This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| But mere uniformity in categorization, by itself, does not automatically preclude the registration of what appears to be an identical mark, if that be the case. In fact, this Court, in a long line of cases,has held that such circumstance does not necessarily result in any trademark infringement. The survey of jurisprudence cited in Mighty Corporation v. E. & J Gallo Winery[23] is enlightening on this point: (a) in Acoje Mining Co., Inc. vs. Director of Patents,[24] we ordered the approval of Acoje Mining's application for registration of the trademark LOTUS for its soy sauce even though Philippine Refining Company had prior registration and use of such identical mark for its edible oil which, like soy sauce, also belonged to Class 47; (b) in Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Ng Sam and Director of Patents,[25] we upheld the Patent Director's registration of the same trademark CAMIA for Ng Sam's ham under Class 47, despite Philippine Refining Company's prior | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In Mighty Corporation v. E & J Gallo Winery,[53] the Court held that the following constitute the elements of trademark infringement in accordance not only with Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, as amended, but also Sections 2, 2-A, 9-A[54] and 20 thereof: (a) a trademark actually used in commerce in the Philippines and registered in the principal register of the Philippine Patent Office, | |||||