This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Although liable for unfair competition, the Court deems it apt to clarify that Co was properly exculpated from the charge of trademark infringement considering that the registration of the trademark "Greenstone" essential as it is in a trademark infringement case was not proven to have existed during the time the acts complained of were committed, i.e., in May 2000.In this relation, the distinctions between suits for trademark infringement and unfair competition prove useful: (a) the former is the unauthorized use of a trademark, whereas the latter is the passing off of one's goods as those of another; (b) fraudulent intent is unnecessary in the former, while it is essential in the latter; and (c) in the former, prior registration of the trademark is a pre-requisite to the action, while it is not necessary in the latter.[21] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Withal, the protection of trademarks as intellectual property is intended not only to preserve the goodwill and reputation of the business established on the goods bearing the mark through actual use over a period of time, but also to safeguard the public as consumers against confusion on these goods.[27] While respondent's shoes contain some dissimilarities with petitioner's shoes, this Court cannot close its eye to the fact that for all intents and purpose, respondent had deliberately attempted to copy petitioner's mark and overall design and features of the shoes. Let it be remembered, that defendants in cases of infringement do not normally copy but only make colorable changes.[28] The most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public, with enough points of difference to confuse the courts.[29] | |||||
|
2008-12-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We cannot subscribe to petitioner's stance that Emerald Garment cannot apply because there was only one point of comparison, i.e., "LEE" as it appears in Emerald Garment's "STYLISTIC MR. LEE." Emerald Garment is instructive in explaining the attitude of the buyer when it comes to products that are not inexpensive, such as jeans. In fact, the Emerald Garment rationale is supported by Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[70] where the Court explained that the attitude of the purchaser is determined by the cost of the goods. There is no reason not to apply the rationale in those cases here even if only by analogy. | |||||