Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL v. HORPHAG RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 164321 2011-03-23	SKECHERS v. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP. PERALTA, J.
The essential element of infringement under R.A. No. 8293 is that the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion. In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed tests ? the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the purchasing public. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; neither is it required that the mark sought to be registered suggests an effort to imitate. Given more consideration are the aural and visual impressions created by the marks on the buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments.[16]
	GR No. 183404 2010-10-13	BERRIS AGRICULTURAL CO. v. NORVY ABYADANG NACHURA, J.
In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed tests--the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the purchasing public. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; neither is it required that the mark sought to be registered suggests an effort to imitate. Given more consideration are the aural and visual impressions created by the marks on the buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments.[43]
	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. 172276 2010-08-08	SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE v. MARTIN T. DY CARPIO, J.
In Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA,[13] the Court laid down the elements of infringement under R.A. Nos. 166 and 8293: In accordance with Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, as well as Sections 2, 2-A, 9-A, and 20 thereof, the following constitute the elements of trademark infringement:
	GR No. 169504 2010-03-03	COFFEE PARTNERS v. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE CARPIO, J.
Coming now to the main issue, in Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA,[9] this Court laid down what constitutes infringement of an unregistered trade name, thus: (1) The trademark being infringed is registered in the Intellectual Property Office; however, in infringement of trade name, the same need not be registered;