Case Summary
Case Summary
Case Summary
and NESTLE
PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and
CFC CORPORATION., respondents, G.R. No. 112012, April 4,
2001
A. Facts
1. Private respondent CFC Corporation filed with the BPTTT an application for
the registration of the trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee, under
Serial No. 52994
2. Petitioner Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A., a Swiss company registered
under Swiss laws and domiciled in Switzerland, filed an unverified Notice of
Opposition,3 claiming that the trademark of private respondent’s product is
"confusingly similar to its trademarks for coffee and coffee extracts, to wit:
MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND."
3. Notice of Opposition was filed by Nestle Philippines, Inc against CFC’s
application for registration of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER. As Nestle
claimed that the use, if any, by CFC of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER and
its registration would likely cause confusion in the trade
4. CFC further argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, "is clearly very
different from any of Nestle’s alleged trademarks MASTER ROAST and
MASTER BLEND, especially when the marks are viewed in their entirety, by
considering their pictorial representations, color schemes and the letters of
their respective labels."
B. Issue
C. Ruling
D. REASON
A. Facts
B. Issue
Does the trademark “ADAGIO” unregistrable because it has become a common descriptive
name of a particular style of brassiere?
C. Ruling
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we are of the opinion and so hold, that
respondent Director of Patents did not err in dismissing the present petition for
cancellation of the registered trademark of appellee company, and the
decision appealed from is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.
D. Reason
1. The mark serves to indicate origin of applicant's goods; and the fact that it
is used on only one of several types or grades does not affect its
registrability as a trade mark.
2. There is no evidence to show that the registration of the trademark
"Adagio" was obtained fraudulently by appellee. The evidence record shows,
on the other hand, that the trademark "Adagio" was first exclusively in the
Philippines by a appellee in the year 1932. There being no evidence of use
of the mark by others before 1932, or that appellee abandoned use thereof,
the registration of the mark was made in accordance with the Trademark
Law.
3. To work an abandonment, the disuse must be permanent and not
ephemeral; it must be intentional and voluntary, and not involuntary or even
compulsory.
A. Facts
B. Issue
Is Coffee Partners, Inc. liable for trademark infringement in San Francisco Coffee &
Roastery’s trademark “SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE” even if the trade name is not registered
with IPO?
C. Ruling
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found out that there was no
trademark infringement.
D. Reason
Great White Shark Enterprises, Inc. vs Danilo M. Caralde, Jr., G.R. No.
192294, November 21, 2012
A. Facts
1. Danilo M. Caralde filed a trademark application to register a mark “SHARK & LOGO” for
his manufactured goods such as slippers, shoes and sandals.
2. The Great White Shark Enterprises opposed to the application claiming to be the owner
of the mark having a representation of a shark.
4. The Great White Shark Enterprises claimed that the cofusing similarity between the
marks is to deceive or confuse the public into believing the Caralde’s good are produced by or
originated from it, or under its sponsorship.
5. Caralde claimed that the two marks are different and are easily distinguishable from its
appearance, style, shape, size, format, color, ideas and goods carried by both parties.
B. Issue
Does the mark of SHARK & LOGO confusingly similar to Great White Shark’s mark?
C. Ruling
The Court denies the instant petition and AFFIRM the assailed December 14,
2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) for failure to show that the CA
committed reversible error in setting aside the Decision of the IPO Director
General and allowing the registration of the mark "SHARK & LOGO" by
respondent Danilo M. Caralde, Jr.
D. Reason
1. The Court of Appeals found no confusing similarity between the marks.
2. The BLA Director and the IPO Director General have ruled that Great
White Shark failed to meet the criteria under Rule 102 of the Rules and
Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked.
A. Facts
1. The Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG. applied for various trademark
registrations.
3. The Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG. filed for the cancellation of Registration
No. 56334.
4. The Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation failed to file the required 10th Year
Declaration of Actual Use (10th Year DAU) for Registration No. 56334 which results in the
cancellation of such mark.
5. The said cancellation paved way for the publication of the subject applications of the
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG.
B. Issue
Should subject marks be allowed registration in the name of Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH
and Co. KG?
C.