Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    CJC Tax 1 Outline 18-19 Wcomplete Set

    Uploaded by

    NLainie Omar
    This document outlines rules of procedure for intellectual property rights cases. It discusses evidence in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases. Specifically, it addresses certificates of registration serving as prima facie evidence of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use. It also covers determining whether a mark is well-known and the presumption of likelihood of confusion when identical signs or marks are used for identical goods or services. The document provides factors for determining likelihood of confusion between non-identical goods or services.

    Copyright:

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

    CJC Tax 1 Outline 18-19 Wcomplete Set

    Uploaded by

    NLainie Omar
    30 views3 pages
    This document outlines rules of procedure for intellectual property rights cases. It discusses evidence in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases. Specifically, it addresses certificates of registration serving as prima facie evidence of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use. It also covers determining whether a mark is well-known and the presumption of likelihood of confusion when identical signs or marks are used for identical goods or services. The document provides factors for determining likelihood of confusion between non-identical goods or services.

    Original Description:

    property

    Original Title

    Cjc Tax 1 Outline 18-19 Wcomplete Set

    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 document outlines rules of procedure for intellectual property rights cases. It discusses evidence in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases. Specifically, it addresses certificates of registration serving as prima facie evidence of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use. It also covers determining whether a mark is well-known and the presumption of likelihood of confusion when identical signs or marks are used for identical goods or services. The document provides factors for determining likelihood of confusion between non-identical goods or services.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views3 pages

    CJC Tax 1 Outline 18-19 Wcomplete Set

    Uploaded by

    NLainie Omar
    This document outlines rules of procedure for intellectual property rights cases. It discusses evidence in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases. Specifically, it addresses certificates of registration serving as prima facie evidence of validity, ownership, and exclusive right to use. It also covers determining whether a mark is well-known and the presumption of likelihood of confusion when identical signs or marks are used for identical goods or services. The document provides factors for determining likelihood of confusion between non-identical goods or services.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    EN BANC A.M. No.

    10-3-10-SC

    RULES OF PROCEDURE
    FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES

    x x x

    Rule 18

    EVIDENCE IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT


    AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CASES

    SECTION 1. Certificate of registration. — A certificate of registration of a mark shall be prima


    facie evidence of:

    a) the validity of the registration;


    b) the registrant's ownership of the mark; and
    c) the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or
    services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate.

    SEC. 2. Well-known mark. — 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, including
    knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark. The
    following criteria or any combination thereof may be taken into account in determining whether a
    mark is well-known:

    a) the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark; in particular, the
    duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the mark, including
    advertising or publicity and the presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods
    and/or services to which the mark applies;
    b) the market share, in the Philippines and in other countries, of the goods and/or
    services to which the mark applies;
    c) the degree of the inherent or acquired distinction of the mark;
    d) the quality-image or reputation acquired by the mark;
    e) the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world;
    f) the exclusivity of registration attained by the mark in the world;
    g) the extent to which the mark has been used in 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 the rights in the mark;
    k) the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue of whether the mark is a well-known
    mark; and
    l) the presence or absence of identical or similar marks validly registered for or used
    on identical or similar goods or services and owned by persons other than the
    person claiming that his mark is a well-known mark.

    Provided, further, that the mark is well-known both internationally and in the Philippines.

    SEC. 3. Presumption of likelihood of confusion. — Likelihood of confusion shall be presumed in


    case an identical sign or mark is used for identical goods or services.
    1
    SEC. 4. Likelihood of confusion in other cases. — In determining whether one trademark is
    confusingly similar to or is a colorable imitation of another, the court must consider the general
    impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions in trade and
    giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods. Visual, aural,
    connotative comparisons and overall impressions engendered by the marks in controversy as they
    are encountered in the realities of the marketplace must be taken into account. Where there are
    both similarities and differences in the marks, these must be weighed against one another to see
    which predominates.

    In determining likelihood of confusion between marks used on non-identical goods or


    services, several factors may be taken into account, such as, but not limited to:

    a) the strength of plaintiff’s mark;


    b) the degree of similarity between the plaintiffs and the defendant's marks;
    c) the proximity of the products or services;
    d) the likelihood that the plaintiff will bridge the gap;
    e) evidence of actual confusion;
    f) the defendant's good faith in adopting the mark;
    g) the quality of defendant's product or service; and/or
    h) the sophistication of the buyers.

    "Colorable imitation" denotes such a close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive


    ordinary persons, or such a resemblance to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving
    such attention as a purchaser usually gives, as to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be
    the other.

    SEC. 5. Determination of similar and dissimilar goods or services. — Goods or services may not be
    considered as being similar or dissimilar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or
    publication by the Office, they appear in different classes of the Nice Classification.

    SEC. 6. Intent to defraud or deceive. — In an action for unfair competition, the intent to defraud or
    deceive the public shall be presumed:

    a) when the defendant passes off a product as his by using imitative devices, signs
    or marks on the general appearance of the goods, which misleads prospective
    purchasers into buying his merchandise under the impression that they are
    buying that of his competitors;

    b) when the defendant makes any false statement in the course of trade to
    discredit the goods and business of another; or

    c) where the similarity in the appearance of the goods as packed and offered for
    sale is so striking.

    SEC. 7. Generic marks. — A registered mark shall not be deemed to be the generic name of
    goods or services solely because such mark is also used as a name of or to identify a unique
    product or service.

    2
    The test for determining whether the mark is or has become the generic name of goods or services
    on or in connection with which it has been used shall be the primary significance of the mark to the
    relevant public rather than purchaser motivation.

    You might also like