Case Digest (G.R. No. 112012) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On January 18, 1984, private respondent CFC Corporation filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) an application to register the trademark FLAVOR MASTER for instant coffee (Serial No. 52994), which was published in the BPTTT’s Official Gazette on July 18, 1988. Petitioners Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. (a Swiss corporation) and Nestle Philippines, Inc. (its Philippine licensee) filed oppositions alleging that CFC’s mark was confusingly similar to their registered trademarks MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND, and would deceive consumers into believing the products originated from Nestle. CFC countered that “MASTER” is descriptive and that the marks differ in appearance, color scheme, and overall packaging. On December 27, 1990, the BPTTT (Decision No. 90-47) denied registration, finding a colorable imitation based on the dominancy of the word “MASTER.” CFC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 24101), which on September 23, 1993 rever Case Digest (G.R. No. 112012) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Application and Opposition
- On January 18, 1984, CFC Corporation filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) an application (Serial No. 52994) to register the trademark “FLAVOR MASTER” for instant coffee, published July 18, 1988.
- Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. (Swiss principal) and Nestle Philippines, Inc. (Philippine licensee) filed oppositions claiming “FLAVOR MASTER” was confusingly similar to their trademarks “MASTER ROAST” and “MASTER BLEND.”
- Proceedings Before the BPTTT
- In Decision No. 90-47 (December 27, 1990), the BPTTT denied CFC’s application, finding that the word “MASTER” was the dominant feature of Nestle’s marks, had acquired distinctiveness through advertising, and would likely cause confusion if appropriated by CFC.
- The BPTTT relied on the dominancy test, focusing on the prevalent feature (“MASTER”) and its association by the buying public.
- Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
- CFC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 24101). The CA framed the issue as whether CFC’s trade dress bore such resemblance to Nestle’s marks that ordinary purchasers would be misled into thinking the products came from the same source.
- The CA reversed the BPTTT, applying the totality (holistic) test. It described in detail the differences in size, color schemes, pictorial arrangements, lettering, and background between “FLAVOR MASTER” and Nestle’s marks, concluding that no likelihood of confusion existed.
- Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
- Nestle petitioned for review, assigning errors in the CA’s reversal of the BPTTT, its application of the holistic test over the dominancy test, and its misapplication of precedents (Bristol Myers, Mead Johnson, American Cyanamid).
- The Supreme Court granted the petition to determine the proper test for confusing similarity and whether “FLAVOR MASTER” was a colorable imitation of Nestle’s marks.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the BPTTT’s denial of CFC’s trademark application.
- Whether the totality (holistic) test or the dominancy test is the proper standard to determine confusing similarity under Section 4(d) of R.A. 166.
- Whether “FLAVOR MASTER” is a colorable imitation of Nestle’s “MASTER ROAST” and “MASTER BLEND,” likely to cause confusion or deceive purchasers.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)