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!



BAILII [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 >> Oncolyse (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o45802 (11 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o45802.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o45802

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Oncolyse (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o45802 (11 November 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o45802

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/458/02
Decision date
11 November 2002
Hearing officer
Mr A James
Mark
Oncolyse
Classes
05, 10
Applicant
Biovex Limited
Opponent
Novartis AG
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration in Class 5 of the mark ONCOLAR in respect of the same and similar goods. They also filed information to show that ONCO/ONKO marks are relatively rare in the marketplace in relation to pharmaceutical goods. However, ONCO is meaningful in that it is part of the word ONCOLOGY meaning the study of tumours.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer proceeded on the basis of goods of interest to the applicants, namely products for the treatment of tumours (and not their claimed specification). Bearing in mind the descriptive nature of ONCO in relation to such goods the Hearing Officer concluded that in relation to such goods the marks ONCOLYSE and ONCOLAR were not confusingly similar. He therefore indicated that if the applicants restricted their specification to such goods the opposition would fall away.

The opponents indicated that they were not opposing the applicants Class 10 application.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o45802.html