GlaxoSmithKline LLC, SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd and SmithKline Beecham Limited v AFT Pharmaceuticals Limited

This matter came before Hearing Officer Michael Kirov of the Trade Marks Hearings. The parties involved were GlaxoSmithKline LLC, SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham Limited (collectively, the "Opponents"), who opposed the registration of a trade mark by AFT Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Applicant"). The dispute concerned the Applicant's proposed trade mark, which the Opponents argued should not be registered.

The Opponents raised several grounds for opposition, including claims based on sections 42(b), 60, and 62A of the relevant Act. Specifically, they contended that the Opposed Mark was not inherently adapted to distinguish the Applicant's goods and that it should not qualify for registration, despite evidence of intended and actual use. The Opponents also argued that the elements "OSTEO" and "TAB" within the Opposed Mark have common, widely understood meanings and that the Applicant was attempting to monopolise generic terms used in the consumer health product market.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by both parties, including statutory declarations and exhibits. Ultimately, the Hearing Officer found that the Opponents had not established their grounds for opposition, including the ground based on section 62A. Consequently, the Hearing Officer decided that the trade mark application could proceed to registration, subject to certain retained endorsements and the outcome of any potential appeal. The Applicant, as the successful party, was awarded costs against the Opponents.