ASG Law

Tag: Likelihood of Confusion

  • Understanding Trademark Confusion: Protecting Your Brand in the Philippines

    Key Takeaway: The Importance of Distinguishing Your Trademark to Avoid Confusion

    Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. v. Kolin Philippines International, Inc., G.R. No. 226444, July 06, 2021

    Imagine walking into a store, looking for a specific brand of electronics, only to be confused by another product with a strikingly similar name. This scenario is not just a minor inconvenience for consumers; it can lead to significant legal battles over trademark rights. In the Philippines, the case of Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. versus Kolin Philippines International, Inc. underscores the complexities of trademark law and the importance of protecting your brand from confusion. At the heart of this dispute was the question of whether the registration of a similar trademark would cause damage to an existing brand, highlighting the need for businesses to safeguard their intellectual property.

    The case involved two companies, both using the name ‘KOLIN’ for different products and services. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (KECI) opposed the trademark application of Kolin Philippines International, Inc. (KPII), arguing that the registration of KPII’s mark would cause confusion among consumers and damage KECI’s established brand.

    Legal Context: Navigating Trademark Law in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, trademark law is governed by the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code), which provides the framework for protecting marks and trade names. Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code states that a mark cannot be registered if it is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor, especially if it covers the same or closely related goods or services. This provision aims to prevent consumer confusion and protect the goodwill of trademark owners.

    Trademarks are crucial for businesses as they distinguish their products or services from those of others. A trademark can be a word, logo, or even a combination of elements that identifies the source of the goods or services. The concept of ‘likelihood of confusion’ is central to trademark disputes, where courts assess whether the use of a similar mark would deceive or confuse consumers about the origin of the products.

    The IP Code also emphasizes the importance of the ‘multifactor test’ in determining likelihood of confusion. This test considers factors such as the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods or services, the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, and evidence of actual confusion. Understanding these factors is essential for businesses seeking to protect their trademarks effectively.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. vs. Kolin Philippines International, Inc.

    The dispute between KECI and KPII began when KPII filed an application for the mark ‘KOLIN’ under Class 35, which covers services related to the business of manufacturing, importing, assembling, and selling electronic equipment. KECI, already the owner of the ‘KOLIN’ mark for Class 9 goods (such as electronic devices), opposed this application, arguing that it would cause confusion and damage to their brand.

    The case went through several stages, starting with the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which initially rejected KPII’s application due to the likelihood of confusion. The decision was appealed to the Office of the Director General (ODG), which upheld the BLA’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, citing a previous case (the ‘Taiwan Kolin case’) that allowed a similar mark to be registered.

    KECI then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in their favor. The Court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis (following precedent) did not apply due to the different facts and circumstances of this case compared to the ‘Taiwan Kolin case’. The Supreme Court found that KPII’s application would indeed cause damage to KECI, as it would likely confuse consumers and infringe on KECI’s existing trademark rights.

    Key quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision include:

    “The Court finds that the marks resemble each other because they both only feature the word ‘KOLIN’. Visually, phonetically, and connotatively, therefore, the marks are identical.”

    “Because an identical mark is being used for identical services here, likelihood of confusion is therefore presumed to exist between KOLIN (Class 35) and KOLIN.”

    Practical Implications: Protecting Your Brand and Navigating Trademark Disputes

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of protecting trademarks from confusion. Businesses must be vigilant in monitoring similar marks that could dilute their brand’s distinctiveness and confuse consumers. The ruling also highlights the need for a thorough analysis of the multifactor test when assessing trademark disputes.

    For businesses, this case serves as a reminder to:

    • Conduct thorough trademark searches before filing applications to avoid conflicts.
    • Monitor the marketplace for potential infringements and take prompt action to protect their marks.
    • Understand the legal principles and tests used by courts in trademark disputes.

    Key Lessons:

    • Trademark protection is crucial for maintaining brand identity and consumer trust.
    • The multifactor test is a critical tool in assessing likelihood of confusion in trademark disputes.
    • Businesses should seek legal advice early in the trademark registration process to avoid costly disputes.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the ‘likelihood of confusion’ test in trademark law?

    The ‘likelihood of confusion’ test assesses whether the use of a similar mark would deceive or confuse consumers about the origin of the products or services. It considers factors such as the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods or services, and evidence of actual confusion.

    How can businesses protect their trademarks from confusion?

    Businesses can protect their trademarks by conducting thorough searches before filing applications, monitoring the marketplace for potential infringements, and seeking legal advice to ensure their marks are distinct and protected.

    What is the role of the Intellectual Property Office in trademark disputes?

    The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in the Philippines handles trademark applications and disputes. It includes the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) and the Office of the Director General (ODG), which review and decide on trademark oppositions and appeals.

    Can a trademark be registered if it is similar to an existing mark?

    A trademark cannot be registered if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing mark, especially if it covers the same or closely related goods or services, as per Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code.

    What should businesses do if they face a trademark dispute?

    Businesses facing a trademark dispute should seek legal advice promptly, gather evidence of their trademark use and any potential confusion, and be prepared to file oppositions or appeals as necessary.

    ASG Law specializes in Intellectual Property Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Trademark Infringement: Understanding the Impact of Similar Marks in the Philippines

    Trademark Resemblance and the Risk of Consumer Confusion: Lessons from Suyen Corporation vs. Danjaq LLC

    Suyen Corporation v. Danjaq LLC, G.R. No. 250800, July 06, 2021

    Imagine walking into a store to buy a hair product and picking up a bottle labeled ‘AGENT BOND’. You might think it’s related to the iconic James Bond, right? This scenario is not far-fetched and was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case in the Philippines. The case, Suyen Corporation vs. Danjaq LLC, revolved around the question of whether the trademark ‘AGENT BOND’ for hair products infringed on the well-known ‘JAMES BOND’ trademark. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the registration of ‘AGENT BOND’ underscores the importance of trademark distinctiveness and the potential for consumer confusion in the marketplace.

    The central issue was whether ‘AGENT BOND’ was confusingly similar to ‘JAMES BOND’, potentially misleading consumers into thinking the hair products were associated with the famous spy franchise. This case highlights the complexities of trademark law, particularly when dealing with marks that share common elements but are used for different products.

    The Legal Landscape of Trademarks in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, trademark law is primarily governed by the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293). This law aims to protect marks that distinguish goods or services in the marketplace, preventing consumer confusion and unfair competition. Key to understanding this case is the concept of ‘likelihood of confusion’, a principle that assesses whether the use of a similar mark might lead consumers to mistakenly believe that the products are from the same source.

    The Intellectual Property Code, specifically Section 123.1, outlines conditions under which a mark cannot be registered. Relevant to this case are paragraphs (d) and (f), which address marks that are:

    • Identical or nearly resemble a registered mark and likely to deceive or cause confusion (Section 123.1(d))
    • Confusingly similar to a well-known mark, even if used for different goods or services, and likely to damage the interest of the mark’s owner (Section 123.1(f))

    These provisions are crucial in determining the registrability of a trademark, as they seek to balance the rights of trademark owners with the need to protect consumers from confusion.

    For instance, consider a local business launching a new line of clothing under the mark ‘AGENT BOND’. If this mark were allowed, consumers might assume a connection to the James Bond franchise, potentially leading to confusion and diluting the distinctiveness of the original mark.

    The Journey of Suyen Corporation vs. Danjaq LLC

    Suyen Corporation, known for its BENCH trademark, applied to register ‘AGENT BOND’ for hair products in 2010. Danjaq LLC, the owner of the ‘JAMES BOND’ trademark, opposed this application, arguing that ‘AGENT BOND’ was an attempt to capitalize on the fame of James Bond.

    The case traversed multiple levels of the Philippine legal system:

    1. Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA): Initially, the BLA sustained Danjaq’s opposition, finding ‘AGENT BOND’ non-registrable due to its similarity to ‘JAMES BOND’.
    2. Office of the Director General (ODG): On appeal, the ODG upheld the BLA’s decision, emphasizing the likelihood of confusion between the marks.
    3. Court of Appeals (CA): The CA affirmed the lower rulings and declared ‘JAMES BOND’ a well-known mark, further solidifying the basis for denying ‘AGENT BOND’s registration.
    4. Supreme Court: Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, providing a detailed analysis of the legal grounds for denying the registration.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning was clear:

    ‘The terms ‘agent’ and ‘bond’ – when put together in that particular order – inevitably suggests a connection with James Bond as he was also known by his spy name, Agent 007.’

    Another pivotal point was the concept of trademark dilution:

    ‘Trademark dilution is the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of: (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties; or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.’

    The Court found that ‘AGENT BOND’ would dilute the distinctiveness of ‘JAMES BOND’, thereby damaging Danjaq’s interests.

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    This ruling sets a precedent for how trademark disputes involving well-known marks will be handled in the Philippines. Businesses must be cautious when choosing marks that could be associated with established brands, even if they are used for different products. The decision underscores the importance of:

    • Conducting thorough trademark searches before applying for registration.
    • Understanding the potential for consumer confusion, even across different product categories.
    • Respecting the distinctiveness of well-known marks to avoid legal challenges.

    Key Lessons:

    • Businesses should avoid using marks that could be confused with well-known trademarks, regardless of the product category.
    • Trademark dilution is a significant concern that can affect the registration of new marks.
    • Legal advice is crucial when navigating trademark registration to ensure compliance with Philippine IP laws.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is trademark infringement?
    Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is used without permission in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source of goods or services.

    How is ‘likelihood of confusion’ determined?
    The court considers factors such as the strength of the mark, similarity between marks, relatedness of goods or services, and evidence of actual confusion.

    Can a trademark be denied registration even if it’s used for different products?
    Yes, if the mark is confusingly similar to a well-known mark and its use would suggest a connection or damage the interest of the mark’s owner.

    What is trademark dilution?
    Trademark dilution occurs when the use of a similar mark lessens the distinctiveness of a famous mark, even without competition or likelihood of confusion.

    How can businesses protect their trademarks?
    Businesses should register their marks, monitor for potential infringements, and seek legal advice to ensure their trademarks are protected.

    ASG Law specializes in Intellectual Property Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Trademark Infringement in the Philippines: Lessons from the CEEGEEFER vs. CHERIFER Case

    Understanding Trademark Infringement: The Importance of Distinctiveness and Consumer Confusion

    Prosel Pharmaceuticals & Distributors, Inc. v. Tynor Drug House, Inc., G.R. No. 248021, September 30, 2020

    In the bustling aisles of pharmacies across the Philippines, consumers often rely on brand names and packaging to make quick, informed decisions about their purchases. When two products look strikingly similar, it can lead to confusion and potentially harm a company’s reputation and sales. This was the crux of the legal battle between Prosel Pharmaceuticals & Distributors, Inc. and Tynor Drug House, Inc., where the Supreme Court had to determine if the brand name CEEGEEFER infringed on the trademark of CHERIFER. The central question was whether the similarities between the two products could mislead consumers, highlighting the importance of trademark law in protecting both businesses and consumers.

    Legal Context: Trademark Law and the Concept of Likelihood of Confusion

    Trademark law in the Philippines is governed by the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), which aims to protect marks that distinguish goods or services. A key element in trademark infringement cases is the “likelihood of confusion,” which occurs when consumers might mistakenly believe that goods or services from one source are actually from another. This principle is crucial because it safeguards the public from deception and protects a business’s goodwill.

    The idem sonans rule, which means “sounds the same,” is often used in trademark cases to determine if two marks are phonetically similar enough to cause confusion. Additionally, the Dominancy Test focuses on the dominant features of the competing trademarks, while the Holistic Test considers the overall impression created by the marks. These tests are essential tools in assessing whether a trademark infringement has occurred.

    For example, if a new brand of coffee named “Coffix” were to be introduced in the market alongside the well-known “Coffee Mate,” the similarity in names could potentially confuse consumers, leading to a possible infringement claim.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of CEEGEEFER and CHERIFER Through the Courts

    The conflict began when Tynor Drug House, Inc., the manufacturer of CHERIFER, a popular multivitamin product, discovered that Prosel Pharmaceuticals & Distributors, Inc. was marketing a new product called CEEGEEFER. Tynor claimed that CEEGEEFER’s name and packaging were too similar to CHERIFER, potentially confusing consumers.

    Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Tynor’s complaint, finding no confusing similarity between the two products. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, ruling in favor of Tynor and finding Prosel liable for trademark infringement. The CA noted that both names were phonetically similar and that the packaging of the products bore striking resemblances, including the use of similar colors and images of a boy playing basketball.

    Prosel then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the differences in the products’ ingredients and target markets should negate any claims of infringement. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the likelihood of confusion due to the similarities in the products’ names and packaging.

    The Supreme Court’s decision included critical reasoning, such as:

    “The fact that CEEGEEFER is idem sonans for CHERIFER is enough to violate respondent’s right to protect its trademark, CHERIFER.”

    “Given the phonetic and visual similarities between the two products (i.e., how the product names are spelled, the sound of both product names, and the colors and shapes combination of the products’ respective packaging), it is obvious that petitioner attempted to pass CEEGEEFER as a colorable imitation of CHERIFER.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Trademark Infringement in Business

    This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that new products do not infringe on existing trademarks. Businesses must conduct thorough trademark searches and consider the potential for consumer confusion when developing new brands. The decision also highlights the need for clear and distinct branding to avoid legal disputes and protect consumer trust.

    Key Lessons:

    • Conduct comprehensive trademark searches before launching new products to avoid infringement.
    • Ensure that product names and packaging are distinct enough to prevent consumer confusion.
    • Understand the legal tests used to determine trademark infringement, such as idem sonans, Dominancy, and Holistic Tests.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is trademark infringement?

    Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark without permission, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

    How is the likelihood of confusion determined?

    The likelihood of confusion is assessed using various tests, including the idem sonans rule, which looks at phonetic similarities, and the Dominancy and Holistic Tests, which consider the overall impression and dominant features of the marks.

    What steps should a business take to avoid trademark infringement?

    Businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches, consult with legal experts, and ensure that their branding is distinct and does not resemble existing trademarks.

    Can packaging design contribute to trademark infringement?

    Yes, if the packaging design of a product is too similar to that of another product, it can contribute to consumer confusion and lead to a finding of trademark infringement.

    What are the potential consequences of trademark infringement?

    Consequences can include monetary damages, injunctions against the use of the infringing mark, and potential harm to the business’s reputation.

    How can a business protect its trademarks?

    Businesses can protect their trademarks by registering them with the Intellectual Property Office, monitoring the market for potential infringements, and taking legal action when necessary.

    ASG Law specializes in Intellectual Property Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Trademark Registration: Likelihood of Confusion and Timely Appeals

    The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc.’s trademark application for “METRO” due to its similarity to existing registered marks, emphasizing the importance of timely filing of appeals. The Court underscored that failing to meet deadlines for appeals results in the finality of the original decision. This ruling serves as a reminder that neglecting procedural rules, such as filing appeals within the prescribed period, can have significant consequences in intellectual property disputes.

    Trademark Tango: When ‘Metro’ Means More Than Meets the Eye

    This case revolves around ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc.’s attempt to register the trademark “METRO” for its magazines. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) rejected the application, citing its similarity to already registered marks. This decision hinged on Section 123.1(d) of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IPC), which prohibits the registration of a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to an existing registered mark.

    The core legal question is twofold: first, whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing ABS-CBN’s petition for review due to a late filing; and second, whether the IPO correctly refused to register the “METRO” trademark because of its similarity to other registered marks. This delves into the procedural requirements for appeals and the substantive criteria for trademark registration, specifically focusing on the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

    The procedural aspect of the case highlights the importance of adhering to deadlines. ABS-CBN sought extensions to file its petition for review with the Court of Appeals but failed to meet the extended deadline. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and strict compliance with procedural rules is mandatory. In Bañez vs. Social Security System, the Court reiterated that failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period makes the judgment final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.

    Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision/resolution final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the decision/resolution, much less to entertain the appeal.

    The Court acknowledged that exceptions exist, but only in meritorious cases where barring the appeal would be inequitable. However, ABS-CBN’s reasons for the delay—heavy workload and attendance at an international conference—were deemed insufficient. The Court stressed that lawyers have a responsibility to manage their workload and meet deadlines, and that failing to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence, as articulated in Hernandez vs. Agoncillo:

    Failure of a lawyer to seasonably file a pleading constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.

    Turning to the substantive issue, the Court upheld the IPO’s decision to deny the trademark registration based on the likelihood of confusion. Section 123.1(d) of the IPC states that a mark cannot be registered if it is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark. The Court employs two tests to determine this: the dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test, now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the IPC, focuses on the dominant features of the marks in question. Section 155.1 defines infringement as the “colorable imitation of a registered mark x x x or a dominant feature thereof.”

    SECTION 155. Remedies; Infringement. – Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark: 155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or x x x.

    In this case, the Court found that the dominant feature of ABS-CBN’s mark, “METRO,” was identical to the registered marks. The Court further explained that the test is not about identifying minor differences, but about the overall impression and potential for confusion. As the Court stated in Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents:

    If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place.

    The Court also addressed ABS-CBN’s argument that it had a vested right to the trademark because its predecessor had used it under the old Trademark Law. However, the Court noted that ABS-CBN’s previous application for the trademark had been abandoned. Once a trademark is abandoned, the protection it once held is withdrawn. The Court cited Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG. vs. Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation, where no rights were accorded to a trademark owner whose trademark was abandoned for failure to file the declaration of actual use.

    ABS-CBN also argued that confusion was unlikely because its magazines were sold in retail outlets, while the registered “METRO” mark was used online. However, the Court pointed to Section 3, Rule 18 of the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Cases, which presumes likelihood of confusion when an identical mark is used for identical goods. In this case, both ABS-CBN’s mark and the registered marks were used for magazines.

    The Supreme Court upheld the earlier findings by the IPO, emphasizing the expertise of the agency in examining trademark applications. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn these findings. However, the Court noted that should the cited marks be de-registered and cancelled, ABS-CBN could reapply for registration of the “METRO” trademark.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The main issue was whether ABS-CBN Publishing could register the trademark “METRO” for magazines, given its similarity to existing registered marks, and whether its appeal was properly dismissed for being filed late.
    Why was ABS-CBN’s trademark application rejected? The application was rejected because the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) determined that “METRO” was confusingly similar to existing registered trademarks, violating Section 123.1(d) of the Intellectual Property Code.
    What is the dominancy test in trademark cases? The dominancy test focuses on the dominant features of the marks to determine if there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers. If the dominant feature is similar, infringement is likely.
    What happens if a trademark is abandoned? If a trademark is abandoned, the legal protection afforded to it is withdrawn, and the owner loses the exclusive rights to use that mark.
    Why was ABS-CBN’s appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeals? The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because ABS-CBN failed to file its petition for review within the extended deadline granted by the court.
    What does the Intellectual Property Code say about similar trademarks? The Intellectual Property Code (specifically Section 123.1(d)) prohibits the registration of a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark for the same or related goods or services.
    What are the potential consequences of missing a deadline to appeal? Missing a deadline to appeal can result in the original decision becoming final and unappealable, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the case.
    Can ABS-CBN reapply for the trademark if the existing marks are de-registered? Yes, the Supreme Court stated that ABS-CBN can reapply for the registration of the trademark “METRO” if the cited marks used as the basis for the initial rejection are de-registered or cancelled.

    In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of both procedural compliance and substantive trademark law principles. Businesses must be vigilant in meeting deadlines for appeals and in ensuring that their trademarks do not infringe upon existing registered marks. It is a reminder that while trademark rights are valuable, they must be actively protected and defended within the bounds of the law.

    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: ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. vs. Director of the Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916, June 20, 2018

  • Trademark Registration: Prior Use Determines Ownership, But Goods Must Be Related to Cause Confusion

    In a trademark dispute between Kensonic, Inc. and Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of trademark registration for the mark “SAKURA.” The Court ruled that while prior use establishes trademark ownership, registration can be cancelled only if the goods are related enough to cause consumer confusion. This decision underscores the importance of proving a direct link between goods for trademark disputes, ensuring that trademark protection extends only to related products to prevent unfair market advantage.

    SAKURA Showdown: Can a Common Name Blossom into Exclusive Trademark Rights?

    The intertwined appeals of Kensonic, Inc. v. Uni-Line Multi-Resources, Inc. [G.R. Nos. 211820-21 and 211834-35, June 6, 2018] center on the trademark “SAKURA” and its registration battles between two companies. Kensonic sought the cancellation of Uni-Line’s “SAKURA” trademark registration, arguing that Kensonic had prior use and registration of the mark. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Uni-Line’s registration of the SAKURA mark for various goods should be cancelled due to Kensonic’s earlier use and registration, focusing specifically on whether the goods were related enough to cause consumer confusion. This case highlights the complexities in determining trademark rights, especially when a mark is not entirely unique and is used across different product categories.

    The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) initially ruled in favor of Kensonic, but this was later modified, leading to cross-appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially sided with Uni-Line but later reversed course in an amended decision. Both parties then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, presenting the high court with the task of resolving the dispute over the SAKURA mark. The Supreme Court needed to determine whether the goods were related enough to warrant the cancellation of Uni-Line’s trademark registration, focusing on the likelihood of consumer confusion.

    At the heart of this legal battle is Section 123(h) of the Intellectual Property Code, which prohibits the registration of marks that are generic for the goods or services they identify. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the SAKURA mark, while referring to a Japanese flowering cherry, did not identify Kensonic’s goods in the same way that “Pale Pilsen” identifies a type of beer, as discussed in Asia Brewery, Inc., v. Court of Appeals. The Court stated:

    The fact that the words pale pilsen are part of ABI’s trademark does not constitute an infringement of SMC’s trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, for “pale pilsen” are generic words descriptive of the color (“pale”), of a type of beer (“pilsen”), which is a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that originated in the City of Pilsen in Czechoslovakia and became famous in the Middle Ages.

    The Court thus acknowledged Kensonic’s prior use of the mark since 1994, which established their ownership. However, the Court emphasized that a finding of prior use alone is not enough to warrant the cancellation of a subsequent registration; the goods must be related. In determining whether the goods are related, the Supreme Court leaned on the criteria established in Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, which provides factors like the nature and cost of the articles, their descriptive properties, and the channels of trade through which the goods flow.

    The Supreme Court specifically addressed whether Uni-Line’s goods classified under Class 07 (washing machines, etc.) and Class 11 (refrigerators, etc.) were related to Kensonic’s goods registered under Class 09 (electronics). The Court clarified that the prohibition under Section 123 extends only to goods that are related to the registered goods, and not to goods that the registrant may produce in the future. This is important because trademark rights are not based on mere possibilities but on actual market realities. This approach contrasts with the argument that trademark coverage should expand to encompass goods that a registrant may produce in the future.

    In applying the factors from Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, the Supreme Court found that the goods of Uni-Line and Kensonic differed in class, descriptive attributes, purposes, and conditions of use. This analysis is in line with the ruling in Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics, Co., Inc., which emphasized that mere classification under the same Nice Classification (NCL) is insufficient to establish relatedness. This case underscores that goods must be critically assessed beyond mere classification.

    The Court used sub-classification analysis to make the point. Kensonic’s goods belonged to the information technology and audiovisual equipment sub-class, while Uni-Line’s goods pertained to the apparatus and devices for controlling the distribution of electricity sub-class. These differences in sub-classification, along with the fact that Kensonic’s goods were final products while Uni-Line’s were often spare parts, further cemented the determination that the goods were unrelated. This distinction emphasizes the importance of granular analysis in trademark cases.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied Kensonic’s petition and partially granted Uni-Line’s, reversing the amended decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court partially reinstated the original decision, which allowed Uni-Line to register its SAKURA mark for voltage regulators, portable generators, switch breakers, and fuses. This ruling underscores the principle that while prior use establishes trademark ownership, the right to cancel a subsequent registration hinges on demonstrating a likelihood of consumer confusion due to the relatedness of the goods.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Uni-Line’s registration of the “SAKURA” trademark should be cancelled due to Kensonic’s prior use, focusing on whether the goods were related enough to cause consumer confusion.
    What is the significance of prior use in trademark law? Prior use is a critical factor in determining trademark ownership, as it establishes the right to a particular mark. However, prior use alone is not sufficient to cancel a subsequent trademark registration.
    What criteria are used to determine if goods are “related” in trademark law? The Court considers factors like the business to which the goods belong, the class of the product, the nature and cost of the articles, their descriptive properties, the purpose of the goods, and the channels of trade. These criteria help assess whether consumers are likely to be confused about the source of the goods.
    How does the Nice Classification factor into determining relatedness? While the Nice Classification is a factor, it is not the sole determinant of whether goods are related. The Court conducts a more thorough analysis based on factors like descriptive attributes, purposes, and conditions of the goods.
    What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the registration of Uni-Line’s products? The Supreme Court allowed Uni-Line to register its “SAKURA” mark for voltage regulators, portable generators, switch breakers, and fuses. The Court determined that these products were unrelated to Kensonic’s goods, reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
    How does the Intellectual Property Code define trademark infringement? The Intellectual Property Code outlines trademark infringement when a subsequent mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers. This determination considers the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services.
    Can a generic term be protected as a trademark? Generally, generic terms cannot be protected as trademarks because they describe an entire class of goods or services. However, if a term is used in a non-descriptive way and acquires secondary meaning, it may be eligible for trademark protection.
    What is the difference between a trademark and a copyright? A trademark protects brand names and logos used on goods and services to identify and distinguish them from others. A copyright protects original works of authorship, such as literary, artistic, and musical works.

    This case reinforces the principle that trademark registration requires a careful assessment of both prior use and the relatedness of goods. The Supreme Court’s decision balances the rights of trademark owners with the need to prevent unfair market advantages based on tenuous connections between product categories. By emphasizing the likelihood of consumer confusion, the Court ensures that trademark protection remains grounded in practical market realities.

    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: KENSONIC, INC. vs. UNI-LINE MULTI-RESOURCES, INC., G.R. Nos. 211834-35, June 06, 2018

  • Trademark Law: Likelihood of Confusion and Forum Shopping in Trademark Registration

    The Supreme Court ruled that Puregold’s trademark “COFFEE MATCH” is registrable, as it is not confusingly similar to Nestle’s “COFFEE-MATE”. This decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness in trademarks and the application of the dominancy and holistic tests in determining likelihood of confusion. The Court also emphasized the procedural requirements for corporations executing certifications against forum shopping.

    Coffee Clash: Can “COFFEE MATCH” Brew Confusion with “COFFEE-MATE”?

    This case revolves around Nestle’s opposition to Puregold’s application for trademark registration of “COFFEE MATCH.” Nestle argued that “COFFEE MATCH” was confusingly similar to its registered trademark “COFFEE-MATE,” potentially misleading consumers. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both sided with Puregold, leading Nestle to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The central legal question is whether Puregold’s mark infringes on Nestle’s trademark due to a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

    The Supreme Court denied Nestle’s petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court addressed both procedural and substantive issues. Procedurally, the Court examined whether Nestle properly executed the certification against forum shopping, a requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. This rule ensures that a party does not simultaneously pursue the same claim in multiple forums. For corporations, this certification must be signed by a duly authorized representative, typically through a board resolution or secretary’s certificate.

    The Court found that Nestle failed to provide sufficient proof of authority for Mr. Dennis Jose R. Barot to sign the certification. While Nestle submitted a power of attorney, it lacked a board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing Celine Jorge to execute the power of attorney on Nestle’s behalf. The Supreme Court has consistently held that courts cannot take judicial notice of corporate board resolutions; they must be presented as evidence. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated:

    What petitioners failed to explain, however, is their failure to attach a certified true copy of Resolution No. 0912 to their petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 60838. Their omission is fatal to their case. Courts are not, after all, expected to take judicial notice of corporate board resolutions or a corporate officer’s authority to represent a corporation.

    Therefore, the Court upheld the CA’s dismissal on procedural grounds, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court, especially regarding certifications against forum shopping. However, the Court also addressed the substantive issue of trademark infringement, providing valuable insights into the principles of trademark law.

    Turning to the likelihood of confusion, the Court applied 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 might cause confusion. The holistic test considers the entirety of the marks, including labels and packaging, to determine if there is a confusing similarity. The Court acknowledged that “COFFEE” is the common dominant feature in both trademarks. However, it noted that Section 123(h) of Republic Act No. 8293 (RA 8293), also known as the Intellectual Property Code, prohibits the exclusive registration of generic marks. Section 123 states:

    Sec. 123. Registrability. –
    123.1 A mark cannot be registered if it:
    x x x x
    (h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to identify;

    Since “COFFEE” is a generic term for the goods in question, neither Nestle nor Puregold can exclusively claim it. The Court then focused on the distinctive elements: “-MATE” in Nestle’s mark and “MATCH” in Puregold’s mark. While both share the first three letters, the Court found that the last two letters in “MATCH” created a distinct visual and aural character, differentiating it from “-MATE.” The Court also noted the visual difference, with “COFFEE MATCH” being two separate words with capitalized letters, unlike the hyphenated “COFFEE-MATE.” Therefore, following the ruling in Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San Francisco & Roastery, Inc., the court looked into likelihood of confusion:

    In determining similarity or likelihood of confusion, our jurisprudence has developed two tests: the dominancy test and the holistic test.

    In the application of the tests, the Court concluded that consumers were unlikely to confuse the two products. The Court emphasized that the distinctiveness of Puregold’s mark was sufficient to alert consumers to the difference between the two products. This aligns with the principle that trademark law protects against actual confusion, not mere similarity.

    The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that generic or descriptive words cannot be exclusively appropriated as trademarks. This ensures that businesses can freely use common terms to describe their products, promoting competition and preventing monopolies on language. The decision also highlights the importance of conducting thorough trademark searches before applying for registration, to avoid potential conflicts with existing trademarks.

    Moreover, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly regarding certifications against forum shopping. Corporations must ensure that their representatives are duly authorized to sign such certifications, supported by appropriate board resolutions or secretary’s certificates. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of their case, regardless of the merits of their claim.

    The Court’s analysis provides a clear framework for assessing trademark infringement claims, balancing the rights of trademark owners with the need to avoid stifling competition. By applying the dominancy and holistic tests, the Court ensures that only truly confusingly similar marks are prevented from registration, while allowing businesses to differentiate their products in the marketplace.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Puregold’s trademark “COFFEE MATCH” was confusingly similar to Nestle’s “COFFEE-MATE,” warranting the denial of Puregold’s trademark application. The court had to determine if consumers were likely to confuse the two products.
    What is a certification against forum shopping? A certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement that the party has not filed any similar action in other courts or tribunals. This requirement prevents parties from pursuing the same claim in multiple venues simultaneously.
    Why was Nestle’s petition initially dismissed by the Court of Appeals? Nestle’s petition was initially dismissed by the Court of Appeals due to procedural defects, including the failure to properly prove the authority of their representative to sign the certification against forum shopping. They also initially filed beyond the reglementary period.
    What is the dominancy test in trademark law? The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the competing trademarks. If the dominant features are similar and likely to cause confusion, trademark infringement exists.
    What is the holistic test in trademark law? The holistic test involves considering the entirety of the marks, including labels and packaging, to determine if there is a confusing similarity. This test assesses the overall impression the marks create on consumers.
    Why can’t the word “COFFEE” be exclusively appropriated as a trademark? The word “COFFEE” is a generic term for coffee products. Generic terms cannot be exclusively appropriated as trademarks because they are descriptive of the goods or services and should be available for public use.
    What is the significance of a board resolution in corporate litigation? A board resolution is a formal document authorizing a corporate representative to act on behalf of the corporation in legal proceedings. It serves as evidence of the representative’s authority and is often required for signing certifications against forum shopping.
    What is the effect of failing to comply with procedural rules in court? Failing to comply with procedural rules, such as properly executing a certification against forum shopping, can lead to the dismissal of a case. Courts require strict compliance to ensure fairness and efficiency in the legal process.

    This case emphasizes the importance of distinctiveness in trademarks and the need to comply with procedural rules in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision provides valuable guidance for businesses seeking to protect their trademarks and navigate the complexities of intellectual property law.

    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: Societe des Produits, Nestle, S.A. vs. Puregold Price Club, Inc., G.R. No. 217194, September 06, 2017

  • Trademark Law: Likelihood of Confusion Between ‘Mang Inasal’ and ‘OK Hotdog Inasal’ Marks

    In a trademark dispute, the Supreme Court ruled that IFP Manufacturing Corporation’s ‘OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark’ could not be registered because it was confusingly similar to Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc.’s registered ‘Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device’ mark. The Court emphasized that the dominant use of ‘Inasal,’ styled in a similar manner, in IFP’s mark created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. This decision protects trademark owners from potential consumer confusion and unfair competition, reinforcing the importance of distinct branding in the marketplace.

    ‘Inasal’ Impersonation: Can Snack Foods Ride the Coattails of Restaurant Brands?

    This case revolves around a trademark dispute between Mang Inasal Philippines, Inc., a well-known fast-food chain, and IFP Manufacturing Corporation, a snack food manufacturer. Mang Inasal opposed IFP’s application to register the trademark “OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark,” arguing that it was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device.” The core legal question is whether the similarities between the two marks, particularly the use of the word ‘Inasal,’ would likely cause consumer confusion, thus violating Section 123.1(d)(iii) of Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.

    The Intellectual Property Code explicitly prohibits the registration of marks that could mislead or confuse the public. Section 123.1(d)(iii) of RA 8293 states that a mark cannot be registered if it:

    1. x x x
    2. x x x
    3. …nearly resembles [a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier filing or priority date] as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

    The concept of confusion is pivotal, encompassing both confusion of goods and confusion of business. The Supreme Court cited the case of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Trendworks International Corporation to distinguish these two types of confusion:

    Relative to the question on confusion of marks and trade names, jurisprudence has 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.

    To determine whether a mark violates this provision, two conditions must be met: first, the prospective mark must nearly resemble or be similar to an earlier mark; and second, the prospective mark must pertain to goods or services that are identical, similar, or related to those represented by the earlier mark.

    The Court emphasized that similarity does not require absolute identity. It is sufficient if the prospective mark is a colorable imitation of the earlier mark. Colorable imitation involves a likeness that would likely mislead an average buyer in the ordinary course of purchase.

    To assess similarity, courts employ the dominancy test and the holistic test. In Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, the Supreme Court elucidated the distinction:

    The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception, and thus infringement. If the competing trademark contains the main, essential or dominant features of another, and confusion or deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. The question is whether the use of the marks involved is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers.

    On the other hand, the Holistic Test requires that the entirety of the marks in question be considered in resolving confusing similarity. Comparison of words is not the only determining factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other.

    The Court, in this case, favored the dominancy test, noting that the Mang Inasal mark’s dominant feature is the word ‘INASAL’ written in a bold red typeface against a black outline and yellow background with a staggered design. The Court noted that the dominant element “INASAL,” as stylized in the Mang Inasal mark, is also the most distinctive and recognizable feature of the said mark. The term “inasal” *per se* is descriptive and cannot be appropriated. The Court also stated that:

    The dominant element “INASAL” in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is exactly the same as the dominant element “NASAL” in the Mang Inasal mark. Both elements in both marks are printed using the exact same red colored font, against the exact same black outline and yellow background and is arranged in the exact same staggered format.

    The Court found that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark copied and adopted the ‘INASAL’ element of the Mang Inasal mark, creating a potential for consumer confusion. While there were differences between the marks, the overall impression created by the similarity in the dominant element was deemed likely to deceive consumers into believing that the snack product was associated with the Mang Inasal brand.

    The second condition for trademark infringement is whether the goods or services are related. The Court acknowledged that curl snack products and restaurant services are not identical or similar. However, they can still be related if they are logically connected, such that consumers might assume they originate from the same manufacturer or economically-linked manufacturers.

    In determining relatedness, factors such as the business, product class, quality, purpose, and channels of trade are considered. The Court cited Mighty Corporation, emphasizing that the key is whether an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers would be misled or confused as to the source of the goods.

    The wisdom of this approach is its recognition that each trademark infringement case presents its own unique set of facts. No single factor is preeminent, nor can the presence or absence of one determine, without analysis of the others, the outcome of an infringement suit. Rather, the court is required to sift the evidence relevant to each of the criteria. This requires that the entire panoply of elements constituting the relevant factual landscape be comprehensively examined. It is a weighing and balancing process. With reference to this ultimate question, and from a balancing of the determinations reached on all of the factors, a conclusion is reached whether the parties have a right to the relief sought.

    A very important circumstance though is whether there exists a likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers will be misled, or simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question. The “purchaser” is not the “completely unwary consumer” but is the “ordinarily intelligent buyer” considering the type of product involved he is accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or the possibility of deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase.

    The Court emphasized that the underlying goods and services both deal with ‘inasal’ and inasal-flavored products. Given the similarity between the marks, the Court was convinced that consumers might assume the curls were from Mang Inasal or that Mang Inasal supplied the flavorings. This could lead to a confusion of business, potentially harming Mang Inasal’s reputation. Thus, the Court concluded that the goods were related.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted Mang Inasal’s petition, reversing the decisions of the IPO-BLA, IPO-DG, and the Court of Appeals. The Court directed the Intellectual Property Office to deny IFP Manufacturing Corporation’s application for the registration of the ‘OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark,’ protecting Mang Inasal’s trademark and preventing potential consumer confusion.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the trademark ‘OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark’ was confusingly similar to ‘Mang Inasal, Home of Real Pinoy Style Barbeque and Device’ mark, potentially violating the Intellectual Property Code.
    What is the dominancy test? The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. If one trademark contains the main, essential, or dominant features of another, infringement takes place.
    What is the holistic test? The holistic test requires considering the entirety of the marks in question to resolve confusing similarity. It involves comparing words and other features appearing in both labels to determine if one is confusingly similar to the other.
    What is ‘colorable imitation’? Colorable imitation refers to a likeness in form, content, words, sound, meaning, special arrangement, or general appearance of one mark with respect to another, likely to mislead an average buyer.
    What is ‘confusion of goods’? Confusion of goods occurs when an ordinarily prudent purchaser is induced to buy one product believing they are purchasing another, due to the similarity of the trademarks.
    What is ‘confusion of business’? Confusion of business happens when, although the goods are different, the product with the applied-for mark might reasonably be assumed to originate from the registrant of an earlier product, deceiving the public.
    Why did the Court favor Mang Inasal? The Court favored Mang Inasal because the ‘OK Hotdog Inasal’ mark copied the dominant ‘INASAL’ element, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion, and the goods were related in dealing with ‘inasal’-flavored products.
    What was the final ruling? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mang Inasal, directing the Intellectual Property Office to deny IFP Manufacturing Corporation’s application for the registration of the ‘OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark.’

    This case underscores the importance of trademark protection and the need for businesses to create distinct brands. The ruling emphasizes that even the use of a dominant element from an existing trademark can lead to infringement if it creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. This decision serves as a cautionary tale for businesses seeking to capitalize on the goodwill of established brands.

    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: MANG INASAL PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. IFP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 221717, June 19, 2017

  • Trademark Infringement: Likelihood of Confusion and the Secretary of Justice’s Discretion

    In Forietrans Manufacturing Corp. v. Davidoff Et. Cie SA, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding evidence of trademark infringement and false designation of origin. The Court emphasized that determining probable cause for filing a criminal case is distinct from assessing probable cause for issuing a search warrant. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s power to intervene when executive decisions on probable cause are made arbitrarily, impacting businesses by ensuring that potential infringers are held accountable and preventing consumer deception through counterfeit products.

    Counterfeit Cigarettes: When is a Brand ‘Confusingly Similar’ Enough to Prosecute?

    The case revolves around Davidoff and Japan Tobacco, Inc. (JTI), who alleged that Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation (FMC) was producing counterfeit cigarettes. Acting on this suspicion, authorities executed search warrants on FMC’s premises, leading to the seizure of cigarettes labeled ‘DAGETA’ and ‘DAGETA International,’ along with cigarettes bearing similarities to JTI’s ‘Mild Seven’ brand. Davidoff and JTI filed complaints alleging trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. These complaints sparked a legal battle concerning the determination of probable cause and the extent of the Secretary of Justice’s discretion in evaluating evidence.

    The Provincial Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaints, a decision affirmed by the Secretary of Justice, Raul M. Gonzalez. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these dismissals, finding that Secretary Gonzalez had gravely abused his discretion. The CA argued that Secretary Gonzalez improperly weighed evidence, a function reserved for trial courts. The central legal question thus became whether the CA erred in overturning the Secretary of Justice’s determination of no probable cause, thereby questioning the boundaries of executive discretion in preliminary investigations.

    The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals. It reiterated the definition of probable cause as facts sufficient to create a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is likely guilty. It emphasized that only prima facie evidence is needed, meaning evidence that is facially sufficient to establish a claim or defense, unless rebutted. The Court acknowledged the general policy of non-interference with the executive branch’s determination of probable cause, stemming from the doctrine of separation of powers. However, this policy is not absolute.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that courts can intervene when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The term grave abuse of discretion refers to an exercise of judgment that is capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary, essentially equivalent to lacking jurisdiction. The Court cited Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Tan, which established that dismissing a complaint despite ample evidence supporting probable cause constitutes grave error justifying judicial intervention. The Supreme Court found that Secretary Gonzalez’s actions met this threshold.

    The Court criticized the Secretary of Justice for essentially reviewing the judge’s determination of probable cause for issuing search warrants, rather than focusing on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized the distinct roles of a judge, who determines probable cause for issuing warrants, and a prosecutor, who assesses probable cause for filing a criminal case. The Court quoted the Joint Resolution:

    As can be seen supra, Trocio’s affidavit was clearly insufficient to show probable cause to search FMC’s premises and look for fake JTI or [Davidoff] products.

    x x x

    It would seem that reason had taken leave of the senses. The undeniable fact, standing out like a sore thumb, is that the applicants never presented a single shred of proof to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. It would have been laughable if not for the fact that persons were arrested and detained and properties were confiscated.

    As can be seen, what began as a search for fake JTI and [Davidoff] products changed into a search for fake Dageta International cigarettes, then shifted to a sea[r]ch for fake Dageta cigarettes confusingly similar to Davidoff and finally shifted to fake mislabeled Dageta cigarettes. One can only wonder why the applications were granted without a shred of proof showing probable cause. The exception against unreasonable searches and seizures became the very weapon to commit abuses that the provision was designed to prevent.

    The Court found that a prima facie case existed for both trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Section 155 of the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) defines trademark infringement:

    Sec. 155. Remedies; Infringement.- Any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark:

    155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

    155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing material.

    The crucial element of infringement is the likelihood of confusion. The Court noted the complaint-affidavit alleged confusing similarity between Davidoff and Dageta cigarette packs. Samples presented during the preliminary investigation revealed notable similarities in the packaging:

    Davidoff (Exhibit 1)
    Dageta (Exhibit 2)
    Octagonal designed pack
    Octagonal designed pack
    Black and red covering
    Black and red covering
    Silver coloring of the tear tape and printing
    Silver coloring of the tear tape and printing
    “Made in Germany by Reemtsman under license of Davidoff & CIE SA,
    Geneva”
    “Made Germany under license of DAGETA & Tobacco LT”
    Manufacturing Code imprinted on the base of the pack
    Manufacturing Code imprinted on the base of the pack
    Writing at the back says : “These carefully selected tobaccos have
    been skillfully blended to assure your pleasure” with the signature of Zino
    Davidoff
    Writing at the back says: “These specifically selected
    tobaccos have been professionally blended to ensure highest quality” with
    Chinese letters underneath the name Dageta

    While the names ‘Davidoff’ and ‘Dageta’ were distinct, the Court emphasized the similarities in packaging, indicating potential for consumer confusion. Successful infringement often involves subtle changes that confuse consumers while appearing different to courts. Similar logic applied to the JTI infringement case, where FMC allegedly manufactured cigarettes deceptively similar to ‘Mild Seven’ without authorization.

    Concerning the charge of false designation of origin, Section 169 of the IP Code states:

    Sec. 169. False Designations of Origin; False Description or Representation. –

    1691. Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which:

    (a) Is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person; or

    (b) In commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable to a civil action for damages and injunction provided in Sections 156 and 157 of this Act by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

    Respondents claimed FMC illegally manufactured ‘DAGETA’ cigarettes labeled ‘Made in Germany’ despite being produced in the Philippines. Supporting this, they presented samples and an inventory of seized items, including manufacturing equipment. While FMC argued these were genuine imported cigarettes, the Court found enough evidence to suggest local manufacturing with misrepresented origin. Secretary Gonzalez’s dismissal of this charge, without factual or legal basis, further highlighted the abuse of discretion.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints for trademark infringement and false designation of origin against Forietrans Manufacturing Corp.
    What is “probable cause” in this context? Probable cause refers to facts sufficient to create a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, requiring only prima facie evidence.
    What does “grave abuse of discretion” mean? “Grave abuse of discretion” means an exercise of judgment that is capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or an evasion of positive duty, essentially equivalent to lacking jurisdiction.
    What is trademark infringement under the IP Code? Trademark infringement involves using a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark that is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
    What is false designation of origin? False designation of origin involves misrepresenting the geographic origin of goods, creating a false or misleading impression about where they are manufactured.
    Why did the Court of Appeals reverse the Secretary of Justice’s decision? The Court of Appeals reversed the Secretary of Justice’s decision because he improperly weighed the evidence, a function reserved for trial courts, and disregarded the evidence presented by the complainants.
    What evidence suggested trademark infringement? Evidence included samples of ‘DAGETA’ cigarettes with packaging strikingly similar to ‘Davidoff’ cigarettes and the unauthorized manufacturing of cigarettes similar to JTI’s ‘Mild Seven’ brand.
    What was the significance of the cigarette packaging similarities? The cigarette packaging similarities suggested that FMC was intentionally creating products that would confuse consumers into believing they were purchasing genuine ‘Davidoff’ cigarettes.
    How did the Court view the ‘Made in Germany’ label on DAGETA cigarettes? The Court found the ‘Made in Germany’ label on ‘DAGETA’ cigarettes suspicious, given that manufacturing equipment was found in FMC’s Philippine warehouse, suggesting a misrepresentation of origin.

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of thoroughly evaluating evidence in intellectual property cases. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in checking potential abuses of discretion by executive officials. This ruling has significant implications for businesses seeking to protect their trademarks, ensuring that the authorities seriously consider evidence of infringement and false advertising. This decision promotes fair competition and prevents consumer deception in the marketplace.

    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: Forietrans Manufacturing Corp. v. Davidoff Et. Cie SA, G.R. No. 197482, March 06, 2017

  • Trademark Law: Dominancy Test Prevails in “PAPA” Brand Dispute

    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of UFC Philippines, Inc. (now Nutri-Asia, Inc.) in a trademark dispute against Fiesta Barrio Manufacturing Corporation, emphasizing the importance of the dominancy test in assessing trademark similarity. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the Intellectual Property Office’s ruling that Fiesta Barrio’s “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” mark for lechon sauce was confusingly similar to Nutri-Asia’s “PAPA” mark for ketchup. This decision underscores the protection afforded to registered trademark owners and prevents potential consumer confusion by prioritizing the dominant features of trademarks in infringement analysis, safeguarding brand reputation and goodwill.

    “PAPA” vs. “PAPA BOY”: When Trademark Similarity Leads to Market Confusion

    The case revolves around the application filed by Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation (respondent) on April 4, 2002, for the trademark “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” intended for their lechon sauce product. UFC Philippines, Inc. (now Nutri-Asia, Inc., petitioner), opposed this application, arguing that the respondent’s mark was confusingly similar to their existing “PAPA” marks used on banana catsup and other related goods. The petitioner had been using the “PAPA” mark since 1954, with continuous registration and use by its predecessors-in-interest. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” mark infringed on the petitioner’s registered “PAPA” trademark, potentially leading to consumer confusion in the marketplace.

    The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) initially sided with the petitioner, applying the dominancy test and concluding that the dominant feature, the word “PAPA,” created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The IPO Director General upheld this decision, emphasizing the prominence of “PAPA” in both marks. However, the Court of Appeals reversed these findings, favoring the holistic test. The appellate court held that when considering the trademarks as a whole, “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” was not confusingly similar to “PAPA KETSARAP,” citing differences in labels, product types (lechon sauce vs. banana catsup), and manufacturer identification. This divergence in rulings set the stage for the Supreme Court’s intervention.

    The Supreme Court addressed the central issue of which test, dominancy or holistic, should apply in determining trademark infringement in this case. The Court highlighted that the dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing trademarks, which might cause confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the purchasing public. The Intellectual Property Code explicitly incorporates this test in Section 155.1, defining infringement as the “colorable imitation of a registered mark… or a dominant feature thereof.”

    Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code defines infringement as the “colorable imitation of a registered mark x x x or a dominant feature thereof.”

    Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that the findings of specialized administrative agencies like the IPO, which possess expertise in intellectual property matters, are generally accorded great respect. The Supreme Court has emphasized,

    Verily, the protection of trademarks as intellectual property is intended not only to preserve the goodwill and reputation of the business established on the goods bearing the mark through actual use over a period of time, but also to safeguard the public as consumers against confusion on these goods. On this matter of particular concern, administrative agencies, such as the IPO, by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, are in a better position to pass judgment thereon.

    This deference stems from their specialized knowledge and expertise in evaluating trademark-related disputes. The Court noted that each trademark case is unique, requiring scrutiny of its specific circumstances. Relevant precedents should only apply if they are specifically in point.

    In applying the dominancy test, the Supreme Court concurred with the IPO’s assessment that “PAPA” was indeed the dominant feature of both the petitioner’s “PAPA KETSARAP” mark and the respondent’s “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” mark. The Court reasoned that the term “KETSARAP” in the petitioner’s mark was descriptive, merely indicating the product’s nature (catsup) and a quality (delicious). Conversely, the Court emphasized that the word “PAPA” stood out prominently in the respondent’s mark, capturing the consumer’s initial attention. The IPO-BLA decision highlighted this, stating:

    In Respondent-applicant’s mark, the word “PAPA” is written on top of and before the other words such that it is the first word figure that catches the eyes. The visual and aural impressions created by such dominant word “PAPA” at the least is that the respective goods of the parties originated from the other, or that one party has permitted or has been given license to the other to use the word “PAPA” for the other party’s product, or that there is a relation/connection between the two parties when, in fact, there is none.

    The Court reasoned that the similarity in the dominant feature could lead consumers to believe the products originated from the same source, causing confusion of business. The close relationship between catsup and lechon sauce, both being condiments commonly found in the same grocery aisles, further heightened the likelihood of confusion. The fact that respondent’s label also included “Barrio Fiesta” did not eliminate the potential for confusion, as consumers might still associate the “PAPA BOY” product with the makers of “PAPA” catsup.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that trademark protection extends beyond identical goods to related goods and market areas that represent the normal expansion of a business. Section 138 of the IP Code supports this principle, stating that a certificate of registration serves as evidence of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark for specified goods and related products. The Court cited several cases to illustrate this point, including Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, where it was held that “non-competing goods may be those which, though they are not in actual competition, are so related to each other that it can reasonably be assumed that they originate from one manufacturer, in which case, confusion of business can arise out of the use of similar marks.” This underscores the importance of protecting trademark owners from potential market encroachment.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that “PAPA” was merely a common term of endearment, incapable of exclusive appropriation. The Court clarified that the mark was registered as a family name, specifically the name of the brand’s originator. This rendered it an arbitrary mark eligible for protection. Even though “PAPA” may refer to “father,” this had no logical connection with catsup products, reinforcing its distinctiveness and registrability as a trademark. Since the petitioner was the prior user and registrant of a similar mark, the court protected the goodwill and reputation that the company built.

    In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the importance of the dominancy test in trademark infringement cases, particularly in assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. The ruling provides significant guidance on how courts should evaluate trademark disputes, balancing the need to protect registered trademarks with the interests of fair competition. The practical impact of this ruling is that it strengthens the rights of trademark owners, preventing others from capitalizing on established brand recognition. It also serves as a cautionary tale for businesses seeking to introduce new products with marks similar to existing ones, highlighting the need for thorough trademark clearance to avoid potential legal challenges.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Barrio Fiesta’s “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” trademark for lechon sauce was confusingly similar to Nutri-Asia’s (formerly UFC Philippines) “PAPA” trademark for ketchup, leading to potential consumer confusion.
    What is the dominancy test in trademark law? The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of competing trademarks, assessing if these similarities could cause confusion among consumers. It gives greater weight to the prominent aspects that catch the eye and ear of the public.
    What is confusion of business? Confusion of business occurs when consumers mistakenly believe that products from different companies are related or originate from the same source. This type of confusion can damage a company’s reputation and goodwill.
    Why did the Supreme Court side with Nutri-Asia? The Supreme Court sided with Nutri-Asia because it found that “PAPA” was the dominant feature in both trademarks and that the products (ketchup and lechon sauce) were related, increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
    What is the significance of prior registration in trademark disputes? Prior registration of a trademark provides the registrant with a prima facie right to use the mark, giving them an advantage in disputes against later applicants. It establishes a presumption of ownership and the exclusive right to use the mark for related goods.
    Can a common word be trademarked? Yes, a common word can be trademarked if it is used in an arbitrary or fanciful way, meaning it has no logical connection to the product it represents. This allows the word to function as a unique identifier for the brand.
    What is the holistic test in trademark law? The holistic test considers the entirety of a trademark and compares it with another mark, looking at similarities and differences in appearance, sound, and meaning. It assesses whether the overall impression is likely to cause confusion, not just the dominant features.
    Why was the Court of Appeals’ decision reversed? The Court of Appeals applied the holistic test and found no confusing similarity, but the Supreme Court reversed this, emphasizing that the dominancy test was more appropriate given the circumstances. The products had the potential to create confusion for consumers.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? The ruling strengthens the rights of trademark owners, making it more difficult for others to use similar marks on related goods, and safeguards consumers from potential market confusion.

    In conclusion, this Supreme Court decision reinforces the importance of the dominancy test in trademark law and its application in assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. It highlights the protection afforded to registered trademarks and provides valuable guidance for businesses seeking to protect their brand identity. This case serves as a reminder of the need for careful trademark selection and clearance to avoid infringing on existing 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: UFC PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. FIESTA BARRIO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 198889, January 20, 2016

  • Trademark Registration: Navigating Similarity and Consumer Confusion in Electronic Goods

    In Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Taiwan Kolin could register its “KOLIN” trademark for television and DVD players, despite Kolin Electronics already having a similar mark for voltage regulators and power supplies. The Court emphasized that even if products fall under the same general classification, the critical question is whether they are actually related in a way that would confuse consumers. This decision clarifies that mere similarity in product classification is not enough to deny trademark registration, offering guidance for businesses in related industries.

    Can Two Electronics Companies Coexist with Similar Trademarks?

    The heart of the matter lies in a trademark dispute between Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. (Taiwan Kolin) and Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. (Kolin Electronics). Taiwan Kolin sought to register the “KOLIN” trademark for its television sets and DVD players. Kolin Electronics opposed this, arguing that the mark was confusingly similar to its own registered “KOLIN” mark, which it used for automatic voltage regulators, converters, and other power supply products. This legal battle reached the Supreme Court, forcing it to address a crucial question: Can two companies in the electronics sector use similar trademarks for their respective products, or would this inevitably lead to consumer confusion?

    The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) initially sided with Kolin Electronics, denying Taiwan Kolin’s application based on Section 123(d) of the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code), which prohibits the registration of a mark identical to a registered mark for the same or closely related goods. However, the IPO Director General reversed this decision, reasoning that product classification alone should not be the decisive factor and that the focus should be on the actual similarity of the products. The Court of Appeals (CA) then sided with Kolin Electronics, stating that the intertwined use of television sets with amplifiers and voltage regulators suggested that televisions were within Kolin Electronics’ natural expansion.

    The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s assessment. The Court cited several precedents, including Acoje Mining Co., Inc. vs. Director of Patents, where the Court allowed Acoje Mining to register the trademark LOTUS for its soy sauce, despite Philippine Refining Company’s prior registration of the same mark for edible oil. The Court emphasized that uniformity in categorization does not automatically preclude the registration of an identical mark and that the focus should be on the similarity of the products involved, not just their classification.

    “Verily, whether or not the products covered by the trademark sought to be registered by Taiwan Kolin, on the one hand, and those covered by the prior issued certificate of registration in favor of Kolin Electronics, on the other, fall under the same categories in the NCL is not the sole and decisive factor…emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics.”

    The Court outlined several factors to consider when determining if products are related, drawing from the doctrine in Mighty Corporation v. E. & J Gallo Winery. These include the nature and cost of the articles, the descriptive properties and physical attributes, the purpose of the goods, and the channels of trade through which the goods flow. Applying these factors, the Court found that Taiwan Kolin’s television sets and DVD players were not closely related to Kolin Electronics’ power supply and audio equipment.

    Moreover, the Court noted that the products belonged to different sub-categories within Class 9 of the Nice Classification: audiovisual equipment for Taiwan Kolin and devices for controlling the distribution and use of electricity for Kolin Electronics. In trademark disputes, the likelihood of consumer confusion is a central issue. The Court recognized that products involved in the case were various kinds of electronic products which are considered relatively luxury items not easily affordable.

    “Among these, what essentially determines the attitudes of the purchaser, specifically his inclination to be cautious, is the cost of the goods. To be sure, a person who buys a box of candies will not exercise as much care as one who buys an expensive watch. As a general rule, an ordinary buyer does not exercise as much prudence in buying an article for which he pays a few centavos as he does in purchasing a more valuable thing.”

    The Court observed that while both marks used the word “KOLIN” in uppercase and bold font, there were distinct visual and aural differences. Kolin Electronics’ mark was italicized and colored black, while Taiwan Kolin’s mark was white on a pantone red background. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the products involved were not inexpensive household items but relatively pricey electronics, leading consumers to be more cautious and discriminating in their purchases.

    This case is similar to Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, where the Court found no confusing similarity between “Stylistic Mr. Lee” and “LEE” for jeans, considering that the products were relatively expensive and purchased by informed buyers. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court concluded that the differences between the two “KOLIN” marks were sufficient to prevent consumer confusion. Also, the ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having, and credited with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the differences between the two trademarks in question.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Taiwan Kolin could register its “KOLIN” trademark for televisions and DVD players, given that Kolin Electronics already had a similar trademark for power supply products.
    What is the significance of Class 9 of the Nice Classification? Class 9 includes a broad range of electronic products. The Court clarified that belonging to the same class is not enough to establish relatedness between goods for trademark purposes.
    What factors determine if products are “related” for trademark purposes? The Court considers factors like the nature, cost, and purpose of the goods, as well as the channels of trade through which they are sold.
    What is the “ordinary intelligent buyer” standard? This standard assumes that buyers of relatively expensive goods are more discerning and less likely to be confused by similar trademarks.
    How did the Court distinguish this case from other trademark cases? The Court distinguished this case from cases involving inexpensive household items, where consumers are less likely to exercise caution.
    What was the visual difference between the two “KOLIN” trademarks? Kolin Electronics’ mark was italicized and black, while Taiwan Kolin’s mark was white on a red background, which contributed to differentiating the brands.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taiwan Kolin, allowing them to register their “KOLIN” trademark for television sets and DVD players.
    Why did the Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision? The Court found that the Court of Appeals had misapplied the facts by assuming that all electronic products are closely related, overlooking critical differences in the nature and marketing of the products.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Taiwan Kolin v. Kolin Electronics provides valuable guidance for businesses navigating trademark registration in related industries. By emphasizing the importance of actual product similarity and consumer perception, the Court has clarified the boundaries of trademark protection. This ruling underscores the need for a nuanced approach to trademark disputes, one that considers the specific characteristics of the goods and the likely behavior of consumers.

    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: Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. v. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc., G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015