Wilton Dy Vs Philipps
Wilton Dy Vs Philipps
186088
Facts:
ARGUMENTS:
3. Philipps Electronics:
a. The approval of Application Serial No. 4-2000-002937 is contrary
to the following provisions of Republic Act No. [RAJ 8293 or the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code): Sections
123.l(d), (i) and (iii), 123.l(e), 147, and 168.
c. The use and registration of the applied for mark by [petitioner] will
mislead the public as to the origin, nature, quality, and
characteristic of the goods on which it is affixed
f. The registration of the applied for mark will not only prejudice the
Opposer, but will also cause PHILITES’ to unfairly profit
commercially from the goodwill, fame and notoriety of Opposer's
trademark and reputation.
4. PHILITES:
a. stating that its PHILITES & LETTER P DEVICE trademark and
respondent's PHILIPS have vast dissimilarities in terms of spelling,
sound and meaning.
6. Rationale:
a. here should have been prior determination of whether or not the
mark under application for registration was "identical with, or
confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of such well-
known mark in order that the owner of the well-known mark can
prevent its registration
8. Rationale:
a. [t]he dominant feature of the [respondent's] trademark is 'PHILIPS'
while that of the [petitioner's] trademark is 'PHILITES.' While the
first syllables of the marks are identical - 'PHI' - the second
syllables are not.
10. Rationale:
a. drawing of the trademark submitted by [petitioner] has a different
appearance from that of [petitioner's] actual wrapper or packaging
that contain the light bulbs, which We find confusingly similar
with that of [respondent's] registered trademark and packaging.
11. Issues:
a. Whether or not respondent's mark is a registered and well-known
mark in the Philippines
Applying the dominancy test to this case requires us to look only at the
mark submitted by petitioner in its application, while we give importance
to the aural and visual impressions the mark is likely to create in the
minds of the buyers. We agree with the findings of the CA that the mark
"PHILITES" bears an uncanny resemblance or confusing similarity with
respondent's mark "PHILIPS,