CASE NO. 7 Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v Dy 1. Dominancy Test.

This test determines whether there exist prevalent or essential features of competing trademarks that might result into confusion or deception to consumers. The similarity of the appearance of the dominant features of the trademark vis--vis another trademark is much taken into consideration. Applying the dominancy test in this case, the aural effect of the letters in the marks NANNY and NAN was held to be confusingly similar as the word NAN was considered the prevalent feature; thus, the respondent committed infringement. 2. Holistic or Totality Test. This test contemplates the entirety or wholeness of the trademarks in deciding if a trademark is confusingly similar with the other. The predominant words as well as the minor features appearing in the labels and packaging are taken into account. 3. Concept of related goods. This presupposes that infringement is present if the opposing parties used the same trademark in non-competing goods but so related in such a way that the consuming public may be deceived that these goods are manufactured or produced by the same entity. 4. Confusion of Goods (also known as Product Confusion). This happens when a purchaser was induced to believe that the product he was buying was that of the other. For instance, Mr. Juan went to the market to buy Product B, but he saw Product C of a poorer quality and of a cheaper price and he was induced to buy the latter, which has the similar trademark with that of Product B. 5. Confusion of Business (also known as Source/ Origin Confusion). This is an instance where purchaser was deceived that the product he was buying originates from a certain manufacturer but in fact, it does not. Also, it presupposes that the products involved are non-competing products. CASE NO. 8 Dermaline, Inc. v Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1. Dominancy Test. This test determines whether there exist prevalent or essential features of competing trademarks that might result into confusion or deception to consumers. The similarity of the appearance of the dominant features of the trademark vis--vis another trademark is much taken into consideration. Furthermore, aural and visual impressions are given with more emphasis. Applying the dominancy test in this case, the marks DERMALINE and DERMALIN was held to be confusingly similar on the ground that they almost spelled in the same way and the pronouncement is practically the same.

2. Holistic or Totality Test. This test contemplates the entirety or wholeness of the trademarks in deciding if a trademark is confusingly similar with the other. The predominant words as well as the minor features appearing in the labels and packaging are taken into account. 3. Confusion of Goods (also known as Product Confusion). This happens when a purchaser was induced to believe that the product he was buying was that of the other. For instance, Mr. Juan went to the market to buy Product B, but he saw Product C of a poorer quality and of a cheaper price and he was induced to buy the latter, which has the similar trademark with that of Product B. 4. Confusion of Business (also known as Source/ Origin Confusion). This is an instance where purchaser was deceived that the product he was buying originates from a certain manufacturer but in fact, it does not. Also, it presupposes that the products involved are non-competing products. 5. Protection in product and market areas including those within the normal potential expansion of ones business. The law on trademark does not only protect ones goods or business from its direct competing goods or competitors but also those with other non-competing goods or noncompetitors who might misled the public that they the former has extended to them its business and activities. CASE No. 9 Sketchers USA v Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp 1. Dominancy Test. This test determines whether there exist prevalent or essential features of competing trademarks that might result into confusion or deception to consumers. The similarity of the appearance of the dominant features of the trademark vis--vis another trademark is much taken into consideration. Furthermore, aural and visual impressions are given with more emphasis. Applying the dominancy test in this case, the trademark S (in an oval design) which was registered by the petitioner was infringed by the respondent who used the same stylized S in its rubber shoes products. 2. Holistic or Totality Test. This test contemplates the entirety or wholeness of the trademarks in deciding if a trademark is confusingly similar with the other. The predominant words as well as the minor features appearing in the labels and packaging are taken into account. 3. Confusion of Goods (also known as Product Confusion). This happens when a purchaser was induced to believe that the product he was buying was that of the other. For instance, Mr. Juan went to the market to buy Product B, but he saw Product C of a poorer quality and of a cheaper price and he was induced to buy the latter, which has the similar trademark with that of Product B.

4. Confusion of Business (also known as Source/ Origin Confusion). This is an instance where purchaser was deceived that the product he was buying originates from a certain manufacturer but in fact, it does not. Also, it presupposes that the products involved are non-competing products. 5. Protection against confusion. The law on trademark does only protect the goodwill and reputation of the Company but also it protects the consuming public against confusion or deception that the goods brought about by trademark infringement. Case No. 10 Hon Ne Chan v Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

Case No. 11 Sehwani, Inc. v In-N-Out Burger Inc 1. Legal capacity to sue by a non-resident entity. It is provided under the Intellectual Property Code that any foreign national or juridical person, who is not doing business in the Philippines, may bring an action against the infringer in the Philippines provided that the country wherein he has effective industrial establishment is a party to a convention or treaty to which the Philippines is also a party. As such, a juridical person whose country is a signatory in the Paris Convention may sue or file an action in the Philippines for the protection of its trademark. 2. Internationally Well-known Trademarks. A trademark is said to be wellknown in the country where a protection is sought if the power to determine 3. Principle of laches not applicable. Sec 1515 (B) of the Intellectual Property Code provides that the petition for the cancellation of trademark, which was fraudulently obtained or contrary to the provisions of the same Act or which is used to misrepresent the source of the goods, may be filed anytime. Thus, laches cannot be applied to defeat the aforementioned specific provision since equity is only applicable in the absence of a provision of a law. 4. Marks registered or not in the Philippines. 5.

Case No. 12 Mattel Inc. v Francisco