Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    Chua Che vs. Philippines Patent Office

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    Chua Che applied to register the trademark "X-7" for laundry soap in 1958. Sy Tuo opposed the application, claiming he had been using the trademark since 1951 for perfume, lipstick, and nail polish. The Director of Patents denied Chua Che's application due to the likelihood of confusion between the similar products. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while the products were different categories, they are common household items that could cause confusion for purchasers as to the common origin of the trademark. Allowing Chua Che to register the same mark would infringe on Sy Tuo's prior rights to the "X-7" trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chua Che vs. Philippines Patent Office

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    559 views1 page
    Chua Che applied to register the trademark "X-7" for laundry soap in 1958. Sy Tuo opposed the application, claiming he had been using the trademark since 1951 for perfume, lipstick, and nail polish. The Director of Patents denied Chua Che's application due to the likelihood of confusion between the similar products. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while the products were different categories, they are common household items that could cause confusion for purchasers as to the common origin of the trademark. Allowing Chua Che to register the same mark would infringe on Sy Tuo's prior rights to the "X-7" trademark.

    Original Description:

    Chua Che vs. Philippines Patent Office Case Digest in Intellectual Property Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Chua Che applied to register the trademark "X-7" for laundry soap in 1958. Sy Tuo opposed the application, claiming he had been using the trademark since 1951 for perfume, lipstick, and nail polish. The Director of Patents denied Chua Che's application due to the likelihood of confusion between the similar products. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while the products were different categories, they are common household items that could cause confusion for purchasers as to the common origin of the trademark. Allowing Chua Che to register the same mark would infringe on Sy Tuo's prior rights to the "X-7" trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    559 views1 page

    Chua Che vs. Philippines Patent Office

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    Chua Che applied to register the trademark "X-7" for laundry soap in 1958. Sy Tuo opposed the application, claiming he had been using the trademark since 1951 for perfume, lipstick, and nail polish. The Director of Patents denied Chua Che's application due to the likelihood of confusion between the similar products. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while the products were different categories, they are common household items that could cause confusion for purchasers as to the common origin of the trademark. Allowing Chua Che to register the same mark would infringe on Sy Tuo's prior rights to the "X-7" trademark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Trademarks

    CHUA CHE vs. PHILIPPINE PATENT OFFICE and SY TUO


    G.R. No. L-18337. January 30, 1965
    Facts:
    On October 30, 1958, Chua Che presented with the Philippines Patent Office a petition for the
    registration in his favor the trade name of "X-7". Chua Che declares that the trade name was used by
    him in commerce within the Philippines on June 10, 1957, and had been continuously used by him in
    trade in the Philippines for more than one year.
    Sy Tuo opposed, claiming that he owns the trademark and had been using it since 1951 as mark for
    perfume, lipstick, and nail polish as opposed to Chua Che's use which was admittedly only in 1957.
    The Director of Patents denied the application for use on soap Class 51, being manufactured by said
    Chua Che, upon the opposition of respondent Sy Tuo. The Director of Patents held that the products
    of the parties, while specifically different, are products intended for use in the home and usually have
    common purchasers. Furthermore, the use of X-7 for laundry soap is but a natural expansion of
    business of the opposer.
    Issue:
    WON allowing Chua Che to register the same mark for laundry soap would likely to cause confusion
    on the purchasers of X-7 products by SY Tou.
    Ruling:
    Yes. While it is no longer necessary to establish that the goods of the parties possess the same
    descriptive properties, as previously required under the Trade Mark Act of 1905, registration of a
    trademark should be refused in cases where there is a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception,
    even though the goods fall into different categories
    The products of appellee are common household items now-a-days, in the same manner as laundry
    soap. The likelihood of purchasers to associate these products to a common origin is not far-fetched.
    Both from the standpoint of priority of use and for the protection of the buying public and appellee's
    rights to the trademark "X-7", it becomes manifest that the registration of said trademark in favor of
    applicant-appellant should be denied.

    You might also like