Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 March 2007
Appointed Person
Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
FELENDIL Felendil (series of 2 marks)
Ratiopharm GmbH
Astra Zeneca AB
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b): Appeal to the Appointed Person dismissed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. See also BL O/148/06
  • 2. See also BL O/334/06
  • 3. Matters relied upon on appeal should be raised in the Registry, if they are not new points.


This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 8 June 2006. In that decision the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and considered the respective marks FLENDIL and PLENDIL to be sufficiently close for the public to assume a trade connection between the marks when none existed.

On appeal the opplicant submitted that the Hearing Officer had been wrong to decide that the respective marks were similar and it also submitted that the opposition should fail because there had been concurrent use of the marks and no instances of confusion had arisen.

This latter point had been raised by the opponent in its evidence but not pressed at the hearing before the Hearing Officer. The Appointed Person made this clear in his decision but went on to consider the point for completeness. Having looked at the evidence the Appointed Person considered it too flimsy to show that the concurrent use was sufficient to justify a finding of peaceful co-existence. Having set this point aside the Appointed Person went on to review the Hearing Officer’s decision. He concluded that the Hearing Officer had considered all the relevant matters and was justified in reaching the decision that he had made. Appeal dismissed.

Full decision O/079/07 PDF document53Kb