READY TO WEAR VS MADE TO ORDER JURISDICTION REPORT: PHILIPPINES
Neptali L. Bulilan and Maria Rois S. Tan Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan
In resolving conflicts of marks in inter partes cases (to determine registrability) or infringement cases (for damages and injunction) which necessarily involve the determination of whether the marks involved are confusingly similar, courts are consistent on only one point: that each case is unique and must be decided based on the circumstances peculiar to it.
Specifically, there is no unanimity on whether the ‘dominancy’ test or the ‘holistic’ test should be applied to determine confusing similarity between marks.
Te dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the main, prevalent or essential features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. Infringement
“THE SIMILARITY, TO BE OBJECTIONABLE, MUST BE SUCH AS APPEARS LIKELY TO MISLEAD THE ORDINARY INTELLIGENT BUYER WHO HAS A NEED FOR AND IS FAMILIAR WITH THE ARTICLE.”
takes place when the competing trademark contains the
essential features of another. Imitation or an effort to imitate is unnecessary. Te question is whether the use of the marks is likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers.
On the other hand, the holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing similarity. In determining whether the trademarks are confusingly similar, the age, training and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and the circumstances attendant to acquisition of the goods must be taken into consideration.
It bears repeating that Section 155.1 of Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) has embodied the dominancy test. As a legislative act, Section 155.1 of RA 8293 gave more importance to the dominancy test, thereby essentially abandoning the holistic test used in cases such as Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v Court of Appeals. Tis objective, however, has not been accomplished since the Supreme Court has not been dogmatic on the application of the dominancy test in inter partes and trademark infringement cases.
In Diaz v People of the Phils. and Levi Strauss and Company, the Supreme Court resorted to the holistic test in resolving the likelihood of confusion. Since the case involved a trademark infringement in relation to jeans products, the Supreme Court referred to the Emerald Garment case. Te Supreme Court took notice of the “remarkable” dissimilarities between Diaz’s ‘LS Jeans Manufacturing’ trademark/jean products and Levi’s ‘Levi’s 501’ trademark/jean products.
It considered the following factors: (1) buyers of jeans are more cautious and discriminating and would prefer to mull over a purchase; (2) the average Filipino usually buys his/her jeans by brand just like buying beer; and (3) more credit should be given to the average purchaser. An average purchaser
www.worldipreview.com
is not completely unwary but is an “ordinarily intelligent buyer” or one who is “accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question”. Tus, the similarity, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need for and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase.
Furthermore, the two trademarks cater to different classes of customers and flow through different channels of trade. Te customers of the Levi’s are shopping mall-goers, while those of Diaz place their orders for ‘made- to-order’ jeans at tailoring shops.
Based on the foregoing variables, the Supreme Court ruled that there is less likelihood of deception/confusion between the two trademarks.
Te ‘likelihood of confusion’ is the gravamen of trademark infringement. Te likelihood of confusion is a relative concept: the particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each case determine its existence. Tus, in trademark infringement cases, more than in other kinds of litigation, precedents must be evaluated in the light of each particular case.
Neptali L. Bulilan is a senior partner at Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan. He can be contacted at:
info@sapalovelez.com
Maria Rois S. Tan is an associate attorney at Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan. She can be contacted at:
info@sapalovelez.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 179
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196