shutterstock_1238405779_billion_photos
Billion Photos / Shutterstock.com
15 October 2020EuropeRory O'Neill

DNA start-up refused UK trademark

An Australian personalised genomics company has failed in its effort to obtain protection for its ‘MyDNA.life’ trademark in the UK.

My DNA Life owns an international registration for the trademark, which covers services including DNA testing.

The Australian company uses individuals’ DNA to help them manage their weight and nutrition. It applied for UK protection for the registration at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), but was met with opposition from rival trademark owner Dewan Fazlul Hoque Chowdhury.

Chowdhury owns a UK trademark for ‘my DNA’, covering genetic testing, as well as medical and scientific research.

The IPO earlier this month sided with Chowdhury, finding that consumers were likely to confuse the two brands.

While Chowdhury’s mark was not distinctive, the IPO found, there was still a high level of similarity between the trademarks that could lead to confusion.

Having found that the services covered by the two marks were either identical or highly similar, the IPO concluded that the “average consumer will assume that the addition of the word ‘life’ is consistent with a sub-brand or brand extension of ‘my DNA’”.

“I am mindful that a degree of caution is required before finding a likelihood of confusion on the basis of common elements which are either descriptive or are low in distinctive character. Nevertheless, I maintain that there is a likelihood of confusion,” an IPO official wrote in their decision.

My DNA Life was ordered to pay Chowdhury £500 ($653) towards legal costs.

In January, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused registration for the ‘Sequencing by Binding’ trademark, on the grounds that it was too descriptive.

In a precedential decision from the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the office held that “sequencing” and “binding” were both descriptive terms in the context of DNA sequencing.

The combination of these terms, the TTAB concluded, “results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive”.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.


More on this story

Americas
8 January 2020   A San Diego biotechnology company has been refused a trademark registration for ‘Sequencing by Binding’ on the grounds that it is too descriptive.
Big Pharma
21 May 2020   The English High Court has finalised the terms of a trademark injunction against US pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD), in favour of German rival Merck KGaA.
Europe
24 June 2021   A Warrington-based distributor of aesthetic and cosmetic products has lost its UK trademark for a dermal filler brand after the English High Court found it to have registered the brand in bad faith.

More on this story

Americas
8 January 2020   A San Diego biotechnology company has been refused a trademark registration for ‘Sequencing by Binding’ on the grounds that it is too descriptive.
Big Pharma
21 May 2020   The English High Court has finalised the terms of a trademark injunction against US pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD), in favour of German rival Merck KGaA.
Europe
24 June 2021   A Warrington-based distributor of aesthetic and cosmetic products has lost its UK trademark for a dermal filler brand after the English High Court found it to have registered the brand in bad faith.