intellectual property law 134 trademarks

8/14/2019 Intellectual Property Law 134 Trademarks

1/93

Intellectual Property Law 134Trademarks

Prof. Vicente B. Amador


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


3/93


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


4/93


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


5/93


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?


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)


8/93

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,


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


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


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."


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.


13/93


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.


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.


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."


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.


18/93

What elements of this art design are registrable astrademarks and how do you classify them in terms of

distinctiveness ?


19/93

What elements in this pictorial illustration areregistrable as trademarks in the Philippines and how

do you classify them in terms of distinctiveness?


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).


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.


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.


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.


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,


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:


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 ;


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


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;


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;


30/93


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)


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;


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


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)


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)


36/93

Not All Marks are Created Equal


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.


38/93


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.


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.


41/93

Some Marks are in a Class Above all the Rest


42/93

If you have not heard of Intel, youdont belong to this century !!!


43/93

Everybody Loves Microsoft!!!


44/93

You cant live without it!!!


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.


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


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;


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:


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;


50/93


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;


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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:


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;


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,


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;


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


65/93

A mark can be a trade name and vice versa

ROLEX, KODAK, INTEL, MICROSOFT,AMAZON, BARBIZON


66/93


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?


68/93


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.


70/93

Domain name as a trademark


71/93


72/93

A BENCH is what you wear to sit on one


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;


74/93


75/93

If TEXT ALOUD doesnt tell you whatit is, it time to quit this course!!


76/93

If a Dragon talks, will you understandwhat it says?


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


84/93

properly identified as Product of Yardman forSears Roebuck, Yardman, Inc. vs. GetzExterminators, Inc. 157 USPQ 100


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


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


87/93

f f l f l d


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


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


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


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


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


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;

intellectual property law 134 trademarks

Documents