Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    Manginasal Vs IFP

    Uploaded by

    Region Ten
    Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation applied to register the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" for snack products. Petitioner opposed this, arguing it was confusingly similar to their registered "Mang Inasal" mark for fast food restaurants and inasal-flavored food products. Both marks featured the dominant element "INASAL" stylized in the same way. The IPO dismissed the opposition but the CA found that an average buyer may be confused and assume the products were from the same source or that petitioner's flavorings were used, which could take advantage of petitioner's reputation.

    Copyright:

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

    Manginasal Vs IFP

    Uploaded by

    Region Ten
    171 views1 page
    Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation applied to register the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" for snack products. Petitioner opposed this, arguing it was confusingly similar to their registered "Mang Inasal" mark for fast food restaurants and inasal-flavored food products. Both marks featured the dominant element "INASAL" stylized in the same way. The IPO dismissed the opposition but the CA found that an average buyer may be confused and assume the products were from the same source or that petitioner's flavorings were used, which could take advantage of petitioner's reputation.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Manginasal vs IFP

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation applied to register the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" for snack products. Petitioner opposed this, arguing it was confusingly similar to their registered "Mang Inasal" mark for fast food restaurants and inasal-flavored food products. Both marks featured the dominant element "INASAL" stylized in the same way. The IPO dismissed the opposition but the CA found that an average buyer may be confused and assume the products were from the same source or that petitioner's flavorings were used, which could take advantage of petitioner's reputation.

    Copyright:

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

    Manginasal Vs IFP

    Uploaded by

    Region Ten
    Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation applied to register the mark "OK Hotdog Inasal Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark" for snack products. Petitioner opposed this, arguing it was confusingly similar to their registered "Mang Inasal" mark for fast food restaurants and inasal-flavored food products. Both marks featured the dominant element "INASAL" stylized in the same way. The IPO dismissed the opposition but the CA found that an average buyer may be confused and assume the products were from the same source or that petitioner's flavorings were used, which could take advantage of petitioner's reputation.

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS:

    Respondent IFP Manufacturing Corporation is a local manufacturer of snacks and beverages.


    Respondent filed with the IPO an application for the registration of the mark “OK Hotdog Inasal
    Cheese Hotdog Flavor Mark”.
    Application was opposed by petitioner. petitioner explained that OK Hotdog Inasal mark is similar to
    the Mang Inasal mark. Both marks feature the same dominant element — i.e., the word “INASAL” —
    printed and stylized in the exact same manner. The goods that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is
    intended to identify (i.e., curl snack products) are also
    closely related to the services represented by the Mang Inasal mark (i.e., fast food restaurants). Both
    marks cover inasal or inasal-flavored food products
    IPO dismissed petitioner’s opposition ruling that the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is not similar to the
    Mang Inasal mark. In terms of appearance, the only similarity between the two marks is the word
    “INASAL.” However, there are other words like “OK,” “HOTDOG,” and “CHEESE” and images like that
    of curls and cheese that are found in the OK Hotdog Inasal mark but are not present in the Mang
    Inasal mark. CA affirmed IPO.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent’s mark is confusing similar to petitioner’s mark.
    RULING:
    YES. Confusion, in either of its forms, is, thus, only possible when the goods or services covered by
    allegedly similar marks are identical, similar or re1ated in some manner. Verily, to fall under the
    ambit of Sec. 123.1(d)(iii) and be regarded as likely to deceive or cause confusion upon the
    purchasing public, a prospective mark must be shown to meet two (2) minimum conditions: 1. The
    prospective mark must nearly resemble or be similar to an earlier mark; and 2. The prospective
    mark must pertain to goods or services that are either identical, similar or related to the goods or
    services represented by the earlier mark.
    It is the fact that the underlying goods and services of both marks deal with inasal and inasal
    flavored products which ultimately fixes the relations between such goods and services. An average
    buyer who comes across the curls marketed under the OK Hotdog Inasal mark is likely to be
    confused as to the true source of such curls. To our mind, it is not unlikely that such buyer would be
    led into the assumption that the curls are of petitioner and that the latter has ventured into snack
    manufacturing or, if not, that the petitioner has supplied the flavorings for respondent’s product.
    Either way, the reputation of petitioner would be taken advantage of and placed at the mercy of
    respondent.

    You might also like