Words from the Chair Alleged ambiguity of Alzheimer and Parkinson medicines Johannes Furhmann, Bomhard IP OHIM’s Fourth Board of Appeal recently took a noteworthy position concerning Alzheimer and Parkinson medicines (decision of 22 July 2015, Case R 568/2015-4). Another year has almost passed and here comes our final 2015 issue of LL&P. I feel the PTMG Conferences in 2015 went very well. At least we got a lot of very friendly feedback. We started with our Spring Conference in Venice in March. Both the city and the hotel were anticipated to be great and I must say that both fully met our expectations. I will never forget the guided tour of the St. Marc's Basilica (especially the moment when the dark church was suddenly illuminated) just before our optional dinner on the first night. That was really an amazing experience. And it will probably not happen too often in the future that we are taken by fancy boats to the Gala Dinner which in Venice was held in another outstanding location. It has been a thrilling experience for me personally to chair my first PTMG Conference in Warsaw in Autumn. The longer it went on the more I enjoyed it. It felt like a surfer riding on a wave. I think we were really blessed this time with a wonderful group of speakers who had invested a lot of time and efforts which resulted in excellent presentations. For many of us Warsaw as a city was quite a pleasant surprise and even the weather was very nice for this time of the year. And I should not forget the brilliant evening venues. My personal highlight was the appearance of the ballet dancers on the staircase of the National Theatre! I am very glad that we are going back to the legendary Savoy Hotel in London next Spring (especially since I missed it last time) and so far it seems that we have been able to develop an interesting programme which will be published soon. Registration will start in January. If you do not wish to end up on some waiting list please make sure to register promptly after registration has opened. I wish all the PTMG members, your families and friends a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Let us all hope and pray for a more peaceful year 2016! Frank Meixner 2 To settle an opposition against its mark, the applicant intended to exclude those goods from class 5, which were of the opponent’s concern, namely pharmaceutical preparations relating to dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease. The applicant consecutively filed two different limitations, both of which were considered inadmissible by the Board of Appeal. While requesting some further amendments, the applicant in particular requested to add at the end of class 5: "none of the foregoing being pharmaceutical preparations relating to dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease". A few weeks later, the applicant requested a slightly amended limitation to "none of the foregoing being pharmaceutical preparations relating to the field of neuroscience, including dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease". Interestingly, the Board of Appeal was of the opinion the limitations would not be admissible as not meeting the requirement of clarity and precision. Allegedly, the disclaimers would be ambiguous as it would not be possible to clearly identify the nature of these pharmaceutical preparations, since the causes of these diseases are still not fully known. This position of the Board of Appeal is surprising, in particular considering that a limitation to a specific therapeutic indication is generally accepted under EU jurisprudence to define a specific sub-category (see ECJ, case C31/14 P (PRAMINO v PREMENO)). In addition, already in its decisions RESPICORT v RESPICUR and ZURCAL v ZUFAL, the General Court made it clear that a limitation to an active ingredient is insufficient to clarify a pharmaceutical product’s therapeutic indication. The Court took into consideration that a given medical condition can often be treated using a number of types of medication with different dosage forms and containing different active ingredients. One could well argue that when excluding Alzheimer or Parkinson medicines from the application, it is clear for the public that any goods that are potentially used for the curing of these diseases, irrespective of their active ingredient, are not covered by the mark. As regards the second limitation, the Board of Appeal noted that it merely enlarged the first disclaimer to the field of neuroscience in general and that would be inadmissible for that reason alone. However, this refusal by the Board of Appeal also surprises. By adding "not in the field of neuroscience", the applicant excluded further goods and not less. The denial of that addition would prohibit the trade mark owner from further excluding a wider range of goods. Overall, a limitation to a specific therapeutic indication must, despite this decision of the Board of Appeal, still be considered a suitable way on how to stay away from another specific pharmaceutical field. However, the decision shows that caution is demanded even with rather seemingly straightforward limitations.