Clinical trials and the requirement of trademark use

Commercial success for pharmaceutical companies is highly dependent on the acquisition and enforcement of IP rights. While speed to filing is important in most instances, registering a trademark too early could have a negative impact on validity, as Casper Hemelrijk explains.

The development of a pharmaceutical drug is a time-consuming and costly process. The period from the initial discovery to the medicine being launched to market can easily take a decade, of which a significant part will be taken up by clinical trials.

Trademarks and the requirement of use

To maximise return from R&D their investments, pharmaceutical companies are advised to protect their R&D investments with IP registrations at an early stage. However, applying for a trademark at too early a stage can conflict with the requirement for trademark use. This stipulates that the registered mark must be used within a period of five years from the registration date, else it will be vulnerable to third-party applications to revoke the mark (on the grounds of non-use). 

To defend the mark from such an action, the trademark registrant will need to prove use of the mark or supply a valid reason for failing to do so. This can be a challenge for trademark owners, not least because of the importance of evidence quality in such disputes. For pharmaceutical companies, the long lead-time to market provides an added obstacle. A recent case posed the question of whether the use of a trademark within clinical trials meets the threshold of the use requirement. 

The dispute over 'BOSWELAN'

The legal predecessor of Viridis Pharmaceutical applied for a European trademark (EUTM) for ‘BOSWELAN’ during the development of a new drug, and the name was registered in 2007 by the EUIPO. Six years later, German company Hecht-Pharma filed an application with EUIPO’s Cancellation Division to revoke the mark, based on lack of use by Viridis.

After the Cancellation Division granted the application and revoked the mark, Viridis unsuccessfully appealed to both EUIPO’s Court of Appeal and the General Court of the EU. After the latter rejected its appeal, Viridis turned to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) as a last resort.

Are clinical trials an exception to the rule?

As the CJEU judgement of 3 July 2019 sets out, the ‘normal’ use of a trademark constitutes use, in the relevant market, of the goods for which the sign has been registered. Usage solely within the registrant’s company is not sufficient to meet the use requirement therefore.

At the same time, pharmaceutical legislation prohibits medicines being advertised before they have been approved for market. Viridis did not yet have that approval, so could not sell or market its new drug. Clearly, it was impossible for Viridis to make ‘normal’ use of the mark at this stage of product development. 

Does this mean, the trademark use rule does not apply? Not according to established case law, which distinguishes between lack of use that is in or out of the control of the registrant. 

As the CJEU ruling states, the trademark was applied for before the clinical trials began and, as the duration of the clinical trials falls within the sphere of Viridis’s influence, the trials and associated timeframe is the company’s responsibility. Based on that reasoning, the CJEU found that the trademark had been revoked legitimately.

The judgement illustrates the importance of timing when applying for a trademark. While, under normal circumstances, a trademark should be applied for as soon as possible, it is possible for a trademark registration to be obtained at too early a stage, as demonstrated by this ruling. 

For additional advice on strategies for trademark and patent protection in the Life Sciences sector, please contact our team of experts below. 

Casper Hemelrijk works at Novagraaf’s Competence Centre in Amsterdam.

Laatste inzichten

Nieuws en opinie

De Seattle Space Needle in conflict met een locale koffie shop in Seattle

De Space Needle in Seattle heeft een lokale koffieketen gedagvaard voor inbreuk op zijn merklogo in de reclame en merchandise van de koffieshop. De Space Needle is een toren in de stad Seattle in de Amerikaanse staat Washington. De toren is het symbool van Seattle. Hij is geplaatst ter gelegenheid van de wereldtentoonstelling van 1962, waarvan de eigenaar een particuliere onderneming is. Zij gebruiken een eigen logo die is geregistreerd bij het Amerikaanse merkenbureau.

De Seattle Space Needle in conflict met een locale koffie shop in Seattle
Nieuws en opinie

Thuisbezorgd mag merk blijven gebruiken in de Verenigde Staten

Thuisbezorgd, onderdeel van de Just Eat Takeaway group (hierna GRUBHUB) opereert wereldwijd onder verschillende merknamen. Zo is het bedrijf in Nederland actief onder de naam Thuisbezorgd, in Duitsland heet het Lieferando en in de Verenigde Staten GRUBHUB. GRUBHUB is in conflict geraakt met Kroger Inc. dat van mening is dat het beeldmerk met woordelementen HOME CHEF en GRUBHUB verwarring wekkend overeenstemmen.

Thuisbezorgd mag merk blijven gebruiken in de Verenigde Staten
Nieuws en opinie

‘All I want for Christmas’ van Mariah Carey maakt inbreuk.. of toch niet?

Kerst valt vroeg dit jaar voor zangeres Mariah Carey, maar helaas voor haar in negatieve zin. Onlangs is zij voor de rechter gesleept omdat haar bekende kerstnummer ‘All I want for Christmas’ inbreuk zou maken op de auteursrechten van Andy Stone. Stone eist 20 miljoen dollar (ca. 18,5 miljoen Euro) van Mariah Carey en platenmaatschappij Sony, maar is Stone’s claim wel terecht? Michaël Sumer licht deze kwestie toe.

Door Michaël Sumer,
‘All I want for Christmas’ van Mariah Carey maakt inbreuk.. of toch niet?

Voor meer informatie neem gerust contact met ons op.

Cookie policy

Om de bezoekers van de website de best mogelijke ervaring te bieden, maakt Novagraaf gebruik van cookies. Door op "Accepteren" te klikken of door de site verder te gebruiken, gaat u akkoord met ons privacybeleid, inclusief ons cookiebeleid.