Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 860 views

    Dermaline Vs Myra Pharmaceuticals (TM) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Angelic Archer
    Dermaline filed an application to register the trademark "Dermaline" for skin care products. Myra opposed this, claiming that the mark is confusingly similar to its own registered trademark "Dermalin" for skin care products, which it has used commercially since 1977. The Intellectual Property Office agreed that the marks were confusingly similar under the Dominancy Test, as the first eight letters and pronunciation of the marks were nearly identical. The possibility of confusion was not eliminated by the fact that the products were in separate classifications, as both related to skin treatments. Therefore, registration of "Dermaline" was not allowed due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark "Dermalin".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dermaline Vs Myra Pharmaceuticals (TM) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Angelic Archer
    860 views1 page
    Dermaline filed an application to register the trademark "Dermaline" for skin care products. Myra opposed this, claiming that the mark is confusingly similar to its own registered trademark "Dermalin" for skin care products, which it has used commercially since 1977. The Intellectual Property Office agreed that the marks were confusingly similar under the Dominancy Test, as the first eight letters and pronunciation of the marks were nearly identical. The possibility of confusion was not eliminated by the fact that the products were in separate classifications, as both related to skin treatments. Therefore, registration of "Dermaline" was not allowed due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark "Dermalin".

    Original Description:

    :)

    Original Title

    Dermaline vs Myra Pharmaceuticals [Tm] Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dermaline filed an application to register the trademark "Dermaline" for skin care products. Myra opposed this, claiming that the mark is confusingly similar to its own registered trademark "Dermalin" for skin care products, which it has used commercially since 1977. The Intellectual Property Office agreed that the marks were confusingly similar under the Dominancy Test, as the first eight letters and pronunciation of the marks were nearly identical. The possibility of confusion was not eliminated by the fact that the products were in separate classifications, as both related to skin treatments. Therefore, registration of "Dermaline" was not allowed due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark "Dermalin".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    860 views1 page

    Dermaline Vs Myra Pharmaceuticals (TM) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Angelic Archer
    Dermaline filed an application to register the trademark "Dermaline" for skin care products. Myra opposed this, claiming that the mark is confusingly similar to its own registered trademark "Dermalin" for skin care products, which it has used commercially since 1977. The Intellectual Property Office agreed that the marks were confusingly similar under the Dominancy Test, as the first eight letters and pronunciation of the marks were nearly identical. The possibility of confusion was not eliminated by the fact that the products were in separate classifications, as both related to skin treatments. Therefore, registration of "Dermaline" was not allowed due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered mark "Dermalin".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Dermaline, Inc. vs. Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    GR No. 190065, August 16, 2010


    Facts:
    Dermaline filed with the IPO an application to register the trademark
    Dermaline. Myra opposed this alleging that the trademark resembles its
    trademark Dermalin and will cause confusion, mistake and deception to
    the purchasing public. Dermalin was registered way back 1986 and was
    commercially used since 1977. Myra claims that despite attempts of
    Dermaline to differentiate its mark, the dominant feature is the term
    Dermaline to which the first 8 letters were identical to that of Dermalin.
    The pronunciation for both is also identical. Further, both have 3 syllables
    each with identical sound and appearance.
    Issue: W/N the IPO should allow the registration of the trademark
    Dermaline. NO
    Held: The petition is without merit.
    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.
    As Myra correctly posits, it has the right under Section 147 of R.A. No. 8293
    to prevent third parties from using a trademark, or similar signs or
    containers for goods or services, without its consent, identical or similar to
    its registered trademark, where such use would result in a likelihood of
    confusion. In determining confusion, case law has developed two (2) tests,
    the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
    The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of
    the competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception.
    Duplication or imitation is not even required; neither is it necessary that
    the label of the applied mark for registration should suggest an effort to
    imitate. Relative to the question on confusion of marks and trade names,
    jurisprudence noted two (2) types of confusion, viz: (1) confusion of goods
    (product confusion), where the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be
    induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the
    other; and (2) confusion of business (source or origin confusion), where,
    although the goods of the parties are different, the product, the mark of
    which registration is applied for by one party, is such as might reasonably
    be assumed to originate with the registrant of an earlier product, and the
    public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that
    there is some connection between the two parties, though inexistent.

    Using this test, the IPO declared that both confusion of goods and service
    and confusion of business or of origin were apparent in both trademarks.
    While it is true that the two marks are presented differently, they are
    almost spelled in the same way, except for Dermalines mark which ends
    with the letter "E," and they are pronounced practically in the same
    manner in three (3) syllables, with the ending letter "E" in Dermalines
    mark pronounced silently. Thus, when an ordinary purchaser, for example,
    hears an advertisement of Dermalines applied trademark over the radio,
    chances are he will associate it with Myras. When one applies for the
    registration of a trademark or label which is almost the same or that very
    closely resembles one already used and registered by another, the
    application should be rejected and dismissed outright, even without any
    opposition on the part of the owner and user of a previously registered
    label or trademark.
    Further, Dermalines stance that its product belongs to a separate and
    different classification from Myras products with the registered trademark
    does not eradicate the possibility of mistake on the part of the purchasing
    public to associate the former with the latter, especially considering that
    both classifications pertain to treatments for the skin.

    You might also like