GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR

GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR.
G.R. No. 192294, 21 NOV 2012
FACTS:
1. Respondent Caralde filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual
Property Office a trademark application seeking to register the mark “SHARK
& LOGO” for his manufactured goods under Class 25, such as slippers, shoes
and sandals.
2. Petitioner, a foreign corporation opposed the application claiming to be the
owner of the mark consisting of a representation of a shark in color, known as
"GREG NORMAN LOGO". It alleged that, being a world famous mark which is
pending registration before the BLA since February 19, 2002, the confusing
similarity between the two (2) marks is likely to deceive or confuse the
purchasing public into believing that Caralde's goods are produced by or
originated from it, or are under its sponsorship, to its damage and prejudice.
3. The BLA Director rejected Caralde’s application. Averring that both competing
marks is the illustration of a shark. Their dominant features, i.e., that of an
illustration of a shark, however, are of such degree that the overall impression
it create is that the two competing marks are at least strikingly similar to each
another, hence, the likelihood of confusion of goods is likely to occur. The BLA
found no merit in Great White Shark’s claim that its mark was famous and
well-known for insufficiency of evidence.
4. The case was appealed to the IPO Director General and it affirmed the BLA
Director ruling. ruling that the competing marks are indeed confusingly similar.
Great White Shark's mark is used in clothing and footwear, among others,
while Caralde's mark is used on similar goods like shoes and slippers.
a. Great White Shark's mark consisted of an illustration of a shark while
Caralde's mark had a composite figure forming a silhouette of a shark.
Thus, as to content, word, sound and meaning, both marks are similar,
barring the registration of Caralde's mark under Section 123.1 (d) of the
Intellectual Property Code.
5. The case was elevated to the CA where it reversed and set aside the decision
of the IPO Director General. The CA found no confusing similarity between the
subject marks notwithstanding that both contained the shape of a shark as
their dominant feature. It observed that Caralde's mark is more fanciful and
colorful, and contains several elements which are easily distinguishable from
that of the Great White Shark. It further opined that considering their price
disparity, there is no likelihood of confusion as they travel in different channels
of trade.
ISSUE: Whether or not the competing marks are confusingly similar?

HELD: NO.
1. A trademark device is susceptible to registration if it is crafted fancifully or

arbitrarily and is capable of identifying and distinguishing the goods of one
manufacturer or seller from those of another. Apart from its commercial utility,
the benchmark of trademark registrability is distinctiveness.
2. Section 123.1 (d) of the IP Code provides that a mark cannot be registered if
it is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor with an
earlier filing or priority date, with respect to the same or closely related goods
or services, or has a near resemblance to such mark as to likely deceive or
cause confusion.
3. In determining similarity and confusion, two test are used.
a. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features
of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion, mistake, and
deception in the mind of the ordinary purchaser, and gives more
consideration to the aural and visual impressions created by the marks
on the buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality,
sales outlets, and market segments.
b. The Holistic or Totality Test considers the entirety of the marks as
applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, and focuses
not only on the predominant words but also on the other features
appearing on both labels to determine whether one is confusingly similar
to the other as to mislead the ordinary purchaser. The "ordinary
purchaser" refers to one "accustomed to buy, and therefore to some
extent familiar with, the goods in question."
4. Irrespective of both tests, the Court found no confusing similarity between the
subject marks.
a. Great White Shark's "GREG NORMAN LOGO," has an outline of a shark
formed with the use of green, yellow, blue and red 16 lines/strokes.
b. Caralde's "SHARK & LOGO" mark is illustrated in letters outlined in the
form of a shark with the letter "S" forming the head, the letter "H"
forming the fins, the letters "A" and "R" forming the body, and the letter
"K" forming the tail. In addition, the latter mark includes several more
elements such as the word "SHARK" in a different font underneath the
shark outline, layers of waves, and a tree on the right side, and liberally
used the color blue with some parts in red, yellow, green and white.

GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREAT WHITE SHARK ENTERPRISES v. DANILO CARALDE, JR.

G.R. No. 192294, 21 NOV 2012

ISSUE: Whether or not the competing marks are confusingly similar?

1. A trademark device is susceptible to registration if it is crafted fancifully or

You might also like