Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club G.R. No. 217194. September 6, 2017 Carpio, Acting C.J

    Uploaded by

    CJV
    Nestle opposed Puregold's application to register the trademark "COFFEE MATCH" for coffee and related goods, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's registered mark "COFFEE-MATE". The Intellectual Property Office dismissed the opposition. The Court ruled in favor of Puregold, finding the marks had visual, aural and conceptual differences that made confusion unlikely. Specifically, the last two letters and capitalization of "COFFEE MATCH" distinguished it from the hyphenated "COFFEE-MATE". As the marks' dominant features were not similar enough to likely deceive consumers, Puregold could register its mark.

    Copyright:

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

    Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club G.R. No. 217194. September 6, 2017 Carpio, Acting C.J

    Uploaded by

    CJV
    91 views2 pages
    Nestle opposed Puregold's application to register the trademark "COFFEE MATCH" for coffee and related goods, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's registered mark "COFFEE-MATE". The Intellectual Property Office dismissed the opposition. The Court ruled in favor of Puregold, finding the marks had visual, aural and conceptual differences that made confusion unlikely. Specifically, the last two letters and capitalization of "COFFEE MATCH" distinguished it from the hyphenated "COFFEE-MATE". As the marks' dominant features were not similar enough to likely deceive consumers, Puregold could register its mark.

    Original Title

    LIP Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Nestle opposed Puregold's application to register the trademark "COFFEE MATCH" for coffee and related goods, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's registered mark "COFFEE-MATE". The Intellectual Property Office dismissed the opposition. The Court ruled in favor of Puregold, finding the marks had visual, aural and conceptual differences that made confusion unlikely. Specifically, the last two letters and capitalization of "COFFEE MATCH" distinguished it from the hyphenated "COFFEE-MATE". As the marks' dominant features were not similar enough to likely deceive consumers, Puregold could register its mark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views2 pages

    Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Puregold Price Club G.R. No. 217194. September 6, 2017 Carpio, Acting C.J

    Uploaded by

    CJV
    Nestle opposed Puregold's application to register the trademark "COFFEE MATCH" for coffee and related goods, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's registered mark "COFFEE-MATE". The Intellectual Property Office dismissed the opposition. The Court ruled in favor of Puregold, finding the marks had visual, aural and conceptual differences that made confusion unlikely. Specifically, the last two letters and capitalization of "COFFEE MATCH" distinguished it from the hyphenated "COFFEE-MATE". As the marks' dominant features were not similar enough to likely deceive consumers, Puregold could register its mark.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. v.

    Puregold Price Club


    G.R. No. 217194. September 6, 2017
    Carpio, Acting C.J

    FACTS:
    Respondent Puregold Price Club, Inc., filed an application for the registration of trademark
    “COFFEE MATCH” with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for the use of coffee, tea, cocoa,
    sugar, artificial coffee etc. The application was opposed by petitioner Societe des Produits
    Nestle, S.A. (Nestle), alleging that it is the exclusive owner of the "COFFEE-MATE" trademark
    and that there is confusing similarity between the "COFFEE-MATE" trademark and "COFFEE
    MATCH" application. Nestle claimed that the use of "COFFEE MATCH" would indicate a
    connection with the goods covered in their "COFFEE-MATE" mark due of its distinct similarity
    and would likely mislead the public that the mark originated from them.
    The Bureau of Legal Affairs-Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO) dismissed the opposition and
    ruled that the word "COFFEE" as a mark is not unique or highly distinctive and that the last two
    in Puregold's mark rendered a visual and aural character that makes it easily distinguishable
    from Nestle's mark. Nestle filed an appeal with the Office of the Director General of the
    Intellectual Property Office (ODG-IPO) but it was dismissed on the ground that the competing
    marks are not confusingly similar and that consumers would unlikely be deceived or confused
    from Puregold's use of "COFFEE MATCH." It held that the common feature of "coffee" between
    the two marks cannot be exclusively appropriated since it is generic or descriptive of the goods
    in question and that there is no visual, phonetic, or conceptual similarity between the two marks.
    The Court of Appeals dismissed Nestle's petition for review on procedural grounds.

    ISSUE:
    May Puregold’s "COFFEE MATCH" be registered?

    RULING:
    Yes. Puregold’s mark has a visual and aural character that makes it easily distinguishable from
    Nestle's mark.
    The Court ruled that the gravamen of trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion.
    There is no absolute standard for the likelihood of confusion. In determining similarity or
    likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests: the dominancy test and the
    holistic test. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the
    competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception. If the competing trademark
    contains the main, essential, and dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is
    likely to result, likelihood of confusion exists. The question is whether the use of the marks
    involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive
    consumers
    In this case, while both "-MATE" and "MATCH" contain the same first three letters, the last two
    letters in Puregold's mark, "C" and "H," rendered a visual and aural character that made it easily
    distinguishable from Nestle's mark. Also, the distinctiveness of Puregold's mark with two
    separate words with capital letters "C" and "M" made it distinguishable from Nestle's mark which
    is one word with a hyphenated small letter "-m" in its mark. In addition, there is a phonetic
    difference in pronunciation between Nestle's "-MATE" and Puregold's "MATCH." As a result, the
    eyes and ears of the consumer would not mistake Nestle's product for Puregold's product.
    Therefore, the likelihood of confusion between Nestle's product and Puregold's product does not
    exist and upholds the registration of Puregold's mark.

    You might also like