rob macdonald l.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Rob MacDonald

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Rob MacDonald - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 185 Views
  • Uploaded on

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)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Rob MacDonald' - job


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
international case round up3
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.
international case round up5
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.”
international case round up6
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.
international case round up7
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
international case round up8
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
international case round up9
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
international case round up10
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
international case round up11
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
international case round up12
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
international case round up13
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)
international case round up14
INTERNATIONAL CASE ROUND-UP
  • DOMAIN NAME CASES
  • SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED v. JN DISTRIBUTION
  • - www.tyverb.co.uk
slide16

Robert A. MacDonald, Partner, Ottawa

t: 613-786-0150

f: 613-788-3443

e: robert.macdonald@gowlings.com