1 / 16

Rob MacDonald

Rob MacDonald. Gowlings. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP. MARCH 2011. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP. DISTINCTIVENESS APOTEX INC. v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS and GLAXO GROUP LIMITED (2010 FC 291); GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. APOTEX, INC. (2010 FCA 313)

job
Download Presentation

Rob MacDonald

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rob MacDonald Gowlings

  2. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP MARCH 2011

  3. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • DISTINCTIVENESS • APOTEX INC. v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS and GLAXO GROUP LIMITED (2010 FC 291); • GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. APOTEX, INC. (2010 FCA 313) • The case involved an attack, in the Canadian Federal Court, on the distinctiveness of a colour combination applied to an inhaler for administration of pharmaceuticals.

  4. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP

  5. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • At trial: • “… s. 2 of the Act defines trade-mark as a mark that is used by a person to distinguish wares. This connotes something more than a passive or indecisive observation of potential provenance. In my view it is insufficient to show that the appearance of a product may represent a secondary check of product identify or that it may cause a person to wonder whether the expected product was correctly dispensed. What is required is that physicians, pharmacists and patients relate the trade mark to a single source and thereby use the mark to make their prescribing, dispensing and purchasing choices.”

  6. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • On Appeal: • “To be distinctive, the relevant consumers must distinguish the source’s product from the wares of others, based on the sources trade-mark. Taken in context, the judge’s comments demonstrate that it is the act of relating a trade-mark to its source that establishes the requisite consumer “use”. If one substitutes the word “associate” for the word “use” – which is equally consistent with the judge’s reasoning – [the] argument evaporates.” • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is pending.

  7. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON CONFUSION • PROCAPS SA v. OHIM (General Court, June 2, 2010): • - PROCAPS and PROCAPTAN • ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. OHIM (General Court, September 13, 2010): • - SORVIR and NORVIR • FARMECO AE DERMOKALLYNTIKA v. OHIM (General Court, October 28, 2010): • - BOTUMAX and BOTOX

  8. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON CONFUSION (cont.) • HELENA RUBINSTEIN SNC and L’OREAL SA v. OHIM (General Court, December 16, 2010): • - BOTOLIST/BOTOCYL and BOTOX • LONGEVITY HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. v. OHIM (General Court, December 16, 2010): • - RESVEROL and LESTEROL

  9. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON CONFUSION (cont.) • PINEWOOD LABORATORIES LIMITED v. NOVARTIS AG (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, February 26, 2010, Ireland): • - LEXAM and PLEXTAM • PFIZER PRODUCTS INC. v. VIAGUARA S.A. (Australian Trade Marks Office, April 7, 2010): • - VIAGUARA and VIAGRA

  10. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON CONFUSION (cont.) • PFIZER HEALTH AB v. ISDIN S.A. (OHIM, April 27, 2010): • - KALFATAN and XALATAN • PIERRE FABRE MEDICAMENT SA v. BASTOS VIEGA SA (OHIM, April 28, 2010): • - OPDREXNW and OPTREX • SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTCHSLAND GMBH v. BIAL-PORTELA & CA SA (OHIM June 7, 2010) : • - AZULIB and AZURIL

  11. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON GENERICNESS • LONGEVITY HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. v. OHIM (General Court, March 9, 2011): • - 5 HTP • BAYER AG v. STAMATIOS MOURATIDIS (U.S. TTAB, May 21, 2010): • - ORGANIC ASPIRIN

  12. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON GENERICNESS (cont.) • SANOFI-AVENTIS v. EREMAD PTY LTD. (Australian Trade Marks Office, August 18, 2010): • - CLOGREL • TATCHIMPHARMPREPATY v. FGU PATENT DISPUTES CHAMBER (Moscow Arbitration Court): • - KOFETAMIN

  13. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • CASES ON COMPARISONS • FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RIVER’S EDGE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC (U.S.D.C., August 6, 2010): • - allegation of false representations of generic equivalence between two drugs. • L’OREAL SA v. BELLURE (England & Wales Court of Appeal, May 21, 2010)

  14. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • DOMAIN NAME CASES • SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED v. JN DISTRIBUTION • - www.tyverb.co.uk

  15. INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP • QUESTIONS

  16. Robert A. MacDonald, Partner, Ottawa t: 613-786-0150 f: 613-788-3443 e: robert.macdonald@gowlings.com

More Related