Pharmaceutical trademarks in focus: EUIPO rejects 'BIALVIZ' due to likelihood of confusion with 'BYOOVIZ'

The Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, by decision of 7 January 2026, rejected the application for the word mark 'BIALVIZ' for ophthalmic pharmaceutical products. Despite high vigilance on the part of the relevant specialist circles and patients, the Office found a relevant likelihood of confusion with the earlier Union mark 'BYOOVIZ'. The decision once again illustrates how strict the standards are for pharmaceutical trademarks and what risks even seemingly minor deviations in the wording entail.

Background: Dispute over two ophthalmic pharmaceutical trademarks

The decision centred on the question of whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs 'BIALVIZ' and 'BYOOVIZ' within the meaning of Art. 8 para. 1 lit. b UMV. The applicant Alcon Inc. sought to register the mark 'BIALVIZ' for 'ophthalmic pharmaceutical eye drops for the treatment of glaucoma'. The proprietor Biogen International GmbH countered this with the earlier Union mark 'BYOOVIZ', which is protected for certain pharmaceutical products for the treatment of severe retinal diseases (including AMD, diabetic macular oedema, diabetic retinopathy).

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO had already found a likelihood of confusion and rejected the application. Alcon appealed against this decision.

Arguments of the applicant: Different indications and high level of attention

Alcon argued that the products were clearly different from a medical perspective. Whilst 'BIALVIZ' as eye drops is intended for the treatment of glaucoma (anterior segment of the eye), 'BYOOVIZ' is directed at patients with diseases of the retina (posterior segment of the eye) and is typically injected. These are different therapeutic areas, modes of application and treatment procedures.

Moreover, the applicant argued that the element 'VIZ' as an allusion to 'vision' has weak distinctive character and is widespread in ophthalmology. The decisive factors were the different word beginnings 'BIAL-' and 'BYOO-'. Since both doctors and patients are extremely attentive when selecting pharmaceuticals, there is no real danger of confusion even with certain similarities.

Assessment of similarity of goods by the EUIPO

The Board of Appeal followed the applicant to the extent that, following the restriction of the goods list, it no longer proceeded on the basis of identity but only a low degree of similarity of the goods. Although both are ophthalmic pharmaceuticals that reach specialists, pharmacies and patients through comparable distribution channels, the therapeutic indications and the manner of application differ.

However, in the Board's view, these differences were not sufficient to preclude a likelihood of confusion from the outset.

Sign comparison: Phonetic proximity as the decisive factor

The sign comparison was at the centre of the decision. Both pharmaceutical trademarks consist of seven letters, begin with 'B' and end with 'VIZ'. For a significant proportion of European consumers, particularly in Spanish-speaking countries, the letter 'Y' is pronounced like an 'I'. This makes the word beginnings 'BI-' sound the same in both signs. The number of syllables and stress are also identical.

The differences in the middle letter sequences ('AL' in BIALVIZ and 'OO' in BYOOVIZ) recede phonetically and visually. Overall, the Board of Appeal therefore found an average visual similarity and even above-average phonetic similarity.

No weakening through the element 'VIZ'

The EUIPO rejected the objection that 'VIZ' as a reference to 'vision' is descriptive and therefore has weak distinctive character. A significant part of the public would not readily recognise this element as an abbreviation. The existence of further marks containing the element 'VIZ' does not evidence any relevant dilution. The earlier mark thus possesses normal inherent distinctive character.

Overall assessment: A residual risk remains even with specialist circles

In the overall assessment of the normal distinctive character of the earlier mark, the clear phonetic proximity of the signs and the at least low similarity of goods, the Board of Appeal found a likelihood of confusion. Even with high vigilance on the part of the relevant doctors and patients, the principle of imperfect recollection applies: marks are rarely directly compared with one another but rather perceived from memory. In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that 'BIALVIZ' would be mentally associated with 'BYOOVIZ'.

The appeal was therefore dismissed and the application rejected. The decision is not yet final.

Significance for practice in pharmaceutical trademark law

The decision impressively shows how strictly assessment in the pharmaceutical field is applied. Even structural and phonetic parallels can – even with different indications – lead to refusal of a mark. Product names that rely on similar word patterns or endings operate in a particularly high-risk environment.

In the life sciences and pharmaceutical industry in particular, early, strategic trademark examination is essential. Our firm AVANTCORE has extensive expertise in trademark and marking law and supports companies in the development, registration and protection of legally secure trademarks.

Conclusion and practical tips

The decision 'BIALVIZ vs. BYOOVIZ' underscores that pharmaceutical trademarks are subject to particularly stringent distinctiveness requirements. Even for specialised pharmaceuticals and highly attentive circles of relevant persons, a likelihood of confusion may exist if the marks are too similar in sound, structure and overall impression.

For practical purposes, the following is therefore recommended:

• Early collision searches: Comprehensive similarity checks in Class 5 and adjacent therapeutic areas should be carried out already during name development.
• Clear differentiation: Imaginative, original word creations are legally safer than names with industry-standard allusions.
• Do not underestimate phonetic review: Particularly in the medical everyday context, oral communication plays a major role.
• Involve specialised advice: A preliminary trademark examination by experienced lawyers can avoid costly opposition and appeal proceedings

Those who observe these principles increase the chances of establishing a strong and long-term enforceable pharmaceutical trademark.