Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

III. Law On Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names

This document outlines key aspects of Philippine trademark law, including definitions of trademarks, service marks, and trade names. It discusses how trademarks can be acquired through use or registration, and the requirements for registrability. Namely, that trademarks must be distinctive, cannot be generic or descriptive, and registration can be denied if the mark is confusingly similar to an existing mark. The document cites numerous legal cases to support and illustrate these principles of Philippine trademark law.

Uploaded by

lovelycruz yano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

III. Law On Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names

This document outlines key aspects of Philippine trademark law, including definitions of trademarks, service marks, and trade names. It discusses how trademarks can be acquired through use or registration, and the requirements for registrability. Namely, that trademarks must be distinctive, cannot be generic or descriptive, and registration can be denied if the mark is confusingly similar to an existing mark. The document cites numerous legal cases to support and illustrate these principles of Philippine trademark law.

Uploaded by

lovelycruz yano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

III.

Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names


Purpose of Trademark Law
La Chemise Lacoste, S. A. vs. Hon. Oscar C. Fernandez, et al., supra.
Definitions, Distinctions, Functions and Limitations, Sections 121 & 165
Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs. CA, supra.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112012,
April 4, 2001
PhilippineRefining Co., Inc. vs. Ng Sam, G.R. No. L-26676, July 30, 1982
Converse Rubber Corp. vs. Universal Rubber Prod., Inc., G.R. No. L-27906,
January 8, 1987
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-29971, August 31,
1982
Acquisition, Section 122
Godofredo L. Lorenzana, et al vs. Crispina L. Macagba, et al., G.R. No. L-33773,
October 22, 1987
Sterling Products International, Inc. vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengisellchaft,
G.R. No. L-19906, April 30, 1969
Puma Sportschuhfabriken R. Dassler, K.G., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 75067, February 26, 1988
Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. L-75420,
November 15, 1991
Bata Industries, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-53672, May 31, 1982
Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd., et al. vs. Developers Group of
Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006
Registrability, Section 123
Societe Des Produits Nestle, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,supra.
McDonald's Corporation, et al. vs. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
143993,
August 18, 2004
Ang Si Heng, et al. vs. Wellington Department Store, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-4358
January 2, 1953
Etepha, A.G. vs. Director of Patents, et al., G.R. No. L-20635, March 31, 1966
Masso Hermanos S. A. vs. Director of Patents, G.R. No. L-3952, December 29,
1953
Ong Ai Gui, et al vs. E. I. Du Pont De Nermous and Company, G.R. No. L-6235,
March 28, 1955
East Pacific Merchandising Corporation vs. Director of Patents, et al., G.R. No.
L-14377
December 29, 1960
Andres Romero vs. Maiden Form Brassiere Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-18289,
March 31, 1964
Inchausti & Company vs. Song Fo & Company, et al., G.R. No. L-6623, January
26, 1912
Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Alhambra Cigar Mfg. Co., G.R.
No. L-10251, February 10, 1916
La Yebana Company, Inc. vs. Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co.,
et al., G.R. No. 34497, September 12, 1931

You might also like