intellectual property law 134 trademarks
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
1/93
Intellectual Property Law 134Trademarks
Prof. Vicente B. Amador
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
2/93
Comparative TableComparative Table
Copyright Patents Trademarks
Originalintellectualcreations in theliterary or artisticdomain
Technical solutionof a problem inany field of humanactivity
Visible signcapable of distinguishinggoods or servicesof enterprise
Originality Novelty, inventivestep and industrialapplicability
Distinctiveness
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
3/93
Comparative TableComparative Table
Reproduction,dramatization,first publicdistribution,
rental, publicdisplay, publicperformanceother
communication topublic
Making, using,selling, offeringfor sale andimporting
Use in commercewithout consent of a mark or adominant feature
in connection withsale, offering forsale, distribution,advertising in a
manner likely tocause confusion
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
4/93
Comparative TableComparative Table
From creationwithout anyformality
From filing,publication, grant
From filing,publication, grant
During lifetimeand 50 years afterdeath
Twenty years fromfiling date
Ten yearsrenewable withoutlimitation
Stimulation of artistic creativityfor the public good
Promotion of innovation for freeexploitation
Protection of goodwill and thepublic against
confusion
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
5/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
6/93
Is the MGM Roaring Lion registrable as atrademark in the Philippines?
Is the Harley Davidson roaring engine registrable asa trademark in the Philippines?
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
7/93
In what ways is a collective mark different from a
trademark?
Section 121.2. "Collective mark" means anyvisible sign designated as such in the
application for registration and capable of distinguishing the origin or any other commoncharacteristic, including the quality of goods orservices of different enterprises which use thesign under the control of the registered ownerof the collective mark; (Sec. 40, R.A. No. 166a)
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
8/93
How are trademarks classified based on theirdistinctiveness?
Spectrum of Distinctiveness Generic no trademark significance, cannot be
exclusively appropriated except as a part of anotherwise composite mark, and even then must bedisclaimed, e.g, Kamiseta, Pancake House Descriptive tells us the intended purpose,function, use,size, desirable characteristics of goods,nature of goods or effects upon users,
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
9/93
e.g., T-JOISTS for floor and roof systems; self-laudatory marks like TASTY for bread, CHAPSTICK for lip balm; change of formnotwithstanding, SPECS for spectacles,
DYANSHINE for shoe polish from dye andshine; KWIKSTART for car batteries; but maybe registrable upon proof of secondary meaning Suggestive indirect or vague reference toinformation about the product and requires a
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
10/93
thought process, ROACH MOTEL forcockroach trap, COPPERTONE for tan oil,
PLAYBOY for magazine, CYCLONE for wirefence, STRONGHOLD for nails Arbitrary or Fanciful usually coined words,ROLEX for watches, KODAK for cameras
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
11/93
Why Distinctiveness Matters
Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated vs. Shoemart,Incorporated, and North Edsa Marketing,Incorporated, G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003
Issue: TM infringement, Non-distinctive mark
Facts:1. P&D manufactures advertising display units or
light boxes, which utilize specially printed posterssandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminatedwith back lights.
2. It secured a TM registration for "Poster Ads"which petitioner's president said was a contraction
of "poster advertising."
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
12/93
3. But the goods covered were "stationeries such asletterheads, envelopes, calling cards and
newsletters," which P&D did not actuallymanufacture.
The SC held:
1. The trademark registration did not cover posterads. If at all, the cause of action should have beenfor unfair competition, a situation which waspossible even if P & D had no registration.
2. Nonetheless, respondents are not liable for unfaircompetition.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
13/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
14/93
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. and NESTLEPHILIPPINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CFCCORPORATION, G.R. No. 112012. April 4, 2001.
Nestles Marks: MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND."CFCs Marks: "FLAVOR MASTER"Nestle filed notice of opposition to CFCs application for
FLAVOR MASTER
CFC argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, is notconfusingly similar with the former's trademarks, MASTER
ROAST and MASTER BLEND.1. MASTER is either a generic or descriptive word Other wordsused with the trademarks are very different from each other inmeaning, spelling, pronunciation, and sound.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
15/93
Bureau of Patents denied CFCs trademark application, but CAreversed its decision and ruled in favor of CFC.
CA held that the physical discrepancies between appellant CFC'sand appellee's respective logos are so ostensible that the casualpurchaser cannot likely mistake one for the other.Supreme Court reversed the CA: 1. The Court of Appeals applied some judicial precedents whichare not on all fours with this case. 2. In infringement or trademark cases in the Philippines, no set
rules can be deduced in ascertaining whether one trademark isconfusingly similar to or is a colorable imitation of another. Eachcase must be decided on its own merits.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
16/93
3. The cases cited by the Court of Appeals to justify the applicationof the totality or holistic test to this case are inapplicable, the factualcircumstances being substantially different.BIOFERIN and BUFFERIN for pains caused headaches and coldsare spelled and pronounced differently and are prescribed byphysiciansALACTA for goods under Class 6 for pharmaceutical andnutritional preparation is distinguishable from ALASKA for goods
under Class 47 for food ingredients. The latter does not requireprescription.
4. "The determination of whether two trademarks are indeedconfusingly similar must be taken from the viewpoint of theordinary purchasers who are, in general, undiscerningly rash inbuying the more common and less expensive household products likecoffee, and are therefore less inclined to closely examine specificdetails of similarities and dissimilarities between competing
products."
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
17/93
5. MASTER is the dominant feature of opposer's mark.MASTER is printed predominantly on the label and emphasizedin TV, radio and printed advertising materials with personalitieslike Robert Jaworski and Atty. Ric Puno Jr., who are given thetitles Master of the Game and Master of the Talk Show.
6. In addition, the word "MASTER" is neither a generic nor adescriptive term. As such, said term can not be invalidated as a
trademark and, therefore, may be legally protected. Rather, theterm "MASTER" is a suggestive term brought about by theadvertising scheme of Nestle.
7. The term "MASTER", therefore, has acquired a certainconnotation to mean the coffee products MASTER ROAST andMASTER BLEND produced by Nestle. As such, the use by CFCof the term "MASTER" in the trademark for its coffee productFLAVOR MASTER is likely to cause confusion or mistake or
even to deceive the ordinary purchasers.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
18/93
What elements of this art design are registrable astrademarks and how do you classify them in terms of
distinctiveness ?
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
19/93
What elements in this pictorial illustration areregistrable as trademarks in the Philippines and how
do you classify them in terms of distinctiveness?
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
20/93
Trademarks, Patents and Copyright as Subjects of Commercial Transactions
SECTION 4. Definitions. - 4.1. The term"intellectual property rights" consists of:a) Copyright and Related Rights;
b) Trademarks and Service Marks;c) Geographic Indications;d) Industrial Designs;e) Patents;f) Layout-Designs (Topographies) of IntegratedCircuits; andg) Protection of Undisclosed Information (n,TRIPS).
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
21/93
4.2. The term "technology transfer arrangements"refers to contracts or agreements involving thetransfer of systematic knowledge for themanufacture of a product, the application of a
process, or rendering of a service includingmanagement contracts; and the transfer, assignmentor licensing of all forms of intellectual propertyrights, including licensing of computer software
except computer software developed for massmarket.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
22/93
Section 150. License Contracts. Any license contractconcerning the registration of a mark, or anapplication therefor, shall provide for effective controlby the licensor of the quality of the goods or servicesof the licensee in connection with which the mark isused. If the license contract does not provide for suchquality control or if such quality control is noteffectively carried out, the license contract shall not bevalid.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
23/93
Technology Transfer Arrangement
Section 4.2. The term "technology transferarrangements" refers to contracts or agreementsinvolving the transfer of systematic knowledge forthe manufacture of a product, the application of aprocess, or rendering of a service includingmanagement contracts; and the transfer,assignment or licensing of all forms of intellectualproperty rights, including licensing of computersoftware except computer software developed formass market.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
24/93
Requirement for Enforceability
Section 92. Non-Registration with theDocumentation, Information and Technology
Transfer Bureau. - Technology transferarrangements that conform with the provisions of Sections 86 and 87 need not be registered with theDocumentation, Information and Technology
Transfer Bureau. Non-conformance with any of theprovisions of Sections 87 and 88, however, shallautomatically render the technology transferarrangement unenforceable,
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
25/93
unless said technology transfer arrangement isapproved and registered with the Documentation,Information and Technology Transfer Bureau underthe provisions of Section 91 on exceptional cases. (n)
Donts of IP Licensing
SECTION 87. Prohibited Clauses. - Except incases under Section 91, the following provisions shall
be deemed prima facie to have an adverse effect oncompetition and trade:
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
26/93
87.1. Those which impose upon the licensee theobligation to acquire from a specific sourcecapital goods, intermediate products, rawmaterials, and other technologies, or of permanently employing personnel indicated bythe licensor;87.2. Those pursuant to which the licensorreserves the right to fix the sale or resale prices of
the products manufactured on the basis of thelicense ;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
27/93
87.3. Those that contain restrictions regardingthe volume and structure of production;87.4. Those that prohibit the use of competitive technologies in a non-exclusive
technology transfer agreement;87.5. Those that establish a full or partialpurchase option in favor of the licensor;87.6. Those that obligate the licensee totransfer for free to the licensor the inventionsor
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
28/93
improvements that may be obtained through the useof the licensed technology;87.7. Those that require payment of royalties to theowners of patents for patents which are not used;87.8. Those that prohibit the licensee to export the
licensed product unless justified for the protection of the legitimate interest of the licensor such as exportsto countries where exclusive licenses to manufactureand/or distribute the licensed product(s) have
already been granted;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
29/93
87.9. Those which restrict the use of thetechnology supplied after the expiration of thetechnology transfer arrangement, except incases of early termination of the technologytransfer arrangement due to reason(s)attributable to the licensee;87.10.Those which require payments forpatents and other industrial property rights
after their expiration, terminationarrangement;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
30/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
31/93
87.13.Those which prevent the licensee fromadapting the imported technology to localconditions, or introducing innovation to it, as longas it does not impair the quality standardsprescribed by the licensor;
87.14.Those which exempt the licensor for liabilityfor non-fulfillment of his responsibilities under thetechnology transfer arrangement and/or liabilityarising from third party suits brought about by the
use of the licensed product or the licensedtechnology; and87.15.Other clauses with equivalent effects. (Sec.33-C (2), R.A 165a)
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
32/93
Dos of IP Licensing
SECTION 88. Mandatory Provisions. - Thefollowing provisions shall be included in voluntary
license contracts:88.1. That the laws of the Philippines shall governthe interpretation of the same and in the event of litigation, the venue shall be the proper court in the
place where the licensee has its principal office;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
33/93
88.2. Continued access to improvements in
techniques and processes related to thetechnology shall be made available during theperiod of the technology transfer arrangement;88.3. In the event the technology transferarrangement shall provide for arbitration, theProcedure of Arbitration of the Arbitration Lawof the Philippines or the Arbitration Rules of the
United Nations Commission on InternationalTrade Law (UNCITRAL) or the Rules of Conciliation and
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
34/93
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) shall apply and the venue of arbitration shall be the Philippines or any neutralcountry; and88.4. The Philippine taxes on all paymentsrelating to the technology transfer arrangement
shall be borne by the licensor. (n)
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
35/93
Exceptions to the Donts and Dos
SECTION 91. Exceptional Cases. - In
exceptional or meritorious cases where substantialbenefits will accrue to the economy, such as hightechnology content, increase in foreign exchangeearnings, employment generation, regionaldispersal of industries and/or substitution with oruse of local raw materials, or in the case of Board of Investments, registered companies with pioneerstatus, exemption from any of the aboverequirements may be allowed by theDocumentation, Information and TechnologyTransfer Bureau after evaluation thereof on a case
by case basis. (n)
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
36/93
Not All Marks are Created Equal
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
37/93
You cant go wrong with a mark like ROLEX
Montres Rolex, S. A. vs. Rolex Scientific Corporation,SEC Decision, April 28, 2004
Issue: Unauthorized use of Rolex trademark andtrade name
Facts:1. Petitioner is the registered owner of the trademark ROLEX for watches in the Phils. and elsewhere.ROLEX is used as a trade name.
2. ROLEX trademark is registered in numerouscountries worldwide. It is used as part of thecorporate name of a Rolex subsidiary in the Phils.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
38/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
39/93
2. Sec. 18 of Corp. Code also protects the registeredcorporate names of Rolex companies in the Phils. A
corporations right to use its corporate name is aproperty right, which it may protect against thewhole world.
3. The ROLEX name and mark is known worldwide
as a leading brand or name for timepieces. It is aworld famous mark.
4. Respondents argument that confusion is not likelyis unacceptable because what is sought to beprotected is not the product alone, but the tradename itself of petitioner.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
40/93
5. The protection to which the prior user of acorporate name is entitled is not limited to guarding
its goods or business from actual market competitionwith identical or similar products of the parties butextends to all cases in which the use of the juniorappropriator of the name is likely to lead to confusion
as to source, as where prospective purchasers wouldbe misled into thinking that the complainingcorporation has extended its business into the field, oris in any way connected with the activities of theinfringer; or when it forestalls the normal expansionof its business.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
41/93
Some Marks are in a Class Above all the Rest
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
42/93
If you have not heard of Intel, youdont belong to this century !!!
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
43/93
Everybody Loves Microsoft!!!
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
44/93
You cant live without it!!!
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
45/93
Why it is given special treatment
Pribhdas J. Mirpuri .vs. Court of Appeals, Director of Patents and the Barbizon Corporation, G.R. No.114508. November 19, 1999
Issue: Well-known mark Facts:1. Escobar applied with the BPTT for the registration
of the trademark "Barbizon" for use in brassieresand ladies undergarments. She claimed use of the
mark since 1970.2. Barbizon opposed the application on the basis of itsuse of Barbizon for apparel.
3. Escobar prevailed but her registration lapsed
because she failed to file affidavit of use.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
46/93
4. Barbizon opposed Escobars re-application.Opposition was based on new grounds:
fraudulent registration in 1974, violation of Art.189 (3) the RPC, protection of well-known mark under Art. 6bis of Paris Convention
SC held:1. Opposition is not barred by res judicata because
while the first opposition was only based onclaim of confusing similarity second oppositionwas based on new grounds not raised in the firstcase.
2. Barbizons opposition is anchored on protectionof well-known mark Article under 6bis of the
Paris Convention
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
47/93
3. The Barbizon trademark is well-known because:(a) It has been used as early as 1933 on products suchas robes, pajamas, lingerie, nightgowns and slips;(b) It was registered with the USPO in 1934 and 1949;and variations of the same trademark, i.e.,"BARBIZON" with Bee design and "BARBIZON"
with the representation of a woman were alsoregistered with the USPO in 1961 and 1976;(c) It has been used in the Philippines and in manycountries all over the world for over forty years.
(d) "Barbizon" products have been advertised ininternational publications and the marks registered in36 countries worldwide;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
48/93
Section 123. Registrability. A mark cannot be
registered if it:*(e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to,or constitutes a translation of a mark which isconsidered by the competent authority of the
Philippines to be well-known internationallyand in the Philippines, whether or not it isregistered here, as being already the mark of aperson other than the applicant for registration,and used for identical or similar goods orservices:
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
49/93
Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of theknowledge of the relevant sector of the public,
rather than of the public at large, includingknowledge in the Philippines which has beenobtained as a result of the promotion of themark;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
50/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
51/93
That use of the mark in relation to those goodsor services would indicate a connection betweenthose goods or services, and the owner of theregistered mark: Provided further, That theinterests of the owner of the registered mark arelikely to be damaged by such use;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
52/93
Par (e) covers situation where:
a mark is considered by Philippine authorities tobe well-known internationally and in the Phils.the mark may or may not be registered in thePhils.the mark is used for identical or similar goodsand services to those of the rival userthe well-known mark bars the rival mark
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
53/93
Par (f) covers situation where:
a mark is considered well-known internationallyand in the Phils.such mark is also registered in the Phils.the goods or services for which the mark isregistered are not similar to those in respect of which rival mark is applied for
well-known mark bars the rival mark if connection with and prejudice to owner of mark are shown
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
54/93
Rule102. Criteria. In determining whether a
mark is well known, the following criteria orany combination thereof may be taken intoaccount:(a) The duration, extent and geographical area
of any use of the mark, in particular, theduration, extent and geographical area of anypromotion of the mark, including theadvertising or publicity and the presentation atfairs, or exhibitions, of the goods and services
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
55/93
to which the mark applies;(b) the market share, in the Philippines and inother countries, of the goods and services towhich the mark applies;( c) the degree of the inherent or acquireddistinction of the mark;(d) the quality, image or reputation acquired bythe mark;
(e) the extent to which the mark has beenregistered in the world
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
56/93
(f) the exclusivity of registration attained by themark in the world;
(g) the extent to which the mark has been usedin the world;
(h) the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the world;(i) The commercial value attributed to the
mark in the world;
(j) The record of successful protection of therights in the mark
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
57/93
(k)the outcome of litigations dealing with theissue of whether the mark is a well-knownmark
(l) the presence or absence of identical or
similar marks validly registered for or usedon identical or similar goods and servicesand owned by persons other than the personclaiming that his mark is a well-known
mark.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
58/93
Protection of Trade Names Paris Convention mandates that member
countries shall protect the trade names of nationals of other members without theobligation of filing or registration
Section 18 of the Corporation Code preventsthe use as corporate names of designationsprotected by law
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
59/93
1. What is the national treatment principle in IP law?
Each WTO member shall accord to nationals of otherMembers treatment no less favorable than that which itaccords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property
2. What is the most-favored national treatment in IP law?
With regard to the protection of intellectual property, anyadvantage, favor, privilege or immunity granted byMembers to the nationals of any other country shall beaccorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationalsof all other Members.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
60/93
It doesnt pay to copy anothers mark particularly if its well known
Section 123. Registrability. A mark cannot beregistered if it:*(e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to,or constitutes a translation of a mark which isconsidered by the competent authority of thePhilippines to be well-known internationallyand in the Philippines, whether or not it isregistered here, as being already the mark of aperson other than the applicant for registration,and used for identical or similar goods or
services:
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
61/93
Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the
knowledge of the relevant sector of the public,rather than of the public at large, includingknowledge in the Philippines which has beenobtained as a result of the promotion of the
mark;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
62/93
Why do I have to worry about it?
SECTION 123.Registrability. A mark cannot beregistered if it:*(f) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to,or constitutes a translation of a mark consideredwell-known in accordance with the precedingparagraph, which is registered in the Philippineswith respect to goods or services which are notsimilar to those with respect to whichregistration is applied for: Provided,
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
63/93
That use of the mark in relation to those goodsor services would indicate a connection betweenthose goods or services, and the owner of theregistered mark: Provided further, That theinterests of the owner of the registered mark arelikely to be damaged by such use;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
64/93
Section 121.3. "Trade name" means the
name or designation identifying or distinguishingan enterprise; (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 166a)
Call it by any other name and it wont meanthe same
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
65/93
A mark can be a trade name and vice versa
ROLEX, KODAK, INTEL, MICROSOFT,AMAZON, BARBIZON
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
66/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
67/93
Section 165.Trade Names or Business Names. -165.1. A name or designation may not be usedas a trade name if by its nature or the use to
which such name or designation may be put, itis contrary to public order or morals and if, inparticular, it is liable to deceive trade circlesor the public as to the nature of the enterprise
identified by that name.
When is it immoral and when deceptive?
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
68/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
69/93
Enterprise must be be transferred with the trade name
165.3.The remedies provided for in Sections 153 to156 and Sections 166 and 167 shall apply mutatismutandis.
165.4.Any change in the ownership of a trade nameshall be made with the transfer of the enterpriseor part thereof identified by that name. Theprovisions of Subsections 149.2 to 149.4 shallapply mutatis mutandis.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
70/93
Domain name as a trademark
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
71/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
72/93
A BENCH is what you wear to sit on one
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
73/93
Is it alright to use your name as a mark whenyoure dead?
Section 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it**(e) Consists of the name, portrait or signatureidentifying a particular living individual exceptby his written consent, or the name, signature orportrait of a deceased President of thePhilippines during the lifetime of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow;
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
74/93
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
75/93
If TEXT ALOUD doesnt tell you whatit is, it time to quit this course!!
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
76/93
If a Dragon talks, will you understandwhat it says?
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
77/93
Dont use it if it tells you what the product isSection 123. A mark cannot be registered if it:(j) consists exclusively of signs or of indicationsthat may serve in trade to designate the kind,quality, quantity intended purpose, value,geographical origin, time or production of thegoods or the rendering of the services or other
characteristics of the goods or services.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
78/93
unless you are ready to use it for the at leastfive years before you can claim it as your own
123.2 As regards signs or devices mentioned inparagraphs (j), (k), and (l), nothing shallprevent the registration of any such sign ordevice which has become distinctive in relationto the goods for which registration is requestedas a result of the use that have been made of it
in commerce in the Philippines.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
79/93
and even then, its just prima facie afterfive years!!!
The Office may accept as prima facie evidencethat the mark has become distinctive, as usedin connection with the applicant's goods orservices in commerce, proof of substantiallyexclusive and continuous use thereof by theapplicant in commerce in the Philippines for
five (5) years before the date on which theclaim of distinctiveness is made.
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
80/93
If it has a secondary meaning, it must have aprimary
Doctrine of secondary meaning or acquireddistinctivenesslimited to marks under paragraphs (j),(k) and(l), and excludes absolutely unregistrabletrademarks Phil. Nut Industry Inc. vs. Standard Brands
Inc., GR L-23035, July 31, 1975; PLANTERS Ang vs. Teodoro, GR No. L-48226, December14, 194; ANG TIBAY
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
81/93
Its the consumers mind that counts
Tests of Strength Strength refers to the distinctiveness of themark Fanciful-suggestive-descriptive continuum isoften used to determine strength or weaknessof marks
It is a question of consumer recognitionIt is not determined by the value of the goodson which it is used
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
82/93
Strength is also determined by number of third-party uses
e.g., In a crowded field, MRS. OF THEWORLD is not likely to be confused withMISS WORLD, Miss World UK vs. Mrs.American Pageant, Inc. 856 F. 2d 1445
and the more users there are, the lessdistinctive it is
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
83/93
Do you order it single or double?
A mark may be used singly or in combinationwith other markse.g., company name is used as house mark inaddition to another mark on labels: SONYVAIO, KELLOGG POP-TARTS, Kellogg vs.General Foods Corp., 166 USPQ 27 Multiple marks may be used together bymultiple userse.g., lawn mower manufactured by Yardmanand retailed by Sears Roebuck can be
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
84/93
properly identified as Product of Yardman forSears Roebuck, Yardman, Inc. vs. GetzExterminators, Inc. 157 USPQ 100
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
85/93
If its difficult to remember, its better than onethat isnt
Types of MarksArbitrarily arranged letters given wideprotectionbecause they are difficult to rememberAn alphanumeric telephone number may be useda trademark, but if it includes a generic term,composite mark can be descriptive and may beprotected only upon proof of secondary meaningBut numbers used to indicate size, capacity,model or style are not used as trademarks
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
86/93
Abbreviations and nicknames may function asmarks, e.g., COKE for Coca-Cola, BUD forBudweiserSlogans can serve as marks, e.g.. Where TheresLife Theres Bud, but not Soil It-Wash it-Never-Needs Pressing for apparel
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
87/93
f f l f l d
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
88/93
If is useful for practical purposes, it doesntfunction as a mark
Product and Container Shapes may beprotected under unfair competition law if following elements are present:
Non-functionalityProof of secondary meaningLikelihood of confusione.g., shape of classic automobile, Ferrari SpA vs.McBurnie, 11 USPQ2d 1843; overall design of sports shoes, L. A. Gear vs. Thom McAn Shoe,12 USPQ2d 1001
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
89/93
Levis pocket tab is a valid trademark, notprimarily functional, and not merelyornamental, Levi Strauss & Co. vs. Blue Bell,200 USPQ 434
but if is neither functional nor ornamental, itmight be worth a try
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
90/93
If one manufacturer should make an advancein effectiveness of operation or simplicity of form, or in utility of color; and if that advance
did not entitle him to a monopoly by means of a machine or process or a product or a designpatent; and if by means of unfair trade suits hecould shut out other manufacturers whoplainly intended to share in the benefits of unpatented utilities
You cant appropriate what others need tocompete
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
91/93
he would be given gratuitously a monopoly moreeffective than that of the unobtainable patent ina ratio of eternity to seventeen years Popeautomatic Merchandising Co. vs. McCrum-Howell Co., 191 F. 979, 223 US 730
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
92/93
If the Supreme Court said so, you better believe it!
Functional features cannot be appropriated astrademarks Asia Brewery Inc. vs. San Miguel Corp., July5, 1993
Territorial character of trademarks
Philip Morris Inc. et. al. vs. Fortune TobaccoCorp., July 16, 1993 But see Section 123(e) * * * In determiningwhether a mark is well known, account shall
-
8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks
93/93
be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sectorof the public, rather than of the public at large,including knowledge in the Philippines which
has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark;