Accueil / PharminLex

PARTAGER

Pharmaceutical logo are having a hard time before the GC

A decision of May 17, 2013, of the General Court (Case T-502/11) shows that difficulties in enforcing trademarks rights on a logo are increased when only a ‘high distinctiveness’ is raised without going deeper enough into the argumentation raised…. Mundipharma AG applied to register the following device as a Community trademark in respect of « pharmaceutical…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

The E-PLEX / EPILEX case

On May 24, 2011, the General Court adopted an interesting approach for assessing the similarity between two pharmaceuticals having different therapeutic indications. The contested trademark E-PLEX specifically excluded medicines to combat diseases in connection with the central nervous system. The earlier opposed trademark EPILEX was registered for anti-epileptics. This is no surprise that the Court…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

‘5 HTP’ cancelled for lack of distinctiveness

On March 9, 2011, the General Court confirmed that the word Community trademark ‘5 HTP’ should be cancelled because it lacked distinctiveness. The mark belonged to Longevity Health Products Inc. It was registered since January 13, 2004, in class 5 and notably for ‘pharmaceutical and veterinary products’. The General Court pointed out that ‘5 HTP’…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Feet story and latin tongue

In case T-286/08, the General Court considered that the word mark HALLUX was descriptive in class 10 for ‘orthopaedic articles’ and in class 25 for ‘shoes’. This may look weird at first sight but, for those familiar with Latin, HALLUX means ‘big toe’ … Who said that dead tongues served to nothing? On a more…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

Pharmaceuticals similarity gets stricter?

On December 15, 2010 (TOLPOSAN vs./ TONOPAN), the General Court considered that ‘muscle relaxant, medicines containing tolperison; muscle relax ant veterinary preparations containing tolperison’  had a low degree of similarity with an ‘analgesic which soothe pain, in particular for treating headaches and migraines’. For the Court, the respective primary therapeutic indications of the goods at…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

BOTOLIST et BOTOCYL annulées à cause du BOTOX

  Le Tribunal des Communautés a confirmé le 16 décembre 2010 la nullité des marques Communautaires BOTOLIST (appartenant à Helena Rubinstein) et BOTOCYL (de L’Oréal), couvrant des produits en classe 3, compte tenu de la notoriété des marques antérieures BOTOX (verbales et semi-figuratives). Pour le Tribunal, le public visé pourrait établir un lien avec la…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

The SEROSTIM / SEROSLIM case

While confirming a likelihood of confusion between the marks SEROSLIM and SEROSTIM, the General Court issued on September 28, 2010, an interesting decision on two points. With regards to the relevant public, the General Court said that, while the medium consumer has a higher degree of care when dealing with pharmaceutical products, he does not…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

The reassuring SORVIR case of the General Court

This September 13, 2010, was certainly the day when the General Court made the pharmaceutical trademarks practice feel better again by ruling that the marks SORVIR (contested CTM) and NORVIR (earlier CTM hold by Abbott Laboratories) were confusingly similar in respect of products of class 5. This solution may look quite obvious in the end…

Lire la suite
PARTAGER

French Customs strengthen their position on pharmaceuticals

The French Pharmaceutical Companies Association (LEEM), representing about 326 companies operating in France in the research and/or development of medicines for human use, has signed a joint declaration with French Customs on June 18, 2010. New processes of collaboration and of exchange of information result from it. An observatory of medicines has been created which…

Lire la suite