British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
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 >>
HPMC -OPHTAL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o47701 (1 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o47701.html
Cite as:
[2001] UKIntelP o47701
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
HPMC-OPHTAL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o47701 (1 November 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o47701
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/477/01
- Decision date
- 1 November 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- HPMC-OPHTAL
- Classes
- 05
- Applicants
- Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH
- Opponents
- Alcon Pharmaceuticals Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 1(1); 3(1)(a); 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d) & 3(4)
Points Of Interest
-
The relevant consumer would ‘most likely be a medical professional’; the mis-spelling of OPHTAL would be ‘quite apparent’ to such a consumer and would alert him to the fact that the mark is ‘a badge of origin rather than a mere description’.
Summary
It was not disputed that HPMC is a well known acronym for Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. The opponents further asserted that OPHTAL was the equivalent of the descriptive abbreviation OPHTHAL. The Hearing Officer however concluded that whilst there was evidence that HPMC is used in the trade in relation to the goods of the application, there was nothing to show that OPHTAL (or OPHTHAL) either on its own or in combination with HPMC was so used or has such a descriptive meaning as in WELDED MESH so as to be incapable of registration. He therefore dismissed the grounds under Section 1(1), 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(d). Neither did he find the mark incapable of acting as a badge of origin. The grounds under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) also failed. The Hearing Officer could find no rule of law likely to prohibit use of the mark and the Section 3(4) ground failed accordingly.