration remained in
force. The opponent filed a court appeal against the decision.
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |