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 >>
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
-
1. Applicants allowed a period to restrict their specification in Class 5. Opponents will be allowed a period to comment on the revised specification.
-
2. The applicants restricted their specification to that proposed by the Hearing Officer. As the opponents had only been partially successful the Hearing Officer awarded them only 75% of the normal award costs (see BL O/051/03).
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.