Astrazeneca AB v. Ratiopharm GMBH

Astrazeneca AB

Case details

Plaintiff: Astrazeneca AB

Defendant: Ratiopharm GMBH

Case no.: O/148/06

Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Industry: Pharmaceuticals

Decision date: 06 Aug, 2006


Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks. He noted that both were invented words and that the opponent’s mark had strong inherent qualities. While the opponent had significant user of its mark the Hearing Officer thought this fact was not decisive when comparing the respective marks. The Hearing Officer noted that both marks were of similar length one having seven letters and the other eight. Both marks had six letters in the letter sequence LENDIL. Thus there was some visual similarity which was to some extent offset by the different prefixes. Also there was a likelihood of aural confusion as it was possible that the applicant’s mark could be shortened to two syllables. Taking all the relevant factors into account, including the likely average customer, he concluded that the public would wrongly believe that the respective goods came from the same or economically linked undertakings. Opposition thus successful.

Comparison of Trademarks



Related articles