1 February 2013Jurisdiction reportsAnne Mariae Celeste V. Jumadla

Beware of sharks: similarity of marks in the Philippines

In a November 12, 2012 decision involving two trademarks comprising representations of a shark, the Supreme Court of the Philippines discounted confusing similarity between them upon noting their “distinct visual and aural differences”.

An opposition proceeding was lodged by Great White Shark Enterprises, Inc, a multinational corporation headed by the Australian professional golfer Greg Norman, against a local, Danilo Caralde, on the basis of the company’s ‘Greg Norman’ logo consisting of a colour representation of a shark. The opposed mark comprised another representation of a shark formed by the letters constituting the word ‘shark’.

The Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) and the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines both found confusing similarity between the two marks. However, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court reversed this ruling.

The BLA found the representations of a shark to be the dominant features of both marks and “to such degree that the overall impression” is that the two marks are “strikingly similar” to each other, making confusion likely.

In affirming the BLA’s ruling, the ODG found support from a December 25, 1995 Supreme Court decision in Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. v Court of Appeals, which states:

“Colourable imitation refers to such similarity in form, content, words, sound, meaning, special arrangement, or general appearance of the trademark or trade name with that of the other mark or trade name in their overall presentation or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts as would likely mislead or confuse persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article.”

The ODG found the competing marks similar as to content, word, sound and meaning; comparing the marks not only visually, but equally considering the sound and concept or idea that the marks connote, and putting emphasis on the source-identifier function of a trademark.

Similarly, the Court of Appeals considered as a crucial issue “the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deceit as to the identity, source or origin of the goods or identity of the business” resulting from the use of a mark. It likewise applied the same standard for ‘colourable imitation’ as the ODG. But unlike the latter, the court focused on form and content rather than on a concept or idea.

The court likewise observed the dominance of the shape of a shark in the competing marks. However, it did not determine confusing similarity merely by comparing the dominant features, which would have sufficed under the jurisprudential ‘dominancy test’, but went on to apply the ‘holistic test’, focusing on the entirety of the marks and comparing the differences between them with regard to:

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk