French Courts link level of care to doctor prescription

Written by Jean Philippe Bresson Tuesday, 17 August 2010 09:22

In the context of a counterfeiting action involving the marks TRICOR and PRICOR, the Court of First Instance of Paris has first stressed that pharmaceutical products with different therapeutic aims remained identical considering these products have the same nature, same overall purpose, same consumers and same distribution channels. This is perfectly in line with the Community position but French decisions coming by on this point are rare enough to be mentioned.

Amazing enlargement of pharmaceuticals similarity

Written by Jean Philippe Bresson Wednesday, 30 June 2010 12:37

While holding the marks AZURIL and AZULIB to be similar, the decision of opposition of the OHIM dated June 7, 2010, shows the enlargement of the similarity (and even of the identity) of pharmaceuticals with the other products of class 5.

The OHIM said ‘fungicides’ to be identical to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’ because fungicides comprise antimycotics which have an application in the medical field and fungicidal (pharmaceutical) preparations.

The distinctiveness of VISIOTONIC

Written by Jean Philippe Bresson Friday, 25 June 2010 08:18

Just published is a decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris dated March 19, 2010, which considered that the mark VISIOTONIC shown below was distinctive for products of classes 5 and 10 and in particular for ‘pharmaceutical, veterinary and hygienic products; dietetic substances for medical use; chirurgical apparatus and instruments; artificial members, eyes and teeth’.

For the Court, VISIOTONIC is a neologism which may be evocative of products supposed to increase the vision considering that ‘visio” refers to the vision and that ‘tonic’ refers to the tonicity. This neologism is not however necessary, generic or usual for any of the products covered under the mark.

Interesting findings in yesterday’s General Court decision

Written by Jean Philippe Bresson Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:39

In The General Court has raised three interesting aspects in its decision of yesterday (case T-487/08) which dealt with the opposition involving the CTM application for KREMEZIN and the earlier WIPO trademark KRENOSIN.

The earlier mark covered ‘pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary product’ in class 5 and was under use obligation. When replying to the request of proof of use of the earlier mark, genuine use was established by the opponent in respect of ‘a sterile solution of adenosine for use in the treatment of a specific heart condition, being for intravenous administration in hospitals’. The Board of Appeal considered that the earlier mark had been used for “pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of heart”.