The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the motions for reconsideration filed by Skechers USA, Inc. and Trendworks International Corporation. The prior decision that dismissed the petition claiming trademark infringement by Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. was set aside. Skechers USA, Inc. had registered trademarks for "SKECHERS" and a stylized "S" that were being infringed by Inter Pacific's use of a similar stylized "S" logo on some of its rubber shoes. By applying the Dominancy Test to analyze similarity between the marks, the Supreme Court found this constituted infringement under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the motions for reconsideration filed by Skechers USA, Inc. and Trendworks International Corporation. The prior decision that dismissed the petition claiming trademark infringement by Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. was set aside. Skechers USA, Inc. had registered trademarks for "SKECHERS" and a stylized "S" that were being infringed by Inter Pacific's use of a similar stylized "S" logo on some of its rubber shoes. By applying the Dominancy Test to analyze similarity between the marks, the Supreme Court found this constituted infringement under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the motions for reconsideration filed by Skechers USA, Inc. and Trendworks International Corporation. The prior decision that dismissed the petition claiming trademark infringement by Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. was set aside. Skechers USA, Inc. had registered trademarks for "SKECHERS" and a stylized "S" that were being infringed by Inter Pacific's use of a similar stylized "S" logo on some of its rubber shoes. By applying the Dominancy Test to analyze similarity between the marks, the Supreme Court found this constituted infringement under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the motions for reconsideration filed by Skechers USA, Inc. and Trendworks International Corporation. The prior decision that dismissed the petition claiming trademark infringement by Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. was set aside. Skechers USA, Inc. had registered trademarks for "SKECHERS" and a stylized "S" that were being infringed by Inter Pacific's use of a similar stylized "S" logo on some of its rubber shoes. By applying the Dominancy Test to analyze similarity between the marks, the Supreme Court found this constituted infringement under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Skechers, USA, Inc., petitioner, v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp.
and/or Inter Pacific Trading
Corp., et.al., respondents/Trendworks International Corporation, petitioner-intervenor v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. and/or Inter Pacific Trading Corp., et.al., respondents Facts: This is a twin motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner and petitioner-intervenor from the decision rendered in favour of respondents. The controversy arose when Skechers USA, Inc. filed with Branch 24 of the Manila RTC an application for the issuance of search warrants against an outlet and warehouse operated by Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp. for infringement of trademark under Section 155, in relation to Section 170 of RA 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines). In the course of its business, Skechers USA, Inc. has registered the trademark SKECHERS and the trademark S (within an oval design) with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). RTC agreed with the respondents that Skechers rubber shoes and Strong rubber shoes have glaring differences such that an ordinary prudent purchaser would not likely be misled or confused in purchasing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC, upon filing a petition for certiorari by the petitioner; thus, elevated it to the Supreme Court. Trendworks International Corporation filed a petition-in-intervention with the SC claiming to be the sole licensed distributor of Skechers products in the Philippines. The court, in 2006, rendered a decision dismissing the petition. Both petitioner and petitioner-intervenor filed their separate motions for reconsideration with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not, the respondent is guilty of trademark infringement. Decision: The motion for reconsideration is granted and the prior decision of SC dated in 2006 is set aside. The basic law on trademark, infringement and unfair competition is RA 8293. Specifically, under Section 155 of RA 8293, any person who, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark, use in commerce, among others, colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof, with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive shall be held liable in a civil action for infringement. According to the Supreme Court, the essential element of infringement under RA 8293 is that the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion. In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed the Dominancy Test, which focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing trademarks and where duplication or imitation is not necessary, and the Totality Test, which necessitates a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the products including the labels and packaging. By applying the Dominancy Test, the court found that the use of the stylized S by respondent in some of its rubber shoes infringes on the mark already registered by petitioner with the IPO.
Elya Peker v. Arthur A. Kaplan, Arthur A. Kaplan Co., Inc., Reid A. Rader, Galaxy of Graphics LTD., Jewel International Corporation, 104 F.3d 353, 2d Cir. (1996)
Bernie Harry, As Personal Representative of The Estate of Lisa Normil, Deceased v. Wayne Marchant, M.D., Ali Bazzi, M.D., 259 F.3d 1310, 11th Cir. (2001)