Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    108 Faberge vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Michael Rentoza
    This case involves a dispute over the trademark registration of "BRUTE" between Faberge, Inc., which had previously registered the trademark "BRUT" for aftershave and other items, and IAC and Co Beng Kay, which was authorized to register "BRUTE" for briefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of IAC, holding that under Section 20 of trademark law, Faberge's exclusive rights to its trademark only extended to the goods specified in its registration certificate, not other non-competing goods like briefs. Therefore, the registration of "BRUTE" for briefs did not infringe on Faberge's trademark and was allowed.

    Copyright:

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

    108 Faberge vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Michael Rentoza
    91 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the trademark registration of "BRUTE" between Faberge, Inc., which had previously registered the trademark "BRUT" for aftershave and other items, and IAC and Co Beng Kay, which was authorized to register "BRUTE" for briefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of IAC, holding that under Section 20 of trademark law, Faberge's exclusive rights to its trademark only extended to the goods specified in its registration certificate, not other non-competing goods like briefs. Therefore, the registration of "BRUTE" for briefs did not infringe on Faberge's trademark and was allowed.

    Original Description:

    H

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the trademark registration of "BRUTE" between Faberge, Inc., which had previously registered the trademark "BRUT" for aftershave and other items, and IAC and Co Beng Kay, which was authorized to register "BRUTE" for briefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of IAC, holding that under Section 20 of trademark law, Faberge's exclusive rights to its trademark only extended to the goods specified in its registration certificate, not other non-competing goods like briefs. Therefore, the registration of "BRUTE" for briefs did not infringe on Faberge's trademark and was allowed.

    Copyright:

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

    108 Faberge vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Michael Rentoza
    This case involves a dispute over the trademark registration of "BRUTE" between Faberge, Inc., which had previously registered the trademark "BRUT" for aftershave and other items, and IAC and Co Beng Kay, which was authorized to register "BRUTE" for briefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of IAC, holding that under Section 20 of trademark law, Faberge's exclusive rights to its trademark only extended to the goods specified in its registration certificate, not other non-competing goods like briefs. Therefore, the registration of "BRUTE" for briefs did not infringe on Faberge's trademark and was allowed.

    Copyright:

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

    Faberge, Inc. vs.

    IAC and Co Beng Kay


    GR No. 71189. 4 November 1992
    Justice Melo

    FACTS:
    Private respondent was authorized by the Director of Patents to register the trademark BRUTE for the briefs
    manufactured and sold by their corporation. Meanwhile, petitioner opposed such registration on the ground of
    similarity with their own symbol BRUT which it previously registered for after shave lotion, shaving cream, etc.
    Thereafter, respondent court initially ruled in favor of petitioner and directed against permission granted by the
    Director of Patents to private respondents, however, it later on issued a resolution in favor of the latter. Hence, this
    petition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether private respondent may appropriate the trademark BRUTE for the briefs it manufactures and sells to the public
    albeit petitioner had previously registered the symbol BRUT and BRUT 33 for its own line of items.

    HELD:
    Yes, petition denied. The Supreme Court held that paraphrasing Section 201 of the Trademark Law as applied to the
    documentary evidence adduced by petitioner, the certificate of registration issued by the Director of Patents can confer
    upon petitioner the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate , subject to
    any conditions and limitations stated therein. In as much as petitioner has not ventured in the production of briefs, an
    item which is not listed in its certificate of registration, petitioner can not and should not be allowed to feign that private
    respondent had invaded petitioners exclusive domain.

    On the contention of the petitioner in relation to Section 4(d)2 of the Trademark Law, the Court discussed that it would
    seem that Section 4(d) does not require that the goods manufactured by the second user be related to the goods produced
    by the senior user while Section 20 limits the exclusive right of the senior user only to those goods specified in the certificate
    of registration. But the rule has been laid down that the clause which comes later shall be given paramount significance
    over an anterior proviso upon the presumption that it expresses the latest and dominant purpose. Accordingly, in Sterling
    Products Internation, Inc. vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer, the Court held that if the certificate of registration were to be deemed as
    including goods not specified therein, then a situation may arise whereby an applicant may be tempted to register a
    trademark on any and all goods which his mind may conceive even if he had never intended to use the trademark for the
    said goods. We believe that such omnibus registration is not contemplated by our Trademark Law.

    In this case, therefore, there can be no doubt that confusion or the likelihood of deception to the average purchaser is
    unlikely since the goods are non-competing and unrelated.

    1 SECTION20.Certificate of registration prima facie evidence of validity.A certificate of registration of a mark or trade-name
    shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrants ownership of the mark or trade-name, and of the
    registrants exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods, business or services specified in the certificate, subject to
    any conditions and limitations stated therein.
    2 The owner of trademark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business

    or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register, unless it:
    x xx
    4(d)Consists of or comprises a mark or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-name registered in the Philippines or a
    mark or trade-name previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to or used in
    connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers.

    You might also like