Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
THURSDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2015
General Court: ANTISTAX v. ANGIPAX

In case T‑368/13, the General Court had to review the following opposition:

Earlier mark

Contested CTM

ANTISTAX

Class 3 “pharmaceutical products”

ANGIPAX

 Various goods in Class 3

 

The products are  partly identical, partly similar (to a medium or low level) and partly different.

As regards the comparison of the signs,  there are visual and phonetic similarities between the signs, but also differences. Conceptually, none of the signs had clear meaning, and the prefix "angi" could be understood as a reference to blood vessels or the condition of angina, while the "anti" prefix is an original Latin prefix commonly understood meaning "opposite; against. "The Board of Appeal went on to note that the conceptual difference immediately perceived the early signs allow the public and even the general consumer to distinguish easily, even without the other differences between the last syllables.  Even if the signs were compared as whole words and both considered invented words, they still would present no similarity, since meaningless words can not be conceptually similar.

 As regards,  the likelihood of confusion,  if the conflicting signs have common elements, they are not sufficient to justify the finding of an overall similarity, taking into account in particular the fact that the relevant public consisted of medical professionals or of average consumers who purchase health care products and that would have a higher degree of  attention.  Therefore OHIM correctly  concluded there is no risk of confusion between the conflicting signs, despite the identity and partial similarity of the goods in question.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 17.42
Tags: General court, likelihood of confusion, antistax, angipax,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA4011
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox