Axogen Corporation v Aviv Scientific Ltd [2022] EWHC 95 (Ch) (18 January 2022)

Axogen Corporation v Aviv Scientific Ltd [2022] EWHC 95 (Ch) (18 January 2022)

The Hearing Officer did not err in her approach to complementarity, visual and aural similarity, or likelihood of confusion. Her findings were consistent with established case law, and absent evidence, she was entitled to find no complementarity or similarity between the goods and services in Annex A and the Earlier Marks. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 95 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/opponent: Axogen Corporation; Respondent/applicant for Registration: Aviv Scientific Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Trade Marks Act 1994 S.76 / Appeal From UKIPO Hearing Officer Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Comparison of Goods and Services, Complementarity, Visual and Aural Similarity, Distinctive Character
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Likelihood of Confusion Comparison of Goods and Services Complementarity Visual and Aural Similarity Distinctive Character

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Axogen Corporation

Appellant/opponent

Aviv Scientific Limited

Respondent/applicant for Registration

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Trade Marks Act 1994 S.76 / Appeal From UKIPO Hearing Officer Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing complementarity between goods and services
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in comparing visual and aural similarity of marks
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer applied the correct standard for likelihood of confusion

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer did not err in her approach to complementarity, visual and aural similarity, or likelihood of confusion. Her findings were consistent with established case law, and absent evidence, she was entitled to find no complementarity or similarity between the goods and services in Annex A and the Earlier Marks. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No error of principle found in Hearing Officer's decision
  • Trade Mark AVIV proceeds to registration for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and 44