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 >> ZABTRAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o29402 (23 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o29402.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o29402 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29402
Result
Section 5(2)(b). - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the mark "Zytram" registered in Class 5 in respect of the same and similar goods.
The opponents filed extensive evidence about the dangers of similar marks being used in relation to pharmaceuticals and of the consequences arising from poor handwriting and failure to distinguish products bearing similar names. The opponents also claimed that "Z..tram" marks were rare; indeed the applicants’ and opponents’ marks were the only ones in this category.
The applicants claimed that the respective marks were not confusingly similar; that the respective goods were likely to be prescription only and that as TRAN was an abbreviation for the active ingredient Tranadol, this reduced the risk of confusion.
The Hearing Officer following the guidance set down in earlier decisions that marks in Class 5 should be compared on their merits and that undue significance should not be given to the consequences of confusing pharmaceutical marks. He also considered that there was insufficient evidence to establish that TRAN was an abbreviation for Tranadol. Thus the opponents mark was a distinctive mark for the goods at issue.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and, as the respective specifications were not restricted to prescription goods, the full range of goods had to be considered. In comparing the respective marks "Zytram" and "Zabtram" the Hearing Officer accepted that there were similarities. However, he considered they could be distinguished visually and aurally and there was no conceptual similarity. Overall he considered that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public. Opposition thus failed.
