Trademarks and Jurisprudence Table
5
Court decisions have held the following goods are closely related and should not bear the same trademarks since they were produced by different manufacturers: Prior User Later User Jurisprudence Shoes and slippers Pants and shirts 1 Ang v. Toribio [1942] 74 Phil. 50, 54. Health soap Hair pomade 2 Ng Khee v. Lever Brothers Company [1941] 83 Phil. 947, 962. Perfume, lipstick and nail polish Health soap 3 Chua Che v. Philippines Patent Office [1965] 13 SCRA 67, 72 Haberdashery goods Shoes 4 Sta. Ana v. Maliwat [1968] 24 SCRA 1018, 1027 Beauty soap Laundry soap 5 Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel- Almoradie v. Court of Appeals, [1990] 229 SCRA 115, 32. Laundry soap Laundry starch 6 Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. CPC International, Inc., [1979] 24 CAR (2s) 440, 446 Zippers Thread 7 International Textile Mills v. Yoshida Kogyo K.K. [1987] 85 O.G. 8215, 8218. On the other hand, court decisions have held that the following goods are not closely related and may bear the same trademarks: Prior User Later User Jurisprudence Medicines Chemicals 1 1. Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, [1968] 27 SCRA 1214, 1226. Edible oil Soy sauce 2 2. Acoje Mining Company, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1971] 38 SCRA 480, 482. Petroleum products Cigarettes 3 3. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49145, June 29, 1979; Toilet articles Briefs 4 4. Faberge, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court [1992] 215 SCRA 316, 330. Paints, chemical products, toner and dyestuffs Sandals 5 5. Canon Kobushiki Kaisha v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2000.
-
Upload
ludica-oja -
Category
Documents
-
view
2 -
download
1
description
Trademarks and Jurisprudence Table
Transcript of Trademarks and Jurisprudence Table
Court decisions have held the following goods are closely related and should not bear the same trademarks since they were produced by different manufacturers:
Prior User
Later User
Jurisprudence
Shoes and slippers
Pants and shirts1
Ang v. Toribio [1942] 74 Phil. 50, 54.
Health soap
Hair pomade2
Ng Khee v. Lever Brothers Company [1941] 83 Phil. 947, 962.
Perfume, lipstick and nail polish
Health soap3
Chua Che v. Philippines Patent Office [1965] 13 SCRA 67, 72
Haberdashery goods
Shoes4
Sta. Ana v. Maliwat [1968] 24 SCRA 1018, 1027
Beauty soap
Laundry soap5
Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court of Appeals, [1990] 229 SCRA 115, 32.
Laundry soap
Laundry starch6
Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. CPC International, Inc.,
[1979] 24 CAR (2s) 440, 446
Zippers
Thread7
International Textile Mills v. Yoshida Kogyo K.K. [1987] 85 O.G. 8215, 8218.
On the other hand, court decisions have held that the following goods are not closely related and may bear the same trademarks:
Prior User
Later User
Jurisprudence
Medicines
Chemicals1
1.Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, [1968] 27 SCRA 1214, 1226.
Edible oil
Soy sauce2
2.Acoje Mining Company, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1971] 38 SCRA 480, 482.
Petroleum products
Cigarettes3
3.Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49145, June 29, 1979;
Toilet articles
Briefs4
4.Faberge, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court [1992] 215 SCRA 316, 330.
Paints, chemical products, toner and dyestuffs
Sandals5
5.Canon Kobushiki Kaisha v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2000.
Shoes
Socks6
6.Bally Shuhfabricken A.G. v. Mil-Oro Manufacturing Corporation, CA-G.R. SP No. 10265, January 25, 1988.
Motor vehicles
Shoes, sandals, and slippers7
7.Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Sapalo [1994] 94 O.G. 3792, 3794
On the basis of the dominancy test, the following trademarks have been held to be confusingly similar:
Prior Trademark
Later Trademark
Product or Service
Jurisprudence
Ginebra de la Campana
Ginebra de Dos Campanas and Ginebra Tres Campanas
Gin
Ubeda v. Zialcita, [1913] 226 U.S. 452, 453; Ubeda v. Zialcita [1909] 13 Phil. 11, 18-19.
Illustration of a rooster in a fighting stance
Illustration of two roosters in a fighting stance
Candy2
Clarke v. Manila Candy Company [1917] 36 Phil. 100, 115.
Illustration of three British soldiers with two kneeling and one standing
Illustration of five British soldiers with three kneeling and two standing
Khaki cloth3
Forbes, Murin & Company v. Ang San To [1919] 40 Phil. 272, 276.
Palatol
Pai Li To
Pharmaceutical product4
Parke, Davis & Company v. Kiu Foo & Company, Ltd. [1934] 60 Phil. 928, 932.
Sapolin
Lusolin
Paint5
Sapolin, Inc. v. Balmaceda [1939] 67 Phil. 705, 716..
Freeman
Freedom
Shirts6
Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents [1954] 95 Phil. 1, 7.
Illustration of a hen
Illustration oftwo roosters
Food seasoning7
Lim Hoa v. Director of Patents [1956] 100 Phil. 215, 217.
Illustration of a carp
Illustration of a milkfish
Native sauce8
Chuanchow Soy & Canning Company v. Director of Patents [1960] 108 Phil. 833, 836
Big 5
Big 3
Vegetable lard9
Recaro v. Embisan [1961] 2 SCRA 544, 551.
Nabisco
Ambisco
Bakery products10
Operators, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1965] 15 SCRA 147, 149
Salonpas
Lionpas
Medicated plaster11
Marvex Commercial Company, Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Company [1966] 18 SCRA 1178, 1183.
Flormann
Flormen
Shoes12
Sta. Ana v. Maliwat [1968] 24 SCRA 1018, 1027
Duraflex
Dynaflex
Electrical wires13
American Wire & Cable Company v. Director of Patents [1970] 31 SCRA 544, 551.
Race
Sun Rays
Undershirts14
Kee Boc v. Director of Patents [1970] 34 SCRA 570, 572.
Planters Cocktail Peanuts
Philippine Planters Cordial Peanuts
Salted peanuts15
Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc. [1975] 65 SCRA 575, 580.
Gold Toe
Gold Top
Socks16
Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cluett Peabody Company, Inc., G.R. No. 139300, March 14, 2001.
Master Roast and Master Blend
Flavor Master
Coffee17
Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001.
Alexander
Advancer
Thread18
Kerr & Company, Ltd. v. Cong Kong, CA-G.R. No. 5603-R, May 10, 1951.
Vino Anti-Kabuki
Anti-Kabuki
Medicine for stomach ailment19
19.Tan Chai v. Chiong [1965] 7 CAR (2s) 325, 330
Illustration of black cat walking upright, dressed in white, and holding a steaming cup
Illustration of black dog walking upright, dressed in white, and holding a steaming cup
Tea20
Cheng U v. Villafania [1966] 9 CAR (2s) 42, 49
Lorenzana
Loring
Native sauce21
Lorenzana v. Jocson & Son [1968] 65 O.G. 13862, 13866.
Fruit of the Loom
Beauty in the Bloom
Lingerie22
Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Dargani [1972] 17 CAR (2s) 1133, 1335
FAB
FAS
Detergent23
Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Dargani [1972] 17 CAR (2s) 1133, 1335
Dipterex
Diphenex
Agricultural chemical products24
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Nikon Nohyaku Company, Ltd. [1988] 87 O.G. 6879, 6881
Hotel Esperanza
Hotel Esperana
Hotel 25
Rize Holdings, Inc. v. Po [1994] 94 O.G. 7358, 7362.
On the other hand, the following trademarks were held to be dissimilar:
Prior Trademark
Later Trademark
Product or Service
Jurisprudence
Victorias
Valentino
Valentino
Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Ong Siu [1977] 79 SCRA 207, 216
Alexander
Aloha
Thread2
Kerr & Company, Ltd. v. Go Gee, CA-G.R. No. 7034-R, December 20, 1951.
Coconut
Co Co Co
Thread3
Continental Manufacturing Corporation v. Qui [1962] 59 O.G. 1093, 1095
Green Dragon
Double Peacock
Canned salmon4
Alaska Packers Association v. Kaw Ching Tiah, CA-G.R. No. 35359-R, June 26, 1969
Lipton
Calton
Tea5
Lipton, Ltd. v. Shu, CA-G.R. No. 37534-R, October 23, 1969.
Campbells
Capitols
Soup6
People v. Chua Be Sing, CA-G.R. No. 66405-Cr, August 6, 1971
Transpulmin
Pulmin
Pulmin
Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1974] 19 CAR (7s) 1147, 1155.
Jordache
Rawhide
Jeans8
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Davila [1989] 6 CARA 341, 352.
Dacron and Lycro
Licron
Textile fibers9
E.I Du Pont de Nemours & Company v. Lakeview Industrial Corporation [1989] 7 CAR (2s), 665, 671.
Pediamox
Diamox
Medicines
American Cyanamid Company v. Pediatrica, Inc. [1987] 96 O.G. 9494, 9496-9497.
