Koketterende medicijnen
HvJ EG, conclusie AG Kokott, 26 oktober 2006, zaak C-412/05 P. Alcon Inc.tegen OHIM/ Biofarma SA
Bestaat er gevaar voor verwarring tussen twee woordmerken voor farmaceutische producten, te weten TRAVATAN en het oudere Italiaanse woordmerk TRIVASTAN. In alle instanties wordt deze vraag positief beantwoord, aangezien de waren soortgelijk zijn en de tekens visueel en fonetisch overeenstemmen.
Kokott verwerpt (bijna) alle verweren van Alcon. Ten aanzien van de gelijkheid van de waren stelt Kokott: "(...) Alcon complains that the Court of First Instance failed to require Biofarma to produce evidence of the similarity of both products. It submits that Travatan is administered in the form of eye drops, while Trivastan is a tablet. For that reason alone the products are not similar. (...) Alcon is wrong though in its submission that it is in eye-drop form that the medicinal product Travatan is to be considered. As already explained, for the trade mark applied for here the group of goods constituted by ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations must be used as the basis for comparison. This group encompasses medicinal products which are sold for administration in various forms, hence also products which, like the product to be compared, are offered in tablet form."
Ten aanzien van het relevante publiek stelt Alcon dat deze niet wordt gevormd door de eindgebruikers, maar door degenen die het middel voorschrijven. Kokott geeft Alcon hierin gelijk, maar ziet geen reden om op grond hiervan het beroep te bekrachtigen: "In the case of medicinal products available only on prescription, the choice between various products is made not upon acquisition but earlier, during the medical consultation. Medicinal products available only on prescription are, because of the risks attaching to them, subject to special control by doctors, and also by pharmacists. (...) The risk, pointed out by OHIM and Biofarma, of confusion on the part of a patient who, independently of prescription, is confronted with the mark, is also of little significance, under trade mark law at any rate. In the Picasso judgment, the Court of Justice regarded the moment when the choice between the goods and marks is made as crucial for assessing the likelihood of confusion. Other points in time, at which confusion on the part of consumers might be more likely because they display a lesser level of attention, are by contrast of secondary importance. (...) Therefore, Alcon is correct in its argument that the relevant public for medicinal products available only on prescription is to be determined by reference to healthcare professionals, and not patients. Hence, notwithstanding the legal errors in the contested judgment, it is not to be set aside."
Alcon vecht tevens de visuele en fonetische vergelijking van de tekens aan. Alcon vecht hierbij het feitencomplex zoals gesteld door het Gerecht aan. Het beroep is niet-ontvankelijk in dit opzicht: "The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where they distort the evidence, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal."
De AG concludeert tot afwijzing van het beroep. Lees de conclusie hier.
