Court decisions have held the following goods are CLOSELY RELATED and should not bear the same trademarks since they were produced by different manufacturers:

Prior UserLater UserJurisprudence

Shoes and slippersPants and shirts1Ang v. Toribio [1942] 74 Phil. 50, 54.

Health soapHair pomade2Ng Khee v. Lever Brothers Company [1941] 83 Phil. 947, 962.

Perfume, lipstick and nail polishHealth soap3Chua Che v. Philippines Patent Office [1965] 13 SCRA 67, 72

Haberdashery goodsShoes4Sta. Ana v. Maliwat [1968] 24 SCRA 1018, 1027

Beauty soapLaundry soap5Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court of Appeals, [1990] 229 SCRA 115, 32.

Laundry soapLaundry starch6Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. CPC International, Inc., [1979] 24 CAR (2s) 440, 446

ZippersThread7International Textile Mills v. Yoshida Kogyo K.K. [1987] 85 O.G. 8215, 8218.

On the other hand, court decisions have held that the following goods are NOT CLOSELY RELATED and may bear the same trademarks:

Prior UserLater UserJurisprudence

MedicinesChemicals11.Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, [1968] 27 SCRA 1214, 1226.

Edible oilSoy sauce22.Acoje Mining Company, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1971] 38 SCRA 480, 482.

Petroleum productsCigarettes33.Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49145, June 29, 1979;

Toilet articlesBriefs44.Faberge, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court [1992] 215 SCRA 316, 330.

Paints, chemical products, toner and dyestuffsSandals55.Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120900, July 20, 2000.

ShoesSocks66.Bally Shuhfabricken A.G. v. Mil-Oro Manufacturing Corporation, CA-G.R. SP No. 10265, January 25, 1988.

Motor vehiclesShoes, sandals, and slippers77.Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Sapalo [1994] 94 O.G. 3792, 3794

On the basis of the dominancy test, the following trademarks have been held to be CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR:Prior Trademark Later Trademark Product or ServiceJurisprudence

Ginebra de la Campana Ginebra de Dos Campanas and Ginebra Tres CampanasGinUbeda v. Zialcita, [1913] 226 U.S. 452, 453; Ubeda v. Zialcita [1909] 13 Phil. 11, 18-19.

Illustration of a rooster in a fighting stanceIllustration of two roosters in a fighting stanceCandy2Clarke v. Manila Candy Company [1917] 36 Phil. 100, 115.

Illustration of three British soldiers with two kneeling and one standingIllustration of five British soldiers with three kneeling and two standingKhaki cloth3Forbes, Murin & Company v. Ang San To [1919] 40 Phil. 272, 276.

PalatolPai Li ToPharmaceutical product4Parke, Davis & Company v. Kiu Foo & Company, Ltd. [1934] 60 Phil. 928, 932.

SapolinLusolinPaint5Sapolin, Inc. v. Balmaceda [1939] 67 Phil. 705, 716..

FreemanFreedomShirts6Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents [1954] 95 Phil. 1, 7.

Illustration of a henIllustration oftwo roostersFood seasoning7Lim Hoa v. Director of Patents [1956] 100 Phil. 215, 217.

Illustration of a carpIllustration of a milkfishNative sauce8Chuanchow Soy & Canning Company v. Director of Patents [1960] 108 Phil. 833, 836

Big 5Big 3Vegetable lard9Recaro v. Embisan [1961] 2 SCRA 544, 551.

NabiscoAmbiscoBakery products10Operators, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1965] 15 SCRA 147, 149

SalonpasLionpasMedicated plaster11Marvex Commercial Company, Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Company [1966] 18 SCRA 1178, 1183.

FlormannFlormenSHOES12Sta. Ana v. Maliwat [1968] 24 SCRA 1018, 1027

DuraflexDynaflexElectrical wires13American Wire & Cable Company v. Director of Patents [1970] 31 SCRA 544, 551.

RaceSun Rays Undershirts14Kee Boc v. Director of Patents [1970] 34 SCRA 570, 572.

Planters Cocktail PeanutsPhilippine Planters Cordial PeanutsSalted peanuts15Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc. [1975] 65 SCRA 575, 580.

Gold ToeGold TopSocks16Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cluett Peabody Company, Inc., G.R. No. 139300, March 14, 2001.

Master Roast and Master BlendFlavor MasterCOFFEE17Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112012, April 4, 2001.

AlexanderAdvancerThread18Kerr & Company, Ltd. v. Cong Kong, CA-G.R. No. 5603-R, May 10, 1951.

Vino Anti-KabukiAnti-KabukiMedicine for stomach ailment1919.Tan Chai v. Chiong [1965] 7 CAR (2s) 325, 330

Illustration of black cat walking upright, dressed in white, and holding a steaming cup Illustration of black dog walking upright, dressed in white, and holding a steaming cupTea20Cheng U v. Villafania [1966] 9 CAR (2s) 42, 49

LorenzanaLoringNative sauce21Lorenzana v. Jocson & Son [1968] 65 O.G. 13862, 13866.

Fruit of the LoomBeauty in the Bloom Lingerie22Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Dargani [1972] 17 CAR (2s) 1133, 1335

FABFASDetergent23Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Dargani [1972] 17 CAR (2s) 1133, 1335

DipterexDiphenex Agricultural chemical products24Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Nikon Nohyaku Company, Ltd. [1988] 87 O.G. 6879, 6881

Hotel EsperanzaHotel Esperana Hotel 25Rize Holdings, Inc. v. Po [1994] 94 O.G. 7358, 7362.

On the other hand, the following trademarks were held to be DISSIMILAR: Prior Trademark Later Trademark Product or ServiceJurisprudence

VictoriasValentinoValentinoVictorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Ong Siu [1977] 79 SCRA 207, 216

AlexanderAlohaThread2Kerr & Company, Ltd. v. Go Gee, CA-G.R. No. 7034-R, December 20, 1951.

CoconutCo Co CoThread3Continental Manufacturing Corporation v. Qui [1962] 59 O.G. 1093, 1095

Green DragonDouble Peacock Canned salmon4Alaska Packers Association v. Kaw Ching Tiah, CA-G.R. No. 35359-R, June 26, 1969

LiptonCaltonTea5Lipton, Ltd. v. Shu, CA-G.R. No. 37534-R, October 23, 1969.

CampbellsCapitolsSoup6People v. Chua Be Sing, CA-G.R. No. 66405-Cr, August 6, 1971

TranspulminPulminPulminDoctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Director of Patents [1974] 19 CAR (7s) 1147, 1155.

JordacheRawhideJeans8Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Davila [1989] 6 CARA 341, 352.

Dacron and LycroLicronTextile fibers9E.I Du Pont de Nemours & Company v. Lakeview Industrial Corporation [1989] 7 CAR (2s), 665, 671.

PediamoxDiamoxMedicinesAmerican Cyanamid Company v. Pediatrica, Inc. [1987] 96 O.G. 9494, 9496-9497.