INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

(12 February 2019)

© LP Ignacio

POINTERS, PRINCIPLES & CASES

Trademark Infringement; Elements – The elements of the offense of trademark infringement

under the Intellectual Property Code are, therefore, the following:
(a) the trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property Office;
(b) The trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied, or colorably imitated by the
infringer;
(c) The infringing mark is used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or
advertising of any goods, business or services; or the infringing mark is applied to labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or advertisements intended to be used
upon or in connection with such goods, business, or services;
(d) the use or application of the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion or mistake or
to deceive purchasers or others as to the goods or services themselves or as to the
source or origin of such goods or services or the identity of such business; and
(e) the use or application of the infringing mark is without the consent of the trademark
owner or the assignee thereof (Diaz vs. People, 691 SCRA 139, G.R. No. 180677
February 18, 2013).

Dominancy Test – The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the main, prevalent or
essential features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. Infringement takes
place when the competing trademark contains the essential features of another. Imitation or an
effort to imitate is unnecessary. The question is whether the use of the mark is likely to cause
confusion or deceive purchasers (Diaz vs. People, 691 SCRA 139, G.R. No. 180677 February
18, 2013).

Holistic Test – The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks, including labels and
packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The focus is not only on the predominant words
but also on the features appearing on the labels (Diaz vs. People, 691 SCRA 139, G.R. No.
180677 February 18, 2013).

Copyright Infringement – In Columbia Pictures Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144
(1996), the Court has emphatically declared: Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a
private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by
law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection,
consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of
anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright
(Microsoft Corporation vs. Manansala, 773 SCRA 345, G.R. No. 166391 October 21, 2015).

Copyright Infringement; When Committed (Computer Programs) – Presidential Decree No.

49 thereby already acknowledged the existence of computer programs as works or creations
protected by copyright. To hold, as the CA incorrectly did, that the legislative intent was to
require that the computer programs be first photographed, photo-engraved, or pictorially
illustrated as a condition for the commission of copyright infringement invites ridicule. Such
interpretation of Section 5(a) of PD No. 49 defied logic and common sense because it focused
on terms like “copy”, “multiply”, and “sell” but blatantly ignored terms like “photographs”, “photo-
engravings”, and “pictorial illustrations” (Microsoft Corporation vs. Manansala, 773 SCRA 345,
G.R. No. 166391 October 21, 2015).

The mere sale of the illicit copies of the software programs was enough by itself to show the
existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. There was no need for the petitioner to
still prove who copied, replicated, or reproduced the software programs (Microsoft Corporation
vs. Manansala, 773 SCRA 345, G.R. No. 166391 October 21, 2015)

Internationally well-known marks are entitled to protection

Section 123.1(e) does not require that the well-known mark be used in commerce in the
Philippines but only that it be well-known in the Philippines (Fredco Mfg. Corp. v. President and
Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University), 650 SCRA 232, 01 June 2011).

While under the territoriality principle a mark must be used in commerce in the Philippines to
be entitled to protection, internationally well-known marks are the exceptions to this rule (Fredco
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 2
Mfg. Corp. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University), 650 SCRA 232,
01 June 2011).

Principle of automatic protection

Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of
expression, as well as their content, quality and purpose (Sec. 172.2).

The copyright of a work is acquired by an intellectual creator from the moment of creation even
in the absence of registration and deposit (Columbia Pictures v. CA, 261 SCRA 144 [1966]).

Fair use (Sec. 185, IPC)

The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, including
multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an
infringement of copyright.

Fair use doctrine: A privilege in others than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted
material in a reasonable manner without the owner’s consent, notwithstanding the monopoly
granted to the owner. To determine whether fair use has been made of copyrighted material, the
quantity and value of material used and extent to which the use may diminish the value of the
original work must be considered (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed.).

Reproduction of published work; limitations (Sec. 187)

The private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the reproduction is made
by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, shall be permitted without
authorization of the owner of copyright in the work (Sec. 187.1).

Plagiarism

The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings,
or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind. If
the material is protected by copyright, such act may constitute an offense of copyright
infringement.

To be liable for plagiarism it is not necessary to exactly duplicate another’s literary work, it being
sufficient if unfair use of such work is made by lifting of substantial portion thereof, but even an
exact counterpart of another’s work does not constitute plagiarism if such counterpart was
arrived at independently (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed.).

Good faith or lack of knowledge is not a valid defense in infringement of copyright.

A copyright is infringed by the mere fact of the repetition of it or a substantial portion of it,
without authority from the author or writer of the copyrighted work. Good faith or lack of
knowledge is not a valid defense.

Trade secret

A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known only to its
owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also
extends to a secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain individuals using
it in compounding some article of trade having a commercial value. A trade secret may consist
of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information that: (1) is used in one's business;
and (2) gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not
possess the information. Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for
continuous use in the operation of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be
a price list or catalogue or specialized customer list. It is indubitable that trade secrets constitute
proprietary rights. The inventor, discoverer, or possessor of a trade secret or similar innovation
has rights therein which may be treated as property, and ordinarily an injunction will be granted
to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret by one who obtained the information "in confidence"
or through a "confidential relationship." American jurisprudence has utilized the following factors
to determine if an information is a trade secret, to wit:

(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the employer's business;
(2) the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the
business;
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 3
(3) the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the
information;
(4) the value of the information to the employer and to competitors;
(5) the amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the
information; and
(6) the extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through an
independent source.
(Air Philippines Corporation vs. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007).

Prejudicial and non-prejudicial disclosure (Sec. 25, IPC)

Whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the application
date.
Thus, if the inventor voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to
copy and use it with impunity. Ideas once disclosed to the public without protection of a valid
patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint. (Pearl v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA
231)

Right to patent (Secs. 28-31, IPC)

Only the patentee or his successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees may file an action for
infringement.
Anyone who has no patent over an invention but claims to have a right or interest thereto cannot
file an action for declaratory judgment or injunctive suit. (Creser v. CA, 286 SCRA 13)

If a person never secured a patent for his invention, he acquired no patent rights which could
have protected his invention, if in fact it really was. And because he has no patent, he could not
legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the contraption. There can be
no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever one has to the
invention covered by a patent arises alone from the grant of patent. (Pearl v. Shoemart, 409
SCRA 231)

First to file rule

RA 8293 espouses the “first-to-file” rule x x x. Under this provision, the registration of a mark is
prevented with the filing of an earlier application for registration. This must, not, however, be
interpreted to mean that ownership should be based upon an earlier filing date. While RA 8293
removed the previous requirement of proof of actual use prior to the filing of an application for
registration of a mark, proof of prior and continuous use is necessary to establish ownership of a
mark. Such ownership constitutes sufficient evidence to oppose the registration of a mark (E.Y.
Industrial Sales, Inc. v. Shen Dar Electricity and Machinery Co., Ltd., 634 SCRA 363, 20
October 2010).

Rights & limitations of patentee (Secs. 71-76, 80, 81, 84 IPC)

Prior user:

Any prior user, who in good faith was using the invention or has undertaken serious
preparations to use the invention in his enterprise or business, before the filing date or priority
date of the application on which patent is granted, shall have the right to continue use thereof as
envisaged.

The right of a prior user may only be transferred or assigned together with the enterprise or
business, or with the part of his enterprise or business in which use or preparations for use have
been made.

The ownership of a trademark is acquired by its registration and its actual use by the
manufacturer or distributor of the goods made available to the purchasing public

The ownership of a trademark is acquired by its registration and its actual use by the
manufacturer or distributor of the goods made available to the purchasing public. Sec. 122 of
RA 8293 provides that the rights in a mark shall be acquired by means of its valid registration
with the IPO. A certificate of registration of a mark, once issued constitutes prima facie evidence
of the validity of the registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s
exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and those that are
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 4
related thereto specified in the certificate (Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Abyadang, 633 SCRA
196, 13 October 2010).

Prior or actual use of a trademark is not required before registration. However, there
must be actual use after registration

Prior or actual use of a trademark is not required before registration. However, there must be
actual use after registration. The applicant shall file a declaration of actual use of the mark with
evidence within three (3) years from the filing date. Otherwise, the application shall be refused
or the mark shall be removed from the Register by the Director (Sec. 124).

Case: UFC vs. BARRIO FIESTA, G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016

Barrio Fiesta filed an application with the IPO for the mark "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" for "lechon
sauce." UFC opposed the application. It contended that "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" is confusingly
similar with its "PAPA" marks and its variations inasmuch as the former incorporates the term
"PAPA," which is the dominant feature of petitioner's "PAPA" marks. UFC averred that the use
of "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" mark for lechon sauce product, if allowed, would likely lead the
consuming public to believe that said lechon sauce product originates from or is authorized by
UFC, and that the "PAPA BOY & DEVICE" mark is a variation or derivative of UFC’s "PAPA"
marks. UFC argued that this was especially true considering that UFC’s ketchup product and
Barrio Fiesta’s lechon sauce product are related articles.

The IPO denied the application as it is confusingly similar to the mark of UFC. Is the IPO
correct?

Yes.

Barrio Fiesta’s mark cannot be registered. The mark is related to a product, lechon sauce, an
everyday all-purpose condiment and sauce, that is not subjected to great scrutiny and care by
the casual purchaser, who knows from regular visits to the grocery store under what aisle to find
it, in which bottle it is contained, and approximately how much it costs. Since UFC’s product,
catsup, is also a household product found on the same grocery aisle, in similar packaging, the
public could think that UFC had expanded its product mix to include lechon sauce, and that the
"PAPA BOY" lechon sauce is now part of the "PAPA" family of sauces, which is not unlikely
considering the nature of business that UFC is in. Thus, if allowed registration, confusion of
business may set in, and UFC’s hard-earned goodwill may be associated to the newer product
introduced by Barrio Fiesta, all because of the use of the dominant feature of UFC’s mark on
Barrio Fiesta’s mark, which is the word "PAPA." The words "Barrio Fiesta" are not included in
the mark, and although printed on the label of Barrio Fiesta’s lechon sauce packaging, still do
not remove the impression that "PAPA BOY" is a product owned by the manufacturer of "PAPA"
catsup, by virtue of the use of the dominant feature. It is possible that UFC could expand its
business to include lechon sauce, and that would be well within UFC’s rights, but the existence
of a "PAPA BOY" lechon sauce would already eliminate this possibility and deprive UFC of its
rights as an owner of a valid mark included in the Intellectual Property Code.

Foreign marks not registered are accorded protection

Foreign marks which are not registered are still accorded protection against infringement and/or
unfair competition (Ecole de Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. v. Renaud
Caintreau & Cie, 697 SCRA 345, 05 June 2013).

Courts will protect trade names or marks, although not registered or properly selected as
trademarks, on the broad ground of enforcing justice and protecting one in the fruits of his toil
(Ecole de Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. v. Renaud Caintreau & Cie, 697
SCRA 345, 05 June 2013).

Doctrine of secondary meaning/doctrine of distinctiveness (Sec. 123.2, IPC)

A long time exclusive and continuous use of a mark or name which is unregistrable for being
geographical, descriptive or a surname, such that the mark or name has lost its primary
meaning and it becomes associated in the public mind with particular goods, entitles the user to
have said mark or name registered.

Sec. 123.2. does not prohibit the registration and hence appropriation of a tradename that
becomes distinctive, and the substantial and exclusive use of a tradename for five (5) years is
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 5
accepted as prima facie proof that the tradename has become distinctive. (de la Rama c.
National, 35 SCRA 567)

Infringement of tradename

A trade name need not be registered with the IPO before an infringement suit maybe filed by its
owners against the owner of an infringing trade mark. All that is required is that the trade name
be previously used in trade or commerce in the Philippines (Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San
Francisco Coffee & Roastery, Inc., GR No. 169504, 03 March 2010).

Trademark dilution

The lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services,
regardless of the presence or absence of 1) competition between the owner of the famous mark
and other parties, or 2) likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.

The owner of a famous mark is entitled to an injunction against another person’s commercial
use in commerce of a mark or tradename, if such use begins after the mark has become
famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark (Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton
Apparelle, Inc., 470 SCRA 236, 20 Sept. 2005; also Sec. 123 par 1f)

Actual sale of counterfeit goods not essential for trademark infringement

Under the IPC, preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services or in
connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion. Or to cause mistake, or to deceive
(Sec. 155.1) and to reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a
dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to
label, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in
commerce (Sec. 155.2) are acts of infringement regardless of whether there is actual sale of
goods or services using the infringing material (Gemma Ong a.k.a. Ma. Theresa Gemma
Catacutan v. People, GR No. 169440, 23 Nov. 2011).

Use of container and trademark infringement

The mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the
sale, distribution or advertisement of goods or services which is likely to cause confusion,
mistake or deception among buyers or consumers can be considered as trademark
infringement (Republic Gas Corp. v. Petron Corp., 698 SCRA 666, 17 June 2013).

Unfair competition (Sec. 168, RA 8293)

A term which may be applied generally to all dishonest or fraudulent rivalry in trade and
commerce, but is particularly applied to the practice of endeavoring to substitute one’s own
goods or products in the markets for those of another, having an established reputation and
extensive sale, by means of imitating or counterfeiting the name, title, size, shape or distinctive
peculiarities of the article, or the shape, color, label, wrapper, or general appearance of the
package, or other simulations, the imitation being carried far enough to mislead the general
public or to deceive an unwary purchaser, and yet not amounting to an absolute counterfeit or to
infringement of a trademark or tradename (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed.).

Test of ‘unfair competition’ is, not whether distinction between two competing products can be
recognized when placed alongside each other, but whether, when the two products are not
viewed together, a purchaser of ordinary prudence would be induced by reason of the marked
resemblance in general effect to mistake one for the other despite differences in matters of
detail (ibid.).

Unfair competition has been defined as the passing (or palming off) or attempting to pass off
upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another
with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public (Republic Gas Corp. v. Petron Corp.,
698 SCRA 666, 17 June 2013).

*****
© LP ignacio
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 6
WILTON DY and/or PHILITES ELECTRONIC & LIGHTING PRODUCTS vs.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V.,
G.R. No.186088 March 22, 2017 (Sereno, CJ)

PHILIPS opposed the trademark application of PHILITES covering its fluorescent bulb,
incandescent light, starter and ballast on the main claiming that PHILITES’ application is
identical or confusingly similar mark that clearly infringes upon the established rights of
the PHILIPS] over its registered and internationally well-known mark. The IPP-BLA
concluded that the PHILIPS and PHILITES marks were so unlike, both visually and
aurally. This was affirmed by the IPP-DG. The Court of appeals, however, reversed the
IPP ruling.

Whether or not the mark applied for by PHILITES is identical or confusingly similar with
that of PHILIPS.

YES. PHILITES seeks to register a mark nearly resembling that of PHILIPS, which may
likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers.

Applying the dominancy test, mark "PHILITES" bears an uncanny resemblance or

confusing similarity with the mark "PHILIPS.”

The dominant or prevalent feature is the five-letter "PHILI" ("PHILIPS" and "PHILITES").
The marks are confusingly similar with each other such that an ordinary purchaser can
conclude an association or relation between the marks. The consuming public does not
have the luxury of time to ruminate the phonetic sounds of the trademarks, to find out
which one has a short or long vowel sound. At bottom, the letters "PHILI'' visually catch
the attention of the consuming public and the use of PHILITES’ trademark will likely
deceive or cause confusion. Most importantly, both trademarks are used in the sale of
the same goods, which are light bulbs.

In using the holistic test, it was found that there is a confusing similarity between the
registered marks PHILIPS and PHILITES, and that the mark PHILITES seeks to register
is vastly different from that which it actually uses in the packaging of its products.

A comparison between the registered trademark "PHILIPS'' as used in the wrapper or

packaging of its light bulbs and the applied for trademark "PHILITES" as depicted in the
container or actual wrapper/packaging of the latter's light bulbs, will readily show that
there is a strong similitude and likeness between the two trademarks that will likely
cause deception or confusion to the purchasing public. The fact that the parties' wrapper
or packaging reflects negligible differences considering the use of a slightly different font
and hue of the yellow is of no moment because taken in their entirety, the trademark
"PHILITES" will likely cause confusion or deception to the ordinary purchaser with a
modicum of intelligence.

*****
© LP Ignacio

ABS-CBN v. Gozon, GR No. 195956, 11 March 2015 (Leonen, J.)

ABS-CBN charged GMA 7 with copyright infringement when GMA 7 aired footage of the
arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo de la Cruz at the NAIA from Iraq without the
consent of ABS-CBN. GMA 7 alleged that the footage was from a live news feed from
Reuters of which GMA 7 is a subscriber.

GMA 7 claims that it is not aware that ABS-CBN allowed Reuters to air the footage
under a special embargo agreement where there is no access to any Philippine
subscriber. GMA 7 promptly shut off the broadcast after about 5 seconds upon seeing
ABS-CBN’s logo and reporter. GMA 7 added that the footage is not subject to copyright
protection because the event or the arrival of Angelo de la Cruz is a newsworthy event,
and its use falls under the fair use act.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 7
1) News or the event itself is not copyrightable. However, an event can be captured and
presented in a specific medium. News as expressed in a video footage is entitled to
copyright protection. Broadcasting organizations have not only copyright on but also
neighboring rights over their broadcasts. Copyrightability of a work is different from fair
use of a work for purposes of news reporting.

2) Fair use is "a privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner
without the consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or ideas rather than
their expression." Fair use is an exception to the copyright owner's monopoly of the use
of the work to avoid stifling "the very creativity which that law is designed to foster."

Determining fair use requires application of the four-factor test. Section 185 of the
Intellectual Property Code lists four (4) factors to determine if there was fair use of a
copyrighted work:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
First, the purpose and character of the use of the copyrighted material must fall under
those listed in Section 185, thus: "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including
multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes." 117 The
purpose and character requirement is important in view of copyright's goal to promote
creativity and encourage creation of works. Hence, commercial use of the copyrighted
work can be weighed against fair use.

The "transformative test" is generally used in reviewing the purpose and character of
the usage of the copyrighted work. This court must look into whether the copy of the
work adds "new expression, meaning or message" to transform it into something else.
"Meta-use" can also occur without necessarily transforming the copyrighted work used.

Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is significant in deciding whether its use was
fair. If the nature of the work is more factual than creative, then fair use will be weighed
in favor of the user.

Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used is important to determine
whether usage falls under fair use. An exact reproduction of a copyrighted work,
compared to a small portion of it, can result in the conclusion that its use is not fair.
There may also be cases where, though the entirety of the copyrighted work is used
without consent, its purpose determines that the usage is still fair. For example, a
parody using a substantial amount of copyrighted work may be permissible as fair use
as opposed to a copy of a work produced purely for economic gain.

Lastly, the effect of the use on the copyrighted work's market is also weighed for or
against the user. If this court finds that the use had or will have a negative impact on the
copyrighted work's market, then the use is deemed unfair.

Whether the alleged five-second footage may be considered fair use is a matter of
defense. The determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz footage is subject to fair
use is better left to the trial court.

3) GMA 7 cannot invoke the defense of good faith. Offenses involving infringement of
copyright protections should be considered malum prohibitum. It is the act of
infringement, not the intent, which causes the damage. To require or assume the need
to prove intent defeats the purpose of intellectual property protection.
© LP ignacio

Mang Inasal Phils. v. IFP Mfg. Corp.

GR No. 221717, 19 June 2017 (Velasco, Jr., J.)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW – 12 February 2019 8

Mang Inasal, owner of the mark "Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and
Device" (Mang Inasal mark), opposed the application of IFP for the mark "OK Hotdog
Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" (OK Hotdog Inasal mark) in connection with one of
its curl snack products. Mang Inasal averred that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark and the
Mang Inasal mark share similarities-both as to their appearance and as to the goods or
services that they represent which tend to suggest a false connection or association
between the said marks and, in that regard, would likely cause confusion on the part of
the public.
The IPO dismissed `the opposition and ruled that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not
confusingly similar to the Mang Inasal mark because:

1. The OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not similar to the Mang Inasal mark. In terms of
appearance, the only similarity between the two marks is the word "INASAL." However,
there are other words like "OK," "HOTDOG," and "CHEESE' and images like that of
curls and cheese that are found in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark but are not present in the
Mang Inasal mark.
In addition, Mang Inasal cannot prevent the application of the word "INASAL" in the OK
Hotdog Inasal mark. No person or entity can claim exclusive right to use the word
"INASAL" because it is merely a generic or descriptive word that means barbeque or
barbeque products.

2. Neither can the underlying goods and services of the two marks be considered as
closely related. The products represented by the two marks are not competitive and are
sold in different channels of trade. The curl snack products of the OK Hotdog Inasal
mark are sold in sari-sari stores, grocery stores and other small distributor outlets,
whereas the food products associated with the Mang Inasal mark are sold in its
restaurants.

Whether or not the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is likely to cause deception or confusion on
the part of the public.
Applying the dominancy test, the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is a colorable imitation of the
Mang Inasal mark.
The dominant element "INASAL" in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is exactly the same as
the dominant element "INASAL" in the Mang Inasal mark. Both elements in both marks
are printed using the exact same red colored font, against the exact same black outline
and yellow background and is arranged in the exact same staggered format.
The Goods for which the Registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal Mark is sought are
related to the services being represented by the Mang Inasal mark.
The curl snack product for which the registration of the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is
sought is related to the restaurant services represented by the Mang Inasal mark, in
such a way that may lead to a confusion of business.
It is the fact that the underlying goods and services of both marks deal with inasal and
inasal-flavored products which ultimately fixes the relations between such goods and
services.

© LP ignacio