In a trademark dispute between Wilton Dy (PHILITES) and Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. (PHILIPS), the Supreme Court sided with PHILIPS, preventing PHILITES from registering a trademark due to its confusing similarity to the well-known PHILIPS brand. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting established trademarks and preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace. The decision reinforces the principle that even slight resemblances in trademarks, especially in the same line of business, can infringe upon existing intellectual property rights. This case serves as a reminder for businesses to conduct thorough trademark searches and ensure their branding is distinctly different from established marks to avoid legal challenges.

When Lighting Names Collide: Can ‘PHILITES’ Shine Alongside the Established ‘PHILIPS’?

The case revolves around PHILITES’ attempt to register its trademark for lighting products, which PHILIPS opposed, arguing it was confusingly similar to their own registered and internationally recognized trademark. The Intellectual Property Philippines Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPP-BLA) initially sided with PHILITES, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, a move ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the PHILITES trademark was indeed so similar to PHILIPS that it would likely deceive or confuse consumers. This required the Court to delve into the intricacies of trademark law, specifically focusing on the concepts of likelihood of confusion and the protection afforded to well-known marks.

At the heart of trademark law is the principle that a mark should be distinctive, allowing consumers to easily identify and differentiate products from various sources. Section 123 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IPC) explicitly states the grounds for which a mark cannot be registered. Among these is a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark belonging to a different owner, particularly if used for the same or closely related goods or services. Additionally, a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known mark, whether registered in the Philippines or not, cannot be registered by another party for similar goods or services. Here, the relevant provisions of Section 123 are:

Section 123. Registrability. – 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:

x x x

(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:

    (i) The same goods or services, or
    (ii) Closely related goods or services, or
   (iii) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;

(e) Is identical with, or confusingly similar to, or constitutes a translation of a mark which is considered by the competent authority of the Philippines to be well-known internationally and in the Philippines, whether or not it is registered here, as being already the mark of a person other than the applicant for registration, and used for identical or similar goods or services: Provided, That in determining whether a mark is well-known, account shall be taken of the knowledge of the relevant sector of the public, rather than of the public at large, including knowledge in the Philippines which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the mark.

The Court emphasized that PHILIPS’ mark is a registered and well-known mark in the Philippines. This acknowledgment is crucial, as well-known marks receive a higher degree of protection under intellectual property law. The Supreme Court has previously recognized PHILIPS as a well-known mark in Philips Export B. V., v. CA. The court affirmed the CA ruling, stating:

Petitioner (PHILIPS) is the registered owner in the Philippines of the “PHILIPS” and “PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM” trademarks, as shown by Certificates of Registration Nos. 42271 and 42270. The Philippine trademark registrations of petitioner’s “PHILIPS” and “PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM” are also evidenced by Certificates of Registration Nos. R-1651, R-29134, R-1674, and R-28981. The said registered trademarks “PHILIPS” and “PHILIPS SHIELD EMBLEM” cover classes 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. The assailed Decision itself states that “(T)he Appellant’s trademark is already registered and in use in the Philippines”. It also appears that worldwide, petitioner has thousands of trademark registrations x x x in various countries. As found by the High Court in Philips Export B. V. vs Court of Appeals, PHILIPS is a trademark or trade name which was registered as far back as 1922, and has acquired the status of a well-known mark in the Philippines and internationally as well.

Given PHILIPS’ established status, the Court then considered whether PHILITES’ mark was confusingly similar, employing two tests: the dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the competing trademarks that could cause confusion among consumers. It emphasizes the aural and visual impressions created by the marks. The holistic test, on the other hand, considers the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including labels and packaging. This involves examining all features to determine if one mark is confusingly similar to the other.

Applying the dominancy test, the Court found that the “PHILI” prefix, common to both marks, was a dominant feature that could easily lead to consumer confusion. As the court observed, “the letters ‘PHILI’ visually catch the attention of the consuming public and the use of respondent’s trademark will likely deceive or cause confusion.” Furthermore, both trademarks were used on the same goods—light bulbs—increasing the likelihood of confusion. Even under the holistic test, the court found a strong similitude between the trademarks, noting that the packaging of PHILITES products, in practice, amplified the potential for consumer deception. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering both the visual and aural similarity of trademarks, as well as the context in which they are used, to protect consumers from potential confusion.

The Court gave importance to the aural and visual impressions the mark is likely to create in the minds of the buyers. We agree with the findings of the CA that the mark “PHILITES” bears an uncanny resemblance or confusing similarity with respondent’s mark “PHILIPS,” to wit:

Applying the dominancy test in the instant case, it shows the uncanny resemblance or confusing similarity between the trademark applied for by respondent with that of petitioner’s registered trademark. An examination of the trademarks shows that their dominant or prevalent feature is the five-letter “PHILI”, “PHILIPS” for petitioner, and “PHILITES” for respondent. The marks are confusingly similar with each other such that an ordinary purchaser can conclude an association or relation between the marks. The consuming public does not have the luxury of time to ruminate the phonetic sounds of the trademarks, to find out which one has a short or long vowel sound. At bottom, the letters “PHILI” visually catch the attention of the consuming public and the use of respondent’s trademark will likely deceive or cause confusion. Most importantly, both trademarks are used in the sale of the same goods, which are light bulbs.

The court also reiterated that the mark petitioner seeks to register is vastly different from that which it actually uses in the packaging of its products, as follows:

Applying the holistic test, entails a consideration of the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. A comparison between petitioner’s registered trademark “PHILIPS” as used in the wrapper or packaging of its light bulbs and that of respondent’s applied for trademark “PHILITES” as depicted in the container or actual wrapper/packaging of the latter’s light bulbs will readily show that there is a strong similitude and likeness between the two trademarks that will likely cause deception or confusion to the purchasing public. The fact that the parties’ wrapper or packaging reflects negligible differences considering the use of a slightly different font and hue of the yellow is of no moment because taken in their entirety, respondent’s trademark “PHILITES” will likely cause confusion or deception to the ordinary purchaser with a modicum of intelligence.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting established trademarks to prevent consumer confusion and unfair competition. The application of both the dominancy and holistic tests serves to thoroughly assess the likelihood of confusion, ensuring that trademarks that are deceptively similar are not allowed to be registered. This case acts as a reminder to businesses that when choosing a trademark, they must ensure it is sufficiently distinct from existing marks, particularly those that are well-known, to avoid potential legal challenges. Moreover, it reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks, recognizing their established reputation and the potential for consumer confusion if similar marks are allowed in the marketplace.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trademark “PHILITES” was confusingly similar to the well-known trademark “PHILIPS,” potentially deceiving consumers. The Court needed to determine if the similarity was enough to warrant preventing PHILITES from registering its mark.
What is the dominancy test in trademark law?	The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of competing trademarks that might cause confusion among consumers. It prioritizes the aural and visual impressions created by the marks over other factors.
What is the holistic test in trademark law?	The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including labels and packaging, to determine if there’s a confusing similarity. It involves assessing all features to see if one mark is likely to be mistaken for the other.
Why is a well-known trademark given more protection?	Well-known trademarks have established recognition and goodwill, and their reputation can be damaged if similar marks are used, leading to consumer confusion. Protecting these marks prevents others from unfairly benefiting from the established brand recognition.
What did the Court of Appeals decide in this case?	The Court of Appeals reversed the IPP-BLA’s decision, ruling that the “PHILITES” trademark was confusingly similar to “PHILIPS.” It set aside the approval of PHILITES’ trademark application, a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
What was the basis for PHILIPS’ opposition to PHILITES’ trademark application?	PHILIPS opposed the application based on the grounds that PHILITES’ mark was confusingly similar to its own registered and internationally well-known trademark. They argued that allowing PHILITES’ registration would mislead the public and infringe on their established rights.
What is the significance of Section 123 of the Intellectual Property Code?	Section 123 of the Intellectual Property Code lists the grounds for which a trademark cannot be registered in the Philippines. These include identity or confusing similarity to existing registered or well-known trademarks.
What was the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court’s decision prevented PHILITES from registering its trademark for lighting products. The effect to PHILIPS is that their intellectual property is protected from potential consumer confusion.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial precedent for trademark law in the Philippines, reinforcing the importance of protecting established brands and preventing consumer confusion. Businesses must prioritize conducting thorough trademark searches and ensuring their branding is distinctly different from existing marks to avoid legal challenges and uphold the integrity of intellectual property rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: WILTON DY vs. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, G.R. No. 186088, March 22, 2017