A No Actual prior use in commerce in the Philippines has been abolished as a

A no actual prior use in commerce in the philippines

This preview shows page 14 - 16 out of 32 pages.

A:No. Actual prior use in commerce in thePhilippines has been abolished as a condition forthe registration of a trademark.(RA 8293)Q: When is nonuse excused?A:1.Ifcausedbycircumstancesarisingindependently of the will of the owner.Lack of funds is not an excuse.2.A use which does not alter its distinctivecharacter though the use is differentfrom the form in which it is registered.3.Use of mark in connection with one ormore of the goods/services belongingtotheclassinwhichthemarkisregistered.4.The use of a mark by a company relatedto the applicant/registrant.5.Theuseofamarkbyapersoncontrolled by the registrant. (Section152, IPC)
Background image
USTGOLDEN NOTES 2011 MERCANTILELAWTEAM:ADVISER:ATTY. AMADOE. TAYAG;SUBJECTHEAD:EARLM. LOUIEMASACAYAN;ASST. SUBJECTHEADS:KIMVERLYA. ONG& JOANNAMAYD.G. PEÑADA;MEMBERS:MA. ELISAJONALYNA. BARQUEZ, ANGELIR. CARPIO,ANTONETTET. COMIA, ALBANROBERTLORENZOF. DEALBAN, JOEBENT. DEJESUS, CHRISJARKACEM. MAÑO, ANNAMARIEP. OBIETA,RUBYANNEB. PASCUA, FLORANGELAT. SABAUPAN, GIANFRANCESNICOLEC. VILCHESF. TEST TO DETERMINE CONFUSING SIMILARITYBETWEEN MARKSQ: What are the tests in determining whetherthere is a trademark infringement?A:1.DominancytestFocusesonthesimilarity of theprevalent featuresofthe competing marks. If the competingtrademarkcontainsthemainoressentialordominantfeaturesofanother,andconfusionislikelytoresult, infringement takes place. (AsiaBrewery v. CA, G.R. No. 103543, 5 July1993)2.TotalityorholistictestConfusingsimilarity is to be determined on thebasisofvisual,aural,connotativecomparisonsandoverall impressionsengenderedbythemarksincontroversy as they are encountered inthe marketplace.Note:Thedominancy testonly reliesonvisualcomparisonsbetween two trademarks whereas thetotality or holistic testreliesnot only on the visualbut also on the aural and connotative comparisonsandoverallimpressionsbetweenthetwotrademarks.(Societe Des Produits Nestl, S.A. v. CA,G.R. No. 112012, Apr. 4, 2001)Q: N Corporation manufactures rubber shoesunder the trademark Jordann which hit thePhilippine market in 1985, and registered itstrademarkwiththeBureauofPatents,TrademarksandTechnologyin1990.PKCompany also manufactures rubber shoes withthe trademark Javorski which it registeredwith BPTTT in 1978. In 1992, PK Co adopted andcopiedthedesignof N Corporation sJordann rubber shoes, both as to shape and color, butretainedthetrademarkJavorski onitsproducts. May PK Company be held liable to NCo? Explain.A:PK Co may be liable for unfairly competingagainst N Co. By copying the design, shape andcolor of N Corporation s Jordann rubber shoesandusingthesameinitsrubbershoestrademarked Javorski, PK is obviously trying topass off its shoes for those of N. It is of nomomentthatthetrademarkJavorski wasregisteredaheadofthetrademarkJordann.
Background image
Image of page 16

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture