Trademarks - CASES

MILCA, MIKE ZACCAHRY M.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

CASE DIGEST
Trademarks
Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 114508, November 19, 1999
Doctrine:
The power to determine whether a trademark is well-known lies in the “competent authority of
the country of registration or use.” This competent authority would be either the registering
authority if it has the power to decide this, or the courts of the country in question if the
issue comes before a court – this could the registration.
Facts:
Lolita Escobar applied for the registration of the trademark ‘Barbizon’ for her products such as
brassieres and ladies undergarments. Respondent Barbizon Corporation, an American
corporation, opposed alleging that Mirpuri’s mark is confusingly similar to its own trademark
‘Barbizon.’ Escobar’s application was given due course and her trademark was registered. This
decision became final and on September 11, 1974, Lolita Escobar was issued a certificate of
registration for the trademark “Barbizon
Later, Escobar assigned all her rights to petitioner Mirpuri.
In 1979, Escobar failed to file with the Bureau of Patents the Affidavit of Use of the trademark
required under Section 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 166, the Philippine Trademark Law. Due
to this failure, the Bureau of Patents cancelled Escobar’s certificate of registration.
Mirpuri then reapplied for registration of the trademark to which respondent Barbizon again
opposed, now invoking the protection under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. The Director
of Patents declaring Barbizon’s opposition was already barred.
Issue:
Whether or not Barbizon may invoke the protection under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention
Ruling:
YES.
The Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property, otherwise known as the Paris
Convention, is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of
patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names and
indications of source or appellations of origin, and at the same time aims to repress unfair
competition. The Convention is essentially a compact among various countries which, as
members of the Union, have pledged to accord to citizens of the other member countries
trademark and other rights comparable to those accorded their own citizens by their domestic
laws for an effective protection against unfair competition. Art. 6bis is a self-executing
CASE DIGEST
provision and does not require legislative enactment to give it effect in the member
country. It may be applied directly by the tribunals and officials of each member country by the
mere publication or proclamation of the Convention, after its ratification according to the public
law of each state and the order for its execution.
The Philippines and the United States of America have acceded to the WTO Agreement.
Conformably, the State must reaffirm its commitment to the global community and take part in
evolving a new international economic order at the dawn of the new millennium.
A “trademark” is defined under R.A. 166, the Trademark Law, as including “any word, name,
symbol, emblem, sign or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer
or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or dealt in
by others.”
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. PAQUITO

OCHOA,
G .R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016
Doctrines:
There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code. The IPOPHL requires the
designation of the resident agent when it refuses the registration of a mark. Local representation
is further required in the submission of the Declaration of Actual Use, as well as in the
submission of the license contract. The Madrid Protocol accords with the intent and spirit of the
IP Code, particularly about the registration of trademarks. The Madrid Protocol does not amend
or modify the IP Code on the acquisition of trademark rights considering that the applications
under the Madrid Protocol are still examined according to the relevant national law.
President's ratification is valid and constitutional because the Madrid Protocol, being an
executive agreement as determined by the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not require the
concurrence of the Senate.
Facts:
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) recommended to the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) that the Philippines should accede to the Madrid Protocol. After its own
review, the DFA endorsed to the President the country's accession to the Madrid Protocol.
Conformably with its express authority under Section 9 of Executive Order No. 459, the DFA
determined that the Madrid Protocol was an executive agreement. President Benigno C.
Aquino III ratified the Madrid Protocol through an instrument of accession. The Madrid
Protocol entered into force in the Philippines on July 25,2012.
The Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) filed a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition to challenge the validity of the President's accession to the Madrid
CASE DIGEST
Protocol without the concurrence of the Senate. Further, the IPAP argued that the
implementation of the Madrid Protocol, specifically the processing of foreign trademark
applications, conflicts with the IP Code considering that Article 2 of the Madrid Protocol
means that foreign trademark applicants may file their applications through the International
Bureau or the WIPO, and their applications will be automatically granted trademark protection
without the need for designating their resident agents in the country.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has stated that the IPAP does not have the locus standi
to challenge the accession to the Madrid Protocol; that the IPAP cannot invoke the Court’s
original jurisdiction absent a showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondents; that the President’s ratification of the Madrid Protocol as an executive
agreement is valid because the Madrid Protocol is only procedural, does not create
substantive rights
Issues:
1. Whether or not the President’s ratification of the Madrid Protocol is valid and
constitutional
2. Whether or not the Madrid Protocol is in conflict with the IP Code
Ruling:
1. The President's ratification was valid and constitutional because the Madrid Protocol,
being an executive agreement as determined by the Department of Foreign Affairs, does
not require the concurrence of the Senate.
a. International agreement – shall refer to a contract or understanding, regardless of

nomenclature, entered into between the Philippines and another government in written
form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in
two or more related instruments.
b. Treaties – international agreements entered into by the Philippines which require

legislative concurrence after executive ratification. This term may include compacts like
conventions, declarations, covenants and acts.
c. Executive Agreements – similar to treaties except that they do not require legislative
concurrence.
“Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two thirds
of the Senate. Executive agreements become binding through executive action without
the need of a vote by the Senate or by Congress.
2. There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code

CASE DIGEST
The IPAP also rests its challenge on the supposed conflict between the Madrid Protocol
and the IP Code, contending that the Madrid Protocol does away with the requirement of
a resident agent under Section 125 of the IP Code; and that the Madrid Protocol is
unconstitutional for being in conflict with the local law, which it cannot modify.
IPOPHL actually requires the designation of the resident agent when it refuses the
registration of a mark. Local representation is further required in the submission of the
Declaration of Actual Use, as well as in the submission of the license contract. The
Madrid Protocol accords with the intent and spirit of the IP Code, particularly on the
subject of the registration of trademarks. The Madrid Protocol does not amend or
modify the IP Code on the acquisition of trademark rights considering that the
applications under the Madrid Protocol are still examined according to the relevant
national law. In that regard, the IPOPHL will only grant protection to a mark that
meets the local registration requirements.
Acquisition of Ownership of Mark
Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the name and style of KEC Cosmetics Laboratory vs. Court
of Appeals, et. al.,
G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 2002
Doctrine:
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be
interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the
goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
marked container of goods. In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation
identifying or distinguishing an enterprise. Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined to
literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation. Patentable inventions, on the other hand,
refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves
an inventive step and is industrially applicable.
Facts:
Petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents Summerville General
Merchandising and Company alleging that it doing business under the name and style of KEC
Cosmetics Laboratory, the registered owner of the copyrights Chin Chun Su and Oval Facial
Cream Container/Case and that respondent Summerville advertised and sold Kho’s cream
products under the brand name Chin Chun Su, in similar containers that petitioner uses,
CASE DIGEST
thereby misleading the public, and resulting in the decline in the petitioner's business sales and
income.
Summerville defense is that it is the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer and
distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan which
authorised Summerville to register its trade name Chin Chun Su Medicated Cream with the
Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate governmental agencies and that KEC Cosmetics
Laboratory of the petitioner obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation and falsification.
The trial court granted the preliminary injunction. On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of
Summerville.
Issue:
Whether or not the registration of the trademark or brandname with the supplemental register of
the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer be equated with registration in the
principal register, which is duly protected by the Trademark Law.
Ruling:
No, registration of the trademark or brandname with the supplemental register of the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer be equated with registration in the principal
register.
Trademark, copyright and patents are different intellectual property rights that cannot be
interchanged with one another. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the
goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or
marked container of goods.[12] In relation thereto, a trade name means the name or designation
identifying or distinguishing an enterprise.[13] Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined
to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation.[14] Patentable inventions, on the other
hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new,
involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.
Petitioner has no right to support her claim for the exclusive use of the subject trade name
and its container. The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a
trademark inasmuch as the same falls squarely within its definition. In order to be entitled to
exclusively use the same in the sale of the beauty cream product, the user must sufficiently
prove that she registered or used it before anybody else did. The petitioner's copyright and
patent registration of the name and container would not guarantee her the right to the exclusive
use of the same for the reason that they are not appropriate subjects of the said intellectual rights.
Consequently, a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner
has not proven that she has a clear right over the said name and container to the exclusion
of others, not having proven that she has registered a trademark thereto or used the same
before anyone did.
CASE DIGEST
Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc.,

540 SCRA 215 (2007).
Doctrine:
The chemical composition, formulation, and ingredients of respondent’s special lubricants are
trade secrets within the contemplation of the law.
Facts:
Pennswell, a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial
chemicals, solvents and special lubricants, filed an action for collection against Air Philippines.
In its Answer, Air Philippines contended that its refusal to pay was due to the fraud that
Pennswell committed on its previous sale of certain items which were accordingly
misrepresented as belonging to a new line, but were in truth and in fact, identical with products
Air Philippines had previously purchased from Pennswell, and that the latter merely altered the
names and labels of such goods.
During the pendency of the trial, Air Philippines filed a motion to compel Pennswell to give a
detailed list of the ingredients and chemical components of its products for comparison.
The RTC initially granted the motion but reconsidered itself. Pennswell contended that it
cannot be compelled to disclose the chemical components sought because the matter is
confidential. It argued that what Air Phils. endeavored to inquire upon constituted a trade
secret which respondent cannot be forced to divulge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the ingredients or composition of Pennswell’s lubricants are trade secrets which it
cannot be compelled to disclose
Ruling:
Yes.
A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to
its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also
extends to a secret formula or process not patented but known only to certain individuals
using it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value. A trade secret may
consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that: (1) is used in
one’s business; and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
competitors who do not possess the information.
CASE DIGEST
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the operation
of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list or catalogue or
specialized customer list. It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute proprietary rights. The
inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation has rights therein which
may be treated as property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted to prevent the disclosure
of the trade secret by one who obtained the information “in confidence” or through a
“confidential relationship.”
American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors to determine if an information is a
trade secret, to wit:
1. the extent to which the information is known outside of the employer’s business;
2. the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the
business
3. the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the information;
4. the value of the information to the employer and to competitors;
5. the amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the information;
and
6. the extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through an
independent source.
The chemical composition, formulation, and ingredients of respondent’s special lubricants are
trade secrets within the contemplation of the law. Respondent was established to engage in the
business of general manufacturing and selling of, and to deal in, distribute, sell or otherwise
dispose of goods, wares, merchandise, products, including but not limited to industrial
chemicals, solvents, lubricants, acids, alkalies, salts, paints, oils, varnishes, colors, pigments and
similar preparations, among others. It is unmistakable to our minds that the manufacture and
production of respondent’s products proceed from a formulation of a secret list of
ingredients. In the creation of its lubricants, respondent expended efforts, skills, research, and
resources. X x x The ingredients constitute the very fabric of respondent’s production and
business.
Pennswell products are not consumer products
Pennswell products are not consumer products. “Consumer products,” as it is defined in Article
4(q), refers to goods, services and credits, debts or obligations which are primarily for
personal, family, household or agricultural purposes, which shall include, but not be limited
to, food, drugs, cosmetics, and devices. This is not the nature of Pennswell’s products. Its
products are not intended for personal, family, household or agricultural purposes. Rather, they
are for industrial use, specifically for the use of aircraft propellers and engines.
CASE DIGEST
E.Y. Industrial Sales vs. Shien Dar Electricity and Machinery Co.
G.R. No. 184850, 20 October 2010
Doctrine:
Under the law, the registration of a mark is prevented with the filing of an earlier application for
registration. This must not, however, be interpreted to mean that ownership should be based upon
an earlier filing date. While RA 8293 removed the previous requirement of proof of actual use
prior to the filing of an application for registration of a mark, proof of prior and continuous use is
necessary to establish ownership of a mark. Such ownership constitutes sufficient evidence to
oppose the registration of a mark.
Facts:
E.Y. Industrial Sales vs. Shien Dar Electricity and Machinery Co. (EYIS) is a domestic
corporation engaged in the production, distribution and sale of air compressors and other
industrial tools and equipment. Respondent Shen Dar is a Taiwan-based foreign corporation
engaged in the manufacture of air compressors. EYIS imported air compressors from Shen Dar
through sales contracts.
Both companies claimed to have the right to register the trademark “VESPA” for air
compressors.
On June 9, 1997, Shen Dar filed Trademark Application with the IPO for the mark “VESPA,
Chinese Characters and Device” for use on air compressors and welding machines. On July 28,
1999, EYIS filed Trademark Application also for the mark “VESPA,” for use on air compressors.
On January 18, 2004, the IPO issued COR in favor of EYIS.
Shen Dar filed a Petition for Cancellation of EYIS’ COR with the BLA alleging that it was the
first to file an application for the mark. Shen Dar further alleged that EYIS was a mere
distributor of air compressors bearing the mark “VESPA” which it imported from Shen Dar.
Shen Dar also argued that it had prior and exclusive right to the use and registration of the mark
“VESPA” in the Philippines under the provisions of the Paris Convention.
In its Answer, EYIS claimed that the air compressors that Shen Dar allegedly supplied them bore
the mark “SD” for Shen Dar and not “VESPA.
Issue:
Whether or not EYIS is the true owner of the mark “VESPA”
Ruling:
YES.
Under Sec. 123.1(d) of RA 8293, the registration of a mark is prevented with the filing of an
earlier application for registration. This must not, however, be interpreted to mean that ownership
should be based upon an earlier filing date.
CASE DIGEST
While RA 8293 removed the previous requirement of proof of actual use prior to the filing of an
application for registration of a mark, proof of prior and continuous use is necessary to establish
ownership of a mark. Such ownership constitutes sufficient evidence to oppose the registration of
a mark.
Sec. 134 of the IP Code provides that “any person who believes that he would be damaged by the
registration of a mark x x x” may file an opposition to the application. The term “any person”
encompasses the true owner of the mark¾the prior and continuous user.
Notably, the Court has ruled that the prior and continuous use of a mark may even overcome the
presumptive ownership of the registrant and be held as the owner of the mark.
“Registration, without more, does not confer upon the registrant an absolute right to the
registered mark. The certificate of registration is merely a prima facie proof that the registrant is
the owner of the registered mark or trade name. Evidence of prior and continuous use of the
mark or trade name by another can overcome the presumptive ownership of the registrant and
may very well entitle the former to be declared owner in an appropriate case.
Here, the incontrovertible truth, as established by the evidence submitted by the parties, is that
EYIS is the prior user of the mark. EYIS prior adoption and continuous use of the mark
“VESPA” on air compressors is bolstered by numerous documentary evidence consisting of
sales invoices issued in the name of respondent EY Industrial and Bills of Lading.
As such, EYIS must be considered as the prior and continuous user of the mark “VESPA” and its
true owner. Hence, EYIS is entitled to the registration of the mark in its name.
Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. and Sports Concept &
Distributor, Inc.,
G.R. No. 169974, April 20, 2010
Doctrine:
Section 22 of RA 166 states that only a registrant of a mark can file a case for infringement.
Corollary to this, Section 19 of RA 166 provides that any right conferred upon the registrant
under the provisions of RA 166 terminates when the judgment or order of cancellation has
become final. Thus, we have previously held that the cancellation of registration of a trademark
has the effect of depriving the registrant of protection from infringement from the moment
judgment or order of cancellation has become final.
Facts:
SUPERIOR filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition with
preliminary injunction against KUNNAN, claiming that it is the owner of the trademarks,
CASE DIGEST
trading styles, company names and business names “KENNEX”, “KENNEX & DEVICE PRO
KENNEX” and “PRO-KENNEX” and asserted its prior use of these trademarks, presenting as
evidence of ownership the Principal and Supplemental Registrations of these trademarks in its
name, among others.
In its defense, KUNNAN disputed SUPERIOR’s claim of ownership and maintained that
SUPERIOR—as mere distributor from October 6, 1982 until December 31, 1991—
fraudulently registered the trademarks in its name.
Prior to and during the pendency of the infringement and unfair competition case before the
RTC, KUNNAN filed with the now defunct Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer separate Petitions for the Cancellation of Registration Trademark. In essence,
KUNNAN filed the Petition for Cancellation and Opposition on the ground that SUPERIOR
fraudulently registered and appropriated the disputed trademarks
The RTC held KUNNAN liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The decision
was reversed by the CA
Issue:
Whether or not KUNNAN is liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition
Ruling:
On the Issue of Trademark Infringement – NO.
The CA decided that the registration of the “KENNEX” and “PRO KENNEX” trademarks
should be cancelled because SUPERIOR was not the owner of and could not in the first
place have validly registered these trademarks.
Section 22 of RA 166 states that only a registrant of a mark can file a case for infringement
and the cancellation of registration of a trademark has the effect of depriving the registrant of
protection from infringement from the moment judgment or order of cancellation has become
final.
In the present case, by operation of law, specifically Section 19 of RA 166, the trademark
infringement aspect of SUPERIOR’s case has been rendered moot and academic in view of the
finality of the decision in the Registration Cancellation Case. In short, SUPERIOR is left without
any cause of action for trademark infringement since the cancellation of registration of a
trademark deprived it of protection from infringement from the moment judgment or
order of cancellation became final. To be sure, in a trademark infringement, title to the
trademark is indispensable to a valid cause of action and such title is shown by its certificate of
registration.39 With its certificates of registration over the disputed trademarks effectively
cancelled with finality, SUPERIOR’s case for trademark infringement lost its legal basis and no
longer presented a valid cause of action.
CASE DIGEST
On the Issue of Unfair Competition – NO

From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined as the passing off (or palming off) or
attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or
business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. The essential
elements of unfair competition47 are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the
goods; and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.
Jurisprudence also formulated the following “true test” of unfair competition: whether the acts of
the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making
his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the controversy
relates.
In the present case, no evidence exists showing that KUNNAN ever attempted to pass off the
goods it sold (i.e. sportswear, sporting goods and equipment) as those of SUPERIOR. In
addition, there is no evidence of bad faith or fraud imputable to KUNNAN in using the disputed
trademarks.
there can be trademark infringement without unfair competition such as when the infringer
discloses on the labels containing the mark that he manufactures the goods, thus preventing the
public from being deceived that the goods originate from the trademark owner. In this case, no
issue of confusion arises because the same manufactured products are sold.
Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh and Co. Kg vs. Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation,
G.R. No. 194307, November 20, 2013
Doctrine:
The registration of trademark is not a mode of acquiring ownership. If the applicant is not the
owner of the trademark, he has no right to apply for its registration. Registration merely creates a
prima facie presumption of the validity of the registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the
trademark, and of the exclusive right to the use thereof. Such presumption, just like the
presumptive regularity in the performance of official functions, is rebuttable and must give way
to evidence to the contrary.
Facts:
Petitioner Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH & Co. KG. (Birkenstock), a German company,
applied for various trademark registrations before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO)
over the name ““BIRKENSTOCK”. But the registration proceedings were suspended in view
of an existing registration of the mark “BIRKENSTOCK AND DEVICE” in the name of Shoe
Town International, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing
Corporation.
CASE DIGEST
Birkenstock filed a petition for cancellation of Registration on the ground that it is the lawful
and rightful owner of the Birkenstock marks. Since respondent and/or its predecessor-in-
interest failed to file the required 10th Year Declaration of Actual Use (10th Year DAU) for
Registration No. 56334 on or before October 21, 2004, this resulted in the cancellation of such
mark. Accordingly, the cancellation case was dismissed for being moot and academic
Birkenstock’s application was published in the IPO e-Gazette, to which respondent filed
several oppositions claiming that (a) it, together with its predecessor-in-interest, has been using
Birkenstock marks in the Philippines for more than 16 years through the mark
“BIRKENSTOCK AND DEVICE”; (b) the marks covered by the subject applications are
identical to the one covered by Registration No. 56334 (c) on November 15, 1991, respondent’s
predecessor-in-interest likewise obtained a Certificate of Copyright Registration for the word
“BIRKENSTOCK”; (d) while respondent and its predecessor-in-interest failed to file the
10th Year DAU, it continued the use of “BIRKENSTOCK AND DEVICE” in lawful
commerce. The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO sustained respondent’s
opposition, thus, ordering the rejection of the subject applications. On appeal, the IPO Director
General reversed and allowed the application. However, on petition for review, the Court of
Appeals (CA) reinstated that of the BLA. It disallowed the registration of the subject
applications on the ground that the marks covered by such applications “are confusingly similar,
if not outright identical” with respondent’s mark. Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the mark “Birkenstock” should be allowed registration in the name of the of
Birkenstock
Ruling:
Yes.
Section 12 of RA 166 requires the filing of a DAU on specified periods, provides:
Each certificate of registration shall remain in force for twenty years: Provided, That
registrations under the provisions of this Act shall be cancelled by the Director, unless within one
year following the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth anniversaries of the date of issue of the certificate of
registration, the registrant shall file in the Patent Office an affidavit showing that the mark or
trade-name is still in use or that its non-use is due to special circumstance which excuse such
non-use and is not due to any intention to abandon the same, and pay the required fee. The
Director shall notify the registrant who files the above-prescribed affidavits of his acceptance or
refusal thereof and, if a refusal, the reasons therefor.
The failure to file the DAU within the requisite period results in the automatic cancellation of
registration of a trademark. In turn, such failure is tantamount to the abandonment or withdrawal
CASE DIGEST
of any right or interest the registrant has over his trademark. In this case, respondent admitted
that it failed to file the 10th Year DAU within the requisite period.
Moreover, petitioner was able to establish that it is the owner of the mark “BIRKENSTOCK.” It
submitted evidence relating to the origin and history of “BIRKENSTOCK” and its use in
commerce long before respondent was able to register the same here in the Philippines. In view
of the foregoing circumstances, the Court finds the petitioner to be the true and lawful owner of
the mark “BIRKENSTOCK” and entitled to its registration, and that respondent was in bad faith
in having it registered in its name.
Taiwan Kolin Corporation, LTD. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,

G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015
Doctrine:
Identical marks may be registered for products from the same classification
Facts:
Taiwan Kolin filed with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) a trademark application for
the use of “KOLIN” on a combination of goods, including colored televisions, refrigerators,
window-type and split-type air conditioners, electric fans and water dispensers. Said goods
allegedly fall under Classes 9, 11, and 21 of the Nice Classification (NCL).
The application was considered abandoned for Taiwan Kolin’s failure to respond to IPO’s
Paper No. 5 requiring it to elect one class of good for its coverage. But the same application
was subsequently revived with Taiwan Kolin electing Class 9 as the subject of its application,
particularly: television sets, cassette recorder, VCD Amplifiers, camcorders and other
audio/video electronic equipment, flat iron, vacuum cleaners, cordless handsets, videophones,
facsimile machines, teleprinters, cellular phones and automatic goods vending machine.
Subsequently, Kolin Electronics opposed Taiwan Kolin’s revived application, since the mark
Taiwan Kolin seeks to register is identical, if not confusingly similar, with its “KOLIN” mark
registered, covering the following products under Class 9 of the NCL: automatic voltage
regulator, converter, recharger, stereo booster, AC-DC regulated power supply, step-down
transformer, and PA amplified AC-DC.
Taiwan Kolin argued that it should be accorded the benefits of a foreign-registered mark under
the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) since it has already registered the
“KOLIN” mark in China, Malaysia and Vietnam, all of which are parties to the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) and the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The BLA-IPO denied Taiwan
Kolin’s application holding that a mark cannot be registered if it is identical with a registered
mark belonging to a different proprietor in respect of the same or closely-related goods.
CASE DIGEST
On appeal, the IPO Director General reversed. However, when the matter was raised to the
Court of Appeals, the latter found for Kolin Electronics as the mark sought to be registered by
Taiwan Kolin is confusingly similar to the one already registered in favor of Kolin
Electronics. Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Taiwan Kolin is entitled to its trademark registration of “KOLIN” over its
specific goods of television sets and DVD players.
Ruling:
Yes. The products covered by Taiwan Kolin’s application and Kolin Electronics’ registration are
unrelated.
In resolving one of the pivotal issues in this case––whether or not the products of the parties
involved are related––the doctrine in Mighty Corporation is authoritative. There, the Court held
that the goods should be tested against several factors before arriving at a sound conclusion on
the question of relatedness. Among these are:
(a) the business (and its location) to which the goods belong;
(b) the class of product to which the goods belong;
(c) the product’s quality, quantity, or size, including the nature of the package, wrapper or
container; (d) the nature and cost of the articles;
(e) the descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to
their form, composition, texture or quality;
(f) the purpose of the goods;
(g) whether the article is bought for immediate consumption, that is, day-today household items;
(h) the fields of manufacture;
(i) the conditions under which the article is usually purchased; and
(j) the channels of trade through which the goods flow, how they are distributed, marketed,
displayed and sold. As mentioned, the classification of the products under the NCL is merely part
and parcel of the factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the goods are related. It is not
sufficient to state that the goods involved herein are electronic products under Class 9 in order to
establish relatedness between the goods, for this only accounts for one of many considerations
enumerated in Mighty Corporation
While both competing marks refer to the word “KOLIN” written in upper case letters and in bold
font, the Court at once notes the distinct visual and aural differences between them: Kolin
Electronics’ mark is italicized and colored black while that of Taiwan Kolin is white in pantone
red color background. The differing features between the two, though they may appear minimal,
are sufficient to distinguish one brand from the other.
Thus, Taiwan Kolin’s trademark registration not only covers unrelated good, but is also incapable
of deceiving the ordinary intelligent buyer. The ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having,
CASE DIGEST
and credited with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the differences between the
two trademarks in question
Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v. H.D. Lee Company, Inc.

G.R. No. 210693, June 7, 2017
Doctrine:
It is a fundamental principle in Philippine Trademark Law that only the owner of a trademark is
entitled to register a mark in his/her name.
Facts:
Respondent H.D. Lee filed with the IPO an application for the registration of the trademark,
"LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN" on jeans and pants while Emerald’s application for the
registration of the marks "DOUBLE CURVE LINES" and "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE
LINE are pending."
Emerald opposed Lee's application arguing that the approval of such will violate the exclusive
use of its marks, "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE," and "DOUBLE CURVE LINES,"
which it has been using on a line of clothing apparel since October 1, 1973 and 1980,
respectively. Additionally, "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN' is confusingly similar or identical
with the "DOUBLE CURVE LINES' previously registered in Emerald's name.
The Director of Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) denied Lee's application. On appeal, the Director
General reversed the findings of the Director of BLA. This was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this
Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the trademark "LEE & OGIVE CURVE DESIGN" can be registered
Ruling:
NO.it cannot be registered.
It is well-settled is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. In that case, Emerald's application for the
registration of its mark "DOUBLE CURVE LINES" had been resolved with finality by the
IPO's Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs.
IPO Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs ruled that Lee failed to establish its ownership of
the mark "LEE & OGIVE CUR VE DESIGN' nor its international reputation. It is a fundamental
principle in Philippine Trademark Law that only the owner of a trademark is entitled to register a
CASE DIGEST
mark in his/her name and that the actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to
the acquisition of ownership over a trademark. Emerald adopted and has been using in commerce
since October 1, 1973, the trademark "DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE" together with its
other registered marks up to the present. Thus, Emerald has become the owner of the mark
"DOUBLE REVERSIBLE WAVE LINE" through continuous commercial use thereof.
Non-Registrable Marks
Lyceum of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,

219 SCRA 610 (1993)
Doctrine:
Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive
appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise
descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with
reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or
phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce.
Facts:
Petitioner Lyceum of the Philippines is an educational institution duly registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). When it first registered with the SEC, it used the
corporate name Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. and has used that name ever since.
Petitioner instituted proceedings before the SEC to compel the private respondents, which are
also educational institutions, to delete the word "Lyceum" from their corporate names and
permanently to enjoin them from using "Lyceum" as part of their respective names.
In an Order, Associate Commissioner Julio Sulit held that the corporate name of petitioner and
that of the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. were substantially identical because of the presence of a
"dominant" word, i.e., "Lyceum," the name of the geographical location of the campus being the
only word which distinguished one from the other corporate name.
The Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. assailed the Order of the SEC before the Supreme Court which
denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit. With that, petitioner then wrote all the
educational institutions it could find using the word "Lyceum" as part of their corporate name,
and advised them to discontinue such use of "Lyceum."
Issue:
Whether or not the use by the Lyceum of the Philippines of the word Lyceum in its corporate
name has been for such length of time and with such exclusivity as to have become associated or
identified with the petitioner institution in the mind of the general public
CASE DIGEST
Ruling:
NO.
Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive
appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise
descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with
reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or
phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce.
With the foregoing as a yardstick, the Court believe the appellant failed to satisfy the
aforementioned requisites. No evidence was ever presented in the hearing before the
Commission which sufficiently proved that the word 'Lyceum' has indeed acquired secondary
meaning in favor of the appellant. If there was any of this kind, the same tend to prove only that
the appellant had been using the disputed word for a long period of time.
Nevertheless, its exclusive use of the word (Lyceum) was never established or proven as in fact
the evidence tend to convey that the cross-claimant was already using the word 'Lyceum'
seventeen (17) years prior to the date the appellant started using the same word in its corporate
name. Furthermore, educational institutions of the Roman Catholic Church had been using the
same or similar word like 'Liceo de Manila,' 'Liceo de Baleno' (in Baleno, Masbate), 'Liceo de
Masbate,' 'Liceo de Albay' long before appellant started using the word 'Lyceum'. The appellant
also failed to prove that the word 'Lyceum' has become so identified with its educational
institution that confusion will surely arise in the minds of the public if the same word were to be
used by other educational institutions.
Societe Des Produits, Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club, Inc.

G.R. No. 217194, September 6, 2017
Doctrine:
123.1 A mark cannot be registered if it:
(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an
earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:
(i) The same goods or services, or
(ii) Closely related goods or services, or
(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;
Facts:
CASE DIGEST
Petitioner Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A., a Swiss corporation engaged in marketing and
selling various products including coffee, filed an opposition to the application for the
registration of the trademark “COFFEE MATCH” by Puregold Price Club, Inc., a Philippine
corporation.
Nestle claimed exclusive ownership of the “COFFEE-MATE” trademark, contending that

Puregold’s “COFFEE MATCH” would likely mislead the public due to its similarity. The Bureau
of Legal Affairs-Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO) dismissed the opposition due to a
procedural defect in the verification and certification against forum shopping. Nestle appealed to
the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office (ODG-IPO), which ruled
that the marks were not confusingly similar. Nestle then filed a petition for review with the Court
of Appeals , which also dismissed the petition on procedural grounds.
Issue:
Whether or not the trademarks “COFFEE MATCH” and “COFFEE-MATE” are confusingly
similar
Ruling:
NO. The word "COFFEE" is the common dominant feature between Nestle's mark "COFFEE-
MATE" and Puregold's mark "COFFEE MATCH." but, following Section 123, paragraph (h) of
R.A. 8293 which prohibits exclusive registration of generic marks, the word "COFFEE" cannot
be exclusively appropriated by either Nestle or Puregold since it is generic or descriptive of the
goods they seek to identify. In Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that
generic or descriptive words are not subject to registration and belong to the public domain.
Consequently, we must look at the word or words paired with the generic or descriptive word, in
this particular case "- MATE" for Nestle's mark and "MATCH" for Puregold's mark, to determine
the distinctiveness and registrability of Puregold's mark "COFFEE MATCH."
We agree with the findings of the BLA-IPO and ODG-IPO. The distinctive features of both
marks are sufficient to warn the purchasing public which are Nestle's products and which are
Puregold's products. While both "-MATE" and "MATCH" contain the same first three letters, the
last two letters in Puregold's mark, "C" and "H," rendered a visual and aural character that made
it easily distinguishable from Nestle's mark. Also, the distinctiveness of Puregold's mark with
two separate words with capital letters "C" and "M" made it distinguishable from Nestle's mark
which is one word with a hyphenated small letter "-m" in its mark. In addition, there is a
phonetic difference in pronunciation between Nestle's "-MATE" and Puregold's "MATCH." As a
result, the eyes and ears of the consumer would not mistake Nestle's product for Puregold's
product. Accordingly, this Court sustains the findings of the BLA-IPO and ODG-IPO that the
likelihood of confusion between Nestle's product and Puregold's product does not exist and
upholds the registration of Puregold's mark.
Kensonic, Inc. v. Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc., (Phil.)

G.R. Nos. 211820-21 & 211834-35, June 6, 2018
CASE DIGEST
Doctrine:
What is prohibited under the law is not having a generic mark but having such generic mark
being identifiable to the good or service.
Facts:
Respondent Uni-Line filed an application for the registration of the trademark “SAKURA” for
use on washing machines, high pressure washers, vacuum cleaners, floor polishers, blender,
electric mixer, electrical juicer, all are falling under Class 07 of Nice International Classification
of Goods, and television sets, stereo components, DVD/VCD players, voltage regulators,
portable generators, switch breakers, fuse which are falling under Class 09 of the same
classification; and refrigerators, air conditioners, oven toaster, turbo broiler, rice cooker,
microwave oven, coffee maker, sandwich/waffle maker, electric stove, electric fan, hot & cold
water dispenser, airpot, electric griller and electric hot pot under Class 11.
Since there is no opposition on Uni-Line's application, a Certificate of Registration for the mark
SAKURA was issued. Thereafter, Kensonic filed with the BLA a Petition for Cancellation of
Uni-Line's Certificate of Registration alleging that in October 1994, it owned said SAKURA
products and was the first to use, introduce and distribute in the Philippines. Kensonic further
alleged that it is the owner of a copyright for SAKURA and has maintained and established a
good name and goodwill over the SAKURA products.
Kensonic claimed that the SAKURA marks would lead to confusion since they are identical and
that Uni-Line’s goods under Class 07 and Class 11 were related to its goods falling under Class
09. On the other hand, Uni-Line argued that the SAKURA mark could not be appropriated
because it simply referred to cherry blossom in Japanese and was thus a generic name that was
not copyrightable; and that voltage regulators, portable generators, switch breakers and fuse were
unrelated to Kensonic's products because Uni-Line's products were not electronic.
Issue:
Whether or not the SAKURA mark is capable of appropriation
Ruling:
Yes. Section 123(h) of the Intellectual Property Code prohibits the registration of a trademark
that consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to
identify. It is clear from the law itself, therefore, that what is prohibited is not having a generic
mark but having such generic mark being identifiable to the good or service. In this case,
although SAKURA refers to the Japanese flowering cherry and is, therefore, of a generic nature,
such mark did not identify Kensonic's goods unlike the mark in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals. Kensonic's DVD or VCD players and other products could not be identified with cherry
blossoms. Hence, the mark can be appropriated.
Prior Use of Mark as a Requirement

CASE DIGEST
Mattel, Inc. vs. Emma Francisco, et al.

560 SCRA 504 (2008)
Doctrine:
The applicant or the registrant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with evidence to
that effect, as prescribed by the Regulations within three (3) years from the filing date of the
application. Otherwise, the applicant shall be refused, or the marks shall be removed from the
Register by the Director.
Facts:
In November 14, 1991, Jimmy A. Uy (Uy) filed a trademark application with the BPTTT for
registration of the trademark "BARBIE" for use on confectionary products, such as milk,
chocolate, candies, milk bar and chocolate candies. In July 19, 1993, Mattel, Inc. (Mattel),
opposed the registration of Uy's "Barbie" trademark as the latter was confusingly similar to its
trademark on dolls, doll clothes and doll accessories, toys and other similar commercial products.
The Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs, IPO, dismissed Mattel's opposition and
giving due course to Uy's application for the registration of the trademark "Barbie" used on
confectionary products. The Director held that there was no confusing similarity between the two
competing marks because the goods were non-competing or unrelated.
On appeal, the Director General, rendered a Decision denying the appeal on the ground that there
was no proof on record that Mattel had ventured into the production of chocolates and
confectionary products under the trademark "Barbie" to enable it to prevent Uy from using an
identical "Barbie" trademark on said goods; and that the records were bereft of the fact that the
Director of the Bureau of Trademarks (BOT) had already declared the subject trademark
application abandoned due to the non-filing of the Declaration of Actual Use (DAU) by Uy
Issue:
Whether or not the application is deemed withdrawn or abandoned for failure to file the
Declaration of Actual Use
Ruling:
Since Uy declared that he has not filed the DAU as mandated by pertinent provisions of R.A. No.
8293 is a judicial admission that he has effectively abandoned or withdrawn any right or interest
in his trademark, the instant case has been rendered moot and academic.
In the present case, Mattel is seeking a ruling on whether Uy's "Barbie" trademark is confusingly
similar to it's (Mattel's) "Barbie" trademark. Given Uy's admission that he has effectively
abandoned or withdrawn any rights or interest in his trademark by his non-filing of the required
DAU, there is no more actual controversy, or no useful purpose will be served in passing upon
the merits of the case. It would be unnecessary to rule on the trademark conflict between the
parties. A ruling on the matter would practically partake of a mere advisory opinion, which falls
beyond the realm of judicial review. The exercise of the power of judicial review is limited to
CASE DIGEST
actual cases and controversies. Courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory
opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problem.
Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marks
a. Dominancy Test
Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Cluett Peabody Co., Inc.,

G.R. No. 139300, March 14, 2001
Doctrine:
A resort to either the Dominancy Test or the Holistic Test shows that colorable imitation exists
between respondent's "Gold Toe" and petitioner's "Gold Top." A glance at petitioner's mark
shows that it definitely has a lot of similarities and in fact looks like a combination of the
trademark and devices that respondent has already registered; namely, "Gold Toe," the
representation of a sock with a magnifying glass, the "Gold Toe" representation and "linenized.
Facts:
Respondent Cluett Peabody Co., Inc., a New York corporation, filed for the cancellation of
Petitioner Amigo Manufacturing Inc., a Philippine corporation, trademark. Cluett claimed of
exclusive ownership, as successor in interest of Great American Knitting Mills, Inc., of the
following trademark and devices, as used on men's socks:
a) GOLD TOE;
b) DEVICE, representation of a sock and magnifying glass on the toe of a sock;
c) DEVICE, consisting of a 'plurality of gold-colored lines arranged in parallel relation within a

triangular area of toe of the stocking and spread from each other by lines of contrasting color of
the major part of the stocking; and
d) LINENIZED.
Amigos’ trademark and device 'GOLD TOP, Linenized for Extra Wear' has the dominant color
'white' at the center and a 'blackish brown' background with a magnified design of the sock's
garter, and is labeled 'Amigo Manufacturing Inc., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Made in the
Philippines'.
Issue:
Whether or not there is confusing similarity
Ruling:
Yes. there is confusing similarity.
CASE DIGEST
The Bureau of Patents, however, did not rely on the idem sonans test alone in arriving at its
conclusion. The Bureau considered the drawings and the labels, the appearance of the labels, the
lettering, and the representation of a man's foot wearing a sock. Obviously, its conclusion is
based on the totality of the similarities between the parties' trademarks and not on their sounds
alone.
In determining whether trademarks are confusingly similar, jurisprudence has developed two
kinds of tests, the Dominancy Test and the Holistic Test
Here, a resort to either the Dominancy Test or the Holistic Test shows that colorable imitation
exists between respondent's "Gold Toe" and petitioner's "Gold Top." A glance at petitioner's mark
shows that it definitely has a lot of similarities and in fact looks like a combination of the
trademark and devices that respondent has already registered; namely, "Gold Toe," the
representation of a sock with a magnifying glass, the "Gold Toe" representation and "linenized."
Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals and CFC Corporation
G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001
Doctrine:
The test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing
trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and thus constitute infringement. On the
other side of the spectrum, the holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question
must be considered in determining confusing similarity.
Facts:
Respondent CFC Corporation filed with the BPTTT an application for the registration of the
trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee. Petitioner Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A.,
a Swiss company registered under Swiss laws and domiciled in Switzerland, opposed the
application claiming that the trademark of CFC product is "confusingly similar to its trademarks
for coffee and coffee extracts --- MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND.
Nestle Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation and a licensee of Societe Des Produits Nestle
S.A., also opposed CFC’s application for registration of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER.
Nestle claimed that the use, if any, by CFC of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER and its
registration would likely cause confusion in the trade or deceive purchasers and would falsely
suggest to the purchasing public a connection in the business of Nestle, as the dominant word
present in the three (3) trademarks is "MASTER"; or that the goods of CFC might be mistaken as
having originated from the latter.
CFC argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, is not confusingly similar with the former’s
trademarks, MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND, alleging that, "except for the word
MASTER, which cannot be exclusively appropriated by any person for being a descriptive or
CASE DIGEST
generic name, the other words that are used respectively with said word in the three trademarks
are very different from each other – in meaning, spelling, pronunciation, and sound. FLAVOR
MASTER, "is clearly very different from any of Nestle’s alleged trademarks MASTER ROAST
and MASTER BLEND, especially when the marks are viewed in their entirety, by considering
their pictorial representations, color schemes and the letters of their respective labels."
Issue:
Whether the trademark FLAVOR MASTER is a colorable imitation of the trademarks MASTER
ROAST and MASTER BLEND
Ruling:
Yes. In determining if colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of tests -
the Dominancy Test and the Holistic Test. The test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and
thus constitute infringement. On the other side of the spectrum, the holistic test mandates that the
entirety of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing similarity.
The Court believes that the dominancy test is more suitable to this case in light of its peculiar
factual milieu. In this case, it is sufficiently established that the word MASTER is the dominant
feature of opposer’s mark. The word MASTER is printed across the middle portion of the label
in bold letters almost twice the size of the printed word ROAST. Further, the word MASTER has
always been given emphasis in the TV and radio commercials and other advertisements made in
promoting the product.
Further, the word "MASTER" is neither a generic nor a descriptive term. As such, said term
cannot be invalidated as a trademark and, may be legally protected. Rather, the term "MASTER"
is a suggestive term brought about by the advertising scheme of Nestle. Suggestive terms are
those which, in the phraseology of one court, require "imagination, thought and perception to
reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods." The term "MASTER", therefore, has acquired a
certain connotation to mean the coffee products MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND
produced by Nestle. As such, the use by CFC of the term "MASTER" in the trademark for its
coffee product FLAVOR MASTER is likely to cause confusion or mistake or even to deceive the
ordinary purchasers.
McDonald’s Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.

G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004
Doctrine:
In determining likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the dominancy
test and the holistic test.The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of
the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. In contrast, the holistic test requires the
court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and
packaging, in determining confusing similarity.
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
Petitioner McDonald's Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware,
United States. McDonald's operates a global chain of fast-food restaurants. It owns a family of
marks including the "Big Mac" mark for its "double-decker hamburger sandwich." This
trademark was registered with the United States Trademark Registry on 16 October 1979. As
such, McDonald's applied for the registration of the same mark in the PBPTT. Pending approval
of its application, McDonald's introduced its "Big Mac" hamburger sandwiches in the Philippine
market in September 1981. The PBPTT allowed registration of the "Big Mac" mark in the
Principal Register based on its Home Registration in the United States.
Respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. is a domestic corporation which operates fast-food outlets
and snack vans in Metro Manila and nearby provinces. Big Mak menu includes hamburger
sandwiches and other food items.
On October 21, 1988, Big Mak applied with the PBPTT for the registration of the "Big Mak"
mark for its hamburger sandwiches. McDonald's opposed the application on the ground that "Big
Mak" was a colorable imitation of its registered "Big Mac" mark for the same food products. It
filed for trademark infringement and unfair competition before the RTC which held Big Mak
liable.
Issue:
Whether respondent corporation is liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition
Ruling:
Yes. To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be shown: (1) the validity
of plaintiff's mark; (2) the plaintiff's ownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the mark or its
colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in "likelihood of confusion." Of these, it is the
element of likelihood of confusion that is the gravamen of trademark infringement.
In determining the likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the
dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. In contrast, the
holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products,
including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity.
Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark results
in likelihood of confusion. First, "Big Mak" sounds exactly the same as "Big Mac." Second, the
first word in "Big Mak" is exactly the same as the first word in "Big Mac." Third, the first two
letters in "Mak" are the same as the first two letters in "Mac." Fourth, the last letter in "Mak"
while a "k" sounds the same as "c" when the word "Mak" is pronounced. Fifth, in Filipino, the
letter "k" replaces "c" in spelling, thus "Caloocan" is spelled "Kalookan."
CASE DIGEST
Aurally, the two marks are the same, with the first word of both marks phonetically the same,
and the second word of both marks also phonetically the same. Visually, the two marks have both
two words and six letters, with the first word of both marks having the same letters and the
second word having the same first two letters. In spelling, considering the Filipino language,
even the last letters of both marks are the same. Clearly, respondents have adopted in "Big Mak"
not only the dominant but also almost all the features of "Big Mac." Applied to the same food
product of hamburgers, the two marks will likely result in confusion in the public mind.
McDonald’s Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation

G.R. No. 166115, February 2, 2007
Doctrine:
In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. In
contrast, the holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the
products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. Under the
latter test, a comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor.
Facts:
Respondent MacJoy Fastfood Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the sale of fast
food products in Cebu City, filed an application for the registration of the trademark "MACJOY
& DEVICE" for fried chicken, chicken barbeque, burgers, fries, spaghetti, palabok, tacos,
sandwiches, halo-halo and steaks under classes 29 and 30 of the International Classification of
Goods.
Petitioner McDonald’s Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, USA, opposed Macjoy application claiming that the trademark "MACJOY &
DEVICE" resembles its corporate logo, the Golden Arches or "M" design, and its marks
"McDonalds," McChicken," "MacFries," "BigMac," "McDo," "McSpaghetti," "McSnack," and
"Mc," (MCDONALD’S marks). The trademark applied for would confuse or deceive purchasers
into believing that the goods originate from the same source or origin. McDonald’s also alleged
that the MacJoy’s use and adoption in bad faith of the "MACJOY & DEVICE" mark would
falsely tend to suggest a connection or affiliation with McDonald’s restaurant services and food
products, to its prejudice and irreparable damage.
MacJoy averred that it has used the mark "MACJOY" for the past many years in good faith and
has spent considerable sums of money for said mark’s extensive promotion in tri-media,
especially in Cebu City where it has been doing business long, and that its use of said mark
would not confuse affiliation with the McDonald’s restaurant services and food products because
of the differences in the design and detail of the two (2) marks. The IPO held that there is
CASE DIGEST
confusing similarity; however, the CA ruled otherwise stating there are predominant difference
like the spelling, the font and color of the trademark and the picture of the logo.
Issue:
Whether or not there is confusing similarity between the trademarks in question
Ruling:
Yes.
In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. In
contrast, the holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the
products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. Under the
latter test, a comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor.
Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that petitioner’s "MCDONALD’S" and
respondent’s "MACJOY" marks are confusingly similar with each other such that an ordinary
purchaser can conclude an association or relation between the marks. Both marks use the
corporate "M" design logo and the prefixes "Mc" and/or "Mac" as dominant features. The first
letter "M" in both marks puts emphasis on the prefixes "Mc" and/or "Mac" by the similar way in
which they are depicted in an arch-like, capitalized and stylized manner. It is the prefix "Mc," an
abbreviation of "Mac," which visually and aurally catches the attention of the consuming public.
Verily, the word "MACJOY" attracts attention the same way as did "McDonalds," "MacFries,"
"McSpaghetti," "McDo," "Big Mac" and the rest of the MCDONALD’S marks which all use the
prefixes Mc and/or Mac.
Prosource International, Inc. vs. Horphag Research Management SA

G.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009
Doctrine:
In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests: the
Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity
of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception,
thus constituting infringement. In contrast, the Holistic Test entails a consideration of the entirety
of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining
confusing similarity. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant
words but also on the other features appearing on both labels in order that the observer may draw
his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.
Facts:
CASE DIGEST
Respondent Horphag Research Management SA is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of Switzerland and the owner of trademark PYCNOGENOL, a food supplement sold
and distributed by Zuellig Pharma Corporation. Later, Horphag discovered that petitioner
Prosource International was also distributing a similar food supplement using the mark PCO-
GENOLS. Consequently, Horphag demands Prosource to stop using the mark. Without notifying
Horphag, Prosource discontinued the use of, and withdrew from the market, the products under
the name PCO-GENOLS as of June 19, 2000, and changed its mark from PCO-GENOLS to
PCO-PLUS.
Subsequently, Horphag t filed a Complaint for Infringement of Trademark against Prosource

alleging that PCO-GENOLS is confusingly similar to its trademark PYCNOGENOL.
Issue:
Whether or not Prosource is liable for trademark infringement
Ruling:
Yes.
Both the words PYCNOGENOL and PCO-GENOLS have the same suffix "GENOL" which on
evidence, appears to be merely descriptive and furnish no indication of the origin of the article
and hence, open for trademark registration by the plaintiff thru combination with another word or
phrase such as PYCNOGENOL, Exhibits "A" to "A-3." Furthermore, although the letters "Y"
between P and C, "N" between O and C and "S" after L are missing in the [petitioner’s] mark
PCO-GENOLS, nevertheless, when the two words are pronounced, the sound effects are
confusingly similar not to mention that they are both described by their manufacturers as a food
supplement and thus, identified as such by their public consumers. And although there were
dissimilarities in the trademark due to the type of letters used as well as the size, color and design
employed on their individual packages/bottles, still the close relationship of the competing
products’ name in sounds as they were pronounced, clearly indicates that purchasers could be
misled into believing that they are the same and/or originates from a common source and
manufacturer.
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang

G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010
Doctrine:
the Holistic or Totality Test necessitates a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to
the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The
discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the
other features appearing on both labels so that the observer may draw conclusion on whether one
is confusingly similar to the other.
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
Respondent Norvy A. Abyadang, proprietor of NS Northern Organic Fertilizer filed with the
Intellectual Property Office a trademark application for the mark "NS D-10 PLUS" for use in
connection with Fungicide under Class 5 with active ingredient 80% Mancozeb. Petitioner Berris
Agricultural Co., Inc. filed with the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs a Verified Notice of Opposition
against the mark under application allegedly because "NS D-10 PLUS" is similar and/or
confusingly similar to its registered trademark "D-10 80 WP," also used for Fungicide under
Class 5 with active ingredient 80% Mancozeb. The IPO ruled in favor of Berries but on appeal
with the CA, the CA ruled in favor of Abyadang.
Issue:
Whether or not both trademarks are confusingly similar
Ruling:
Yes.
Comparing Berris’ mark "D-10 80 WP" with Abyadang’s mark "NS D-10 PLUS," as appearing
on their respective packages, one cannot but notice that both have a common component which
is "D-10." On Berris’ package, the "D-10" is written with a bigger font than the "80 WP."
Admittedly, the "D-10" is the dominant feature of the mark. The "D-10," being at the beginning
of the mark, is what is most remembered of it. Although, it appears in Berris’ certificate of
registration in the same font size as the "80 WP," its dominancy in the "D-10 80 WP" mark
stands since the difference in the form does not alter its distinctive character. Also, both
depictions of "D-10," as found in both marks, are similar in size, such that this portion is what
catches the eye of the purchaser. Undeniably, the likelihood of confusion is present.
Dermaline, Inc. vs. Myra Phamaceuticals, Inc.

G.R. No. 190065, August 1, 2010
Doctrine:
While there are no set rules that can be deduced as what constitutes a dominant feature with
respect to trademarks applied for registration; usually, what are taken into account are signs,
color, design, peculiar shape or name, or some special, easily remembered earmarks of the brand
that readily attracts and catches the attention of the ordinary consumer.
Facts:
Petitioner Dermaline, Inc. (Dermaline) filed before the Intellectual Property Office an application
for registration of the trademark "DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC." Myra filed an Opposition
alleging that the trademark sought to be registered by Dermaline so resembles its trademark
DERMALIN and will likely cause confusion to the purchasing public. Myra claimed that the
dominant feature is the term DERMALINE, which is practically identical with its own
DERMALIN, more particularly that the first eight (8) letters of the marks are identical, and that
notwithstanding the additional letter E by Dermaline, the pronunciation for both marks are
identical. Further, both marks have three syllables each, with each syllable identical in sound
CASE DIGEST
and appearance, even if the last syllable of DERMALINE consisted of four letters while
DERMALIN consisted only of three.
Issue:
Whether or not the application be allowed
Ruling:
NO. Dermaline’s insistence that its applied trademark "DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC." had
differences "too striking to be mistaken" from Myra’s "DERMALIN" cannot, therefore, be
sustained. While it is true that the two marks are presented differently – Dermaline’s mark is
written with the first "DERMALINE" in script going diagonally upwards from left to right, with
an upper case "D" followed by the rest of the letters in lower case, and the portion
"DERMALINE, INC." is written in upper case letters, below and smaller than the long-hand
portion; while Myra’s mark "DERMALIN" is written in an upright font, with a capital "D" and
followed by lower case letters – the likelihood of confusion is still apparent. This is because they
are almost spelled in the same way, except for Dermaline’s mark which ends with the letter "E,"
and they are pronounced practically in the same manner in three (3) syllables, with the ending
letter "E" in Dermaline’s mark pronounced silently. Thus, when an ordinary purchaser, for
example, hears an advertisement of Dermaline’s applied trademark over the radio, chances are he
will associate it with Myra’s registered mark.
Soceite Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Dy, Jr.,

G.R. No. 172276, August 8, 2010
Doctrine:
The registered trademark owner may use his mark on the same or similar products, in different
segments of the market, and at different price levels depending on variations of the products for
specific segments of the market. The Court has recognized that the registered trademark owner
enjoys protection in product and market areas that are the normal potential expansion of his
business.
Facts:
Petitioner Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of
Switzerland. It manufactures food products and beverages. It owns the "NAN" trademark for its
line of infant powdered milk products, consisting of PRE-NAN, NAN-H.A., NAN-1, and NAN-
2. NAN is classified under Class 6 — "diatetic preparations for infant feeding."
Dy, Jr. owns 5M Enterprises. He imports Sunny Boy powdered milk from Australia and repacks
the powdered milk into three sizes of plastic packs bearing the name "NANNY." NANNY is also
classified under Class 6 — "full cream milk for adults in [sic] all ages."
CASE DIGEST
Subsequently, Nestle requested Dy, Jr. to refrain from using "NANNY" and to undertake that he
would stop infringing the "NAN" trademark. Dy, Jr. did not act on Nestle’s request. Hence,
Nestle filed a complaint against Dy, Jr. for infringement.
The trial court found Dy, Jr. liable for infringement, but the same was reversed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether Dy, Jr. is liable for infringement
Ruling:
Yes.
NANNY and NAN have the same classification, descriptive properties and physical attributes.
Both are classified under Class 6, both are milk products, and both are in powder form. Also,
NANNY and NAN are displayed in the same section of stores — the milk section.
The Court agrees with the lower courts that there are differences between NAN and NANNY: (1)
NAN is intended for infants while NANNY is intended for children past their infancy and for
adults; and (2) NAN is more expensive than NANNY. However, as the registered owner of the
"NAN" mark, Nestle should be free to use its mark on similar products, in different segments of
the market, and at different price levels.
Sketchers USA vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation

GR No. 164321, March 28, 2011
Doctrine:
The essential element of infringement under R.A. No. 8293 is that the infringing mark is likely to
cause confusion. In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has
developed tests: the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
Facts:
Petitioner Skecher filed an application for the issuance of search warrants against an outlet and
warehouse operated by respondent Inter Pacific Industrial Trading for infringement of trademark.
In the course of its business, Skecher has registered the trademark "SKECHERS" and the
trademark "S" within an oval design with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Two search
warrants were issued by the RTC and were served on the premises of Inter Pacific. As a result of
the raid, more than 6,000 pairs of shoes bearing the "S" logo were seized. Later, Inter Pacific
moved to quash the search warrants, arguing that there was no confusing similarity between
petitioner’s "Skechers" rubber shoes and its "Strong" rubber shoes.
Issue:
Whether or not Inter Pacific is guilty of trademark infringement
CASE DIGEST
Ruling:
Yes.
Applying the Dominancy Test to the case at bar, the Court finds that the use of the stylized "S"
by Inter Pacific in its Strong rubber shoes infringes on the mark already registered by Skecher
with the IPO. While it is undisputed that Skecher’s stylized "S" is within an oval design, the
dominant feature of the trademark is the stylized "S," as it is precisely the stylized "S" which
catches the eye of the purchaser. Thus, even if respondent did not use an oval design, the mere
fact that it used the same stylized "S", the same being the dominant feature of petitioner’s
trademark, already constitutes infringement under the Dominancy Test.
Further, respondent did not simply use the letter "S," but based on the font and the size of the
lettering, the stylized "S" utilized by respondent is the very same stylized "S" used by petitioner;
a stylized "S" which is unique and distinguishes petitioner’s trademark. Indubitably, the
likelihood of confusion is present as purchasers will associate the respondent’s use of the stylized
"S" as having been authorized by petitioner or that respondent’s product is connected with
petitioner’s business.
Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation

G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017
Doctrine:
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing
trademarks which might cause confusion or deception, and thus infringement. If the competing
trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or
deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary;
nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. The question is
whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the
public or deceive purchasers.
On the other hand, the Holistic Test requires that the entirety of the marks in question be
considered in resolving confusing similarity. Comparison of words is not the only determining
factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must
also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the
observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing
in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the
other.
Facts:
IFP Manufacturing Corporation filed an application for the registration of the mark "OK Hotdog
Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" which it intended to use on one of its curl snack products.
CASE DIGEST
This was opposed by Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. arguing that it is prohibited under Section
123. (d)(iii) of RA 8293. Mang Inasal explained that:
1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to the Mang Inasal mark. Both marks feature the
same dominant element-i.e., the word "INASAL"-printed and stylized in the exact same
manner, viz: a. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is spelled using the same font style
and red color; b. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is placed inside the same black
outline and yellow background; and c. In both marks, the word "INASAL" is arranged in
the same staggered format; and
2. That he goods that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark intend to identify are also closely related
to the services represented by the Mang Inasal mark.
Issue:
Whether or not OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark is confusingly similar with the
Mang Inasal mark
Ruling:
YES. Applying the dominancy test, we hold that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is a colorable
imitation of the Mang Inasal mark.
First. The fact that the conflicting marks have exactly the same dominant element is key. It is
undisputed that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark copied and adopted as one of its dominant features
the "INASAL" element of the Mang Inasal mark. Given that the "INASAL" element is, at the
same time, the dominant and most distinctive feature of the Mang Inasal mark, the said element's
incorporation in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark, thus, has the potential to project the deceptive and
false impression that the latter mark is somehow linked or associated with the former mark.
Second. The differences between the two marks are trumped by the overall impression created
by their similarity. The mere fact that there are other elements in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark that
are not present in the Mang Inasal mark actually does little to change the probable public
perception that both marks are linked or associated. It is worth reiterating that the OK Hotdog
Inasal mark actually brandishes a literal copy of the most recognizable feature of the Mang
Inasal mark. We doubt that an average buyer catching a casual glimpse of the OK Hotdog Inasal
mark would pay more attention to the peripheral details of the said mark than it would to the
mark's more prominent feature, especially when the same invokes the distinctive feature of
another more popular brand. All in all, we find that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to the
Mang Inasal mark.
CASE DIGEST
Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.

G.R. No. 205409, June 13, 2018
Doctrine:
In determining whether or not there is infringement, the Court considered "the main, essential,
and dominant features" of the marks in this case, as well as the contexts in which the marks are
to be used.
Facts:
Petitioner Citigroup offers ATM services in the Philippines since 1995. It has 29 ATMs and
issues ATM cards labelled "CITICARD." The trademark CITICARD is owned by Citibank N.A.
and is registered in the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of the Philippines on September 27,
1995. In addition, petitioner or Citibank N.A., a wholly-owned subsidiary of petitioner, owns the
following other trademarks currently registered with the IPO to wit: "CITI and arc design,"
"CITIBANK," "CITIBANK PAYLINK," "CITIBANK SPEEDCOLLECT," "CITIBANKING,"
"CITICARD," "CITICORP," "CITIFINANCIAL," "CITIGOLD," "CITIGROUP," "CITIPHONE
BANKING," and "CITISERVICE.”
Subseqeuntly, a group of Filipinos and Singaporean companies formed a consortium to establish
respondent Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. Its registered mark has in its name affixed a lion's head,
which is likened to the national symbol of Singapore, the Merlion. It had established off site
ATMs in key locations in the Philippines as one of its banking products and services. In line with
this, Citystate filed an application for registration with the IPO on June 21, 2005 of the trademark
"CITY CASH WITH GOLDEN LION'S HEAD" for its ATM service. Citigroup opposed the
application. Citigroup claimed that the "CITY CASH WITH GOLDEN LION'S HEAD" mark is
confusingly similar to its own "CITI" marks.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists a confusing similarity between the two marks
Ruling:
No.
The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing
trademarks that might cause confusion and deception, thus constituting infringement. If the
competing trademark contains the main, essential, and dominant features of another, and
confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement occurs. Exact duplication or imitation is
not required. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion
or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive consumers. In contrast, the holistic test entails
a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and
packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The discerning eye of the observer must focus
CASE DIGEST
not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing on both marks in
order that the observer may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.
With these guidelines in mind, the Court considered "the main, essential, and dominant features"
of the marks in this case, as well as the contexts in which the marks are to be used. The Court
finds that the use of the "CITY CASH WITH GOLDEN LION'S HEAD" mark will not result in
the likelihood of confusion in the minds of customers. A visual comparison of the marks reveals
no likelihood of confusion. The most noticeable part of respondent’s mark is the golden lion's
head device, and after noticing the image of the lion's head, the words "CITY" and "CASH" are
equally prominent. On the other hand, petitioner’s marks often include the red arc device.
Petitioner’s marks can best be described as consisting of the prefix “CITI” added to other words.
Applying the dominancy test, the Court sees that the prevalent feature of respondent's mark, the
golden lion's head device, is not present at all in any of petitioner's marks. The only similar
feature between respondent's mark and petitioner's collection of marks is the word "CITY" in the
former, and the "CITI" prefix found in the latter. This similarity alone is not enough to create a
likelihood of confusion.
b. Holistic Test
Fruit of the Loom, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-32747, November 29, 1984
Doctrine:
In cases involving infringement of trademark brought before this Court it has been consistently
held that there is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark involved would be likely
to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers as to the origin
or source of the commodity.
Facts:
Petitioner Fruit of the Loom, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Rhode Island, United States of America, is the registrant of a trademark, FRUIT OF
THE LOOM, in the Philippines Patent Office. The classes of merchandise covered by the
registration, among others, men's, women's and children's underwear, which includes women's
panties and which fall under class 40 in the Philippine Patent Office's classification of goods.
The other covers knitted, netted and textile fabrics.
Private respondent, a domestic corporation, is the registrant of a trademark FRUIT FOR EVE in
the Philippine Patent Office and was issued a Certificate of Registration covering garments
similar to petitioner's products like women's panties and pajamas.
Fruit of the Loom filed a complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against
the private respondent. It principally alleged in the complaint that private respondent's trademark
FRUIT FOR EVE is confusingly similar to its trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM used also on
CASE DIGEST
women's panties and other textile products. Furthermore, it was also alleged therein that the color
get-up and general appearance of private respondent's hang tag consisting of a big red apple is a
colorable imitation to the hang tag of petitioner.
Issue:
Whether private respondent's trademark FRUIT FOR EVE is confusingly similar to petitioner's
trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM
Ruling:
No. In cases involving infringement of trademark brought before this Court it has been
consistently held that there is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark involved
would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers
as to the origin or source of the commodity. In the trademarks FRUIT OF THE LOOM and
FRUIT FOR EVE, the lone similar word is FRUIT. WE agree with the respondent court that by
mere pronouncing the two marks, it could hardly be said that it will provoke confusion, as to
mistake one for the other. Standing by itself, FRUIT OF THE LOOM is wholly different from
FRUIT FOR EVE. The Court did not agree with petitioner that the dominant feature of both
trademarks is the word FRUIT for even in the printing of the trademark in both hang tags, the
word FRUIT is not at all made dominant over the other words.
Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995
Doctrine:
In determining whether colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of tests
— the Dominancy Test applied in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and other cases and the
Holistic Test developed in Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals and its proponent cases.
Facts:
Private respondent H.D. Lee Co., Inc., a foreign corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware, U.S.A., filed with the BPTTT a Petition for Cancellation of Registration for the
trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" used on skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging
suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25, issued in the name of petitioner Emerald
Garment Manufacturing Corporation, a domestic corporation organized and existing under
Philippine laws.
H.D Lee averred that Emerald's trademark is "so closely resembled its own trademark, 'LEE' as
previously registered and used in the Philippines, and not abandoned, as to be likely, when
applied to or used in connection with petitioner's goods, to cause confusion, mistake and
deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods. On the other hand,
Emerald contended that its trademark was entirely and unmistakably different from that of H.D
Lee and that its certificate of registration was legally and validly granted.
CASE DIGEST
Issue:
Whether or not the two trademarks are confusingly similar
Ruling:
No. In determining whether colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of
tests — the Dominancy Test applied in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and other cases
and the Holistic Test developed in Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals and its proponent
cases.
Applying the foregoing tenets to the present controversy and taking into account the factual
circumstances of this case, we considered the trademarks involved as a whole and rule that
petitioner's "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" is not confusingly similar to private respondent's "LEE"
trademark.
Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation

G.R. No. 158589, June 27, 2006
Doctrine:
In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests: the
dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test sets sight on the similarity of the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception, thus
constitutes infringement. Under this norm, the question at issue turns on whether the use of the
marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or
deceive purchasers. In contrast, the holistic test entails consideration of the entirety of the marks
as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing
similarity.
Facts:
Petitioner Philip Morris, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia,
United States of America, is the registered owner of the trademark "MARK VII" for cigarettes.
Similarly, petitioner Benson & Hedges (Canada), Inc., a subsidiary of Philip Morris, Inc., is the
registered owner of the trademark "MARK TEN" for cigarettes. And as can be seen in
Trademark Certificate of Registration No. 19053, another subsidiary of Philip Morris, Inc., the
Swiss company Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, S.A., is the assignee of the trademark "LARK,"
which was originally registered in 1964 by Ligget and Myers Tobacco Company. On the other
hand, respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation a company organized in the Philippines,
manufactures and sells cigarettes using the trademark "MARK."
The legal dispute between the parties started when the herein petitioners, on the claim that an
infringement of their respective trademarks had been committed, filed a Complaint for
Infringement of Trademark and Damages against respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation.
Issue:
CASE DIGEST
Whether or not there is infringement
Ruling:
No. The "likelihood of confusion" is the gravamen of trademark infringement. But likelihood of
confusion is a relative concept, the particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each
case being determinative of its existence. Thus, in trademark infringement cases, more than in
other kinds of litigation, precedents must be evaluated in the light of each particular case.
Comparing the trademarks involved in their entirety as they appear on the products, the striking
dissimilarities are significant enough to warn any purchaser that one is different from the other.
Indeed, although the perceived offending word "MARK" is itself prominent in petitioners’
trademarks "MARK VII" and "MARK TEN," the entire marking system should be considered as
a whole and not dissected, because a discerning eye would focus not only on the predominant
word but also on the other features appearing in the labels. Only then would such discerning
observer draw his conclusion whether one mark would be confusingly similar to the other and
whether or not sufficient differences existed between the marks.
Victorio Diaz vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013
Doctrine:
It is the tendency of the allegedly infringing mark to be confused with the registered trademark
that is the gravamen of the offense of infringement of a registered trademark. The acquittal of the
accused should follow if the allegedly infringing mark is not likely to cause confusion. Thereby,
the evidence of the State does not satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts:
Levi Strauss and Company (Levi’s), a foreign corporation based in the State of Delaware, United
States of America, had been engaged in the apparel business. It is the owner of trademarks and
designs of Levi’s jeans like LEVI’S 501, the arcuate design, the two-horse brand, the two-horse
patch, the two-horse patch with pattern arcuate, and the composite tab arcuate. LEVI’S 501 has
the following registered trademarks, to wit: (1) the leather patch showing two horses pulling a
pair of pants; (2) the arcuate pattern with the inscription "LEVI STRAUSS & CO;" (3) the
arcuate design that refers to "the two parallel stitching curving downward that are being sewn on
both back pockets of a Levi’s Jeans;" and (4) the tab or piece of cloth located on the structural
seam of the right back pocket, upper left side. All these trademarks were registered in the
Philippine Patent Office in the 1970’s, 1980’s and early part of 1990’s.
Levi Strauss Philippines, Inc. is a licensee of Levi’s. After receiving information that Diaz was
selling counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza and Talon, Las Piñas City,
Levi’s Philippines hired a private investigation group to verify the information. Surveillance and
the purchase of jeans from the tailoring shops of Diaz established that the jeans bought from the
tailoring shops of Diaz were counterfeit or imitations of LEVI’S 501. Levi’s Philippines then
CASE DIGEST
sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for purposes of applying for
a search warrant against Diaz to be served at his tailoring shops. The search warrants were issued
in due course. Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents searched the tailoring shops of Diaz
and seized several fake LEVI’S 501 jeans from them. Levi’s Philippines claimed that it did not
authorize the making and selling of the seized jeans; that each of the jeans were mere imitations
of genuine LEVI’S 501 jeans by each of them bearing the registered trademarks, like the arcuate
design, the tab, and the leather patch; and that the seized jeans could be mistaken for original
LEVI’S 501 jeans due to the placement of the arcuate, tab, and two-horse leather patch.
Issue:
Whether or not there is infringement
Ruling:
No. The elements of the offense of trademark infringement under the Intellectual Property Code
are, therefore, the following:
1. The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property Office;
2. The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by the infringer
3. The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any
goods, business or services; or the infringing mark is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages,
wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such
goods, business or services;
4. The use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to
deceive purchasers or others as to the goods or services themselves or as to the source or origin
of such goods or services or the identity of such business; and
5. The use or application of the infringing mark is without the consent of the trademark owner or
the assignee thereof
The holistic test is applicable here considering that the herein criminal cases also involved
trademark infringement in relation to jeans products. Accordingly, the jeans trademarks of Levi’s
Philippines and Diaz must be considered as a whole in determining the likelihood of confusion
between them. The maong pants or jeans made and sold by Levi’s Philippines, which included
LEVI’S 501, were very popular in the Philippines. The consuming public knew that the original
LEVI’S 501 jeans were under a foreign brand and quite expensive. Such jeans could be
purchased only in malls or boutiques as ready-to-wear items, and were not available in tailoring
shops like those of Diaz’s as well as not acquired on a "made-to-order" basis. Under the
circumstances, the consuming public could easily discern if the jeans were original or fake
LEVI’S 501, or were manufactured by other brands of jeans.
Seri Somboonsakdikul v. Orlane S.A.,

G.R. No. 188996, February 1, 2017
Doctrine:
CASE DIGEST
There is no colorable imitation between the marks LOLANE and ORLANE which would lead to
any likelihood of confusion to the ordinary purchasers.
Facts:
Seri Somboonsakdikul filed an application for registration of the mark LOLANE with the IPO
for goods classified under Class 3 (personal care products) of the International Classification of
Goods. Orlane S.A. filed an opposition to petitioner's application, on the ground that the mark
LOLANE was similar to ORLANE in presentation, general appearance and pronunciation, and
thus would amount to an infringement of its mark.
Respondent Orlane alleged that: (1) it was the rightful owner of the ORLANE mark which was
first used in 1948; (2) the mark was earlier registered in the Philippines on July 26, 1967 under
Registration No. 129961 for the following goods: perfumes, toilet water, face powders, lotions,
essential oils, cosmetics, lotions for the hair, etc. In his answer, petitioner denied that the
LOLANE mark was confusingly similar to the mark ORLANE. He averred that he was the
lawful owner of the mark LOLANE which he has used for various personal care products sold
worldwide. He alleged that the first worldwide use of the mark was in Vietnam on July 4, 1995.
Petitioner also alleged that he had continuously marketed and advertised Class 3 products
bearing LOLANE mark in the Philippines and in different parts of the world and that as a result,
the public had come to associate the mark with him as provider of quality personal care products.
Issue:
Whether or not there is confusing similarity between the two marks
Ruling:
NO. There is no colorable imitation between the marks LOLANE and ORLANE which would
lead to any likelihood of confusion to the ordinary purchasers. Hence, the mark LOLANE is
entitled to registration.
The suffix LANE is not the dominant feature of petitioner's mark. Neither can it be considered as
the dominant feature of ORLANE which would make the two marks confusingly similar.
First, an examination of the appearance of the marks would show that there are noticeable
differences in the way they are written or printed. There are visual differences between LOLANE
and ORLANE since the mark ORLANE is in plain block upper case letters while the mark
LOLANE was rendered in stylized word with the second letter L and the letter A co-joined.
Second, as to the aural aspect of the marks, LOLANE and ORLANE do not sound alike. Appeals
to the ear in pronouncing ORLANE and LOLANE are dissimilar. The first syllables of each
mark, i.e., OR and LO do not sound alike, while the proper pronunciation of the last syllable
LANE — "LEYN" for LOLANE and "LAN" for ORLANE, being of French origin, also differ.
We take exception to the generalizing statement of the Director General, which was affirmed by
the CA, that Filipinos would invariably pronounce ORLANE as "ORLEYN."
CASE DIGEST
UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016
The scope of protection afforded to registered trademark owners is not limited to protection from
infringers with identical goods. The scope of protection extends to protection from infringers
with related goods, and to market areas that are the normal expansion of business of the
registered trademark owners. Respondent's mark is related to a product, lechon sauce. Since
petitioner's product, catsup, is also a household product found on the same grocery aisle, in
similar packaging, the public could think that petitioner had expanded its product mix to include
lechon sauce, and that the "PAPA BOY" lechon sauce is now part of the "PAPA" family of
sauces. Thus, if allowed registration, confusion of business may set in, and petitioner's hard-
earned goodwill may be associated to the newer product introduced by respondent.
Facts:
Petitioner Nutri-Asia, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws. It
is the emergent entity in a merger with UFC Philippines, Inc. that was completed on February 11,
2009. likewise , Respondent Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation is a corporation organized
and existing under Philippine laws.
Respondent filed Application No. 4-2002-002757 for the mark "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" for
goods under Class 30, specifically for "lechon sauce." The Intellectual Property Office (IPO)
published said application for opposition in the IP Phil. e-Gazette released on September 8, 2006.
Petitioner filed an opposition to his application.
petitioner contended that "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" is confusingly similar with its "PAPA" marks
inasmuch as the former incorporates the term "PAP A," which is the dominant feature of
petitioner's "PAPA" marks. Petitioner averred that respondent's use of "PAPA BOY & DEVICE"
mark for its lechon sauce product, if allowed, would likely lead the consuming public to believe
that said lechon sauce product originates from or is authorized by petitioner, and that the "PAPA
BOY & DEVICE" mark is a variation or derivative of petitioner's "PAPA" marks. Petitioner
argued that this was especially true considering that petitioner's ketchup product and respondent's
lechon sauce product are related articles that fall under the same Class 30.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in applying the holistic test
Ruling:
Yes. The dominancy test should have been applied. This Cour has relied on the dominancy test
rather than the holistic test. The dominancy test considers the dominant features in the competing
marks in determining whether they are confusingly similar. Under the dominancy test, courts
give greater weight to the similarity of the appearance of the product arising from the adoption of
the dominant features of the registered mark, disregarding minor differences. Courts will
consider more the aural and visual impressions created by the marks in the public mind, giving
little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets and market segments.
CASE DIGEST
c. Doctrine of unrelated goods
Hickok Manufacturing, Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. L-44707, August 31, 1982
Doctrine:
While the law does not require that the competing trademarks be Identical, the two marks must
be considered in their entirety, as they appear in the respective labels, in relation to the goods to
which they are attached.
Facts:
The Court affirms on the strength of controlling doctrine as reaffirmed in the companion case of
Esso Standard Eastern Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 1 promulgated also on this date and the recent
case of Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Ng Sam and Director of Parents 2 the appealed decision
of the Court of Appeals reversing the patent director's decision and instead dismissing petitioner's
petition to cancel private respondent's registration of the trademark of HICKOK for its Marikina
shoes as against petitioner's earlier registration of the same trademark for its other non-
competing products.
Issue:
Whether there is infringement
Ruling:
No. An examination of the trademark of petitioner-appellee and that of registrant-appellant
convinces us that there is a difference in the design and the coloring of, as well as in the words
on the ribbons, the two trademarks.
In petitioner-appellee's trademark for handkerchiefs (Exhibit 'Q'), the word 'HICKOK' is in red
with white background in the middle of two branches of laurel in light gold. At the lower part
thereof is a ribbon on which are the words 'POSITIVELY FINER' in light gold. In the trademark
for underwear (Exhibit 'R'), the word 'HICKOK' is also in red with white background in the
middle of two branches of laurel in dark gold with similar ribbons and the words 'POSITIVELY
FINER' in dark gold. And in the trademark for briefs (Exhibit 'S'), the word 'HICKOK' is in
white but with red background in the middle of two branches of laurel, the leaves being in dark
gold with white edges, and with similar ribbon and words 'POSITIVELY FINER' in dark gold. In
contrast, in respondent-appellant's trademark (Exhibit 'J'), the word 'HICKOK' is in white with
gold background between the two branches of laurel in red, with the word 'SHOES' also in red
below the word 'HICKOK.' The ribbon is in red with the words 'QUALITY AT YOUR FEET,'
likewise in red.
CASE DIGEST
Faberge, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,

G.R. No. 71189, November 4, 1992
Facts:
In essence, it appears that in the course of marketing petitioner's "BRUT" products and during
the pendency of its application for registration of the trademark "BRUT 33 and DEVICE" for
antiperspirant, personal deodorant, cream shave, after shave/shower lotion, hair spray, and hair
shampoo (page 236, Rollo), respondent Co Beng Kay of Webengton Garments Manufacturing
applied for registration of the disputed emblem "BRUTE" for briefs. Opposition raised by
petitioner anchored on similarity with its own symbol and irreparable injury to the business
reputation of the first user was to no avail.
The Director of Patents authorized herein private respondent Co Beng Kay to register the
trademark "BRUTE" for the briefs manufactured and sold by his Corporation in the domestic
market vis-avis petitioner's opposition grounded on similarity of said trademark with petitioner's
own symbol "BRUT" which it previously registered for after shave lotion, shaving cream,
deodorant, talcum powder, and toilet soap. Thereafter, respondent court, through Justice
Gopengco with Justices Patajo and Racela, Jr. concurring, was initially persuaded by petitioner's
plea for reversal directed against the permission granted by the Director of Patents, but the
decision of the Second Special Cases Division handed down on April 29, 1983 was later
reconsidered in favor of herein private respondent.
Issue:
Whether there is confusing similarity with the marks
Ruling:
No. Having thus reviewed the laws applicable to the case before Us, it is not difficult to discern
from the foregoing statutory enactments that private respondent may be permitted to register the
trademark "BRUTE" for briefs produced by it notwithstanding petitioner's vehement
protestations of unfair dealings in marketing its own set of items which are limited to: after-shave
lotion, shaving cream, deodorant, talcum powder and toilet soap. In as much as petitioner has not
ventured in the production of briefs, an item which is not listed in its certificate of registration,
petitioner can not and should not be allowed to feign that private respondent had invaded
petitioner's exclusive domain. The glaring discrepancies between the two products had been
amply portrayed to such an extent that indeed, "a purchaser who is out in the market for the
purpose of buying respondent's BRUTE brief would definitely be not mistaken or misled into
buying BRUT after shave lotion or deodorant" as categorically opined in the decision of the
Director of Patents relative to the inter-partes case
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2004
CASE DIGEST
Doctrine:
Ordinarily, the ownership of a trademark or tradename is a property right that the owner is
entitled to protectas mandated by the Trademark Law.However, when a trademark is used by a
party for a product in which the other party does not deal, the use of the same trademark on the
latter's product cannot be validly objected to.
Facts:
Private respondent NSR Rubber Corporation (private respondent) filed an application for
registration of the mark CANON for sandals. A Verified Notice of Opposition was filed by
petitioner, a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Japan, alleging
that it will be damaged by the registration of the trademark CANON in the name of private
respondent.
Based on the records, the evidence presented by petitioner consisted of its certificates of
registration for the mark CANON in various countries covering goods belonging to class 2
(paints, chemical products, toner, and dye stuff). Petitioner also submitted in evidence its
Philippine Trademark Registration No. 39398, showing its ownership over the trademark
CANON also under class 2.
The BPTTT, on November 10, 1992, issued its decision dismissing the opposition of petitioner
and giving due course to NSR's application for the registration of the trademark CANON. Canon
Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals that eventually affirmed the decision
of the BPTTT.
Issue:
Whether or not the Trademark Cannon can be used
Ruling:
Yes. Ordinarily, the ownership of a trademark or tradename is a property right that the owner is
entitled to protect as mandated by the Trademark Law. However, when a trademark is used by a
party for a product in which the other party does not deal, the use of the same trademark on the
latter's product cannot be validly objected to.
A review of the records shows that with the order of the BPTTT declaring private respondent in
default for failure to file its answer, petitioner had every opportunity to present ex-parte all of its
evidence to prove that its certificates of registration for the trademark CANON cover footwear.
The certificates of registration for the trademark CANON in other countries and in the
Philippines as presented by petitioner, clearly showed that said certificates of registration cover
goods belonging to class 2 (paints, chemical products, toner, dyestuff). On this basis, the BPTTT
correctly ruled that since the certificate of registration of petitioner for the trademark CANON
covers class 2 (paints, chemical products, toner, dyestuff), private respondent can use the
trademark CANON for its goods classified as class 25 (sandals). Clearly, there is a world of
CASE DIGEST
difference between the paints, chemical products, toner, and dyestuff of petitioner and the
sandals of private respondent.
Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery and the
Andresons Group, Inc.,
G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004
Doctrine:
We are mindful that product classification alone cannot serve as the decisive factor in the
resolution of whether or not wines and cigarettes are related goods. Emphasis should be on the
similarity of the products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or general description
of their properties or characteristics. But the mere fact that one person has adopted and used a
particular trademark for his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark
by others on articles of a different description.
Facts:
Respondent Gallo Winery’s GALLO wine trademark was registered in the Philippine Intellectual
Property Office in 1971 while petitioner Mighty Corporation and La Campana were using the
GALLO cigarettes trademark since 1973.
On March 12, 1993, Gallo Winery sued Mighty Corporation and La Campana for trademark and
trade name infringement and unfair competition, claiming that the latter adopted the GALLO
trademark to ride on the former’s established reputation and popularity.
The RTC held Mighty Corporation liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
Issue:
Whether GALLO cigarettes and GALLO wines were identical, similar or related goods for the
reason alone that they were purportedly forms of vice
Ruling:
No. Confusion of goods is evident where the litigants are actually in competition; but confusion
of business may arise between non-competing interests as well.
Applying these legal precepts to the present case, petitioner’s use of the GALLO cigarette
trademark is not likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive the "ordinarily intelligent
buyer" of either wines or cigarettes or both as to the identity of the goods, their source and
origin, or identity of the business of petitioners and respondents. Obviously, wines and cigarettes
are not identical or competing products. Neither do they belong to the same class of goods.
CASE DIGEST
Respondents’ GALLO wines belong to Class 33 under Rule 84[a] Chapter III, Part II of the
Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases while petitioners’ GALLO cigarettes fall under Class 34
Well-Known Marks
Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 114508
Doctrine:
The essential requirement under Article 6bis is that the trademark to be protected must be
"wellknown" in the country where protection is sought. The power to determine whether a
trademark is well-known lies in the "competent authority of the country of registration or use."
This competent authority would be either the registering authority if it has the power to decide
this, or the courts of the country in question if the issue comes before a court.
Facts:
On June 15, 1970, one Lolita Escobar, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Pribhdas J.
Mirpuri, filed an application with the Bureau of Patents for the registration of the trademark
"Barbizon" for use in brassieres and ladies undergarments. Escobar alleged that she had been
manufacturing and selling these products under the firm name "L & BM Commercial" since
March 3, 1970. Private respondent Barbizon Corporation, a corporation organized and doing
business under the laws of New York, U.S.A., opposed the application. On June 18, 1974, the
Director of Patents rendered judgment dismissing the opposition and giving due course to
Escobar's application.
Escobar later assigned all her rights and interest over the trademark to petitioner Pribhdas J.
Mirpuri who, under his firm name then, the "Bonito Enterprises," was the sole and exclusive
distributor of Escobar's "Barbizon" products. In 1979, however, Escobar failed to file with the
Bureau of Patents the Affidavit of Use of the trademark required under Section 12 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 166, the Philippine Trademark Law. Due to this failure, the Bureau of Patents
cancelled Escobar's certificate of registration. On May 27, 1981, Escobar reapplied for
registration of the cancelled trademark. Mirpuri filed his own application for registration of
Escobar's trademark. Escobar later assigned her application to herein petitioner and this
application was opposed by private respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not a well-known mark is entitled to protection
Ruling:
Yes.
Article 6bis of the Paris Convention governs protection of well-known trademarks. Under the
first paragraph, each country of the Union bound itself to undertake to refuse or cancel the
registration, and prohibit the use of a trademark which is a reproduction, imitation or translation,
or any essential part of which trademark constitutes a reproduction, liable to create confusion, of
CASE DIGEST
a mark considered by the competent authority of the country where protection is sought, to be
well-known in the country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the
Convention, and used for identical or similar goods
The essential requirement under Article 6bis is that the trademark to be protected must be "well-
known" in the country where protection is sought. The power to determine whether a trademark
is well-known lies in the "competent authority of the country of registration or use." This
competent authority would be either the registering authority if it has the power to decide this, or
the courts of the country in question if the issue comes before a court.
Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J. Gallo Winery and the
Andresons Group, Inc.,
G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004
Doctrine:
The then Minister of Trade and Industry, the Hon. Roberto V. Ongpin, issued a memorandum
dated 25 October 1983 to the Director of Patents, a set of guidelines in the implementation of
Article 6bis of the Treaty of Paris. These conditions are: a) the mark must be internationally
known; b) the subject of the right must be a trademark, not a patent or copyright or anything else;
c) the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods; and d) the person claiming
must be the owner of the mark.
Facts:
Gallo Winery was organized under the laws of the State of California where all its wineries are
located. It sells its products in differ ent countries using various trademarks, including GALLO.
The GALLO wine trademark was registered with the Philippine Patent Office in 1971. Despite
said registration, GALLO wines were introduced in the Philippines only in 1974 within the U.S.
military facilities. In 1979, GALLO wines saw a bigger Philippine market through distributors
and independent outlets. However, in 1992, a distributor’s employee found GALLO cigarettes on
display in the wine cellar section of a supermarket in Davao City. GALLO cigarettes were
products of Mighty Corp. and its sister company, Tobacco Industries, which have been
manufacturing, selling, and distributing GALLO cigarettes throughout the Philippines since
1973. That same year, the Bureau of Internal Revenue approved Tobacco Industries’ use of the
GALLO 100’s cigarette mark, and three years later or in 1976, of the GALLO filter cigarette
mark. The GALLO cigarette trademark was registered with the Philippine Patent Office in 1985.
Gallo Winery filed suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Mighty Corp.
and Tobacco Industries, claiming that the use of GALLO cigarettes caused confusion on the part
of the purchasing public who had always associated GALLO with Gallo Winery’s products, thus
constituting a violation of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and
Republic Act No. 166 or the Trademark Law.
Issue:
CASE DIGEST
Whether or not Gallo Wine trademark is a well-known mark in the context of the Paris
Convention
Ruling:
No.
The Gallo Wine trademark is not a well-known mark in the context of the Paris Convention in
this case since wines and cigarettes are not identical or similar goods.
pursuant to our ruling in Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals and NSR Rubber
Corporation,123 "GALLO" cannot be considered a "well-known" mark within the contemplation
and protection of the Paris Convention in this case since wines and cigarettes are not identical or
similar goods:
We agree with public respondents that the controlling doctrine with respect to the applicability of
Article 8 of the Paris Convention is that established in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court (203 SCRA 59 [1991]). As pointed out by the BPTTT: "Regarding the
applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention, this Office believes that there is no automatic
protection afforded an entity whose tradename is alleged to have been infringed through the use
of that name as a trademark by a local entity.
Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc.,

G.R. No. 171053, October 15, 2007
Doctrine:
The scope of protection initially afforded by Article 6bis of the Paris Convention has been
expanded in the 1999 Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-
Known Marks, wherein the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) General Assembly
and the Paris Union agreed to a nonbinding recommendation that a well-known mark should be
protected in a country even if the mark is neither registered nor used in that country
Facts:
Respondent IN-N-OUT Burger, Inc., a foreign corporation organized under the laws of
California, U.S.A., and not doing business in the Philippines, filed before the Bureau of Legal
Affairs of the IPO (BLA-IPO), an administrative complaint against petitioners Sehwani, Inc. and
Benita's Frites, Inc. for violation of intellectual property rights, attorney's fees and damages with
prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent
alleged that it is the owner of the tradename "IN-N-OUT" and trademarks "IN-N-OUT," "IN-N-
OUT Burger & Arrow Design" and "IN-N-OUT Burger Logo," which are used in its business
since 1948 up to the present. These tradename and trademarks were registered in the United
States as well as in other parts of the world.
CASE DIGEST
On June 2, 1997, respondent applied with the IPO for the registration of its trademark "IN-N-
OUT Burger & Arrow Design" and servicemark "IN-N-OUT." In the course of its application,
respondent discovered that petitioner Sehwani, Inc. had obtained Trademark Registration No.
56666 for the mark "IN N OUT" (THE INSIDE OF THE LETTER "O" FORMED LIKE A
STAR) on December 17, 1993 without its authority. Respondent thus demanded that petitioner
Sehwani, Inc. desist from claiming ownership of the mark "IN-N-OUT" and to voluntarily cancel
its Trademark Registration No. 56666. Petitioner Sehwani, Inc. however refused to accede to the
demand and even entered into a Licensing Agreement granting its co-petitioner Benita's Frites,
Inc. license to use for a period of five years the trademark "IN-N-OUT BURGER" in its
restaurant in Pasig City.7 Hence, respondent filed a complaint for violation of intellectual
property rights.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent has no cause of action because its mark is not registered or used in the
Philippines
Ruling:
No.
Article 6bis which governs the protection of well-known trademarks, is a self-executing

provision and does not require legislative enactment to give it effect in the member country. It
may be applied directly by the tribunals and officials of each member country by the mere
publication or proclamation of the Convention, after its ratification according to the public law of
each state and the order for its execution. The essential requirement under this Article is that the
trademark to be protected must be "well-known" in the country where protection is sought. The
power to determine whether a trademark is well-known lies in the "competent authority of the
country of registration or use." This competent authority would be either the registering authority
if it has the power to decide this, or the courts of the country in question if the issue comes
before a court.
as shown by the records of the instant case, Complainant submitted evidence consisting of
articles about "IN-N-OUT Burger" appearing in magazines, newspapers and print-out of what
appears to be printed representations of its internet website (www.innout.com) (Exhibits "CCC"
to "QQQ"), as well as object evidence consisting of videotapes of famous celebrities mentioning
IN-NOUT burgers in the course of their interviews (Exhibits "EEEE" and "FFFF") showing a
tremendous following among celebrities.
Hence, on the basis of evidence presented consisting of worldwide registration of mark "IN-N-
OUT" almost all of which were issued earlier than the respondent's date of filing of its
application and the subsequent registration of the mark "IN-N-OUT" in this Office, as well as the
advertisements therein by the complainant, this Office hereby affirms its earlier declaration that
indeed, the mark "IN-N-OUT BURGER LOGO" is an internally well-known mark.
CASE DIGEST
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College,

GR No. 185917, June 1, 2011
Doctrine:
Thus, while under the territoriality principle a mark must be used in commerce in the Philippines
to be entitled to protection, internationally well-known marks are the exceptions to this rule
Rights Conferred by Registration
Facts:
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation (Fredco), filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No.
56561 before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) against
President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University), a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Massachusetts, United States of America. Fredco alleged that
Registration No. 56561 was issued to Harvard University for the mark "Harvard Veritas Shield
Symbol" for decals, tote bags, serving trays, sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats and flying discs under
Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 of the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services.
Fredco alleged that the mark "Harvard" for t-shirts, polo shirts, sandos, briefs, jackets and slacks
was first used in the Philippines by New York Garments Manufacturing & Export Co., Inc. (New
York Garments), Fredco’s predecessor-in-interest.
Harvard University, on the other hand, alleged that it is the lawful owner of the name and mark
"Harvard" in numerous countries worldwide, including the Philippines. Harvard University
further alleged that the name and the mark have been rated as one of the most famous brands in
the world, valued between US $750,000,000 and US $1,000,000,000. The Director General
noted that the mark covered by Harvard University’s Registration No. 56561 is not only the word
"Harvard" but also the logo, emblem or symbol of Harvard University. The Director General
ruled that Fredco failed to explain how its predecessor New York Garments came up with the
mark "Harvard." In addition, there was no evidence that Fredco or New York Garments was
licensed or authorized by Harvard University to use its name in commerce or for any other use.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Harvard University was able to substantiate that it appropriated
and used the marks "Harvard" and "Harvard Veritas Shield Symbol" in Class 25 way ahead of
Fredco and its predecessor New York Garments.
Issue:
Whether Respondent Harvard is entitled to protection
Ruling:
Yes.
Harvard" is the trade name of the world-famous Harvard University, and it is also a trademark of
Harvard University. Under Article 8 of the Paris Convention, as well as Section 37 of R.A. No.
166, Harvard University is entitled to protection in the Philippines of its trade name "Harvard"
even without registration of such trade name in the Philippines. This means that no educational
entity in the Philippines can use the trade name "Harvard" without the consent of Harvard
CASE DIGEST
University. Likewise, no entity in the Philippines can claim, expressly or impliedly through the
use of the name and mark "Harvard," that its products or services are authorized, approved, or
licensed by, or sourced from, Harvard University without the latter’s consent.
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang,

G.R. No. 183404,
Doctrine:
The owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not
having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs or
containers for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the
trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the
use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be
presumed.
Facts:
Norvy A. Abyadang , proprietor of NS Northern Organic Fertilizer, filed with the Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) a trademark application for the mark “NS D-10 PLUS” for use in
connection with Fungicide (Class 5) with active ingredient 80% Mancozeb. Berris Agricultural
Co., Inc. (Berris), with business address in Barangay Masiit, Calauan, Laguna, filed with the IPO
Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPOBLA) a Verified Notice of Opposition against the mark under
application allegedly because “NS D-10 PLUS” is similar and/or confusingly similar to its
registered trademark “D-10 80 WP,” also used for Fungicide (Class 5) with active ingredient
80% Mancozeb. The IPO-BLA ruled in favor of Berris holding that Abdayang’s mark “NS D-10
PLUS” is confusingly similar to the Berris’ mark . On appeal, Director General of the IPPDG
rendered a decision denying the appeal. Undeterred, Abyadang filed a petition for review before
the CA, which reversed the IPPDG decision reasoning that Abyadang’s mark “NS D-10 PLUS”
is not confusingly similar with respondent’s trademark “D-10 80 WP”; and Berris failed to
establish its ownership of the mark “D10 80 WP” and 3) respondent’s trademark registration for
“D-10 80 WP” may be cancelled in the present case to avoid multiplicity of suits. Berris’ Mr was
denied, hence this petition.
Culled from the records, Berris, as oppositor to Abyadang’s application for registration of his
trademark, presented the following evidence: (1) its trademark application dated November 29,
2002 with Application No. 4-2002-0010272; (2) its IPO certificate of registration dated October
25, 2004, with Registration No. 4-2002-010272 and July 8, 2004 as the date of registration; (3) a
photocopy of its packaging bearing the mark "D-10 80 WP"; (4) photocopies of its sales invoices
and official receipts; and (5) its notarized DAU dated April 23, 2003, stating that the mark was
first used on June 20, 2002, and indicating that, as proof of actual use, copies of official receipts
or sales invoices of goods using the mark were attached as Annex "B."
Issue:
Whether Berris is entitled to protection
CASE DIGEST
Ruling:
YES.
Berris was able to establish that it was using its mark "D-10 80 WP" since June 20, 2002, even
before it filed for its registration with the IPO on November 29, 2002, as shown by its DAU
which was under oath and notarized, bearing the stamp of the Bureau of Trademarks of the IPO
on April 25, 2003, and which stated that it had an attachment as Annex "B" sales invoices and
official receipts of goods bearing the mark. Indeed, the DAU, being a notarized document,
especially when received in due course by the IPO, is evidence of the facts it stated and has the
presumption of regularity, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, the burden of proof
to overcome the presumption of authenticity and due execution lies on the party contesting it,
and the rebutting evidence should be clear, strong, and convincing as to preclude all controversy
as to the falsity of the certificate. What is more, the DAU is buttressed by the Certification dated
April 21, 2006 issued by the Bureau of Trademarks that Berris’ mark is still valid and existing.
Therefore, Berris, as prior user and prior registrant, is the owner of the mark "D-10 80 WP."
Infringement and Remedies
Conrad and Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

246 SCRA 691 (1995)
Doctrine:
It might be mentioned that while an application for the administrative cancellation of a registered
trademark on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended,
otherwise known as the Trade-Mark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT (Sec.
19, TradeMark Law), an action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the
remedy of injunction and relief for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the
competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
Facts:
Respondents FITRITE, INC. and VICTORIA BISCUIT CO., INC., both domestic corporations,
are engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing biscuits and cookies
bearing the trademark "SUNSHINE" in the Philippines. Petitioner CONRAD AND COMPANY
is also engaged in the business of importing, selling and distributing biscuits and cookies in the
Philippines. Sometime in April 1982, plaintiff FITRITE filed in the Bureau of Patents,
Trademarks and Technology Transfer (hereto referred as BPTTT) applications for registration of
the trademark "SUNSHINE," both in the Supplemental and Principal Registers, to be used on
biscuits and cookies. Since March 31, 1981 FITRITE had exclusively used this trademark in the
concept of owner on its biscuits and cookies. On May 20, 1983 FITRITE's application for this
trademark in the Supplemental Register was approved by the BPTTT and FITRITE was issued a
Certificate of Registration No. SR-6217 for a term of 20 years from the date of approval. On
March 22, 1990 FITRITE's application for the same trademark in the Principal Register was
CASE DIGEST
approved by BPTTT and FITRITE was issued a Certificate of Registration No. 47590 for a term
of 20 years from said date of approval. On June 28, 1984 FITRITE authorized its sister company,
co-plaintiff VICTORIA BISCUIT CO., to use this trademark on its biscuits and cookies, as well
as to manufacture, promote, sell and distribute products bearing said trademark.
On September 7, 1990, FITRITE assigned its trademark "SUNSHINE AND DEVICE LABEL,"
together with its interest and business goodwill to said VICTORIA BISCUIT. From the time
FITRITE was issued the Certificate of Registration for this trademark on May 20, 1983 up to the
filing of the complaint a quo FITRITE and VICTORIA BISCUIT have been manufacturing,
selling and distributing on a massive scale biscuits and cookies bearing this trademark; so that
through the years of extensive marketing of plaintiffs' biscuits and cookies with this trademark,
their products have become popularly known and enjoyed wide acceptability in Metro Manila
and in the provinces.
acts of CONRAD, done without plaintiffs' consent, were deliberately calculated to mislead and
deceive the purchasers by making them believe that its (CONRAD'S) "Sunshine" products had
originated from plaintiffs and thereby inducing them to patronize those products, all to the
damage and prejudice of both the purchasing public and plaintiffs. Through their counsel,
plaintiffs addressed a letter to CONRAD demanding, among other things, that it cease and desist
from continuing with those acts, but the demand was ignored. Being acts of infringement and
unfair competition in violation of plaintiffs' rights, plaintiffs can validly avail themselves of the
remedies against infringement under Sec. 23 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended, as well as of
the remedies against unfair competition under Sec. 29 of the same statute.
Issue:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over an action for infringement
Ruling:
YES.
It might be mentioned that while an application for the administrative cancellation of a registered
trademark on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended,
otherwise known as the Trade-Mark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT (Sec.
19, Trade-Mark Law), an action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the
remedy of injunction and relief for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the
competence and jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
An application with BPTTT for an administrative cancellation of a registered trade mark cannot
per se have the effect of restraining or preventing the courts from the exercise of their lawfully
conferred jurisdiction. A contrary rule would unduly expand the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
which, simply expressed, would merely behoove regular courts, in controversies involving
specialized disputes, to defer to the findings of resolutions of administrative tribunals on certain
technical matters. This rule, evidently, did not escape the appellate court for it likewise decreed
CASE DIGEST
that for "good cause shown, the lower court, in its sound discretion, may suspend the action
pending outcome of the cancellation proceedings" before BPTTT.
Shangri-la International Hotel Management Ltd., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 359 SCRA 273
(2001)  Melbarose R. Sasot and Allandale R. Sasot vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 143193, June 29, 2005
Doctrine:
Following both law and the jurisprudence enunciated in Conrad and Company, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, the infringement case can and should proceed independently from the cancellation case
with the Bureau so as to afford the owner of certificates of registration redress and injunctive
writs. In the same light, so must the cancellation case with the BPTTT (now the Bureau of Legal
Affairs, Intellectual Property Office) continue independently from the infringement case so as to
determine whether a registered mark may ultimately be cancelled.
Facts:
On June 21, 1988, the Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., Shangri-La Properties,
Inc., Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. and Kuok Philippine Properties, Inc. (hereinafter
collectively referred as the "Shangri-La Group"), filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks
and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a petition, docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 3145, praying
for the cancellation of the registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" device/logo issued to the
Developers Group of Companies, Inc., on the ground that the same was illegally and fraudulently
obtained and appropriated for the latter's restaurant business. The Shangri-La Group alleged that
it is the legal and beneficial owners of the subject mark and logo; that it has been using the said
mark and logo for its corporate affairs and business since March 1962 and caused the same to be
specially designed for their international hotels in 1975, much earlier than the alleged first use
thereof by the Developers Group in 1982.
Likewise, the Shangri-La Group filed with the BPTTT its own application for registration of the
subject mark and logo. The Developers Group filed an opposition to the application, which was
docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 3529.
On January 8, 1992, the Shangri-La Group moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the
infringement case on account of the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the
BPTTT.1This was denied by the trial court in a Resolution issued on January 16, 1992. The
ShangriLa Group filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Soon thereafter, it also filed a Motion to
Inhibit against Presiding Judge Felix M. de Guzman. On July 1, 1992, the trial court denied both
motions. The Shangri-La Group filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals rendered its decision dismissing the petition for certiorari. Meanwhile, on
October 28, 1991, the Developers Group filed in Inter Partes Case No. 3145 an Urgent Motion to
Suspend Proceedings, invoking the pendency of the infringement case it filed before the
CASE DIGEST
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On January 10, 1992, the BPTTT issued an Order denying
the Motion.
Issue:
Whether, despite the institution of an Inter Partes case for cancellation of a mark with the BPTTT
(now the Bureau of Legal Affairs, Intellectual Property Office) by one party, the adverse party
can file a subsequent action for infringement with the regular courts of justice in connection with
the same registered mar
Ruling:
YES.
the earlier filing of petition to cancel the mark with the Bureau of Legal Affairs shall not
constitute a prejudicial question that must be resolved before an action to enforce the rights to
same registered mark may be decided.
Similarly, Rule 8, Section 7, of the Regulations on Inter Partes Proceedings, provides to wit -
Section 7. Effect of filing of a suit before the Bureau or with the proper court. - The filing of a
suit to enforce the registered mark with the proper court or Bureau shall exclude any other court
or agency from assuming jurisdiction over a subsequently filed petition to cancel the same mark.
On the other hand, the earlier filing of petition to cancel the mark with the Bureau shall not
constitute a prejudicial question that must be resolved before an action to enforce the rights to
same registered mark may be decided.
We cannot see any error in the above disquisition. It might be mentioned that while an
application for the administrative cancellation of a registered trademark on any of the grounds
enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended, otherwise known as the Trade-
Mark Law, falls under the exclusive cognizance of BPTTT (Sec. 19, Trade-Mark Law), an
action, however, for infringement or unfair competition, as well as the remedy of injunction and
relief for damages, is explicitly and unquestionably within the competence and jurisdiction of
ordinary courts
There can be no denying that the infringement court may validly pass upon the right of
registration. Section 161 of Republic Act No. 8293 provides to wit - SEC. 161. Authority to
Determine Right to Registration - In any action involving a registered mark the court may
determine the right to registration, order the cancellation of the registration, in whole or in part,
and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registration of any party to the action in the
exercise of this. Judgement and orders shall be certified by the court to the Director, who shall
make appropriate entry upon the records of the Bureau, and shall be controlled thereby. (Sec. 25,
R.A. No. 166a).
Tanduay Distillers, Inc.,vs. Ginebra San Miguel, Inc.,

G.R. No. 164324, August 14, 2009
CASE DIGEST
Doctrine:
A writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately
compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of
injunction rests in the probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary compensation
and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case
within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
Facts:
Tanduay, a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, has been engaged in the
liquor business since 1854. In 2002, Tanduay developed a new gin product distinguished by its
sweet smell, smooth taste, and affordable price. The brand name eventually chosen was "Ginebra
Kapitan" with the representation of a revolutionary Kapitan on horseback as the dominant feature
of its label. Tanduay points out that the label design of "Ginebra Kapitan" in terms of color
scheme, size and arrangement of text, and other label features were precisely selected to
distinguish it from the leading gin brand in the Philippine market, "Ginebra San Miguel."
Tanduay received a letter from San Miguel's counsel. The letter informed Tanduay to
immediately cease and desist from using the mark "Ginebra" and from committing acts that
violate San Miguel's intellectual property rights. San Miguel filed a complaint for trademark
infringement, unfair competition and damages, with applications for issuance of TRO and Writ
of Preliminary Injunction against Tanduay.
Issue:
Whether or not San Miguel is entitled to the writ of preliminary injunction
Ruling:
No.
Before an injunctive writ is issued, it is essential that the following requisites are present: (1) the
existence of a right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is directed are
violative of the right. The onus probandi is on the movant to show that the invasion of the right
sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of the movant is clear and
unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage.
We find that San Miguel’s right to injunctive relief has not been clearly and unmistakably
demonstrated. The right to the exclusive use of the word "Ginebra" has yet to be determined in
the main case. The trial court’s grant of the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of San Miguel,
despite the lack of a clear and unmistakable right on its part, constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
W Land Holdings, Inc. v. Starwood Hotels And Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

G.R. No. 222366, December 4, 2017
CASE DIGEST
Doctrine:
RULE 205. Contents of the Declaration and Evidence of Actual Use.— (c) The following shall
be accepted as proof of actual use of the mark: (1) labels of the mark as these are used; (2)
downloaded pages from the website of the applicant or registrant clearly showing that the goods
are being sold or the services are being rendered in the Philippines; (3) photographs (including
digital photographs printed on ordinary paper) of goods bearing the marks as these are actually
used or of the stamped or marked container of goods and of the establishment/s where the
services are being rendered; (4) brochures or advertising materials showing the actual use of the
mark on the goods being sold or services being rendered in the Philippines; (5) for online sale,
receipts of sale of the goods or services rendered or other similar evidence of use, showing that
the goods are placed on the market or the services are available in the Philippines or that the
transaction took place in the Philippines; (6) copies of contracts for services showing the use of
the mark. Computer printouts of the drawing or reproduction of marks will not be accepted as
evidence of use.
Facts:
On December 2, 2005, Starwood filed before the IPO an application for registration of the
trademark "W" for Classes 43 and 44 of the International Classification of Goods and Services
for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification). On February 26, 2007,
Starwood's application was granted and thus, the "W" mark was registered in its name. However,
on April 20, 2006, W Land applied for the registration of its own "W" mark for Class 36, which
thereby prompted Starwood to oppose the same. In a Decision dated April 23, 2008, the BLA
found merit in Starwood's opposition, and ruled that W Land's "W" mark is confusingly similar
with Starwood's mark, which had an earlier filing date. W Land filed a motion for
reconsideration on June 11, 2008, which was denied by the BLA in a Resolution dated July 23,
2010. On May 29, 2009, W Land filed a Petition for Cancellation of Starwood's mark for non-use
under Section 151.1 of Republic Act No. 8293 or the "Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines" (IP Code), claiming that Starwood has failed to use its mark in the Philippines
because it has no hotel or establishment in the Philippines rendering the services covered by its
registration; and that Starwood's "W" mark application and registration barred its own "'W" mark
application and registration for use on real estate.
In its defense, Starwood denied having abandoned the subject mark on the ground of non-use,
asserting that it filed with the Director of Trademarks a notarized Declaration of Actual Use
(DAU) with evidence of use on December 2, 2008, which was not rejected. In this relation,
Starwood argued that it conducts hotel and leisure business both directly and indirectly through
subsidiaries and franchisees, and operates interactive websites for its W Hotels in order to
accommodate its potential clients worldwide. According to Starwood, apart from viewing agents,
discounts, promotions, and other marketing fields being offered by it, these interactive websites
allow Philippine residents to make reservations and bookings, which presuppose clear and
convincing use of the "W'' mark in the Philippines.
Issue:
CASE DIGEST
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the IPO DG's dismissal of W Land's Petition for
Cancellation of Starwood's "W'' mark
Ruling:
Yes.
In Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Abyadang, this Court explained that "[t]he ownership of a
trademark is acquired by its registration and its actual use by the manufacturer or distributor of
the goods made available to the purchasing public. x x x. A certificate of registration of a mark,
once issued, constitutes prima facieevidence of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's
ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with
the goods or services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate." However, "the
prima facie presumption brought about by the registration of a mark may be challenged and
overcome, in an appropriate action, by proof of[, among others,] non-use of the mark, except
when excused.
The IP Code and the Trademark Regulations have not specifically defined "use." However, it is
understood that the "use" which the law requires to maintain the registration of a mark must be
genuine, and not merely token. Based on foreign authorities, genuine use may be characterized
as a bona fide use which results or tends to result, in one way or another, into a commercial
interaction or transaction "in the ordinary course of trade."
In this case, Starwood has proven that it owns Philippine registered domain names, i.e.,
www.whotels.ph, www.wreservations.ph, www.whotel.ph, www.wreservation.ph, for its website
that showcase its mark. The website is readily accessible to Philippine citizens and residents,
where they can avail and book amenities and other services in any of Starwood's W Hotels
worldwide. Its website also readily provides a phone number for Philippine consumers to call for
information or other concerns. The website further uses the English language - considered as an
official language in this country - which the relevant market in the Philippines understands and
often uses in the daily conduct of affairs. In addition, the prices for its hotel accommodations
and/or services can be converted into the local currency or the Philippine Peso. Amidst all of
these features, Starwood's "W" mark is prominently displayed in the website through which
consumers in the Philippines can instantaneously book and pay for their accommodations, with
immediate confirmation, in any of its W Hotels. Furthermore, it has presented data showing a
considerably growing number of internet users in the Philippines visiting its website since 2003,
which is enough to conclude that Starwood has established commercially-motivated relationships
with Philippine consumers.
CATERPILLAR, INC., Petitioner, v. MANOLO P. SAMSON

G.R. No. 205972 and G.R. No. 164352, November 9, 2016
Doctrine:
CASE DIGEST
An action for the cancellation of trademark is a remedy available to a person who believes that
he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark. On the other hand, the criminal actions for
unfair competition involved the determination of whether or not Samson had given his goods the
general appearance of the goods of Caterpillar, with the intent to deceive the public or defraud
Caterpillar as his competitor. In the suit for the cancellation of trademark, the issue of lawful
registration should necessarily be determined, but registration was not a consideration necessary
in unfair competition. Indeed, unfair competition is committed if the effect of the act is "to pass
off to the public the goods of one man as the goods of another;" it is independent of registration.
Facts:
Caterpillar is a foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture and distribution of footwear,
clothing and related items, among others. Its products are known for six core trademarks,
namely, "CATERPILLAR", "CAT" "CATERPILLAR & DESIGN" "CAT AND DESIGN",
"WALKING MACHINES" and "TRACK-TYPE TRACTOR & DESIGN (Core Marks), all of
which are alleged as internationally known. On the other hand, Samson, doing business under the
names and styles of Itti Shoes Corporation, Kolm's Manufacturing Corporation and Caterpillar
Boutique and General Merchandise, is the proprietor of various retail outlets in the Philippines
selling footwear, bags, clothing, and related items under the trademark "CATERPILLAR",
registered in 1997 under Trademark Registration No. 64705 issued by the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO). On July 26, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 56, in Makati City
issued Search Warrants for unfair competition, to search the establishments owned, controlled
and operated by Samson. The implementation of the search warrants on July 27, 2000 led to the
seizure of various products bearing Caterpillar's Core Marks
Caterpillar filed against Samson several criminal complaints for unfair competition in the
Department of Justice (DOJ). Additionally, on July 31, 2000, Caterpillar commenced a civil
action against Samson and his business entities, with the IPO as a nominal party10 - for Unfair
Competition, Damages and Cancellation of Trademark with Application for Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the RTC in Quezon City.
The DOJ, issued a joint resolution recommending that Samson be criminally charged with unfair
competition under Section 168.3 (a), in relation to Section 123.l(e), Section 131.1 and Section
170, all of Republic Act No. 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code).
Caterpillar filed 26 criminal complaints for unfair competition on January 31, 2001 against
Samson and/or the occupants of his affiliate entities before the DOJ. Accordingly, six criminal
complaints were filed in the RTC, Branch 256, in Muntinlupa City. Samson filed a motion to
suspend arraignment on the ground of prejudicial question.
Issue:
Whether an action for the cancellation of trademark is a prejudicial question to a criminal action
for unfair competition
Ruling:
NO.
CASE DIGEST
The elements of a prejudicial question are provided in Section 7 of Rule 111, Rules of Court, to
wit: (a) a previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar to or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
An examination of the nature of the two kinds of cases involved is necessary to determine
whether a prejudicial question existed. An action for the cancellation of trademark like Civil
Case No. Q-00-41446 is a remedy available to a person who believes that he is or will be
damaged by the registration of a mark. On the other hand, the criminal actions for unfair
competition (Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-108043-44) involved the determination of whether or
not Samson had given his goods the general appearance of the goods of Caterpillar, with the
intent to deceive the public or defraud Caterpillar as his competitor. In the suit for the
cancellation of trademark, the issue of lawful registration should necessarily be determined, but
registration was not a consideration necessary in unfair competition. Indeed, unfair competition
is committed if the effect of the act is "to pass off to the public the goods of one man as the
goods of another;" it is independent of registration. As fittingly put in R.F. & Alexander & Co. v.
Ang, "one may be declared unfair competitor even if his competing trade-mark is registered."
Clearly, the determination of the lawful ownership of the trademark in the civil action was not
determinative of whether or not the criminal actions for unfair competition shall proceed against
Samson.
Trademark Infringement
 Del Monte Corporation and Philippine Packing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
78325, January 25, 1990
 Asia Brewery, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 103543, July
5, 1993  Pearl & Dean (Philippines) Inc. vs. Shoemart, Inc., G.R. No. 148222, ibid
 William C. Yao, Sr., et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R No. 168306, June 19, 2007
 Ong vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169440, November 23, 2011
 Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al., G.R. No.
194062, June 17, 2013
 Century Chinese Medicine Co., et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188526,
November 11, 2013
 ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. v. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916, [June
20, 2018]
 Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 205409, June 13, 2018, Leonen, J.
 L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC., v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, G.R. No. 233073,
FIRST DIVISION, February 14, 2018, TIJAM, J.
Unfair Competition
 Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 103543,
 McDonald’s Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, ibid
 Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Supergreen, Inc., 518 SCRA 750 (2007)
CASE DIGEST
 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.,(CCBPI), Naga Plant vs. Quintin Gomez, et, al., G.R. No.
154491, November 14, 2008
 Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), et. al. vs. Petron Corporation, et. al., G.R. No.
194062, ibid  Shang Properties Realty Corporation (formerly the Shang Grand Tower
Corporation) and Shang Properties Inc., (formerly EDSA Properties Holdings, Inc.) vs. St
Francis Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190706, July 21, 2014
 Roberto Co vs. Keng Huan Jerry Yeung and Emma Yeung, G.R. No. 212705, September 10,
2014
 San Miguel Pure Foods Co., Inc. v. Foodsphere, Inc., G.R. Nos. 217781 & 217788, [June 20,
2018]
Trade Names or Business Names
Converse Rubber Corporation vs. Universal Rubber Products, Inc.,

G.R. No. L-27906, January 8, 1987
Doctrine:
A foreign corporation which has never done any business in the Philippines and which is
unlicensed and unregistered to do business here, but is widely and favorably known in the
Philippines through the use therein of its products bearing its corporate and tradename, has a
legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof
from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the foreign corporation, when it
appears that they have personal knowledge of the existence of such a foreign corporation, and it
is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same
goods as those of the foreign corporation.
Facts:
The petitioner’s corporate name is ‘CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION’ and has been in
existence since July 31, 1946; it is duly organized under the laws of Massachusetts, USA and
doing business at 392 Pearl St., Malden, County of Middlesex, Massachusetts; Petitioner is not
licensed to do business in the Philippines and it is not doing business on its own in the
Philippines; and, Petitioner manufacturers rubber shoes and uses thereon the trademarks
‘CHUCK TAYLOR’ and ‘ALL STAR AND DEVICE’.
At the trial, petitioner’s lone witness, Mrs. Carmen B. Pacquing, a duly licensed private merchant
with stores at the Sta. Mesa Market and in Davao City, testified that she had been selling
CONVERSE rubber shoes in the local market since 1956 and that sales of petitioner’s rubber
shoes in her stores averaged twelve to twenty pairs a month purchased mostly by basketball
players of local private educational institutions like Ateneo, La Salle and San Beda. Mrs.
Pacquing, further stated that she knew petitioner’s rubber shoes came from the United States
"because it says there in the trademark Converse Chuck Taylor with star red or blue and is a
round figure and made in U.S.A" In the invoices issued by her store, the rubber shoes were
CASE DIGEST
described as "Converse Chuck Taylor", "Converse All Star," "All Star Converse Chuck Taylor,"
or "Converse Shoes Chuck Taylor." She also affirmed that she had no business connection with
the petitioner. Respondent, on the other hand, presented as its lone witness the secretary of said
corporation who testified that respondent has been selling on wholesale basis "Universal
Converse" sandals since 1962 and "Universal Converse" rubber shoes since 1963. Invoices were
submitted as evidence of such sales. The witness also testified that she had no idea why
respondent chose "Universal Converse" as a trademark and that she was unaware of the name
"Converse" prior to her corporation’s sale of "Universal Converse" rubber shoes and rubber
sandals.
Issue:
Whether or not the Director of Patents is correct in holding that since the petitioner is not
licensed to do business in the country and is actually not doing business on its own in the
Philippines, it has no name to protect in the forum
Ruling:
That a foreign corporation has a right to maintain an action in the forum even if it is not licensed
to do business and is not actually doing business on its own therein has been enunciated many
times by this Court.
a foreign corporation which has never done any business in the Philippines and which is
unlicensed and unregistered to do business here, but is widely and favorably known in the
Philippines through the use therein of its products bearing its corporate and tradename, has a
legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof
from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the foreign corporation, when it
appears that they have personal knowledge of the existence of such a foreign corporation, and it
is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same
goods as those of the foreign corporation.
Coffee Partners vs. San Francisco Coffee and Roastery, Inc.,

G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010
Doctrine:
RA 8293, which took effect on 1 January 1998, has dispensed with the registration requirement.
Section 165.2 of RA 8293 categorically states that trade names shall be protected, even prior to
or without registration with the IPO, against any unlawful act including any subsequent use of
the trade name by a third party, whether as a trade name or a trademark likely to mislead the
public.
Facts:
Petitioner Coffee Partners, Inc. is a local corporation engaged in the business of establishing and
maintaining coffee shops in the country. It registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in January 2001. It has a franchise agreementwith Coffee Partners Ltd.
CASE DIGEST
(CPL), a business entity organized and existing under the laws of British Virgin Islands, for a
non-exclusive right to operate coffee shops in the Philippines using trademarks designed by CPL
such as "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE." Respondent is a local corporation engaged in the
wholesale and retail sale of coffee. It registered with the SEC in May 1995. It registered the
business name "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC." with the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) in June 1995. Respondent had since built a customer base that included
Figaro Company, Tagaytay Highlands, Fat Willy’s, and other coffee companies.
Petitioner was about to open a coffee shop under the name "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE" in
Libis, Quezon City. According to respondent, petitioner’s shop caused confusion in the minds of
the public as it bore a similar name and it also engaged in the business of selling coffee.
Respondent sent a letter to petitioner demanding that the latter stop using the name "SAN
FRANCISCO COFFEE." Respondent also filed a complaint with the Bureau of Legal Affairs-
Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO) for infringement and/or unfair competition with claims
for damages. BLA-IPO held that petitioner’s trademark infringed on respondent’s trade name. It
ruled that the right to the exclusive use of a trade name with freedom from infringement by
similarity is determined from priority of adoption.
Petitioner contends that when a trade name is not registered, a suit for infringement is not
available. Petitioner alleges respondent has abandoned its trade name. Petitioner points out that
respondent’s registration of its business name with the DTI expired on 16 June 2000 and it was
only in 2001 when petitioner opened a coffee shop in Libis, Quezon City that respondent made a
belated effort to seek the renewal of its business name registration.
Issue:
Whether petitioner’s use of the trademark "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE" constitutes
infringement of respondent’s trade name "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC.,"
even if the trade name is not registered with the Intellectual Property Office
Ruling:
Yes.
Applying either the dominancy test or the holistic test, petitioner’s "SAN FRANCISCO
COFFEE" trademark is a clear infringement of respondent’s "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE &
ROASTERY, INC." trade name. The descriptive words "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE" are
precisely the dominant features of respondent’s trade name. Petitioner and respondent are
engaged in the same business of selling coffee, whether wholesale or retail. The likelihood of
confusion is higher in cases where the business of one corporation is the same or substantially
the same as that of another corporation. In this case, the consuming public will likely be
confused as to the source of the coffee being sold at petitioner’s coffee shops. Petitioner’s
argument that "San Francisco" is just a proper name referring to the famous city in California
and that "coffee" is simply a generic term, is untenable. Respondent has acquired an exclusive
right to the use of the trade name "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC." since the
registration of the business name with the DTI in 1995. Thus, respondent’s use of its trade name
CASE DIGEST
from then on must be free from any infringement by similarity. Of course, this does not mean
that respondent has exclusive use of the geographic word "San Francisco" or the generic word
"coffee." Geographic or generic words are not, per se, subject to exclusive appropriation. It is
only the combination of the words "SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE," which is respondent’s trade
name in its coffee business, that is protected against infringement on matters related to the coffee
business to avoid confusing or deceiving the public.
Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College,

GR No. 185917
Doctrine:
To be protected, an internationally well-known mark need not be registered or used in the
Philippines. All that is required is that the mark is well-known internationally and in the
Philippines for identical or similar goods, whether or not the mark is registered or used in the
Philippines.
Facts:
Harvard University alleged that in March 2002, it discovered, through its international trademark
watch program, Fredco’s website www.harvard-usa.com. The website advertises and promotes
the brand name "Harvard Jeans USA" without Harvard University’s consent. The website’s main
page shows an oblong logo bearing the mark "Harvard Jeans USA®," "Established 1936," and
"Cambridge, Massachusetts." On 20 April 2004, Harvard University filed an administrative
complaint against Fredco before the IPO for trademark infringement and/or unfair competition
with damages. Director Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo of the Bureau of Legal Affairs, IPO cancelled
Harvard University’s registration of the mark "Harvard" under Class 25.
The Director General ruled that more than the use of the trademark in the Philippines, the
applicant must be the owner of the mark sought to be registered. The Director General ruled that
the right to register a trademark is based on ownership and when the applicant is not the owner,
he has no right to register the mark. The Director General noted that the mark covered by
Harvard University’s Registration No. 56561 is not only the word "Harvard" but also the logo,
emblem or symbol of Harvard University
Issue:
Whether or not there was trademark infringement.
Ruling:
Yes.
There is no dispute that the mark "Harvard" used by Fredco is the same as the mark "Harvard" in
the "Harvard Veritas Shield Symbol" of Harvard University. It is also not disputed that Harvard
University was named Harvard College in 1639 and that then, as now, Harvard University is
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. It is also unrefuted that Harvard University has
CASE DIGEST
been using the mark "Harvard" in commerce since 1872. It is also established that Harvard
University has been using the marks "Harvard" and "Harvard Veritas Shield Symbol" for Class
25 goods in the United States since 1953. Further, there is no dispute that Harvard University has
registered the name and mark "Harvard" in at least 50 countries.
There is no question then, and this Court so declares, that "Harvard" is a well-known name and
mark not only in the United States but also internationally, including the Philippines. The mark
"Harvard" is rated as one of the most famous marks in the world. It has been registered in at least
50 countries. It has been used and promoted extensively in numerous publications worldwide. It
has established a considerable goodwill worldwide since the founding of Harvard University
more than 350 years ago. It is easily recognizable as the trade name and mark of Harvard
University of Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., internationally known as one of the leading
educational institutions in the world. As such, even before Harvard University applied for
registration of the mark "Harvard" in the Philippines, the mark was already protected under
Article 6bis and Article 8 of the Paris Convention. Again, even without applying the Paris
Convention, Harvard University can invoke Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 166 which prohibits the
registration of a mark "which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living
or dead, institutions
Ecole De Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaus Cointreau & Cie and
Le Cordon Bleu Int’l, B.V.,
G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013
Doctrine:
The function of a trademark is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the goods (or
services)to which it is affixed; to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into the
market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill; to assure the public
that they are procuring the genuine article; to prevent fraud and imposition; and to protect the
manufacturer against substitution and sale of an inferior and different article as his product." As
such, courts will protect trade names or marks, although not registered or properly selected as
trademarks, on the broad ground of enforcing justice and protecting one in the fruits of his toil.
Facts:
On June 21, 1990, Cointreau, a partnership registered under the laws of France, filed before the
(now defunct) Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) of the
Department of Trade and Industry a trademark application for the mark "LE CORDON BLEU &
DEVICE" for goods falling under classes 8, 9, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 30 of the International
Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registrations of Marks ("Nice
Classification") (subject mark). The application was filed pursuant to Section 37 of Republic Act
No. 166, as amended (R.A. No. 166), on the basis of Home Registration No. 1,390,912, issued
on November 25, 1986 in France. Bearing Serial No. 72264, such application was published for
opposition in the March-April 1993 issue of the BPTTT Gazette and released for circulation on
May 31, 1993. On July 23, 1993, petitioner Ecole De Cuisine Manille, Inc. (Ecole) filed an
CASE DIGEST
opposition to the subject application, averring that: (a) it is the owner of the mark "LE CORDON
BLEU, ECOLE DE CUISINE MANILLE," which it has been using since 1948 in cooking and
other culinary activities, including in its restaurant business; and (b) it has earned immense and
invaluable goodwill such that Cointreau’s use of the subject mark will actually create confusion,
mistake, and deception to the buying public as to the origin and sponsorship of the goods, and
cause great and irreparable injury and damage to Ecole’s business reputation and goodwill as a
senior user of the same. On October 7, 1993, Cointreau filed its answer claiming to be the true
and lawful owner of the subject mark. It averred that: (a) it has filed applications for the subject
mark’s registration in various jurisdictions, including the Philippines; (b) Le Cordon Bleu is a
culinary school of worldwide acclaim which was established in Paris, France in 1895; (c) Le
Cordon Bleu was the first cooking school to have set the standard for the teaching of classical
French cuisine and pastry making; and (d) it has trained students from more than eighty (80)
nationalities, including Ecole’s directress, Ms. Lourdes L. Dayrit. Thus, Cointreau concluded that
Ecole’s claim of being the exclusive owner of the subject mark is a fraudulent misrepresentation.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Cointreau was issued Certificates of Registration Nos.
60631 and 54352 for the marks "CORDON BLEU & DEVICE" and "LE CORDON BLEU
PARIS 1895 & DEVICE" for goods and services under classes 21 and 41 of the Nice
Classification, respectively. Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO sustained Ecole’s
opposition to the subject mark, necessarily resulting in the rejection of Cointreau’s application.
While noting the certificates of registration obtained from other countries and other pertinent
materials showing the use of the subject mark outside the Philippines, the BLA did not find such
evidence sufficient to establish Cointreau’s claim of prior use of the same in the Philippines. IPO
Director General reversed and set aside the BLA’s decision, thus, granting Cointreau’s appeal
and allowing the registration of the subject mark.He held that while Section 2 of R.A. No. 166
requires actual use of the subject mark in commerce in the Philippines for at least two (2) months
before the filing date of the application, only the owner thereof has the right to register the same,
explaining that the user of a mark in the Philippines is not ipso facto its owner.
Issue:
Whether the CA was correct in upholding the IPO Director General’s ruling that Cointreau is the
true and lawful owner of the subject mark and thus, entitled to have the same registered under its
name
Ruling:
Yes.
Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 166, in order to register a trademark, one must be the owner thereof
and must have actually used the mark in commerce in the Philippines for two (2) months prior to
the application for registration. Section 2-A of the same law sets out to define how one goes
about acquiring ownership thereof. Under Section 2-A, it is clear that actual use in commerce is
also the test of ownership but the provision went further by saying that the mark must not have
been so appropriated by another. Additionally, it is significant to note that Section 2-A does not
require that the actual use of a trademark must be within the Philippines. Thus, as correctly
CASE DIGEST
mentioned by the CA, under R.A. No. 166, one may be an owner of a mark due to its actual use
but may not yet have the right to register such ownership here due to the owner’s failure to use
the same in the Philippines for two (2) months prior to registration.
In view of the obligations under the Paris Convention, the Philippines is obligated to assure
nationals of the signatory-countries that they are afforded an effective protection against
violation of their intellectual property rights in the Philippines in the same way that their own
countries are obligated to accord similar protection to Philippine nationals."Thus, under
Philippine law, a trade name of a national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention,
whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected "without the obligation of
filing or registration.’"
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Cointreau has been using the subject mark in France
since 1895, prior to Ecole’s averred first use of the same in the Philippines in 1948, of which the
latter was fully aware thereof. In fact, Ecole’s present directress, Ms. Lourdes L. Dayrit (and
even its foundress, Pat Limjuco Dayrit), had trained in Cointreau’s Le Cordon Bleu culinary
school in Paris, France. Cointreau was likewise the first registrant of the said mark under various
classes, both abroad and in the Philippines, having secured Home Registration No. 1,390,912
dated November 25, 1986 from its country of origin, as well as several trademark registrations in
the Philippines.

Trademarks - CASES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trademarks - CASES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trademarks - CASES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MILCA, MIKE ZACCAHRY M.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals

Later, Escobar assigned all her rights to petitioner Mirpuri.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. PAQUITO

a. International agreement – shall refer to a contract or understanding, regardless of

b. Treaties – international agreements entered into by the Philippines which require

2. There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code

Acquisition of Ownership of Mark

Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc.,

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC.

On the Issue of Unfair Competition – NO

Section 12 of RA 166 requires the filing of a DAU on specified periods, provides:

Taiwan Kolin Corporation, LTD. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v. H.D. Lee Company, Inc.

Lyceum of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,

Societe Des Produits, Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club, Inc.

(i) The same goods or services, or

(ii) Closely related goods or services, or

(iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;

Nestle claimed exclusive ownership of the “COFFEE-MATE” trademark, contending that

Kensonic, Inc. v. Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc., (Phil.)

Prior Use of Mark as a Requirement

Mattel, Inc. vs. Emma Francisco, et al.

Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marks

Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Cluett Peabody Co., Inc.,

b) DEVICE, representation of a sock and magnifying glass on the toe of a sock;

c) DEVICE, consisting of a 'plurality of gold-colored lines arranged in parallel relation within a

McDonald’s Corporation vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.

McDonald’s Corporation vs. Macjoy Fastfood Corporation

Prosource International, Inc. vs. Horphag Research Management SA

Respondent Horphag Research Management SA is a corporation organized and existing under

Subsequently, Horphag t filed a Complaint for Infringement of Trademark against Prosource

Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang

Dermaline, Inc. vs. Myra Phamaceuticals, Inc.

Soceite Des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Dy, Jr.,

Sketchers USA vs. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation

Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc. v. IFP Manufacturing Corporation

Citigroup, Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.

Fruit of the Loom, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation

Whether or not there is infringement

Victorio Diaz vs. People of the Philippines

Seri Somboonsakdikul v. Orlane S.A.,

UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. v. FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,

c. Doctrine of unrelated goods

Hickok Manufacturing, Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,

Faberge, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. Court of Appeals

Whether or not the Trademark Cannon can be used

Sehwani, Inc. vs. In-N-Out Burger, Inc.,

Article 6bis which governs the protection of well-known trademarks, is a self-executing

Fredco Manufacturing Corporation vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College,

Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Norvy Abyadang,

Infringement and Remedies

Conrad and Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Tanduay Distillers, Inc.,vs. Ginebra San Miguel, Inc.,

W Land Holdings, Inc. v. Starwood Hotels And Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

CATERPILLAR, INC., Petitioner, v. MANOLO P. SAMSON