DERMALINE vs. MYRA PHARMACEUTICALS G.R. No. 190065
August 16, 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Dermaline sought to register “Dermaline” as a trademar. !"ra o##osed alleging that su$h resem%les and and is $on& $on&us usin ingl gl" " simi simila larr 'ith 'ith its its o'n o'n trad tradem emar ar “Dermalin” registered 'a" %a$ in 19(6. !"ra added that e)en i& #etitioner*s a##li$ation 'as under +lassi&i$ation &or )arious sin treatments, it $ould still %e $onne$ted to the the -Der -Derma mali linn- mar mar under under +las +lassi si&i &i$a $ati tion on 5( &or &or #harma$euti$al #rodu$ts, sin$e ultimatel" these goods are )er" $losel" related. Dermaline argued that in determining i& the $om#eting trademars are $on&usingl" similar, a $om#arison o& the 'ords is not the onl" determinant, %ut their entiret" must %e $onsidered in relation to the goods to 'hi$h the" are atta$hed, in$luding the other &eatures a##earing in %oth la%els. Dermaline &urther argued that there $ould not %e an" relation %et'een its trademar &or health and %eaut" ser) ser)i$ i$es es &rom &rom !"ra !"ra*s *s trad tradem emar ar $las $lassi si&i &ied ed unde under r medi$inal goods against sin disorders. P/A, P/DG, and the +ourt o& A##eals all &a)ored !"ra*s $ontentions. HELD: n re3e re3e$t $tin ing g the the a##l a##li$ i$at atio ion n o& Derm Dermal alin ine e &or &or the the registration o& its mar -Dermaline,- the P/ a##lied the Dominan$" 4est. 4est. t de$lared that %oth $on&usion o& goods and ser)i$e and $on&usion o& %usiness or o& origin 'ere a##arent in %oth trademars. 4he" are almost s#elled in the same 'a", e$e#t &or Dermaline*s mar 'hi$h ends 'ith the letter -,- and the" are #ronoun$ed #ra$ti$all" in the same manner manner in three three s"lla% s"lla%les les,, 'ith 'ith the ending ending letter -- in Dermaline*s mar #ronoun$ed silentl". 7urther, Dermaline*s stan$e that its #rodu$t %elongs to a se#a se#ara rate te and and di&& di&&er eren entt $las $lassi si&i &i$a $ati tion on &rom &rom !"ra !"ra*s *s #rod #rodu$ u$ts ts 'ith 'ith the the regi regist ster ered ed trad tradem emar ar does does not not eradi$ate the #ossi%ilit" o& mistae on the #art o& the #ur$hasing #u%li$ to asso$iate the &ormer 'ith the latter, es#e$iall" $onsidering that %oth $lassi&i$ations #ertain to treatments &or the sin. 8eril eril" ", 'hen 'hen one one a##l a##lie ies s &or &or the the regi regist stra rati tion on o& a trademar or la%el 'hi$h is almost the same or that )er" $losel" resem%les one alread" used and registered %" anot anothe herr, the the a##l a##li$ i$at atio ion n shou should ld %e re3e re3e$t $ted ed and and dismissed outright, e)en 'ithout an" o##osition on the #art o& the o'ner and user o& a #re)iousl" registered la%el or trademar. 4his is intended not onl" to a)oid $on&usion on the #art o& the #u%li$, %ut also to #rote$t an alre alread ad" " used used and and regi regist ster ered ed trad tradem emar ar and and an esta%lished good'ill.
DOCTRINES: A trademar is an" distin$ti)e 'ord, name, s"m%ol, em%lem, em%lem, sign, or de)i$e, de)i$e, or an" $om%ination $om%ination thereo&, thereo&, ado#ted and used %" a manu&a$turer or mer$hant on his good goods s to iden identi ti&" &" and and dist distin ingu guis ish h them them &rom &rom thos those e manu&a$tured, sold, or dealt %" others. TWO TESTS IN DETERMINING LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION: 1: 1: DOMINANCY TEST; TEST ; t &o$uses on the similarit" o& the prevalent the prevalent features o& features o& the $om#eting trademars that might $ause $on&usion or de$e#tion. t is a##lied 'hen the trademar sought to %e registered $ontains the main, main, essential and and dominant features o& features o& the earlier registered trademar, and confusion or deception is likely to result . •
•
•
•
Du#li$ation or imitation is not e)en ree$tion 155.1, R.A. No. (29?.
2: HOLISTI HOLISTIC C TEST TEST: t entails a $onsideration o& the enti entire ret" t" o& the the mar mars s as a##l a##lie ied d to the the #rodu #rodu$t $ts, s, in$luding la%els and #a$aging, in determining $on&using simil similari arit" t".. 4he 4he s$ruti s$rutini@ ni@ing ing e"e o& the o%ser) o%ser)er er must must &o$us not onl" on the #redominant 'ords %ut also on the othe otherr &eat &eatur ures es a##e a##ear arin ing g in %oth %oth la%e la%els ls so that that a $on$ $on$lu lusi sion on ma" ma" %e dra' dra'n n as to 'het hether her one one is $on&usingl" similar to the other. TWO TYPES OF CONFUSION: 1: CONFUSION OF GOODS (Produc Co!"us#o!$ ; t is 'here 'here the ordina ordinaril ril" " #ruden #rudentt #ur$ha #ur$haser ser 'ould 'ould %e indu$ed to #ur$hase one #rodu$t in the %elie& that he 'as #ur$hasing the other= and 2: CONF CONFUSI USION ON OF %USIN %USINES ESS S (Sour (Sourc&' c&'Or# Or## #! ! Co!"us#o!$; Co!"us#o!$ ; t is 'her 'here, e, alth althou ough gh the the good goods s o& the the #arti #arties es are di&&er di&&erent ent,, the #rodu$ #rodu$t, t, the mar mar o& 'hi$h 'hi$h registration is a##lied &or %" one #art", is su$h as might reasona%l" %e assumed to originate 'ith the registrant o& an earl earlie ierr #rod #rodu$ u$t, t, and and the the #u%l #u%li$ i$ 'oul 'ould d then then %e de$ei)ed either into that %elie& or into the %elie& that there is some some $onne$ $onne$tio tion n %et'e %et'een en the t'o t'o #artie #arties, s, though though ineistent.
