TRADEMARK OPPOSITION
face cream (non-medicated); body creams; lotions (non-medicated) for the face; creams (non-medicated) for protection against the sun; moisturising creams (cosmetic), acne cleansers (cosmetic), facial cleansers (cosmetic); facial scrubs (cosmetic); creams
(non-medicated)
for body scrubs; body talcum powder; scalp treatments (non-medicated); shampoos; dandruff treatments in the form of shampoo; baby
care products (non-medicated); baby
shampoo; baby oil; baby lotions; and baby bath preparations (non-medicated). T e application was given trademark
number 06011831. Following a smooth search and examination process by the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), the mark was accepted and advertised for opposition on April 10, 2008. Oilatum is a brand owned by
Stiefel
Laboratories (now a GlaxoSmithKline company). T e mark has been registered around the world including in Malaysia. In Malaysia it was registered on November 30, 1992 in class fi ve, to protect goods described as “dermatological preparation for the treatment of dry skin”. Stiefel fi led an opposition proceeding, arguing
that the applicant’s mark breached section 14 of the Trade Marks Act (TMA); article 6bis of the Paris Convention and therefore section 14 of the TMA; section 10 of the TMA; and section 19 of the TMA. It also argued that the applicant cannot claim to be the bona fi de proprietor of the mark and that its registration contravenes section 25 of the TMA, adding that the mark when used in relation to the goods applied for may give rise to passing off . Galenium defended its trademark application
on the grounds that the ‘Oilum’ mark was independently created by the applicant’s founder, Joesoef Eddy. He was a qualifi ed dermatologist from a family with a medical/ pharmaceutical background. T e mark was coined from a derivation of the words ‘oil’ (the generic substance) and ‘oleum olivarum’ (the Latin term for olive oil). In addition, the marks concerned were not identical and the applicant had been selling products bearing the mark in Malaysia for quite some time without any objections from Stiefel.
Opinions Our commentary will focus on sections 14 and 19 of the Malaysian TMA. Section 14 of the TMA reads: A mark or part of a mark shall not be
registered as a trademark: (a) If the use of which is likely to deceive or cause confusion to the public or would be contrary to law;
www.worldipreview.com
(b) If it contains or comprises any scandalous or off ensive matter or would otherwise not be entitled to protection by any court of law; or
(c) If it contains a matter which in the opinion of the registrar is or might be prejudicial to the interest or security of the nation. Galenium argued that its mark when used
in a normal and fair manner was not likely to cause any confusion and/or deception for the simple reason that the target consumers of the products bearing each mark were different. Evidence was put forth to the registrar during written submissions that products bearing both marks had been placed side by side in a promotional pamphlet at a popular Malaysian apothecary and there were no objections from Stiefel. As for the other ground, section 19(1)(a)
states that no trademark shall be registered that is identical to a trademark belonging to a diff erent proprietor. T e applicant successfully established that its mark was neither identical in look nor sound, and this argument was duly affi rmed by the registrar. Section 19(1)(b), on the other hand, states
that no trademark shall be registered that so nearly resembles a trademark that it is likely to cause confusion. T is basis was used to argue that the goods were not similar and, in any event, it had been shown by evidence there had been no confusion in the market. T e registrar issued a written decision on the
opposition proceedings on February 16, 2015. It held that the trademark ‘Oilum’ was allowed to proceed to registration. T e registrar’s decision was based on the factors below: • Aſt er careful consideration of the evidence provided, the marks were found to be neither identical nor similar to one another. Visually, the marks are unlike one another
“THE GOODS CONCERNED (PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS) WERE NOT THE KIND OF GOODS THAT CUSTOMERS WOULD SIMPLY PICK FROM THE SHELVES AND PAY FOR WITHOUT GIVING IT ANY THOUGHT.”
as each was represented in a stylised form. Phonetically, the marks were also held to be diff erent as the applicant’s mark had two syllables, while the opponent’s had three, when spoken aloud.
• T e opposition offi cer did fi nd that the goods of both marks had the same description. Nevertheless, it was noted that the goods concerned (ie, personal care
products)
were not the kind of goods that customers would simply pick from the shelves and pay for without giving it any thought or reasonable care. T erefore, the goods, although similar in nature, would not likely confuse the public and consumers as they would normally read the label and/or seek the advice of a sales assistant in order to ensure they were buying the right product for the right purpose. T is extra step of consideration by the consumer reduces the likelihood of confusion, if there is any.
• T e mark ‘Oilum’ had been shown to be distinctive at the search and examination stage and it was further shown by evidence that there had been use of the mark in the market without any objections from the opponent. T e registrar’s decision was not appealed
against by Stiefel at the High Court, which means that it has accepted the registrar’s rationale in good faith. Further, Galenium is now free to protect its valuable trademark and continue to build its reputation and goodwill arising from the use of its trademark. Henry Goh acted for Galenium in this case.
Azlina Aisyah Khalid is the senior legal counsel at Henry Goh. She is a registered Malaysian trademark, patent and industrial agent. Her practice includes trademark prosecution, and her expertise extends to securing trade description orders and providing advice on IP-related agreements. She can be contacted at:
azlina@henrygoh.com
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015
71
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100