Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
21 May 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr G Attfield
Registered Proprietor
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha
Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
BioPartners GmbH
Application for Invalidation
Section 47(2)(a) (citing Section 5(2)(b))


Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(a) (Citing Section 5(2)(b)) refused.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks : RAVANEX v RAVANSA
  • 2. Prescription of medicinal products.


The applicant’s case was based on a UK registration of their mark RAVANEX, in Class 5. The registered proprietor did not file a counterstatement. The presumption of validity however (Section 72) required that the applicants make out a prima facie case in support of their application.

In their written submission the applicant contended that the marks were similar according to the criteria set out in the established authorities, and they also pointed to a decision by the OHIM Board of Appeal (TEMPOVATE v EMOVATE.EUMOVATE) in which the risk of confusion in the prescription of medicinal products was mentioned.

As the goods covered were identical the central issue was the similarity of the marks. The Hearing Officer, however found little similarity in them. Neither did he feel compelled to follow the decisions of the OHIM decision in TEMPOVATE v EMOVATE. Modern medical practice involved the use of computer printed prescriptions; they were no longer hand-written.

Overall he found no likelihood of confusion and the application for invalidation was refused. He made no order as to costs.

Full decision O/143/04 PDF document33Kb