Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Societe Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals' decision in a trademark dispute between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation. Nestle opposed CFC's application to register the trademark "Flavor Master" for instant coffee, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's coffee brands "Master Blend" and "Master Roast". The Court of Appeals had used the "holistic test", but the Supreme Court said the "dominancy test" should have been applied instead. The Supreme Court also found that the term "Master" had become suggestive of Nestle's products through its advertising, so CFC could not use it in their brand name as it was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

    Copyright:

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

    Societe Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    97 views1 page
    The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals' decision in a trademark dispute between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation. Nestle opposed CFC's application to register the trademark "Flavor Master" for instant coffee, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's coffee brands "Master Blend" and "Master Roast". The Court of Appeals had used the "holistic test", but the Supreme Court said the "dominancy test" should have been applied instead. The Supreme Court also found that the term "Master" had become suggestive of Nestle's products through its advertising, so CFC could not use it in their brand name as it was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

    Original Description:

    Societe vs CA digest

    Original Title

    Societe vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals' decision in a trademark dispute between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation. Nestle opposed CFC's application to register the trademark "Flavor Master" for instant coffee, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's coffee brands "Master Blend" and "Master Roast". The Court of Appeals had used the "holistic test", but the Supreme Court said the "dominancy test" should have been applied instead. The Supreme Court also found that the term "Master" had become suggestive of Nestle's products through its advertising, so CFC could not use it in their brand name as it was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    97 views1 page

    Societe Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals' decision in a trademark dispute between Societe Des Produits Nestle and CFC Corporation. Nestle opposed CFC's application to register the trademark "Flavor Master" for instant coffee, arguing it was confusingly similar to Nestle's coffee brands "Master Blend" and "Master Roast". The Court of Appeals had used the "holistic test", but the Supreme Court said the "dominancy test" should have been applied instead. The Supreme Court also found that the term "Master" had become suggestive of Nestle's products through its advertising, so CFC could not use it in their brand name as it was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

    Copyright:

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

    Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A.

    vs Court of Appeals
    356 SCRA 207 Mercantile Law Intellectual Property Law Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names
    Generic Term
    FACTS: In 1984, CFC Corporation filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfers an application
    for the registration of its trademark Flavor Master an instant coffee. Nestle opposed the application as it alleged that
    Flavor Master is confusingly similar to Nestle coffee products like Master Blend and Master Roast. Nestle alleged that in
    promoting their products, the word Master has been used so frequently so much so that when one hears the word Master it
    connotes to a Nestle product. They provided as examples the fact that theyve been using Robert Jaworski and Ric Puno Jr.
    as their commercial advertisers; and that in those commercials Jaworski is a master of basketball and that Puno is a master
    of talk shows; that the brand of coffee equitable or fit to them is Master Blend and Master Roast. CFC Corporation on the
    other hand alleged that the word Master is a generic and a descriptive term, hence not subject to trademark. The Director
    of Patents ruled in favor of Nestle but the Court of Appeals, using the Holistic Test, reversed the said decision.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
    HELD: No. The proper test that should have been used is the Dominancy Test. The application of the totality or holistic test
    is improper since the ordinary purchaser would not be inclined to notice the specific features, similarities or dissimilarities,
    considering that the product is an inexpensive and common household item. The use of the word Master by Nestle in its
    products and commercials has made Nestle acquire a connotation that if its a Master product it is a Nestle product. As such,
    the use by CFC of the term MASTER in the trademark for its coffee product FLAVOR MASTER is likely to cause confusion
    or mistake or even to deceive the ordinary purchasers.
    In addition, the word MASTER is neither a generic nor a descriptive term. As such, said term can not be invalidated as a
    trademark and, therefore, may be legally protected.
    Generic terms are those which constitute the common descriptive name of an article or substance, or comprise the genus
    of which the particular product is a species, or are commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods, or imply
    reference to every member of a genus and the exclusion of individuating characters, or refer to the basic nature of the
    wares or services provided rather than to the more idiosyncratic characteristics of a particular product, and are not legally
    protectable.
    On the other hand, a term is descriptive and therefore invalid as a trademark if, as understood in its normal and natural
    sense, it forthwith conveys the characteristics, functions, qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it
    and does not know what it is, or if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of
    the goods, or if it clearly denotes what goods or services are provided in such a way that the consumer does not have to
    exercise powers of perception or imagination.
    Rather, the term MASTER is a suggestive term brought about by the advertising scheme of Nestle. Suggestive terms are
    those which, in the phraseology of one court, require imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the
    nature of the goods. Such terms, which subtly connote something about the product, are eligible for protection in the
    absence of secondary meaning. While suggestive marks are capable of shedding some light upon certain characteristics of
    the goods or services in dispute, they nevertheless involve an element of incongruity, figurativeness, or imaginative
    effort on the part of the observer.

    You might also like