You are on page 1of 1

Fredco vs Harvard

- I concur with the decisions of the supreme court and the lower courts. Fredco’s mark may clearly cause a falsely
suggest connections with Harvard University. Uder Philippine law, a trade name of a national of a State that is a
party to the Paris Convention, whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected without the
obligation of filing or registration. It also been proven to this court that any of combination of the given criteria is
sufficient this well known trademark. The mark that Fredco uses is without doubt recognizable as trademark of the
Harvard University which is well known around the world for its 350 yrs of history as a institute of higher learning.

246 vs DAWAY

- the mark of rolex is well known not just in the Philippines but also internationally. The use of a well known mark
on an entirely unrelated goods would indicate a connection to the industry. It will cause confusion of origin or
some business connections or relationship between the registrant and the user of the mark. Moreover it would
affect the interest of the owner of the well-known mark and cause damage to his business. Even if the business is
unerelated to its goods an inferior quality of services will affect their name.

Ecole de cusine v Cointreau

- I agree with the decision of the supreme court and the court of appeals. Foreign marks no recorded in our
country are still accorded protection. Both Philippines and France are signatories of the paris convection. Such
treaties must afford respect not only between the state’s laws but also to business. Petitioners should have
considered consultation of their trademark’s availability. The function of trademark is to distinctly point out the
origin and ownership of goods

Lacoste vs CA

La Chemise Lacoste, without a doubt is a known trademark internationally. The symbols crocodile and alligator
would always assume to a person’s mind that it is a product of lacoste. The inability of our law enforcement
officials to stern the tide of fake and counterfeit items. The victim is not the businesses but the Filipino consumers.
Our laws seek to protect the Filipino consuming public and frustrate executive an administrative implementation
of solemn commitments pursuant to international conventions and treaties.


In the situation before us, the goods are obviously different from each other. With "absolutely no iota of
similitude" as stressed in respondent court's judgment. They are so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely
that purchasers would think that petitioner is the manufacturer of respondent's goods. The mere fact that one
person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same
trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. Lastly the the goods involved are non-competitive
and non-related.