Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
20 August 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
05, 10
Innovata Biomed Limited
Schering-Plough Ltd
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark TWISTHALER in Class 10 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicants.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks TWINHALER and TWISTHALER. In their submissions the applicants had claimed that HALER was a very common element in relation to marks in Classes 5 and 10 and forwarded extracts from the Register in support of such claims. The Hearing Officer accepted that in relation to inhalers and the like HALER might be recognized as descriptive but there was no evidence before him to prove that this was the case. He decided that both marks were invented and while it was unlikely that there would be any direct confusion because the public would recognize and differentiate between two such well known words as TWIN and TWIST, he noted the common construction and could well believe that the public would assume that the two marks came from economically linked undertakings. Opposition thus succeeded.

Full decision O/240/03 PDF document22Kb