This document summarizes a case between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation regarding CFC's application to register the trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee. Nestle opposed the application, arguing it was confusingly similar to their trademarks "MASTER ROAST" and "MASTER BLEND" for coffee and coffee extracts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nestle, finding that the word "MASTER" was a suggestive term that had acquired meaning as Nestle's coffee products and could therefore be validly trademarked and protected from confusingly similar use by others.
Original Description:
Intellectual Property
Original Title
Societe Des Produits Nestle vs CA and CFC Corporation
This document summarizes a case between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation regarding CFC's application to register the trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee. Nestle opposed the application, arguing it was confusingly similar to their trademarks "MASTER ROAST" and "MASTER BLEND" for coffee and coffee extracts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nestle, finding that the word "MASTER" was a suggestive term that had acquired meaning as Nestle's coffee products and could therefore be validly trademarked and protected from confusingly similar use by others.
This document summarizes a case between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation regarding CFC's application to register the trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee. Nestle opposed the application, arguing it was confusingly similar to their trademarks "MASTER ROAST" and "MASTER BLEND" for coffee and coffee extracts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nestle, finding that the word "MASTER" was a suggestive term that had acquired meaning as Nestle's coffee products and could therefore be validly trademarked and protected from confusingly similar use by others.
Societe Des Produits Nestle vs CA and CFC Corporation
Respondent CFC Corp. filed an application for the registration of the TM
FLAVOR MASTER for instant coffee. The petitioner opposed on the ground that it is confusingly similar to its TM for coffee and coffee extracts: MASTER ROAST AND MASTER BLEND. DISPUTE: THE USE OF THE WORD "MASTER" CFC Corp contended that the word "master" because it is a generic term.
Issue:
WON the word "MASTER" can be validated as trademark?
Held:
Yes.
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner Nestle.
The word MASTER is neither a generic nor a descriptive term. It is a suggestive
term that can be validated as a TM and, therefore, may be legally protected. NOTE: Generic term: Common descriptive name of an article or substance. Basic nature of wares or services than idiosyncratic (peculiarity) characteristics of a product. Term: It conveys immediate idea of ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or it clearly denotes what goods or services are provided in such a way that the consumer does not have to exercise powers of perception or imagination suggestive term: Require imagination thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods. It connotes something about the product The term "master" has acquired a certain connotation to mean the coffee products MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND produced by Nestle. As such, the use by CFC of the term "master" in the trademark for its coffee product FLAVOR MASTER is likely to cause confusion or mistake or even to deceive the ordinary purchasers.