Sanofi-Synthelabo v Lohmann Animal Health, GmbH & Co. KB

This decision concerns an opposition proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the Trade Marks Hearings. The applicant, Sanofi-Synthelabo, sought to register a trade mark, while the opponent, Lohmann Animal Health, GmbH & Co. KB, opposed this registration. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's proposed trade mark should be registered in light of the opponent's existing, earlier registered trade mark.

The primary legal issue before the Hearing Officer was whether the applicant's trade mark was "substantially identical" to the opponent's trade mark, and whether it was intended for use in respect of the same goods. This determination was crucial for establishing the ground of opposition under section 44 of the relevant Act. The Hearing Officer also had to consider the overall success of the opposition and the entitlement to costs.

The Hearing Officer reasoned that the applicant's trade mark was indeed substantially identical to the opponent's trade mark, which held an earlier priority date. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer found that the applicant intended to use its mark for the same goods as the opponent's mark. Based on these findings, the Hearing Officer concluded that the ground of opposition under section 44 had been established, leading to the overall success of the opposition.

In accordance with section 55 of the Act, the Hearing Officer refused to register the applicant's trade mark application number 900394. The opponent, having been successful in its opposition, was awarded its costs against the applicant, to be paid in accordance with the official scale.