G.R. No.

112012
April 4, 2001
YNARESSANTIAGO, J.
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. and NESTLE PHILIPPINES,
INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CFC CORPORATION
NATURE: Petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of
reversing and setting aside the decision of the Bureau of
Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT), which denied
respondents application for registration of the trade-mark,
MASTER.

Appeals
Patents,
private
FLAVOR

FACTS:
On January 18, 1984:

Private respondent CFC Corporation filed with the BPTTT

an application for the registration of the trademark
"FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee.

The application was published in the July 18, 1988 issue of

the BPTTTs Official Gazette.
Petitioner Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A.

a Swiss company registered under Swiss laws and

domiciled in Switzerland, filed an unverified Notice of
Opposition
o claiming
that
the
trademark
of
private
respondents product is "confusingly similar to its
trademarks for coffee and coffee extracts, to wit:
MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND."
Nestle Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation and a licensee of Societe
Des Produits Nestle S.A., against CFCs application for registration of the
trademark FLAVOR MASTER.

Filed a verified Notice of Opposition

Nestle claimed that the use by CFC of the trademark

FLAVOR MASTER and its registration would likely cause
confusion in the trade; or deceive purchasers and would
falsely suggest to the purchasing public a connection in the
business of Nestle, as the dominant word present in the 3
trademarks is "MASTER"; or that the goods of CFC might be
mistaken as having originated from the latter.
CFCs arguments in its Answer:

Its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, is not confusingly similar

with the formers trademarks, MASTER ROAST and MASTER
BLEND, alleging that, "except for the word MASTER (which
cannot be exclusively appropriated by any person for being
a descriptive or generic name), the other words that are
used respectively with said word in the three trademarks
are very different from each other in meaning, spelling,
pronunciation, and sound".

Its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, "is clearly very different

from any of Nestles alleged trademarks MASTER ROAST
and MASTER BLEND, especially when the marks are viewed
in
their
entirety,
by
considering
their
pictorial
representations, color schemes and the letters of their
respective labels."

BPTTT

denied CFCs application for registration.

Court of Appeals

ISSUE: "Does appellant CFCs trade dress bear a striking

resemblance with appellees trademarks as to create in the
purchasing publics mind the mistaken impression that both
coffee products come from one and the same source?"

REVERSED BPTTT

Ruling:
o The physical discrepancies between appellant CFCs
and appellees respective logos are so apparent that
the casual purchaser cannot likely mistake one
for the other.
o CFCs label is predominantly a blend of dark and
lighter shade of orange where the words "FLAVOR
MASTER", "FLAVOR" appearing on top of "MASTER",
shaded in mocha with thin white inner and outer
sidings per letter and identically lettered except for the
slightly protruding bottom curve of the letter "S"
adjoining the bottom tip of the letter "A" in the word
"MASTER", are printed across the top of a simmering
red coffee cup. Underneath "FLAVOR MASTER" appears
"Premium Instant Coffee" printed in white, slim and
slanted letters.
o "MASTER ROAST" label, however, is almost double
the width of appellant CFCs. At the top is printed in
brown color the word "NESCAFE" against a white
backdrop. Occupying the center is a square-shaped
configuration shaded with dark brown and picturing a
heap of coffee beans, where the word "MASTER" is
inscribed in the middle. "MASTER" in appellees label is
printed in taller capital letters, with the letter "M"
further capitalized. The letters are shaded with red and
bounded with thin gold-colored inner and outer sidings.
Just above the word "MASTER" is a red window like
portrait of what appears to be a coffee shrub clad in
gold. Below the "MASTER" appears the word "ROAST"
impressed in smaller, white print. And further below are
the inscriptions in white: "A selection of prime Arabica
and Robusta coffee." With regard to appellees
"MASTER BLEND" label of which only a xeroxed copy is
submitted, the letters are bolder and taller as

compared to appellant CFCs and the word "MASTER"

appears on top of the word "BLEND" and below it are
the words "100% pure instant coffee" printed in small
letters.
While the contending marks depict the same product,
the glaring dissimilarities in their presentation far
outweigh and dispel any aspect of similitude.
(American Cyanamid Co. v. Director of Patents),
appellant CFCs and appellees labels are entirely
different in size, background, colors, contents and
pictorial arrangement; in short, the general
appearances of the labels bearing the respective
trademarks are so distinct from each other that
appellees cannot assert that the dominant
features, if any, of its trademarks were used or
appropriated in appellant CFCs own. The
distinctions are so well-defined so as to foreclose any
probability or likelihood of confusion or deception on
the part of the normally intelligent buyer when he or
she encounters both coffee products at the grocery
shelf. The answer therefore to the query is a clear-cut
NO.

ISSUE: WON the trademark FLAVOR MASTER is a colorable imitation of the

trademarks MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND.
HELD: YES
TRADEMARK: (DEFN) any word, name, symbol or device adopted and
used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish
them from those manufactured and sold by others.
A manufacturers trademark is entitled to protection.
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. In determining if colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence
has developed two kinds of tests - the Dominancy Test and the Holistic
Test.
1. The test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the
prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might
cause confusion or deception and thus constitute infringement.
2. The holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in
question must be considered in determining confusing
similarity.
The CA, in deciding the case, applied jurisprudential precedents, which is
difficult due to the peculiarity of each case. The dominancy test should
have been applied to determine whether there is a confusing similarity

between CFCs FLAVOR MASTER and Nestles MASTER ROAST and MASTER
BLEND.
The Court of Appeals held that the test to be applied should be the totality
or holistic test reasoning, since what is of paramount consideration is the
ordinary purchaser who is, in general, undiscerningly rash in buying the
more common and less expensive household products like coffee, and is
therefore less inclined to closely examine specific details of similarities and
dissimilarities between competing products.
WHY APPLY DOMINANCY TEST?

The products bearing the trademarks in question are "inexpensive

and common" household items bought off the shelf by
"undiscerningly rash" purchasers. As such, if the ordinary
purchaser is "undiscerningly rash", then he would not have the
time nor the inclination to make a keen and perceptive
examination of the physical discrepancies in the trademarks of the
products in order to exercise his choice.

the totality or holistic test is contrary to the elementary postulate

of the law on trademarks and unfair competition that confusing
similarity is to be determined on the basis of visual, aural,
connotative comparisons and overall impressions engendered by
the marks in controversy as they are encountered in the realities of
the marketplace.23 The totality or holistic test only relies on visual
comparison between two trademarks whereas the dominancy test
relies not only on the visual but also on the aural and connotative
comparisons and overall impressions between the two trademarks.

The word "MASTER" is neither a generic nor a descriptive term. As

such, said term cannot be invalidated as a trademark and,
therefore, may be legally protected.

Generic terms are those which constitute "the common

descriptive name of an article or substance," or comprise the
"genus of which the particular product is a species," or are
"commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods," or
"imply reference to every member of a genus and the exclusion of
individuating characters," or "refer to the basic nature of the wares
or services provided rather than to the more idiosyncratic
characteristics of a particular product," and are not legally
protectable. On the other hand, a term is descriptive and
therefore invalid as a trademark if, as understood in its normal and
natural sense, it "forthwith conveys the characteristics, functions,
qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it
and does not know what it is," or "if it forthwith conveys an
immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of
the goods," or if it clearly denotes what goods or services are
provided in such a way that the consumer does not have to
exercise powers of perception or imagination.

This is evident from the advertising scheme adopted by Nestle in

promoting its coffee products. In this case, Nestle has, over time,

promoted its products as "coffee perfection worthy of masters like

Robert Jaworski and Ric Puno Jr."
In associating its coffee products with the term "MASTER" and
thereby impressing them with the attributes of said term, Nestle
advertised its products thus:
o Robert Jaworski. Living Legend. A true hard court hero. Fast
on his feet. Sure in every shot he makes. A master
strategist. In one word, unmatched.
o MASTER ROAST. Equally unmatched. Rich and deeply
satisfying. Made from a unique combination of the best
coffee beans - Arabica for superior taste and aroma,
Robusta for strength and body. A masterpiece only
NESCAFE, the worlds coffee masters, can create.
o MASTER ROAST. Coffee perfection worthy of masters like
Robert Jaworski.28
o In the art of conversation, Ric Puno Jr. is master. Witty. Wellinformed. Confident.
o In the art of coffee-making, nothing equals Master Roast,
the coffee masterpiece from Nescafe, the worlds coffee
masters. A unique combination of the best coffee beans Arabica for superior taste and aroma, Robusta for strength
and body. Truly distinctive and rich in flavor.
o Master Roast. Coffee perfection worthy of masters like Ric
Puno Jr.29
The term "MASTER", therefore, has acquired a certain connotation
to mean the coffee products MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND
produced by Nestle. As such, the use by CFC of the term "MASTER"
in the trademark for its coffee product FLAVOR MASTER is likely to
cause confusion or mistake or even to deceive the ordinary
purchasers.

Decision of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer in

Inter Partes Cases Nos. 3200 and 3202 is REINSTATED.

G.R. No. L-8072

October 31, 1956
MONTEMAYOR, J.
LIM HOA, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.
FACTS:
On April 26, 1949, the Petitioner, Lim Hoa, filed with the Patent Office an
application for the registration of a trademark, consisting of a
representation of two midget roosters in an attitude of combat with the
word Bantam printed above them, he claiming that he had used said
trademark on a food seasoning product since April 25 of that year. The
application was published in the Official Gazette.
On April 30, 1953, the Agricom Development Co., Inc., a domestic

corporation, opposed the application on several grounds, among others,

that the trademark sought to be registered was confusingly similar to
its register mark, consisting of a pictorial representation of a hen
with the words Hen Brand and Marca Manok, which mark or
brand was also used on a food seasoning product, before the use of the
trademark by the applicant.
It is a fact that the family of C. Javier Advincula, since the year 1946, had
adopted and used as a trademark of said food seasoning product
manufactured by it, the pictorial representation of a hen. In 1947, the
members of the Advincula family organized the Agricom Development Co.,
Inc., the Oppositor in this case, and said corporation took over the
manufacture of the same food product of the Advincula family, including
the use of the brand of the pictorial representation of a hen but adding to it
the word Hen. In the year 1948, an addition was made to the brand with
the words Ve-Tsin, Hen Brand and Marca Manok, and since then, on its
food seasoning product at different times, labels were used, in different
colors but bearing the representation of a hen and the words just
mentioned. So that the application to register applicants brand, consisting
of two roosters is an attitude of combat, with the word Bantam printed
above them, came along after the use and registration of the mark or
brand of the Oppositor corporation and its predecessor, the Advincula
family.
BPPTTT: To allow the registration of the applicants trademark would likely
cause confusion or mistake or deceive purchasers, and he refused
registration of said trademark, under Rule 178 of the Revised Rules of
Practice in Trademark Cases, 1953.
ISSUE: WON the registration of the TM should be allowed.
HELD: NO.
There is such similarity between the two brands as to cause confusion in
the mind of the public that buys the food seasoning product on the
strength and on the indication of the trademark or brand identifying or
distinguishing the same.
Go Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents: It has been consistently held that the
question of infringement of a trademark is to be determined by the test of
dominancy. Similarity in size, form, and color, while relevant, is not
conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or
dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to
result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary;
nor it is necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to
imitate. (C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F. 489,
495, citing Eagle White Lead Co. v. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579). The question
at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the
marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind
of the public or deceive purchasers.

The danger of confusion in trademarks and brands which are similar may
not be so great in the case of commodities or articles of relatively great
value, such as, radio and television sets, air conditioning units, machinery,
etc., for the prospective buyer, generally the head of the family or a
businessman, before making the purchase, reads the pamphlets and all
literature available, describing the article he is planning to buy, and
perhaps even makes comparisons with similar articles in the market. He is
not likely to be deceived by similarity in the trademarks because he makes
a more or less thorough study of the same and may even consult his
friends about the relative merit and performance of the article or
machinery, as compared to others also for sale. But in the sale of a food
seasoning product, a kitchen article of everyday consumption, the
circumstances are far different. Said product is generally purchased by
cooks and household help, sometimes illiterate who are guided by pictorial
representations and the sound of the word descriptive of said
representation. The two roosters appearing in the trademark of the
applicant and the hen appearing on the trademark of the Oppositor,
although of different sexes, belong to the same family of chicken, known as
manok in all the principal dialects of the Philippines, and when a cook or a
household help or even a housewife buys a food seasoning product for the
kitchen the brand of Manok or Marca Manok would most likely be upper
most in her mind and would influence her in selecting the product,
regardless of whether the brand pictures a hen or a rooster or two roosters.
To her, they are all manok. Therein lies the confusion, even deception.

G.R. No. 180073

November 25, 2009 NACHURA, J
PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. HORPHAG
MANAGEMENT SA

RESEARCH

NATURE: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court seeking to reverse and set aside the CA Decision dated July 27, 2007
and Resolution dated October 15, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87556. The
assailed decision affirmed the RTC Decision dated January 16, 2006 and
Order dated May 3, 2006 in Civil Case No. 68048; while the assailed
resolution denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
FACTS:
Respondent Horphag Research Management SA, a Swiss corporation, is the
owner of trademark PYCNOGENOL, a food supplement sold and distributed
by Zuellig Pharma Corporation. Respondent later discovered that petitioner
Prosource International, Inc. was also distributing a similar food
supplement using the mark PCO-GENOLS since 1996. This prompted
respondent to demand that petitioner cease and desist from using the
aforesaid mark.
Without notifying respondent, petitioner discontinued the use of, and
withdrew from the market, the products under the name PCO-GENOLS as
of June 19, 2000. It, likewise, changed its mark from PCO-GENOLS to PCOPLUS.
On August 22, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint for Infringement of
Trademark with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against petitioner, praying
that the latter cease and desist from using the brand PCO-GENOLS for
being confusingly similar with respondents trademark PYCNOGENOL. It,
likewise, prayed for actual and nominal damages, as well as attorneys fees.
In its Answer, petitioner contended that respondent could not file the
infringement case considering that the latter is not the registered owner of
the trademark PYCNOGENOL, but one Horphag Research Limited. It,
likewise, claimed that the two marks were not confusingly similar. Finally, it
denied liability, since it discontinued the use of the mark prior to the
institution of the infringement case. Petitioner thus prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint. By way of counterclaim, petitioner prayed that
respondent be directed to pay exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
During the pre-trial, the parties admitted the following:
1. Defendant [petitioner] is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with business address at No. 7
Annapolis Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila;
2. The trademark PYCNOGENOL of the plaintiff is duly registered with the
Intellectual Property Office but not with the Bureau of Food and Drug
(BFAD).

3. The defendants product PCO-GENOLS is duly registered with the BFAD

but not with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
4. The defendant corporation discontinued the use of and had withdrawn
from the market the products under the name of PCO-GENOLS as of June
19, 2000, with its trademark changed from PCO-GENOLS to PCO-PLUS.
5. Plaintiff corporation sent a demand letter to the defendant dated 02 June
2000.
RTC: Decided in favor of respondent.

It observed that PYCNOGENOL and PCO-GENOLS have the same

suffix GENOL which appears to be merely descriptive and thus
open for trademark registration by combining it with other words.

The marks, when read, sound similar, and thus confusingly similar
especially since they both refer to food supplements.

The petitioners liability was not negated by its act of pulling out of
the market the products bearing the questioned mark since the
fact remains that from 1996 until June 2000, petitioner had
infringed respondents product by using the trademark PCOGENOLS.

As respondent manifested that it was no longer interested in

recovering actual damages, petitioner was made to answer only for
attorneys fees amounting to P50,000.00.

For lack of sufficient factual and legal basis, the court dismissed
petitioners counterclaim. Petitioners motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied.
CA: Affirmed RTC

Explained that under the Dominancy or the Holistic Test, PCOGENOLS is deceptively similar to PYCNOGENOL.

It also found just and equitable the award of attorneys fees

especially since respondent was compelled to litigate.
ISSUE: WON
PYCOGENOLS?

petitioners

PCO-GENOLS

infringed

the

respondents

HELD:
The petition is without merit.
It must be recalled that respondent filed a complaint for trademark
infringement against petitioner for the latters use of the mark PCO-GENOLS
which the former claimed to be confusingly similar to its trademark
PYCNOGENOL. Petitioners use of the questioned mark started in 1996 and
ended in June 2000. The instant case should thus be decided in light of the
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 166 for the acts committed until
December 31, 1997, and R.A. No. 8293 for those committed from January
1, 1998 until June 19, 2000.

A trademark is any distinctive word, name, symbol, emblem, sign, or

device, or any combination thereof, adopted and used by a manufacturer
or merchant on his goods to identify and distinguish them from those
manufactured, sold, or dealt by others. Inarguably, a trademark deserves
protection.
Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, as amended, and Section 155 of R.A. No. 8293
define what constitutes trademark infringement, as follows:
Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. Any person who shall use, without
the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or
colorable imitation of any registered mark or tradename in connection with
the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services
on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or
mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of
such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce,
counterfeit, copy of colorably imitate any such mark or tradename and
apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended
to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business, or services,
shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the
remedies herein provided.
Sec. 155. Remedies; Infringement. Any person who shall, without the
consent of the owner of the registered mark:
155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature
thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution,
advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps
necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection
with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive; or
155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark
or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit,
copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in
connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of
goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action
for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth:
Provided, That infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts
stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of
whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing
material.
In accordance with Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, as well as Sections 2, 2-A, 9A, and 20 thereof, the following constitute the elements of trademark
infringement:

(a) A trademark actually used in commerce in the Philippines and

registered in the principal register of the Philippine Patent Office;
(b) [It] is used by another person in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services or in connection with
which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive
purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or
identity of such business; or such trademark is reproduced, counterfeited,
copied or colorably imitated by another person and such reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 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 as to likely
cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers[;]
(c) [T]he trademark is used for identical or similar goods[;] and
(d) [S]uch act is done without the consent of the trademark registrant or
assignee
On the other hand, the elements of infringement under R.A. No. 8293 are
as follows:
(1) The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual
Property Office; however, in infringement of trade name, the same
need not be registered;
(2) The trademark or trade name is reproduced, counterfeited, copied,
or colorably imitated by the infringer;
(3) The infringing mark or trade name is used in connection with the
sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or
services; or the infringing mark or trade name 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;
(4) The use or application of the infringing mark or trade name 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
(5) It is without the consent of the trademark or trade name owner or
the assignee thereof.

the competing trademarks that might cause confusion and deception, thus
constituting infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main,
essential and dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is
likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not
necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an
effort to imitate. 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
purchasers. Courts will consider more the aural and visual impressions
created by the marks in the public mind, giving little weight to factors like
prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments.
In contrast, the Holistic Test entails a consideration of the entirety of the
marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in
determining confusing similarity. The discerning eye of the observer must
focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features
appearing on both labels in order that the observer may draw his
conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.
The trial and appellate courts applied the Dominancy Test in determining
whether there was a confusing similarity between the marks PYCNOGENOL
and PCO-GENOL. Applying the test, the trial court found, and the CA
affirmed, that:
Both the word[s] PYCNOGENOL and PCO-GENOLS have the same suffix
GENOL which on evidence, appears to be merely descriptive and furnish no
indication of the origin of the article and hence, open for trademark
registration by the plaintiff thru combination with another word or phrase
such as PYCNOGENOL, Exhibits A to A-3. Furthermore, although the letters
Y between P and C, N between O and C and S after L are missing in the
[petitioners] mark PCO-GENOLS, nevertheless, when the two words are
pronounced, the sound effects are confusingly similar not to mention that
they are both described by their manufacturers as a food supplement and
thus, identified as such by their public consumers. And although there were
dissimilarities in the trademark due to the type of letters used as well as
the size, color and design employed on their individual packages/bottles,
still the close relationship of the competing products name in sounds as
they were pronounced, clearly indicates that purchasers could be misled
into believing that they are the same and/or originates from a common
source and manufacturer.
We find no cogent reason to depart from such conclusion.

In the foregoing enumeration, it is the element of likelihood of confusion

that is the gravamen of trademark infringement. But likelihood of confusion
is a relative concept. The particular, and sometimes peculiar,
circumstances of each case are determinative of its existence. Thus, in
trademark infringement cases, precedents must be evaluated in the light
of each particular case.

This is not the first time that the Court takes into account the aural effects
of the words and letters contained in the marks in determining the issue of
confusing similarity. In Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Co.,
et al., cited in McDonalds Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., the Court
held:

In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has

developed two tests: the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of

The following random list of confusingly similar sounds in the matter of

trademarks, culled from Nims, Unfair Competition and Trade Marks, 1947,
Vol. 1, will reinforce our view that SALONPAS and LIONPAS are confusingly

similar in sound: Gold Dust and Gold Drop; Jantzen and Jass-Sea; Silver
Flash and Supper Flash; Cascarete and Celborite; Celluloid and Cellonite;
Chartreuse and Charseurs; Cutex and Cuticlean; Hebe and Meje; Kotex and
Femetex; Zuso and Hoo Hoo. Leon Amdur, in his book Trade-Mark Law and
Practice, pp. 419-421, cities, as coming within the purview of the idem
sonans rule, Yusea and U-C-A, Steinway Pianos and Steinberg Pianos, and
Seven-Up and Lemon-Up. In Co Tiong vs. Director of Patents, this Court
unequivocally said that Celdura and Cordura are confusingly similar in
sound; this Court held in Sapolin Co. vs. Balmaceda, 67 Phil. 795 that the
name Lusolin is an infringement of the trademark Sapolin, as the sound of
the two names is almost the same.

Finally, we reiterate that the issue of trademark infringement is factual,

with both the trial and appellate courts finding the allegations of
infringement to be meritorious. As we have consistently held, factual
determinations of the trial court, concurred in by the CA, are final and
binding on this Court. Hence, petitioner is liable for trademark
infringement.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2007 and its Resolution
dated October 15, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87556 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.