This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In determining similarity and likelihood of confusion, case law has developed the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test. The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the dominant features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the ordinary purchaser, and gives more consideration to the aural and visual impressions created by the marks on the buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments. In contrast, the Holistic or Totality Test considers the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, and focuses not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing on both labels to determine whether one is confusingly similar to the other[14] as to mislead the ordinary purchaser. The "ordinary purchaser" refers to one "accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question."[15] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the registered trademark owner may use its mark on the same or similar products, in different segments of the market, and at different price levels depending on variations of the products for specific segments of the market.[26] The purchasing public might be mistaken in thinking that petitioner had ventured into a lower market segment such that it is not inconceivable for the public to think that Strong or Strong Sport Trail might be associated or connected with petitioner's brand, which scenario is plausible especially since both petitioner and respondent manufacture rubber shoes. | |||||