COURTS REJECT HOLISTIC APPROACH JURISDICTION REPORT: PHILIPPINES
Eunice Hyacinth L. Tan Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan
In determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between competing trademarks, the Philippine Supreme Court relies on two principal tests: the dominancy test and the holistic test. Te dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. In contrast, the holistic test considers the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including labels and packaging.
Te case of Dermaline, Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., decided on August 16, 2010, is the latest pronouncement by the court following a string of earlier decisions applying the dominancy test: Societe des Produits Nestle v. Court of Appeals (2001), McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger (2004), McDonald’s Corporation v. MagJoy Fastfood Corporation (2007), Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA (2009) and Societe des Produits Nestle v. Martin T. Dy Jr. (2010).
In Dermaline, petitioner Dermaline applied to register its ‘Dermaline, Dermaline Inc’ trademark in international class 44 for various skin treatments before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Respondent Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc, the owner of an earlier registration for ‘Dermalin’ in international class 5 for pharmaceutical products, opposed Dermaline’s application. In its opposition, Myra argued that Dermaline’s ‘Dermaline, Dermaline Inc’ mark so resembled its trademark ‘Dermalin’ that its registration would likely confuse and deceive the purchasing public. In response, Dermaline pointed out that, applying the holistic test, the subject trademarks bore entirely different features.
Aſter the IPO and the Court of Appeals sustained Myra’s opposition, Dermaline appealed.
Te Supreme Court affirmed the IPO’s application of the dominancy test. While noting the differences between the competing marks—Dermaline’s mark is written with the first ‘Dermaline’ in script going upwards from leſt to right, with an upper class ‘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 other section; Myra’s mark ‘Dermalin’ is written in upright font with a capital ‘D’ followed by lower case letters—the court nevertheless found likelihood of confusion. Te court noticed that the two word marks were identically spelled except that Dermaline’s mark ended with the letter ‘E’. In addition, the marks were practically pronounced similarly in three syllables, with the last letter ‘E’ of Dermaline’s mark pronounced silently. Te court also pointed out that when an ordinary purchaser hears an advertisement of Dermaline’s trademark over the radio, chances are, the said purchaser will associate it with Myra’s registered mark.
“ THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT 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 MARKET VARIATIONS, AS HE ENJOYS PROTECTION IN PRODUCTS AND MARKET AREAS THAT ARE IN THE NORMAL POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF HIS BUSINESS.”
In defending its right to register the Dermaline Dermaline, Inc mark, Dermaline raised another important issue. It argued that no relation existed between the goods, as its trademark for health and beauty services was distinct from Myra’s trademark registered covering medicinal goods against skin disorders.
In disagreeing with Dermaline, the court explained that while Dermaline’s products did belong to a separate and different classification, that did not forestall the possibility of confusion, especially since both marks denote products dedicated to treating the skin. Te court concluded that 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 market variations, as he enjoys protection in products and market areas that are in the normal potential expansion of his business.
Te court added: “Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name 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.”
Eunice Hyacinth L. Tan is an associate at Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan. She can be contacted at:
info@sapalovelez.com
92 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108