10 dated 6 June 2003 requiring key personnel to have the education, training and experience to discharge their duties, inter alia, the ‘handling and storage of medicine … to prevent confusion of products’. These control measures, no doubt, lessen the likelihood of confusion or deception. [23] The conditions regulating the sale and prescription of prescribed medicines significantly reduce the likelihood of confusion between marks associated with these pharmaceuticals.10 Two approaches seem possible. These emerge from the following passage in a European case – ‘In some Member States the view is taken that a likelihood of confusion should be accepted more readily in the case of medicines on account of the serious consequences that can ensue if the patient takes the wrong product. In other countries the view is taken that pharmaceutical trade marks will not be confused so easily because the consumer has the assistance of qualified professionals and is particularly attentive to differences between marks for pharmaceutical products because of the importance of taking the right drug.’11 The court below followed the second approach. However, in Organon Laboratories Ltd v Roche Products (Pty) Ltd12 Botha J said: ‘It seems to me, however, that in the cases quoted the Courts were mainly concerned with drawing a distinction between products freely available to the public and products which could only be dispensed on a doctor’s prescription. In the latter case, the possibility of errors is substantially lessened by the various safeguarding circumstances, such as the fact that the product can be sold only on the written authorisation of a doctor, and the fact that the nature of the product requires the exercise of particular care on the part of both the doctor and the dispensing pharmacist. (But even in this type of case, assuming that a differentiation will be made between the various products as such, it occurs to me that the possibility of confusion as to the origin of similar products having common features in their marks might yet require scrutiny).’ 10 Adcock-Ingram Laboratories Ltd v SA Druggists Ltd & another; Adcock-Ingram Laboratories Ltd v Lennon Ltd 1983 (2) SA 350 (T) at 362 ff; [1983] 4 All SA 68 (T) at 79 ff; Organon Laboratories Ltd v Roche Products (Pty) Ltd 1976 (1) SA 195 (T) at 200A-F. 11 Choay SA v Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH [2001] ETMR 64 para 19 and see Jeremy Phillips Trade Mark Law A Practical Anatomy para 16.32 ff. 12 Organon Laboratories Ltd v Roche Products (Pty) Ltd 1976 (1) SA 195 (T) at 200D-G and cf the remarks of Jeremy Phillips Trade Mark Law A Practical Anatomy para 16.32 ff.