Emerald Garment Manufacturing vs. Ca, BPTTT, H.D. Lee
Emerald Garment Manufacturing vs. Ca, BPTTT, H.D. Lee
LEE
The trademark should be considered as a whole and not piecemeal.
Actual use in commerce in the Philippines is an essential prerequisite for the
acquisition of ownership over a trademark.
FACTS:
1. Private respondent HD LEE (Yung legit na Lee talaga na damit), a foreign
corporation, filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation of Registration on September
1981 for the trademark STYLISTIC MR. LEE used on items of clothing under
Class 25 which was issued on October 1980 in the name of Petitioner
Emerald Garments. (1 year difference)
2. Private respondent HD LEE invoked Sec 37 of RA 166 (Trademark Law) and
Art. VIII of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,
claiming that the petitioners trademark closely resembled its own trademark.
3. In its answer, petitioner contends that its trademark was entirely and
unmistakably different from that of private respondent and that its certificate
was legally and validly granted. Petitioner also claims the defense of laches
because they started using the trademark on August 1975 but their opposition
was filed only 6 years after.
4. February 1984, petitioner caused the publication of its application for
registration of trademark in the Principal Register. (Yung kanina Supplemental
Register) Respondent opposed.
5. 1988 Director of Patents rendered a decision granting the petition for
cancellation because HD LEE was a prior registrant, and that based on the
dominancy test the two trademarks were confusingly similar.
6. CA affirmed the decision of the Director.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is confusing similarity between the two trademarks.
HELD:
NO, there is no confusing similarity.
1. On the issue of estoppel by laches, the SC held that the reckoning point is not
1975, but 1980, the date the Certificate of Registration (Supplemental
Register) was published and issued.
2. Applying the dominancy test and the holistic test, the trademarks were
considered as a whole and not piecemeal. Petitioners trademark is
STYLISTIC MR. LEE. Although LEE is prominent, it should considered as a
whole. The ordinary customer is not the completely unwary but rather the
ordinarily intelligent buyer.
3. Although HD LEE is the senior registrant, the SC held that registration alone
will not suffice, there must be evidence of actual use.
22. SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, NESTLE PH vs. CA, CFC CORP.
The holistic test only relies on the visual comparison, whereas the dominancy test
relies not only on the visual but also on the aural and connotative comparisons and
overall impressions.
FACTS:
1. January 1984, private respondent CFC filed with the BPTTT an application for
the trademark FLAVOR MASTER for instant coffee.
2. Petitioner SOCIETE filed an unverified Notice of Opposition, claiming that
such trademark is confusingly similar to its coffee trademarks MASTER
ROAST and MASTER BLEND, and such would cause confusion in the trade.
3. CFC claimed that its trademark is not confusingly similar, that except for the
word MASTER, the other words are different.
4. BPTTT denied CFCs application.
5. The CA reversed, because while the contending marks depict the same
product, the glaring dissimilarities in their presentation far outweigh and dispel
any aspect of similitude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the totality rule should be used rather than the dominancy test.
HELD:
NO, the dominancy test should be used instead.
1. The SC held that the application of the holistic test is improper since the
ordinary purchaser would not be inclined to notice the specific features,
similarities/dissimilarities, considering that the product is an inexpensive
household item.
2. The use by CFC of the term MASTER is likely to cause confusion because
the use of MASTER by Nestle in its products has made Nestle acquire a
connotation that if its a MASTER product, its Nestle