Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/381/99

Decision date

2 November 1999

Hearing Officer

Mr M Foley

Mark

BECLOGEN

Classes

09

Applicants

Generics (UK) Ltd

Opponents

Norton Healthcare Limited

Opposition

Section 3(1) Section 3(6) Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 3(1) - Opposition failed. No evidence filed in support of this ground.

Section 3(6) - Not pursued.

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed. Respective marks not confusingly similar.

Points Of Interest

• 1. Use of similar marks by a number of proprietors may indicate that the public have learned to distinguish the goods from different suppliers. This may impact on the H/O's consideration of the likelihood of confusing similarity in particular cases.

Summary

The opponents opposition based on registration and use of their marks BECLAZONE and CROMOGEN in respect of the same goods as those of interest to the applicant - namely products to treat asthma and based on the product Beclomethasone Dipropionate. The opponents filed evidence to show that they had a reputation in their marks but the applicants filed evidence to show that other BECLO marks are in use in relation to the goods at issue - namely BECLO-AQUA, BECLOFORTE, BECLOFORTE EASI-BREATHE, BECLAFORTE INTEGRA and BECLOMIST. The Hearing Officer concluded, in all the circumstances, that the marks BECLOGEN and BECLAZONE are not confusingly similar.

Full decision O/381/99 45Kb