Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 July 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Amgen Inc.
May & Baker Limited
Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)b) - Opposition successful.

Section 5(4)(a) - No formal finding.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks NEULACTIL v NEULASTIM.


The opposition was based on the opponent's use and registration of the mark NEULACTIL in Class 5.

The Hearing Officer stated, first, that the evidence provided by the opponent did not support a claim to the mark's enhanced distinctiveness by reason of its reputation, but he noted that, in any case, it possessed a strong inherently distinctive character. The goods were similar, he found, and he went on to compare the marks. There was an obvious visual similarity, he found and therefore a 'considerable likelihood of visual confusion'. There were aural similarities also, found the Hearing Officer, but the case here was less strong. Any conceptual similarity was not readily identifiable. Reviewing his findings the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. The opposition succeeded under Section 5(2)(b) and the Hearing Officer did not go on to examine the matter under Section 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/207/04 PDF document46Kb