Navigation
Smalltalk auf Englisch
Englisch Smalltak - Smalltak auf Messen und Reisen, reden über Job und Familie, Urlaub, Sport und das Wetter. Fragen nach dem Befinden. Unterhalten auf Englisch. Korrespondenz auf Englisch
englische Korrespondenz, englische Briefe verfassen, englische Angebote, englische Mahnbriefe, englische Weihnachtsgrüße, Beschwerdebriefe auf Englisch, Zahlen auf Englisch Korrespondenz Geschäftsreise auf Englisch
Englisch für die Geschäftsreise, Englisch auf Reisen, Business-Englisch auf Geschäftsreisen, Englisch lernen für Geschäftsreisen Telefonieren auf Englisch
Englisch Anrufbeantworter, Anruf entgegennehmen auf Englisch, Nachricht hinterlassen auf Englisch, Buchstabieren auf Englisch, Begrüßung auf Englisch Meetings auf Englisch
Besprechungen auf Englisch, English for Meetings, Englisch für Meetings, Business English Meetings, Meetings in Englisch, Meetings Englisch, Business Englisch Meetings, englischsprachige Meetings Grammatik auf Englisch
Englische Grammatik, Zeiten in Englisch, Indirekte Rede in Englisch, Präpositionen auf Englisch, englische Satzzeichen, Bedingungssätze auf Englisch, aktiv und passiv Englisch, Konditionalsätze auf Englisch
|
Geschäftsreise auf Englisch - Warenzeichenkonflikt: Zum Verwechseln ähnlichSchlagwörter: Geschäftsreise auf Englisch, Englisch Geschäftsreise, Business Trip Englisch, Englisch Warenzeichen, Englisch Marken Most people take trademarks for granted,
but they’re really an intricate business.
When similar names from different
regions of the world collide in the international
marketplace, the result can be
consumer confusion. Worse, companies
sometimes try to use a name similar to
a strong, established trademark in an attempt
to leverage the marketing strength
of the well-known trademark to either
build business or steal it.
Trademark authorities in different trading
zones such as North America and the EU
are responsible for policing the approved
use of trademarks within their territories.
They do this by comparing trademark
applications with existing approved trademarks
for strong similarity, and by allowing
companies to appeal and object to the use
of trademarks they feel infringe on their
intellectual property rights.
The following rather difficult text resulted
from one such case in the EU. Read it
carefully and then answer the reading
comprehension questions that follow. You’ll
find related exercises on pages 7 and 8.
Background to the dispute
- On 30 November 2001, Serono Genetics
Institute SA filed an application
for registration of a Community trade
mark with the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in accordance
with Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on
the Community trade mark (OJ 1994
L 11, p. 1), as amended (replaced by
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
of 26 February 2009 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)).
- The mark for which registration was
sought is the word mark FAMOXIN.
- The goods for which registration
was sought are in Class 5 of the
Nice Agreement concerning the
International Classification of Goods
and Services for the Purposes of the
Registration of Marks of 15 June
1957, as revised and amended, and
correspond to the following description:
’pharmaceutical preparations for
the treatment of metabolic disorders
adapted for administration only by
intravenous, intra-muscular or subcutaneous
injection’.
- The trade mark applied for was registered
on 31 May 2005.
- On 30 September 2005, GlaxoSmith-
Kline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome De
Portugal Lda and The Wellcome Foundation
Ltd filed three applications with
OHIM for a declaration of invalidity of
the Community trade mark FAMOXIN,
on the basis of Article 52(1)(a) of
Regulation No 40/94 (now Article
53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009).
- GlaxoSmithKline relied on the earlier
word mark LANOXIN, registered in
Italy under No 758 074 for the following
goods in Class 5: ’pharmaceutical
preparations’.
- Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal
relied on the earlier word mark LANOXIN,
registered in Portugal under
No 157 610 for the following goods in
Class 5: ’pharmaceutical preparations
with digoxin for human use’.
- The Wellcome Foundation relied on the
following earlier rights:
- the word mark LANOXIN under Finnish
trade mark registration No 31
403 for the following goods in Class
5: ’pharmaceutical preparations with
digoxin for human use’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under Benelux
trade mark registration No 63 853
for the following goods in Class 5: ’medicinal
and pharmaceutical products’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under Danish
trade mark registration No VR 1989
05 795 for the following goods in Class
5: ’pharmaceutical preparations with
digoxin for human use’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under Irish
trade mark registration No 59 069
for, inter alia, the following goods in
Class 5: ’medical, pharmaceutical
substances’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under United
Kingdom trade mark registration No
752 835 for the following goods in
Class 5: ’pharmaceutical preparations
with digoxin for human use’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under Greek
trade mark registration No 21 480,
registered for the following goods in
Class 5: ’pharmaceutical and medical
products’;
- the word mark LANOXIN under Swedish
trade mark registration No 366 605
for the following goods in Class 5:
’pharmaceutical and medical products’.
- On 6 January 2006, Serono Genetics
Institute requested proof of use
of the earlier marks relied on by the
applicants.
- Following that request, on 12 April
2006, The Wellcome Foundation
withdrew its reliance on the Greek registration
No 21 480 and the Swedish
registration No 366 605 in support of
the application for cancellation.
- By three decisions of 30 October 2006,
the Cancellation Division rejected the
applicants’ applications for cancellation.
- On 21 December 2006, the applicants
filed appeals pursuant to Articles 57
to 62 of Regulation No 40/94 (now
Articles 58 to 64 of Regulation No
207/2009) against those decisions
of the Cancellation Division.
- By decision of 14 September 2007
(Case R 8/2007-1), the First Board
of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged
by GlaxoSmithKline and upheld the
Cancellation Division’s decision, stating
that the earlier mark, registered
in Italy under No 758 074, should be
deemed to be registered for ’pharmaceutical
preparations for cardio-
vascular illnesses’, that is to say, a
sub-category covering the goods in
respect of which the earlier mark had
in fact been used.
- By decision of 20 November 2007
(Case R 10/2007-1), the First Board
of Appeal dismissed the appeal
lodged by Laboratórios Wellcome de
Portugal and upheld the Cancellation
Division’s decision, stating that the
earlier mark, registered in Portugal
under No 157 610, should be deemed
to be registered for ’pharmaceutical
preparations with digoxin for human
use for cardiovascular illnesses’, that
is to say, a sub-category covering the
goods in respect of which the earlier
mark had in fact been used.
- By decision of 19 November 2007
(Case R 9/2007-1), the First Board
of Appeal dismissed the appeal
lodged by The Wellcome Foundation
and upheld the Cancellation Division’s
decision, stating that the earlier
marks, registered in Finland under
No 31 403, in the Benelux countries
under No 63 853, in Denmark under
No VR 1989 05 795, in Ireland under
No 59 069 and in the United Kingdom
under No 752 835, should be deemed
to be registered for ’pharmaceutical
preparations for cardiovascular illnesses’,
that is to say, a sub-category
covering the goods in respect of which
the earlier marks had in fact been used.
- It is apparent from those three decisions
that the Board of Appeal based
its rejection of the applicants’ appeals,
essentially, on the same reasoning.
- First, it took the view that the goods
covered by the earlier marks LANOXIN
could be in the form of tablets or liquid
for oral use or of an injection for the
treatment of cardiovascular illnesses,
while the goods covered by the Community
trade mark FAMOXIN were
goods intended only for injection for
the treatment of metabolic disorders.
- Next, the Board of Appeal considered
that goods intended to treat metabolic
disorders by injection are, in the
majority of cases, used by healthcare
professionals in hospitals or private
clinics and that injections are generally
administered by professionals. It deduced
therefrom that patients would
probably not see the mark under which
those goods are sold. In its view, however,
it is possible that some patients,
such as diabetics, for example, would
administer the injections themselves.
In that case, the goods would nevertheless
be used under the supervision
of a professional. With regard to
cardiovascular illnesses, the Board
of Appeal stated that, since those illnesses
are very serious, it must also
be expected that the goods on which
GlaxoSmithKline’s applications for
cancellation are based are prescribed
by doctors and, accordingly, used
by patients under the supervision of
professionals. The relevant public is
therefore made up of professionals.
The Board of Appeal added that the
end consumers could also constitute
the relevant public but that, in the
present case, they would be under the
guidance of professionals.
- The Board of Appeal concluded that,
although there is a certain similarity
between the goods covered by
the marks at issue, since they are
pharmaceutical preparations, that
similarity is in part offset by the fact
that the end consumers are treated by
different categories of physicians and
that the goods covered by the marks
had different therapeutic indications.
The final consumers must, in such
cases, be considered to have a high
degree of attentiveness.
- Furthermore, the Board of Appeal
took the view that, taking into account
the significant differences between
the marks at issue, both visually and
aurally, and the low level of conceptual
similarity, the marks were only very
slightly similar.
- It concluded therefrom that there
was no likelihood of confusion. In that
regard, it pointed out that, in the
case of the Community trade mark,
the relevant public was always to
be regarded as being constituted by
professionals and since the general
public would, in every case, be under
the guidance of professionals, it could
not be regarded as being required to
choose between the marks at issue.
Test your understanding of the main points
- Three companies challenged the
registration of the trade mark by
filing for what?
- Which word mark did the three challengers
feel was in earlier use and
threatened by the new mark?
- To counter the request, what did
Serono Genetics Institute request?
- The three challengers then requested
cancellation of their challenges.
Which of the cancellation requests
were approved?
- Did the Board of Appeal view the
two products to be similar in any
way? In which way or ways?
- For the sake of this decision, which
group of people was determined to
be the “relevant public”?
- What level of visual and aural similarity
between the marks was judged
to exist?
- What level of likelihood of confusion
was thought to exist?
ANSWERS
1. A declaration of invalidity
2. LANOXIN
3. Proof of use of the earlier marks
4. None of them. The challenges were regarded as reasonable and were taken under consideration.
5. Yes. Both products were pharmaceutical preparations that could be used for injection.
6. Professionals or consumers under professional guidance.
7. Only very slight.
8. No level of likelihood.Schlagwörter: Geschäftsreise auf Englisch, Englisch Geschäftsreise, Business Trip Englisch, Englisch Warenzeichen, Englisch Marken
Weitere Artikel zum Thema Geschäftsreise auf Englisch finden Sie in unserem monatlich erscheinenden
OWAD Business English Trainer. Testen Sie drei Ausgaben von OWAD Business English Trainer kostenlos.
Die erste Ausgabe erhalten Sie jetzt sofort, die anderen beiden während der nächsten zwei Monate.
Hier geht's zur Bestellung.
Archiv |
