User:BD2412/Vaccine law resources/Intellectual property

Vaccine IP

Patent
Sandoz v. Amgen—Biosimilars at the Supreme Court—Oral Argument, The National Law Review, May 1, 2017.

FindLaw: IN RE: Peter DROGE, United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. IN RE: Peter DROGE, Nicole Christ, and Elke Lorbach. No. 2011–1600. Decided: September 21, 2012

WHO: Intellectual Property and License Management with respect to Vaccines

WIPO: Patent Landscape Report on Vaccines for Selected Infectious Diseases

WIPO: Patent Landscape Report on Vaccines for Selected Infectious Diseases

Classen

We have held that “[w]hile it is true that dependent claims can aid in interpreting the scope of claims from which they depend, they are only an aid to interpretation and are not conclusive. The dependent claim tail cannot wag the independent claim dog.” N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

North American Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 28 USPQ2d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

two cats of biopharm patents

Orange book

Biologic drugs, made in living organisms - no counterpart to Orange Book

IPR challenges:


 * Cuozzo
 * SAS
 * Oil States
 * Wi-Fi One
 * In re Aqua Prods


 * Sandoz v. Amgen Inc., 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
 * Appealed, Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (2017)

Trademark
Avoid:
 * confusingly similar names
 * names that might mislead consumers with respect to contents or effects
 * generic names

The TTAB has observed that physicians are often required to call in prescriptions to pharmacists, creating an opportunity for confusion to arise between similarly named drugs.
 * Novartis International Pharmaceutical, Ltd. v. Genetic Immunity, LLC, Opposition No. 91124457, Mailed: 2/24/04


 * Am. Cyanamid Corp. v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 800 F.2d 306, 309 (2d Cir. 1986) (finding the marks HibVAX and HIB-IMUNE dissimilar where the commonality, "Hib," describes the parties' Haemophilus influenza type b vaccine)

"FDA review of trademarks for biologics Trademarks for non-therapeutic biologics (eg, vaccines) are reviewed by the Advertising, Promotion and Labelling Branch of the FDA Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). CBER has issued the Standard Operating Procedures and Policies for evaluating trademarks. In general, the CBER process is similar to the DMEPA process, with the additional provision that the CBER discourages multiple trademarks for the same drug used for different indications."
 * Keith A Barritt, Fish & Richardson PC Pharmaceutical Trademarks 2015/2016:
 * P. 123:

American Cyanamid Corp. v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc., 800 F.2d 306 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1986)
Page 306

800 F.2d 306

55 USLW 2204, 231 U.S.P.Q. 128

AMERICAN CYANAMID CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1581, Docket 86-7447.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued July 16, 1986. Decided Sept. 5, 1986. Cynthia Clarke Dale, Washington, D.C., (Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, MacPeak & Seas, Washington, D.C., Ludwig Saskor, Smith, Steibel, Alexander & Saskor, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Marie V. Driscoll, New York City (Townley & Updike, New York City, Stanley J. Silverberg, American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, N.J., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WINTER and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and CABRANES, District Judge. *

Page 307

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Connaught Laboratories, Inc. ("Connaught") appeals from Judge Owen's preliminary injunction enjoining the use of the trademark HibVAX for Connaught's Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine and requiring the recall of any of the HibVAX vaccine already shipped. The district judge found that American Cyanamid Corporation, the manufacturer of an identical vaccine bearing the trademark HIB-IMUNE, was likely to prevail on the merits of its trademark infringement claim against Connaught. We believe there is no infringement as a matter of law. Because plaintiff's other claims are also without merit, we reverse and order the complaint dismissed.

BACKGROUND The parties to this action manufacture chemically identical vaccines that immunize children against Haemophilus influenzae type b diseases. One generic term for such diseases is "Hib"; the other is "H-FLU." The vaccine manufactured by American Cyanamid's Lederle Laboratories Division ("Lederle") is sold under the registered trademark "HIB-IMUNE"; the vaccine manufactured by the defendant Connaught is sold under the name "HibVAX." The Lederle vaccine went on the market in December 1985, the Connaught vaccine in April 1986. The only other manufacturer of a Hib vaccine is Praxis Biologics, Inc., whose product went on sale in April 1985 and has dominated the market since.

The vaccines in question are not sold to the public either by prescription or over the counter; instead, they are sold only to physicians or to pharmacies, wholesalers, and hospitals that resell to physicians. These vaccines are administered to patients only by licensed medical personnel at doctors' offices, clinics, and other medical facilities.

Both vaccines are packaged in pairs of small bottles. One bottle contains the active ingredient; the other contains a diluent that is mixed with the active ingredient to reconstitute the vaccine before it is administered to the patient. A package of HibVAX contains five doses of active ingredient in one bottle and somewhat more than five doses of diluent in the other bottle; a package of HIB-IMUNE has five bottles containing one dose of active ingredient and five bottles containing slightly more than one dose of diluent.

The proper dosage of either HibVAX or HIB-IMUNE is 0.5 milliliters of the reconstituted vaccine. This dose is clearly stated on the outside of the packages, on the individual bottles, and in package inserts. The instructions for mixing and administering the vaccines are also specifically set forth in the package inserts.

The full generic name of the Hib vaccine, "Haemophilus polysaccharide vaccine," appears on the front of each package of HIB-IMUNE and HibVAX in larger type than the trademark. The generic name of the vaccine also appears on each bottle label in type as prominent as the trademark. In addition, the name of the manufacturer, either Lederle or Connaught, appears on each package and bottle of their respective vaccines.

The colors used on HIB-IMUNE packages and labels are yellow, blue, and white. Lederle uses the same color scheme for most of its other pharmaceutical products. In contrast, the colors used on HibVAX packages and labels are peach and white. The caps on bottles of HIB-IMUNE are blue and yellow, while the caps on bottles of HibVAX are silver.

Lederle commenced this action on May 5, 1986, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1051 et seq., and unfair competition, dilution, and deceptive trade practices under New York law. On May 28, 1986, Judge Owen granted Lederle's application for a preliminary injunction against the use of the trademark HibVAX, which he found to be "potentially confusing[ly] similar" to the trademark HIB-IMUNE. Memorandum Opinion at 6. He subsequently ordered Connaught to initiate a recall of all products bearing the trademark HibVAX. The injunction and order have been stayed

Page 308

pending our disposition of this expedited appeal. DISCUSSION We believe that Connaught's mark for its vaccine does not infringe the Lederle trademark. Moreover, given the lack of deceptive intent or conduct by Connaught in marketing its product, the dissimilar trade dress of the two vaccines, and the market in which they are sold, there is no chance of confusion between the two products. Neither plaintiff's federal trademark action nor its state claims have any merit, therefore, and must be dismissed.

A trademark holder cannot appropriate generic or descriptive terms for its exclusive use, and a trademark infringement finding thus cannot be based on the use of a generic or descriptive term such as "Hib." See, e.g., Flintkote Co. v. Tizer, 266 F.2d 849, 852 (3d Cir.1959); Upjohn Co. v. Schwartz, 246 F.2d 254, 262 (2d Cir.1957); Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd., 137 F.2d 955, 959 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 758, 64 S.Ct. 65, 88 L.Ed. 452 (1943). Trademark protection benefits consumers by enabling them to select products on the basis of their origin. This encourages sellers to create and maintain good will by marketing products of reliable quality that consumers associate with their mark. Consumers will not benefit, however, if trademark law prevents competitors from using generic or descriptive terms to inform the public of the nature of their product. Were the first user of a generic or descriptive term, say "bicycle," able to exclude later entrants from use of that term, the former would be able not only to identify itself as the maker of the bicycle and to capitalize on whatever good will it has built up--legitimate purposes of trademark protection--but also to impair the ability of competitors to describe their product as bicycles--a wholly counterproductive result so far as consumers are concerned. See, e.g., Bada Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 426 F.2d 8, 11 (9th Cir.) ("word which is in its primary meaning merely descriptive of the goods to which it is applied may not be appropriated as the exclusive trademark of a single seller, since one competitor will not be permitted to impoverish the language of commerce by preventing his fellows from fairly describing their own goods"), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 916, 91 S.Ct. 174, 27 L.Ed.2d 155 (1970). Accordingly, marks that become generic are no longer valid trademarks. See, e.g., King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.1963) (thermos bottle); Dupont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir.1936) (cellophane), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 575, 58 S.Ct. 1047, 82 L.Ed.2d 1539 (1938).

This principle applies equally to a generic component of a trademark. Although such a component will not necessarily render the entire mark invalid, its presence does affect the analysis of whether a competitor's mark containing the same component is likely to create confusion. As a result, because the generic term "Hib" may not be appropriated by Lederle for its exclusive use, any likelihood of confusion between HibVAX and HIB-IMUNE, and any consequent finding of infringement, must be based on a similarity between the suffixes "VAX" and "IMUNE." The very statement of the issue, however, resolves it. The suffixes are totally different. They are of different length, sound, and appearance. They share not even a letter in common.

Lederle makes much of the fact that the Connaught's suffix "VAX" and its own suffix "IMUNE" are close in intended meaning and concept, and argues therefore that the former infringes the latter. We disagree. Even if the intended meaning and concept are similar, they are wholly descriptive. Lederle's trademark protection extends only to words or abbreviations similar to its own and thus likely to confuse consumers. A description of a product's use does not in itself create confusion. Lederle thus cannot preempt its competitors from using every word or abbreviation, no matter how dissimilar in sound and appearance, that might refer to immunization

Page 309

or vaccination or that might remind consumers, here medical professionals, of those medical procedures. Because there is no similarity between the two marks that might generate confusion between the products, we need not weigh the various factors set out in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 36, 7 L.Ed.2d 25 (1961). Lederle relies heavily upon American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson Chemical Co., 589 F.2d 103 (2d Cir.1978). In that case, we held that the trademark "ROACH MOTEL," used on a box that trapped insects, was infringed by the brand name "ROACH INN," used on a similar device. However, we explicitly stated:

We do not find the mark ROACH MOTEL to be a merely descriptive mark. While roaches may live in some motels against the will of the owners, motels are surely not built for roaches to live in. Hence the mark is fanciful in conception. Indeed, its very incongruity is what catches one's attention.

We think, therefore, that ROACH MOTEL is at least a suggestive mark, rather than a descriptive mark--if, indeed, it is not altogether an arbitrary mark.

....

... It appears to us most likely that an ordinary consumer having read or heard on television the words "ROACH MOTEL" would remember the conception rather than the precise word. He would be unlikely to differentiate between "Motel" and "Inn" in his recollection. We think it more likely that he would recall simply a fanciful abode for roaches in an establishment normally frequented by human travellers.

Id. at 106-07 (citations and footnotes omitted).

In contrast, both "VAX" and "IMUNE" are straightforward, descriptive abbreviations of the medical use to which the product is put. They lack fanciful concept or ironic meaning. They may well have a similar meaning, but that meaning lies entirely in their descriptive reference to vaccination and immunization. The suffixes are arbitrary only in the particular abbreviation they use, and each company may thus be protected against similar marks such as "HibVACS" or "HIB-IMMUN" respectively. However, absent a deceptive use designed to create confusion over the origin of the two products, Lederle cannot prevent Connaught from using the "HibVAX" mark.

No such deceptive use is present in this case. Notwithstanding his contrary views on the likelihood of confusion, Judge Owen noted that Connaught had announced the HibVAX mark as early as 1983, and therefore held that Connaught's conduct was not willful infringement. Moreover, all three letters of the prefix "Hib" are capitalized in the trademark HIB-IMUNE, while only the first letter of the prefix is capitalized in HibVAX. Furthermore, HIB-IMUNE is hyphenated, while HibVAX is not. These differences in the appearance of the prefix "Hib" serve to minimize any possibility of confusion. The suffixes "IMUNE" and "VAX," moreover, are, as noted supra, totally different in sound and appearance. The vaccines' trade dress is also quite dissimilar. The packages and labels of HIB-IMUNE are yellow, blue, and white, whereas the packages and labels of HibVAX are peach, silver, and white. The names "Lederle" and "Connaught" are prominently displayed on the packages and labels as well as on the advertisements for the vaccines.

We thus perceive neither an infringement of protectible trademark interests nor any danger of confusion between the two products. Decisions such as Syntex Laboratories, Inc. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 437 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1971), and Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. G.D. Searle & Co., 253 F.2d 390 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 816, 79 S.Ct. 25, 3 L.Ed.2d 58 (1958), direct exacting judicial scrutiny where there is a possibility of confusion over marks on medicinal products and a resultant danger of physical harm. Those cases are, however, inapposite.

Page 310

We are of course sensitive to the fact that the potential consequences of confusion over medicinal products may be far more dire than of confusion over ordinary consumer products. We perceive no realistic possibility of such harm in the present case. Lederle offers the strained argument that, because the dosages in the bottles of the different product differ, harm might result if a patient were inoculated with the contents of a five-dose bottle of HibVAX active ingredient combined with the contents of a one-dose bottle of HIB-IMUNE diluent. Such a mix-up could occur, however, only through the spectacular incompetence of the physician or nurse who administered the injection. Even a marginally incompetent medical professional would not combine the contents of two bottles bearing different colored labels and different brand names solely because one bottle carried the trademark HibVAX and the other the trademark HIB-IMUNE. Furthermore, because the common generic name of the vaccine is at least as prominent as the trademark on packages and bottles of HibVAX and HIB-IMUNE, the potential danger from use by an incompetent professional would be undiminished even if Connaught were prevented from using the HibVAX mark. Finally, as the district judge observed, there is nothing in the record to suggest that a patient would suffer any significant adverse reaction even if such a mistake was made.

Plaintiff's federal and state law claims are thus utterly without merit. We have previously held that, while as a general rule we "will go no further into the merits than is necessary to decide the interlocutory appeal," Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., 364 F.2d 67, 70 (2d Cir.1966), "this rule is subject to a general exception--the appellate court may dismiss the complaint on the merits if its examination of the record upon an interlocutory appeal reveals that the case is entirely void of merit." Id. (citing Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 495, 20 S.Ct. 708, 712, 44 L.Ed. 856 (1900); Sheldon v. Moredall Realty Corp., 95 F.2d 48 (2d Cir.1938)); see also Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph International Corp., 308 F.2d 196, 200 (2d Cir.1962) (ordering dismissal of trademark infringement action that was before court on appeal of grant of preliminary injunction).

We therefore reverse and order dismissal of the complaint.

---


 * The Honorable Jose A. Cabranes, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

Novartis International Pharmaceutical, Ltd. v. Genetic Immunity, LLC
Novartis International Pharmaceutical, Ltd. v. Genetic Immunity, LLC, Opposition No. 91124457, Mailed: 2/24/04

Adjuvants are chemicals which enhance the antigenicity of other biochemicals, and therefore the inclusion of adjuvants in vaccines greatly increases the effectiveness of the vaccine. See Atlas, Microbiology, © 1984, Exhibit I to opposer's notice of reliance. Opposition No. 91124457

With respect to the connotation of the marks, the evidence shows that "VIR," with which both marks end, indicates an antiviral substance. See USP Dictionary, 2002 (Exhibit J to opposer's notice of reliance)). The thirdparty registrations submitted by applicant for various "VIR" marks reinforce that "VIR" has such a meaning. See, for example, COMBIVIR for “anti-viral pharmaceutical preparations and substances” (Reg. No. 2,158,546); DOCOSAVIR for "jojoba plant extract used to help alleviate symptoms associated with envelope virus infections" (Reg. 2,586,423); and EPIVIR for "pharmaceutical preparations, namely anti- Opposition No. 91124457 14 infectives, antibiotics and anti-bacterials."4 Third-party registrations are probative to the extent that they serve to suggest that the "VIR" portion of the various marks, including opposer's and applicant's, convey their dictionary meaning. See Tektronix, Inc. V. Daktronics, Inc., 187 USPQ 588 (TTAB 1975). The presence of this element in both marks would not, alone, be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion; however, the overall similarities in appearance and sound between the marks is far greater than the fact that both include "VIR." In this connection, we note that the only third-party registrations submitted by applicant for a "VIR" mark that begins with the letter "D" are DOCOSAVIR, mentioned above, and DOXOVIR (Reg. No. 2771047).5 Moreover, opposer's witness testified that she was unaware of any other trademarks for pharmaceuticals that begin with the letter "D" and end with the letters "VIR."

Turning to the goods, opposer's registrations for DENAVIR include goods identified simply as "pharmaceutical preparations, namely antivirals." These registrations do not limit opposer's goods to antivirals used for any particular purposes. Similarly, applicant's application is not limited to vaccines for the prevention of any particular ailment; the identification is simply for "vaccines and vaccine adjuvants."8 Thus, any distinctions between the actual uses to which opposer puts its antiviral preparations and applicant puts its vaccines is of no moment. It is well established that the question of likelihood of confusion must be determined based on an analysis of the mark as applied to the goods and/or services recited in applicant's application vis-à-vis the goods and/or services recited in an opposer's registration, rather than what the evidence shows the goods and/or services to be. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Opposer has shown that there is a clear connection between antiviral preparations and vaccines. First, vaccines are generally made of viruses which have been weakened or killed. See Exhibit I to opposer's notice of reliance. Second, antivirals and vaccines are both used in the fight against viral diseases. For example, an article in the September 18, 2002 issue of "Vaccine Weekly" discusses the costs and benefits of flu vaccination and treatment of patients with antiviral medication. An article in the June 12, 2002 issue of the same publication speculates about a vaccine-antiviral combination which could be used to break immune tolerance in humans infected with hepatitis B virus. Third, companies are engaged in 17 developing and manufacturing both antivirals and vaccines. A July 31, 2002 article from PR Newswire reports on Panacos Pharmaceuticals, "a privately held antiviral drug and vaccine development company." In addition, an August 6, 2002 article from PR Newswire reports on the biopharmaceutical company, Novavax, Inc., stating that its products "include certain hormone, anti-bacterial, and antiviral products and vaccine adjuvants." It is not necessary that the goods of the parties be similar or competitive, or even that they move in the same channels of trade to support a holding of likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that the respective goods of the parties are related in some manner, and/or that the conditions and activities surrounding the marketing of the goods are such that they would or could be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that could, because of the similarity of the marks, give rise to the mistaken belief that they originate from the same producer. In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910, 911 (TTAB 1978). In this case, because of the close relationship between antivirals and vaccines, their use in fighting the same illnesses, including their possible combined effect in such treatment, and their development by the same companies, we find that the parties' goods are related. Accordingly, this factor favors opposer. Opposition No. 91124457 18 In terms of classes of customers, both opposer's antivirals and applicant's vaccines may be sold to physicians and to hospitals for dispensing to those patients requiring such medications. These sophisticated customers would be aware of the connections between antivirals and vaccines discussed above, and are likely to believe that both products would emanate from a single source if they were sold under such similar marks as DENAVIR and DERMAVIR. Moreover, such goods may also be sold to the ultimate users as prescription drugs. That is, in fact, the way in which opposer's goods are sold. We also note applicant's admissions that its product is intended to be made available by the prescription of a medical professional, and that vaccines may be “admitted” [sic, should be “administered”] orally. Given these admissions, we must assume that applicant's vaccines can be prescribed for and used by the ultimate consumer. Such consumers, although careful about the medications that they use, may very well confuse the source of an antiviral sold under the mark DENAVIR and a vaccine sold under the mark DERMAVIR, or may even misrecall the marks, since they are unfamiliar terms. Consumers do not necessarily have the luxury of making side-by-side comparisons between marks, and must rely upon their imperfect recollections. Dassler KG v. Roller Derby Skate Corporation, 206 USPQ 255 (TTAB 1980). A consumer to whom Opposition No. 91124457 19 applicant's DERMAVIR product has been proscribed may well believe that the trademark is the same as that of the DENAVIR product that he has seen advertised. Moreover, as opposer has pointed out, there is a concern that a pharmacist, getting a prescription over the phone, would have trouble distinguishing between the marks DENAVIR and DERMAVIR, or may have trouble deciphering the marks in a handwritten prescription. Thus, although the opposer's and applicant's products would not be purchased on impulse, we find that this duPont factor favors opposer.

where the products in question are pharmaceuticals, where it is imperative that even a slight possibility of confusion should be avoided. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 189 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1975)

In re Avax International IP Holdings, Inc.
In re Avax International IP Holdings, Inc., Serial No. 75/272,715, 2/22/02

The Examining Attorney ultimately refused to register the mark on the ground that the mark, when applied to the goods, is deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, applicant filed a notice of appeal. Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.

The Examining Attorney’s position is that the mark AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY is deceptively misdescriptive when used in connection with a vaccine for the treatment of cancer. The Examining Attorney relies on medical and other dictionary definitions of the terms “AC” “vaccine” and “technology.” The medical dictionary defined “AC” as “a cancer chemotherapy regimen consisting of Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and cyclophosphamide.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (1992). From the Internet, the Examining Attorney included information that showed that the term “AC” is used to describe a treatment for cancer patients.

The primary issue in this case is whether the term AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY is deceptively misdescriptive of applicant’s goods. In cases involving the issue of misdescriptiveness, we apply the following test: The test for deceptive misdescriptiveness has two parts. First we must determine if the matter sought to be registered misdescribes the goods. If so, then we must ask if it is also deceptive, that is, if anyone is likely to believe the misrepresentation. Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks, 129 F.Supp. 928 (D.D.C. 1955), aff'd sub nom. S.C. Johnson & Son v. Gold Seal Co., 230 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 829 (1956). A third question, used to distinguish between marks that are deceptive under Section 2(a) and marks that are deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(1), is whether the misrepresentation would materially affect the decision to purchase the goods. Cf. In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ 53 (TTAB Dec. 14, 1983). In re Quady Winery, Inc., 221 USPQ 1213, 1214 (TTAB 1984). Ser No. 75/272,715 6 We are constrained to consider the issue of misdescriptiveness based on the goods as described in the application. Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computers Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant's mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant's goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which sales of the goods are directed”); In re Vehicle Identification Network, Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1994) (Descriptiveness of mark in an intent-to-use application determined by services identified in application). Viewed under these legal standards, the evidence supports the Examining Attorney’s position that applicant’s mark misdescribes a vaccine for the treatment of cancer that is not used in conjunction with Adriamycin, cyclophosphamide. First, we find that the term “AC” is a recognized abbreviation for a cancer chemotherapy regimen consisting of Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. The Dorland’s medical dictionary and the Internet articles describing the use of AC in the treatment of cancer adequately support the Examining Attorney’s position. Ser No. 75/272,715 7 Applicant’s Valley declaration lends additional support to this finding. As previously noted, Valley agrees that “AC, when used in the oncology field, calls to my mind the chemotherapy drug adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, which is used to treat breast cancer.” Valley declaration, p. 2. The declaration goes on to acknowledge that “AC is commonly known in the industry as an abbreviation for adriamycin cyclophosphamide.” Id. Applicant further acknowledges that its “vaccine does not contain or ‘consist of’ Adriamycin or cyclophosphamide” although it admits that patients “may be pre-treated with cyclophosphamide.” Response dated May 11, 1998 at 2 and n.1. Therefore, the term AC would be misdescriptive of a chemotherapy treatment for cancer that did not utilize Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. Second, we find that the addition of “vaccine technology” does not overcome the deceptively misdescriptive nature of the mark. Applicant’s identification of goods uses the term “vaccine” as the name of the goods. Its own press release dated October 3, 2000 (p.1) reports that applicant “has a commercially available cancer vaccine in Australia.” The term “technology,” defined as “a technical method of achieving a practical purpose” (First Office Action, p. 2), has descriptive Ser No. 75/272,715 8 significance in the medical and oncology areas. We are aware that “’technology’ is a very broad term which includes many categories of goods.” In re Hutchinson Technology Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Unlike in the Hutchinson Technology case, the record here supports the finding that the term “technology” is descriptive when applied to vaccines. Again, we look at applicant’s press release that refers to “additional commercialization opportunities in Europe for both its cancer vaccine technology and its technology for joint repair.” Press release dated October 3, 2000, p. 1. Its president refers to its “TK suicide gene technology.” Id. In addition, the Examining Attorney points out that the term “technology” has been disclaimed in several registrations that were made of record (Registration Nos. 2,381,827; 1,975,197; and 1,819,655). Finally, we note that applicant’s declarant McEvoy uses the word in a descriptive sense in his declaration. McEvoy declaration, p. 2 (“[T]he drugs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide have no relation to vaccine technology”). Next, we find that the record demonstrates that cancer vaccines and chemotherapy are used together in fighting cancer. “Cancer Vaccine Trial Expanded with Sarcoma Study … O-Vax is intended to prevent the recurrence of ovarian Ser No. 75/272,715 9 cancer in women after surgery or chemotherapy.” Medical Industry Today, October 18, 2000. “Breast Cancer Vaccine Gets on Fast Track – The designation applies to the investigation of Theratope vaccine as an adjunct to firstline chemotherapy for its effect on delaying progression of metastic breast cancer and overall survival.” Medical Industry Today, May 9, 2000. “Aphton’s vaccines would be an addition to surgery and chemotherapy, not a replacement.” Miami Herald, April 24, 2000. “Combinations of chemotherapy and new experimental cancer vaccines or new drugs such as alpha-interferon are giving more options to the most advanced melanoma patients.” Hartford Courant, April 9, 2000. “The strategy is to team a vaccine with existing treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation to produce longer remissions, or perhaps even cures.” Omaha World-Herald, April 17, 2000. “Girl In Battle with Cancer…When she arrives in Memphis, her treatment will involve heavy chemotherapy to prepare her body for the vaccine.” Virginian-Pilot, December 19, 1999. The evidence supports the argument that cancer vaccines and chemotherapy are complimentary treatments that are used together in the battle against cancer. Finally, we find that cyclophosphamide, one of the two drugs that make up AC, is used with cancer vaccines. Ser No. 75/272,715 10 “Following the cyclophosphamide, vaccine injections mixed with the adjuvant Baccillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) commence on a weekly basis.” O-Vax™ Clinical Trial. “Patients [with melanoma] will also receive one dose of cyclophosphamide 3 days before the first vaccine.” M-Vax™ Clinical Trial. Applicant also admits that patients may be pre-treated with cyclophosphamide before the administration of applicant’s preparation. Response dated May 11, 1998, p. 2, n.1. The next question is whether the mark AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY in its entirety is deceptively misdescriptive for vaccines for the treatment of cancer. We have already found that AC is a common abbreviation for a cancer chemotherapy regimen involving Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. Cancer vaccines, also referred to as vaccine technology, exist and they are used in conjunction with traditional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy. Finally, we have found that cyclophosphamide specifically is used together with cancer vaccines. Potential purchasers, therefore, are likely to believe that applicant’s vaccine for the treatment of cancer is designed to be used in conjunction with the known cancer chemotherapy regimen involving AC. Because applicant’s goods will not contain or are not intended to be used with Ser No. 75/272,715 11 Adriamycin, we find that the mark deceptively misdescribes the goods. We note that applicant’s pharmacist declarants conclude that AC is not related to vaccines or vaccine technology. However, the declarations are undercut by the fact that the declarants cannot agree on whether AC is a recognized abbreviation in the industry. Also, McEvoy (pp. 2-3) states that persons encountering the term AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY would not view the term as referring to adriamycin, cyclophosphamide because of the “[i]napplicability of the chemotherapy drugs adriamycin and cyclophosphamide to vaccines. However, the record clearly shows a direct connection between cyclophosphamide and vaccines that the declarant does not acknowledge or explain. Similarly, the Valley declaration (p. 2) states that “the chemotherapy drug adriamycin, cyclophosphamide has no relation to vaccines.” Inasmuch as chemotherapy and cancer vaccines are often used together and cyclophosphamide is specifically used with cancer vaccines, we do not find these declarations convincing that there is a lack of a connection between AC and vaccines. In conclusion, we find that the term AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY misdescribes the goods. The term AC would be recognized as a drug used to treat cancer in a chemotherapy Ser No. 75/272,715 12 regimen. Chemotherapy and vaccines are used together to fight cancer and cyclophosphamide is used with cancer vaccines. “Vaccine” and “technology” are terms used at least descriptively in reference to vaccines. Since applicant’s product is apparently not used in conjunction with adriamycin, the mark AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY misdescribes the vaccine. We also find that people are likely to believe the misrepresentation. As a recognized drug used to treat cancer patients, AC would be expected to be used in conjunction with the treatment of cancer with a vaccine.3 Decision: The Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark AC VACCINE TECHNOLOGY on the ground that it is deceptively misdescriptive of applicant’s vaccine for the treatment of cancer is affirmed.

3 The Examining Attorney also alternatively refused to register the mark on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive. Because applicant maintains that the goods do not contain Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide and that patients may be pre-treated with cyclophosphamide only, the question is whether the mark is deceptively misdescriptive. Therefore, we will not further address the merely descriptive refusal other than to note that if applicant’s goods were to be used in conjunction with Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide, applicant’s mark would be merely descriptive for a vaccine for the treatment of cancer used in conjunction with a cancer therapy regimen utilizing Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide.

Trade secret

 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236435/ ARelevant Intellectual Property Rights Law (somewhat useful for trade secret)