Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984

    Uploaded by

    Lady Bancud
    This case involved a dispute over trademarks between La Chemise Lacoste, a French corporation that owns trademarks including "Lacoste" and a crocodile design, and Hemandas Q. Co., a Philippine company. While Lacoste has owned and used the trademarks internationally since the 1960s, Hemandas registered similar trademarks in the Philippines in the 1970s. The court ruled that Hemandas committed unfair competition by registering trademarks that were already well established internationally by Lacoste and creating confusion in the market. The court canceled Hemandas' trademark registrations and found them guilty of unfair competition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984

    Uploaded by

    Lady Bancud
    59 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over trademarks between La Chemise Lacoste, a French corporation that owns trademarks including "Lacoste" and a crocodile design, and Hemandas Q. Co., a Philippine company. While Lacoste has owned and used the trademarks internationally since the 1960s, Hemandas registered similar trademarks in the Philippines in the 1970s. The court ruled that Hemandas committed unfair competition by registering trademarks that were already well established internationally by Lacoste and creating confusion in the market. The court canceled Hemandas' trademark registrations and found them guilty of unfair competition.

    Original Description:

    5

    Original Title

    56-57

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over trademarks between La Chemise Lacoste, a French corporation that owns trademarks including "Lacoste" and a crocodile design, and Hemandas Q. Co., a Philippine company. While Lacoste has owned and used the trademarks internationally since the 1960s, Hemandas registered similar trademarks in the Philippines in the 1970s. The court ruled that Hemandas committed unfair competition by registering trademarks that were already well established internationally by Lacoste and creating confusion in the market. The court canceled Hemandas' trademark registrations and found them guilty of unfair competition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984

    Uploaded by

    Lady Bancud
    This case involved a dispute over trademarks between La Chemise Lacoste, a French corporation that owns trademarks including "Lacoste" and a crocodile design, and Hemandas Q. Co., a Philippine company. While Lacoste has owned and used the trademarks internationally since the 1960s, Hemandas registered similar trademarks in the Philippines in the 1970s. The court ruled that Hemandas committed unfair competition by registering trademarks that were already well established internationally by Lacoste and creating confusion in the market. The court canceled Hemandas' trademark registrations and found them guilty of unfair competition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    La Chemise Lacoste vs.

    Fernandez
    GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984
    Facts:
    La Chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademarks
    Lacoste, Chemise Lacoste, Crocodile Device and a composite mark consisting of
    the word Lacoste and a representation of a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings and
    other goods sold in many parts of the world and which has been marketed in the
    Philippines since 1964. In 1975 and 1977, Hemandas Q. Co. was issued certificate of
    registration for the trademark Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device both in the
    supplemental and Principal Registry. In 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed for the
    registration of the Crocodile device and Lacoste. Games and Garments (Gobindram
    Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas Q.Co.) opposed the registration of Lacoste. In
    1983, La Chemise Lacoste filed with the NBI a letter-complaint alleging acts of unfair
    competition committed by Hemandas and requesting the agencys assistance. By virtue
    of search warrant, various goods and articles were seized from Hemandas but such
    warrants were recalled.
    Issue: Whether or not defendant was guilty of unfair competition
    Held:
    Yes. Inasmuch as the goodwill and reputation of La Chemise Lacoste products date
    back even before 1964, Hemandas cannot be allowed to continue the trademark
    Lacoste for the reason that he was the first registrant in the Supplemental Register of
    a trademark used in international commerce. Registration in the Supplemental Register
    cannot be given a posture as if the registration is in the Principal Register. It must be
    noted that one may be declared an unfair competitor even if his competing trademark is
    registered. La Chemise Lacoste is world renowned mark, and by virtue of the 20
    November 1980 Memorandum of the Minister of Trade to the director of patents in
    compliance with the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property, effectively
    cancels the registration of contrary claimants to the enumerated marks, which include
    Lacoste.

    U.S. vs. Vicente Manuel


    G.R. No. L-1999, December 27, 1906
    Facts:
    Defendant was charged with unfair competition under Act No. 666. Private petitioner
    A.S. Watson & Co. is a British corporation duly registered in the Philippine Islands and
    engaged in the manufacture and sale of aerated waters such as soda, lemonade, ginger
    ale and others.
    In 1903, A.S. Watson and Co., Limited registered with the Bureau Patents a trademark
    containing the words A.S. Watson and Company, Limited along with the figure of a
    unicorn and dragon on either side of a Chinese pagoda, a long-time mark associate with
    the company.
    Accused Manuel sold soda water and bottles of aerated waters bearing the same form
    and appearance with those used by private petitioner. The difference was that accused
    posted different labels bearing his name and the quality of the beverage sold by Manuel
    were distinctly of inferior quality than that sold by the company. The trial court convicted
    Manuel of unfair competition and sentenced him to pay a fine and gold.
    Issue: Whether or not defendant committed unfair competition.
    Held:
    Yes. The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been intentionally
    clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchases exercising
    ordinary care, and not whether a certain limited class of purchasers with special
    knowledge not possessed by the ordinary purchases could avoid mistake by the
    exercise of this special knowledge. In this case, Manuel gave his goods the general
    appearance of aerated waters manufactured by A.S. Watson and thus intended to
    deceive the public and defraud A.S. Watson.

    You might also like