Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIP MORRIS v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 164321 2011-03-23	SKECHERS v. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP. PERALTA, J.
In contrast, the Holistic or Totality Test necessitates 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 so that the observer may draw conclusion on whether one is confusingly similar to the other.[17]
	GR No. 190065 2010-08-16	DERMALINE v. MYRA PHARMACEUTICALS NACHURA, J.
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.[15] Inarguably, it is an intellectual property deserving protection by law. In trademark controversies, each case must be scrutinized according to its peculiar circumstances, such that jurisprudential precedents should only be made to apply if they are specifically in point.[16]
	GR No. 169504 2010-03-03	COFFEE PARTNERS v. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE CARPIO, J.
It is the likelihood of confusion that is the gravamen of infringement. But there is no absolute standard for likelihood of confusion. Only the particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each case can determine its existence. Thus, in infringement cases, precedents must be evaluated in the light of each particular case.[13]
	GR No. 181571 2009-12-16	JUNO BATISTIS v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly: Batistis' assigned errors stated in the petition for review on certiorari require a re-appreciation and re-examination of the trial evidence. As such, they raise issues evidentiary and factual in nature. The appeal is dismissible on that basis, because, one, the petition for review thereby violates the limitation of the issues to only legal questions, and, two, the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not disturb the factual findings of the CA, unless they were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings reached by the court of origin.[20]
	GR No. 180073 2009-11-25	PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL v. HORPHAG RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SA NACHURA, J.
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.[20]