A case in point is the Prince vs Prince suit. Prince, the US-based manufacturers of sports goods, challenged the use of the
d dose combinations are still in the process of convincing regulatory authority on their advantages over the single ingredient formulations.
Combination pro
ef="http://www.prince.com" target="_new">www.prince.com domain name by a British computer consultancy company. The said company registered the domain in go
ucts have become life saving products for the pharmaceutical companies who doesn’t have many innovative molecules in their product pipeline and have been inc
d faith and have been using it. The Prince sports goods company, which has no registered UK trademark, threatened to sue the British company for US trademark i
easingly used in the product life cycle management. Even the companies having product patents are trying to extend their product life cycle through the combi
nfringement. The latter counter-sued in the UK for the unwarranted threats regarding trademark infringement. They eventually won and the US company had to cont
nation products and maximize the revenues. But the companies involved in this practice are overlooking that they are burdening the patients both economically
nd with just using the domain name
www.princetennis.com.
Alternatively, a different scenario where the
and physically. They need to rightly judge the benefits of the combination products and they have to even look at the risks involved when combining the produ
trademark owner will most likely prevail over a domain name holder’s rights is in the case of Marks & Spencer vs One in a Million. This particular case was ele
ts. Some of the combination products were well accepted by physicians while others suffered. Companies involved in development of combination products are fi
ated to the English High Court in 1997 when various trademark holders, including the world-famous UK retailer Marks & Spencer, sued One In A Million, a company
ding difficulty in defining their combination products and facing various challenges from selecting a combination to marketing it.
Following aspects would a
who accumulated a number of domain names under the well-known trademarks like Sainsburys, Virgin, Marks & Spencer, and Cellnet. These domain names, and others
dd to the challenges in developing combination products:
Which markets to tap where the combination products can do fairly well?
Which combination prod
were bought with the express goal of selling them again to the trademark owners. The High Court decided that One In A Million be required to relinquish their
cts are meaningful and rational?
Which therapeutic categories to select?
Which Combinations can address unmet needs of the patients?
Do combin
laim on the said domain names. This decision was further upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The One In A Million company’s basis of argument was that domain name
tions increase the patient compliance?
What would be the developing cost?
How to tackle the risks encountered during combination product developmen
registrations were first come, first served”, thus, the trademark owners do not have any rights to the domain names.
Based on the two actual court cases we ca
t?
As combination products don't fit into the traditional categories of drugs, medical devices, or biological products, the USFDA is in the process of devel
build up a clear picture about the interrelation of trademarks and domain names.
In general, domains that have no trademark significance can be acquired by t
ping new procedures for reviewing their safety, efficacy and quality.
Professional from academic institutions, pharmaceutical industries, health care indust
e entity who registered them first. Continuous use of this non-trademarked name will allow the holder to build a reputation on the name. When the situation is
y and representatives from various regulatory agencies are working out to design the regulatory requirements for manufacture and sale of combination products
between to legitimate companies who have a right to the name then, as with the stipulation of most laws in most countries, the first person who registers will
.
As there is an increasing trend of the combination products companies manufacturing such products should be able to tackle the problems involved in the de
et the domain. However, a registrant to a domain that is also a subject of a trademark and who does not have any entitlements is going to be forbidden based on
elopment. They need to be wiser in analyzing the market trends and the regulatory requirements.
Companies that provide selfless information through particip
tion in industry events and feedback to regulatory authorities would be able to face the challenges and will be successful in developing combination products