VII. Jinggy went to Kluwer University(KU) University(KU) in Germany for his doctorate degree (Ph.D.). e com!leted his degree with the highest honors in the shortest time. "hen he came #ac$% he decided to set&u! his own graduate school in his hometown in 'am#oanga. fter see$ing free legal advice from his high& ying lawyer&friends% he learned that the Phili!!ines follows the territoriality !rinci!le in trademar$ law% i.e.% trademar$ rights are ac*uired through valid registration in accordance with the law. +orth with% Jinggy named his school the the Kluw Kluwer er Gradu Graduat ate e ,cho ,chool ol of -u -usi sine ness ss of ind indan anao ao and imme immedi diat atel ely y secur secured ed regis registra tratio tion n with with the -ureau -ureau of /radem rademar$ ar$s. s. KU did not li$e li$e the unauthori0ed use of its name #y its to! alumnus no less. KU sought your hel!. "hat advice can you give KU1 nswer2 I will advise KU KU to sue Jinggy in order order to com!el the latter to dro! the word Kluwer as it !ro!erly !ertains to Kluwer University of Germany and is well&$nown internationally% and which as a matter of fact Jinggy went to that coun countr try y to !urs !ursue ue his his doct doctor orate ate degr degree ee.. is is us use e of the the wor word Kluw Kluwer er is dece!tively identical and can cause confusion to its German origin. 3 4567 of the Intellectual Pro!erty 8ode !rovides2 957.9. mar$ cannot #e registered if it2 :e. :e. Is iden identi tica call with with%% or confus confusin ingl gly y simi simila larr to% to% or consti constitu tute tes s a translation of a mar$ which is considered #y the com!etent authority of the the Ph Phil ili! i!!i !ine nes s to #e well well&$ &$no nown wn inte interrnati nation onal ally ly and and in the the Phili!!ines% whether or not it is registered registered here% as #eing already already the mar$ of a !erson other than the a!!licant a!!licant for registrat registration% ion% and used for identical or similar similar goods or services2 Provided% Provided% /hat in determining determining whet hether her a mar$ ar$ is well ell&$no &$now wn% acco accoun untt shal hall #e ta$e a$en of the the $nowle $nowledge dge of the relev relevant ant sector sector of the !u#lic !u#lic%% rather rather than of the !u#lic at large% including $nowledge in the Phili!!ines which has #een o#tained as a result of the !romotion !romotion of the mar$:
;VI. In intell intellect ectual ual !ro!e !ro!erty rty cases% cases% fraudu fraudule lent nt intent intent is not an elemen elementt of the cause of action e
() trademar$ infringement (-) co!yright infringement (8) !atent infringement (D) unfair com!etition ;VII. >n Decem#er 9% 5?9?% Kore 8or!orationshi!!ed from ,outh Korea to @/ 8or!oration in anila some 7??%??? sheets of high&grade s!ecial steel. /he shi!ment was insured against all ris$s #y A Insurance(A). /he carrying vessel arrived at the Portof anila on January 9?% 5?99. "hen the shi!ment was discharged% it was noted that 5B%??? sheets were damaged and in #ad order. /he entire shi!ment was turned over to the custody of /I% the arrastre o!erator% on January 59% 5?99 for storage and safe$ee!ing% !ending its withdrawal #y the consigneeCs authori0ed customs #ro$er% 3V. >n January 5 and 56% 5?99% the su#Eect shi!ment was withdrawn #y 3V from the custody of /I. >n January 56% 5?99% !rior to the withdrawal of the last #atch of the shi!ment% a Eoint ins!ection of the cargo was conducted !er the 3e*uest for -ad >rder ,urvey (3->) dated January 54% 5?99. /he e
G,) a!!lies in this case since the goods were shi!!ed from a foreign !ort to the Phili!!ines. A Insurance claims that the 8>G, does not a!!ly% since /Iis not a shi!!er or carrier. "ho is correct1 (B=) nswer2 A Insurance is correct. /he !rovisions of the 8>G, does not a!!ly to an arrastre o!erator. Under the 8arriage of Goods #y the ,ea ct% the carrier and the shi! may !ut u! the defense of !rescri!tion if the action for
damages is not #rought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have #een delivered. owever% the 8>G, does not mention that an arrastre o!erator may invo$e the !rescri!tive !eriod of one year% hence% it does not cover the arrastre o!erator. /hus% the action Fled #y A Insurance is not yet #arred #y !rescri!tion. (Insurance 8om!any of A v. sian /erminals Inc.) ;VIII. ,$echers 8or!oration sued Inter&PaciFc for trademar$ infringement% claiming that Inter&PaciFcused ,$echersC registered :,: logo mar$ on Inter&PaciFcCs shoe !roducts without its consent. ,$echers has registered the trademar$ :,K83,: and the trademar$ :,: (with an oval design) with the Intellectual Pro!erty >Hce (IP>). In its com!laint% ,$echers !oints out the following similarities2 the color scheme of the #lue% white and gray utili0ed #y ,$echers. ven the design and :wave&li$e: !attern of the mid&sole and outer sole of Inter PaciFcCs shoes are very similar to ,$echersC shoes% if not en the side of Inter&PaciFcCs shoes% near the u!!er !art% a!!ears the styli0ed :,: !laced in the en to! of the :tongue: of #oth shoes% a!!ears the styli0ed :,: in !ractically the same location and si0e. In its defense% Inter&PaciFc claims that under the olistic /est% the following dissimilarities are !resent2 the mar$ :,: found in ,trong shoes is not enclosed in an :oval design: the word :,trong: is cons!icuously !laced at the #ac$side and insoles the hang tags la#els attached to the shoes #ear the word :,trong: for Inter&PaciFc and :,$echers U.,..: for ,$echers and% ,trong shoes are modestly !riced com!ared to the costs of ,$echers shoes. Under the foregoing circumstances% which is the !ro!er test to #e a!!lied olistic or Dominancy /est1 Decide. nswer2 Dominancy /est should #e a!!lied. Under this test% the court focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the mar$s that might cause confusion in the mind of the consumer. Du!lication or imitation is not necessary. ven accidental confusion may #e cause for trademar$ infringement. ore consideration is given to the aural and visual im!ressions
created #y the mar$s on the #uyers and less weight is given to factors li$e !rice% *uality% sales outlets and mar$et segments. In a similar case% the ,8 found that the use of the ,L sym#ol #y ,trong ru##er shoes infringes on the registered ,$echers trademar$. It is the most dominant feature of the mar$ && one that catches the #uyerCs eye Frst. ven if the accused claims that there was a diMerence #ecause the ,L used #y ,$echers is found inside an oval% the fact that the accused used the dominant ,L sym#ol already constitutes trademar$ infringement. /he features and overall design of the two !roducts are so similar that there is a high li$elihood of confusion. /wo !roducts do not need to #e identical% they Eust need to #e similar enough to confuse the ordinary #uyer in order to constitute trademar$ infringement. (,$echers% U,% Inc. v. Inter PaciFc Industrial /rading 8or!. G.3. Ao. 9N759% 5?99)
;;I;. KKis from -ang$o$% /hailand. ,he studies medicine in the PontiFcal University of ,anto /omas (U,/). ,he learned that the same foreign #oo$s !rescri#ed in U,/ are N?&B?= chea!er in -ang$o$. ,o she ordered B? co!ies of each #oo$ for herself and her classmates and sold the #oo$s at 5?= less than the !rice in the Phili!!ines. ;;% the e
Provision in a contract of carriage that re*uires cargo owners to contri#ute in general average even for an OincidentO caused #y the carrierOs negligence. 8. re common carriers lia#le for inEuries to !assengers even if they have o#served ordinary diligence and care1
;II.
. 3aymond invested his money in securities issued #y the Phili!!ine government% through his #an$. ,u#se*uently% the -ureau of Internal 3evenue as$ed his #an$ to disclose his investments. is #an$ refused the re*uest for disclosure on the ground that the investments are conFdential under the ,ecrecy of -an$ De!osits @aw (3e!u#lic ct Ao. 9N?B% as amended). Is the #an$Os refusal EustiFed1 Defend your answer. (5=) es. Under the law% ,ecurities issued #y the Phili!!ine Government are considered as of an a#solutely conFdential nature and may not #e e
. DiMerentiate trademar$% co!yright and !atent from each other. (=) -. "hat is the doctrine of e*uivalents1 (5=) 8. In what ways would a case for infringement of trademar$ #e diMerent from a case for unfair com!etition1 (7=) ;V. 8A% Inc.% a /aiwanese com!any% is a manufacturer of tires with the mar$ @ight ear. +rom 5??6 to 5?9N% 8lar$ nter!rises% a Phili!!ine registered cor!oration% im!orted tires from 8A% Inc. under several sales contracts and sold them here in the Phili!!ines. In 5?9B% 8A% Inc. Fled a trademar$ a!!lication with the Intellectual Pro!erty >Hce (IP>) for the mar$ @ight ear to #e used for tires. /he IP> issued 8A% Inc. a certiFcate of registration (8>3) for said mar$. 8lar$ nter!rises sought the cancellation of the 8>3 and claimed it had a #etter right to register the mar$ @ight ear. 8A% Inc. asserted that it was the owner of the mar$ and 8lar$ nter!rises was a mere distri#utor. 8lar$ nter!rises argued that there was no evidence on record that the tires it im!orted from 8A% Inc. #ore the mar$ @ight ear and 8lar$ nter!rises was a#le to !rove that it was the Frst to use the mar$ here in the Phili!!ines. Decide the case. (N=) ;VI. . >n the anti&money laundering laws2 9. "hat is the distinction #etween a :covered transaction re!ort: and a :sus!icious transaction re!ort:1 (5=) 5. Does the nti&oney @aundering 8ouncil have the authority to free0e de!osits1 n foreign investments2 9. foreign com!any has a distri#utor in the Phili!!ines. /he latter acts in his own name and account. "ill this distri#utorshi! #e considered as doing #usiness #y the foreign com!any in the Phili!!ines1 (7=)
5. -8 8or!oration was organi0ed in alaysia #ut has a #ranch in the Phili!!ines. It is entirely owned #y +ili!ino citi0ens. 8an you consider -8 8or!oration a Phili!!ine national1 (5=)
