Gabriel vs Perez

Doctrine: Sec. 2 of R.A. 166 states that as a condition precedent to registration the
trademark, trade name or service marks should have been in actual use in commerce in
the Philippines before the time of the filing of the application.
Arce Sons and Company vs. Selecta Biscuit Co., Inc.
Doctrine: A trademark is a distinctive mark of authenticity through which the merchandise
of a particular producer or manufacturer may be distinguished from that of others, and its
sole function is to designate distinctively the origin of the products to which it is attached.
Doctrine of secondary meaning refer to a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive
appropriation with reference to an article on the market, because geographically or
otherwise descriptive, might neverthless have been used so long and so exclusively by
one producer with reference to his article that, in that trade and to that branch of the
purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product.
Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals
Doctrine: Three Distinct Functions of Trademarks
1. they indicate origin or ownership of the articles to which they are attached
2. they guarantee that those articles come up to a certain standard of quality
3. they advertise the articles they symbolize.
Etepha vs. Director of Patents, et al.
Doctrine: The objects of a trademark are to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of
the article to which it is affixed, to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing
into market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to
prevent fraud and imposition.
Recaro vs. Embisan
Doctrine: comparison of the two trade-marks shows such a resemblance in the general
features of both as is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser, exercising ordinary care,
and induce him to believe that the goods bearing such labels are products of one and the
same enterprise, the use of the unregistered trade-mark constitutes an infringement upon
the other, and should be enjoined.
Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Doctrine: "Lyceum" is a generic name.
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Ong Su
Doctrine: Common geometric shapes such as diamonds ordinarily are not regarded as
indicia of origin for goods to which the marks are applied unless they have acquired a
secondary meaning.
Ong Ai Gui vs. Director, Phil. Patent Office
Doctrine: DESCRIPTIVE OR GENERIC TERM CAN NOT BE APPROPRIATED BY
SINGLE INDIVIDUAL - Although a combination of words may be registered as a tradename, it is no justification for not applying the principle that the use of a descriptive or
generic term in a trade-name is always subject to the limitation that the registrant can not
acquire the exclusive right to the descriptive or generic term or word.
George W. Luft Co., Inc. vs. Ngo Guan

Doctrine: Where the oppositor to the registration of a trademark did not introduce in
evidence its own trademark, such omission suggests that the appearance thereof is not
similar to that of the applicant.
Masso Hermanos, S. A. vs. Dir. of Patents
Doctrine: Descriptive word of merchandise is not registrable.
Societe Des Produits Nestl, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question must be considered in
determining confusing similarity.
The totality rule states that the test is not simply to take their words and compare the
spelling and pronunciation of said words. In determining whether two trademarks are
confusingly similar, the two marks in their entirety as they appear in the respective labels
must 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 on both labels.
Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Ng Sam
Doctrine: Restricted right over a trademark that some trademark may be used by another
on unrelated goods is reflected in our Trademark Law.Such restricted right over a
trademark is likewise reflected in our Trademark Law. Under Section 4(d) of the law,
registration of a trademark which so resembles another already registered or in use should
be denied, where to allow such registration could likely result in confusion, mistake or
deception to the consumers. Conversely, where no confusion is likely to arise, as in this
case, registration of a similar or even identical mark may be allowed.
Ang vs. Teodoro
Doctrine: fanciful or coined phrase may properly and legally be appropriated as a trademark or tradename.
Lim Hoa vs. Director of Patents
Doctrine: Similarity in size,form, and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the
competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and
confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place.
Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing label should
suggest an effort to imitate.
Chuanchow Soy & Canning Co. vs. Dir. of Patents and Villapania
Doctrine: When two competing labels are placed together for inspection and still they
may confuse an ordinary person, specially cooks and maids, who as a rule are the ones in
charge of buying such household article.
Asari Yoko Co., Ltd. vs. Kee Boc

Doctrine: The first user of a trademark in the Philippines may oppose its registration by
another person. Such registration will damage the first user of the trademark. the evidence
as to the prior use of said trademark is conclusive.
Mead Johnson & Co. vs. N.V.J. Van Dorp, Ltd.
Doctrine: The holistic test determines whether two trademarks are confusingly similar; Two
marks in their entirety to be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached.
Chua Che vs. Philippines Patent Office
Doctrine: Registration of a trademark should be refused in cases where there is a
likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception, even though the goods fall under different
categories if the products are common household items
Operators, Inc. vs. Director of Patents
Doctrine: ownership.Where the applicant was not the owner of the trademark being
applied for, he had no right to apply for registration of the same., Theright to register
trademarks, tradenames and service marks is based on ownership.
Bristol Myers Co. vs. Director of Patents, et al.
Trademarks having the same suffix and similar sounding prefixes but with strikingly
different backgrounds are not apt to confuse prospective customers.
Chung Te vs. Ng Kian Giab
Doctine: Where an applicant for registration of a trademark states under oath the date of
his earliest use, and later on he wishes to carry back his first date of use to an earlier date.
he then takes on the greater burden of presenting "clear and convincing evidence". of
adoption and use as of that earlier date.
Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. vs. Petra Hawpia & Co.
Doctrine: When the two words are pronounced, the sound effects are confusingly similar.
Where goods are advertised over the radio, similarity in sound is of special significance.
Similarity of sound is a sufficient ground for holding that the two marks are confusingly
similar when applied to merchandise of the same descriptive properties.
Sta. Ana vs. Maliivat
Doctrine: Protection afforded by the actual owner of the trademark extends to all cases in
which the use by a junior appropriator of a trademark or tradename is likely to lead to a
confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that
the complaining party has extended his business into the field or is in any way connected
with the activities of the infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his
business.
Lim Kiah vs. Kaynee Company
Doctrine: bar. Under Rule 34 of the Revised Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases, only
the owner of a trademark may apply for its registration.
American Wire & Cable Co. vs. Director of Patents
Doctrine: Similarity between the two labels is such that there is a possibility or likelihood of
the purchaser of the older brand mistaking the newer brand for it are not registrable.
Buyers are less concerned with the etymology of the words as with their sound and the
dominant, features of the design.

Kee Boc vs. Director of Patents

Doctrine:
De la Rama Steamship Co. vs. National Development Co.
Doctrine: what is prohibited from being appropriated and being registered are tradenames
consisting of, or comprising, a name identifying a particular living individual as the name of
a deceased President of the Philippines. The names of deceased wives of Presidents are
not included in the prohibition.
Phil. Nut Industry, Inc. vs. Standard Brands Inc.
Doctrine: When the merchandize or goods being sold by the parties herein are very
ordinary commodities purchased by the average person and many times by the ignorant
and unlettered and these are the persons who will not as a rule examine the printed small
letterings on the container but will simply be guided by the presence of the striking mark
PLANTERS on the label.
American Cyanamid Co. vs. Director of Patents
Doctrine: Products are not similar or would likely cause confusion if the purchaser will be
more wary of the nature of the product he is buying.
E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. vs. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery Co., Ltd.
Doctrine: as long as the petition is verified and the pieces of evidence consisting of the
affidavits of the witnesses and the original of other documentary evidence are attached to
the petition and properly marked in accordance with Secs. 7.1 and 8.1 abovementioned,
these shall be considered as the evidence of the petitioner.
Berris Agricultural Company, Inc. v. Norvy Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404,
Doctrine: The 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.
Section 122 of R.A. No. 8293 provides that the rights in a mark shall be acquired by
means of its valid registration with the IPO.
A certificate of registration of a mark, once issued, constitutes prima facie evidence of the
validity of the registration, of the registrants ownership of the mark, and of the registrants
exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and those that are
related thereto specified in the certificate.
R.A. No. 8293, however, requires the applicant for registration or the registrant to file a
declaration of actual use (DAU) of the mark, with evidence to that effect, within three (3)
years from the filing of the application for registration; otherwise, the application shall be
refused or the mark shall be removed from the register.
Hickok Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. CA G.R. No. L-44707, August 31, 1982
Doctrine:
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CA, 116 SCRA 336
Doctrine: Infringement of trademark depends on whether the goods of the two contending
parties using the same trademark, such as ESSO, are so related as to lead the public to
be deceived.
Goods are related:

1. When they belong to the same class or have the same descriptive properties
2. When they possess the same physical attributes or essential characteristics with
reference to their form composition, texture or quality.
3. When they serve the same purpose or are sold in grocery stores.
Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. General Milling Corporation, 120 SCRA 804
Doctrine: emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the
arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics and that
the mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not
prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on unrelated articles of a
different kind
La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373
Doctrine: Same; A foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines needs no
license to sue in the Philippines for trademark violations.
Ongpin memorandum
1.
Whether the trademark under consideration is well-known in the Philippines or is a
mark already belonging to a person entitled to the benefits of the CONVENTION, this
should be established, pursuant to Philippine Patent Office procedures in inter partes and
ex parte cases, according to any of the following criteria or any combination thereof:
(a)
a declaration by the Minister of Trade and Industry that' the trademark being
considered is already well-known in the Philippines such that permission for its use by
other than its original owner will constitute a reproduction, imitation, translation or other
infringement;
(b)
that the trademark is used in commerce internationally, supported by proof that
goods bearing the trademark are sold on an international scale, advertisements, the
establishment of factories, sales offices, distributorships, and the like, in different countries,
including volume or other measure of international trade and commerce;
(c)
that the trademark is duly registered in the industrial property office(s) of another
country or countries, taking into consideration the dates of such registration;
(d)
that the trademark has been long established and obtained goodwill and general
international consumer recognition as belonging to one owner or source;
(e)
that the trademark actually belongs to a party claiming ownership and has the right
to registration under the provisions of the aforestated PARIS CONVENTION.
2.
The word trademark, as used in this MEMORANDUM, shall include tradenames,
service marks, logos, signs, emblems, insignia or other similar devices used for
Identification and recognition by consumers.
3.
The Philippine Patent Office shall refuse all applications for, or cancel the
registration of, trademarks which constitute a reproduction, translation or imitation of a
trademark owned by a person, natural or corporate, who is a citizen of a country signatory
to the PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
4.
The Philippine Patent Office shall give due course to the Opposition in cases
already or hereafter filed against the registration of trademarks entitled to protection of

Section 6 bis of said PARIS CONVENTION as outlined above, by remanding applications

filed by one not entitled to such protection for final disallowance by the Examination
Division.
5.
All pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world
famous trademarks filed by applicants other than their original owners or users shall be
rejected forthwith. Where such applicants have already obtained registration contrary to
the abovementioned PARIS CONVENTION and/or Philippine Law, they shall be directed to
surrender their Certificates of Registration to the Philippine Patent Office for immediate
cancellation proceedings
Fruit of the Loom v. CA, 133 SCRA 405
Doctrine: No infringement case obtains when two trademarks present striking or glaring
dissimilarities.
Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Products, 147 SCRA 155
Doctrine: The sales invoices provide the best proof that there were actual sales of
petitioners products in the country and that there was actual use for a protracted period of
petitioners trademark or part thereof through these sales.
Armco-Steel Corporation (of the Phils.) v. SEC, 156 SCRA 822
Doctrine: Armco SteelPhilippines and Armco SteelOhio have not only identical name but
also a similarity in line of business.
United Feature Syndicate v. Musingwear Creation Manufacturing Company
Doctrine: Pictorial representation were covered by a copyright registration way back in
1950 the same are entitled to protection under PD No. 49.
Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78325, January 25, 1990
Doctrine:
Infringement

Unfair Competition

Infringement of trademark is the unauthorized use of unfair competition is the passing off of ones goods
a trademark
as those of another
In infringement of trademark fraudulent intent is unfair competition fraudulent intent is essential.
unnecessary
In infringement of trademark the prior registration of unfair competition registration is not necessary.
the trademark is a prerequisite to the action

Kabushiki Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, G.R. No. 75420, November 15, 1991
Doctrine: A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademarks Law is that actual use in
commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to the acquisition of ownership over a
trademark or a tradename.
Philips Export B.V. v Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 457
Doctrine: The right to the exclusive use of a corporate name with freedom from
infringement by similarity is determined by priority of adoption.

Faberge Incorporated v. IAC, 215 SCRA 316

Doctrine: One who has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the
adoption and use of the same trademark by others for products which and of a different
description.
The protective mantle of the Trademark Law extends only to the goods used by the first
user as specified in the certificate of registration.
Confusion or the likelihood of deception to the average purchaser is unlikely since the
goods are noncompeting and unrelated.
Asia Brewery, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 103543, July 5, 1993
Doctrine: The use of someone elses registered trademark, trade name or service mark is
unauthorized, hence, actionable, if it is done without the consent of the registrant.
Infringement is determined by the test of dominancy rather than by differences or
variations in the details of one trademark and of another.
geographically descriptive work are
manufacturer.

nonregisterable and not appropriable by any beer

Emerald Manufacturing Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995
Doctrine: The reckoning point for the filing of a petition for cancellation of certificate of
registration of trademark is not from the alleged date of use but from the date the
certificate of registration was published in the Official Gazette and issued to the registrant.
When products are not inexpensive, and as the casual buyer is predisposed to be more
cautious and discriminating in and would prefer to mull over his purchase, confusion and
deception is less likely.
Ordinary Purchaser as one accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with,
the goods in question.
Actual use in commerce in the Philippines is an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of
ownership over a trademark.
A registration certificate serves merely as prima facie evidence. It is not conclusive but can
and may be rebutted by controverting evidence.
A supplemental register was created precisely for the registration of marks which are not
registrable on the principal register due to some defects.
Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. CA, 281 SCRA 162
Doctrine: To hold that the act of selling is an indispensable element of the crime of unfair
competition is illogical because if the law punishes the seller of imitation goods, then with
more reason should the law penalize the manufacturer.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. CA, G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2000
Doctrine: Goods are related when they belong to the same class or have the same
descriptive properties; when they possess the same physical attributes or essential
characteristics with reference to their form, composition, texture or quality.

A tradename refers to the business and its goodwill while a trademark refers to the goods.
Shangri-la Intl. Hotel Mgt. v. CA, G.R. No. 111580, June 21, 2001 / Development Group
Company v. CA, G.R. No. 114802, June 21, 2001 (consolidated)
Doctrine: Section 2 of said law requires that before a trademark can be registered, it must
have been actually used in commerce and service for not less than two months in the
Philippines prior to the filing of an application for its registration.
The present law on trademarks has dispensed with the requirement of prior use at the time
of registration.
While the Philippines was already a signatory to the Paris Convention, the IPC only took
effect on January 1, 1988, and in the absence of a retroactivity clause, R.A. No. 166 still
applies.
McDonalds Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., G.R. No. 143993, August 18, 2004
Doctrine: A mark is valid if it is distinctive and thus not barred from registration under
Section 4 of RA 166. However, once registered, not only the marks validity but also the
registrants ownership of the mark is prima facie presumed.
A mark which is not registered in the Principal Register and thus not distinctive has no real
protection.
Shangri-La International v. Developers Group, G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006
Doctrine: Section 22 covers two types of confusion arising from the use of similar or
colorable imitation marks, namely, confusion of goods (product confusion) and confusion
of business(source or origin confusion).
Confusion of goods in which event the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to
purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other.
Confusion of business the goods of the parties are different, the defendants product is
such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the plaintiff, and the public would
then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection
between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist.
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 158589, June 27, 2006
Doctrine: the Philippines adherence to the Paris Convention effectively obligates the
country to honor and enforce its provisions as regards the protection of industrial property
of foreign nationals in this country. However, any protection accorded has to be made
subject to the limitations of Philippine laws. Hence, despite Article 2 of the Paris
Convention which substantially provides that (1) nationals of member-countries shall have
in this country rights specially provided by the Convention as are consistent with Philippine
laws, and enjoy the privileges that Philippine laws now grant or may hereafter grant to its
nationals, and (2) while no domicile requirement in the country where protection is claimed
shall be required of persons entitled to the benefits of the Union for the enjoyment of any
industrial property rights, foreign nationals must still observe and comply with the
conditions imposed by Philippine law on its nationals.
Comparison of the trademarks as they appear on the goods, we must also give due regard
to the ordinary purchaser in determining likelihood or confusion.

Sections 2, 2-A, 9-A and 20 thereof: (a) a trademark actually used in commerce in the
Philippines and registered in the principal register of the Philippine Patent Office, (b) is
used by another person in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any
goods, business or services or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such
goods or services, or identity of such business; or such trademark is reproduced,
counterfeited, copied or colorably imitated by another person and such reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 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 as to likely cause confusion or mistake or to deceive
purchasers, (c) the trademark is used for identical or similar goods, and (d) such act is
done without the consent of the trademarkregistrant or assignee.
McDonalds Corporation v. MacJoy Fastfood Corporation, G.R. No. 166115, February 2,
2007
Doctrine: R.A. No. 166, as amended, specifically Sections 2 and 2-A thereof, mandates
actual use of the marks and/or emblems in local commerce and trade before they may be
registered and ownership thereof acquired, the petitioners cannot, therefore, dispense with
the element of actual use. Their being nationals of member-countries of the Paris Union
does not alter the legal situation.
Registration of trademark cannot be deemed conclusive as to the actual use of such
trademark in local commerce.
2011 MR - Skechers USA vs. Interpacific Intl. Trading Corp. 646 SCRA 448.
Doctrine: The registered trademark owner may use its 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 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.
Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Tony Lim, G.R. No. 162311, December 4, 2008
Doctrine: result.Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him
or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established
goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to produce such result. The elements of unfair
competition under Article 189(1) of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) That the offender
gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer;
(b) That the general appearance is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in the (2)
wrapping of their packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in (4) any other feature
of their appearance; (c) That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other
persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like
Prosource Intl., Inc. v. Horppag Research Management, G.R. No. 180073, November 25,
2009
Doctrine: Likelihood of confusion that is the gravamen of trademark infringement; In
trademark infringement cases, precedents must be evaluated in the light of each particular
case.
Societe des Produits Nestle v. Martin T. Dy, G.R. No. 172276, Augsut 8, 2010

Doctrine: In determining the issue of confusing similarity, the Court takes into account the
AURAL effect of the letters contained in the marks.
Great White Shark Enterprises v. Danilo Caralde, G.R. No. 192294, November 21, 2012
Doctrine: In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, case law has developed the
Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
Victorio Diaz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013
Doctrine: The elements of the offense of trademark infringement under the Intellectual
Property Code:
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.
Birkenstock v. Philippine Shoe Expo, G.R. No. 194307, November 20, 2013
Doctrine: Registration merely creates a prima facie presumption of the validity of the
registration, of the registrants ownership of the trademark, and of the exclusive right to the
use thereof.
Under Section 2 of RA 166, which is also the law governing the subject applications, 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.
Century Chinese Medicine v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188526, November 11,
2013
Doctrine: R.A. No. 8293 Section 155, in relation to Section 170, punishes trademark
infringement; while Section 168, in relation to Section 170, penalises unfair competition.
Ecole de Cuisnine Manille v. Renaud Cointreau & Cie, G.R. No. 185830, June 5, 2013
Doctrine: 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.
Foreign marks which are not registered are still accorded protection against infringement
and/or unfair competition.
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.
Taiwan Kolin Corporation v. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc., G.R. No.209843, March 25, 2015
Doctrine: A certificate of trademark registration confers upon the trademark owner the
exclusive right to sue those who have adopted a similar mark not only in connection with

the goods or services specified in the certificate, but also with those that are related
thereto.
The goods should be tested against several factors before arriving at a sound conclusion
on the question of relatedness.
(a) the business (and its location) to which the goods belong; (b) the class of product to
which the goods belong; (c) the products 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-to-day 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.
In trademark cases, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is confusingly
similar to another, no rigid set rules can plausibly be formulated.
The products of the contending parties are relatively luxury items not easily considered
affordable. Accordingly, the casual buyer is predisposed to be more cautious and
discriminating in and would prefer to mull over his purchase. Confusion and deception,
then, is less likely.
UFC Philippines, Inc. v. Barrio Fiesta, G.R. No.198889, January 20, 2016
Doctrine: An ordinary consumer is familiar with the fact that the color of a banana sauce is
red while a lechon sauce is dark brown.
In-n-Out Burger Inc. vs. Sehwani 575 SCRA 535
Doctrine: Section 163 thereof vests in civil courts jurisdiction over cases of unfair
competition, nothing in the said section states that the regular courts have sole jurisdiction
over unfair competition cases, to the exclusion of administrative bodies. On the contrary,
Sections 160 and 170, which are also found under Part III of the Intellectual Property
Code, recognize the concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts and the IPO over unfair
competition cases.