This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Thus, apart from the strict application of Section 20 of the Trademark Law and Article 6bis of the Paris Convention which proscribe trademark infringement not only of goods specified in the certificate of registration but also of identical or similar goods, we have also uniformly recognized and applied the modern concept of "related goods."[91] Simply stated, when goods are so related that the public may be, or is actually, deceived and misled that they come from the same maker or manufacturer, trademark infringement occurs.[92] | |||||
|
2003-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under the old Trademark Law [15] where the goods for which the identical marks are used are unrelated, there can be no likelihood of confusion and there is therefore no infringement in the use by the junior user of the registered mark on the entirely different goods.[16] This ruling, however, has been to some extent, modified by Section 123.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), which took effect on January 1, 1998. The said section reads:Sec. 123. Registrability. - 123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it: | |||||