The bee has lost its sting.
Our appellate court has dismissed a case against an alleged infringer accused of using a hamburger name for a shoe brand minus one letter. According to the Inquirer Article, the CA found that using a registered trademark for another merchandise in an unrelated and totally non-competitive product is plausible.
As I have mentioned before in a previous blog entry, an arbitrary name such as what the local hamburger chain has, should be afforded the strongest protection. The uniqueness of one’s brand name is highly sought after by companies. Name recognition is a form of goodwill that can’t be bought.
In Philippines, we have made famous brand names as generics. Kodak and Colgate have become synonymous with any camera and toothpaste respectively. Using that culture trait, is quite advantageous here. Let me explain.
When we hear the phrase, “Mag Kodakan tayo”, it means it’s time for picture taking. When a sari-sari store hears the question, “Pabili ng Colgate”, toothpaste is being asked for. Any store clerk will inherently and without thinking will look for those brands instead of cheaper alternatives. These brand names have been ingrained in our instinct.
Now here comes the hamburger chain which started as an ice cream store in Chinatown. After three decades, it is now a superbrand. The whole idea of trademark is associating names or symbols to the origin of the goods or service. For example, when we say Corolla, we don’t think of Honda but of Toyota.
Going back to the hamburger chain, its brand name is a made up word that has nothing to do with food (well, maybe honey). It has been in the country so long that it has been recognized as a leader in the food industry. We know many brand names that neither describe nor indicate the service or the product it is named after. For example, a coffee company named after a celestial male deer. In this country of ours, mention that name, we all know its about the hamburgers.
In case this issue goes to appeal with the highest court of the land, we will finally have some jurisprudence to settle the issue of trademark confusion.
For questions regarding intellectual property, feel free to email me.
Our appellate court has dismissed a case against an alleged infringer accused of using a hamburger name for a shoe brand minus one letter. According to the Inquirer Article, the CA found that using a registered trademark for another merchandise in an unrelated and totally non-competitive product is plausible.
As I have mentioned before in a previous blog entry, an arbitrary name such as what the local hamburger chain has, should be afforded the strongest protection. The uniqueness of one’s brand name is highly sought after by companies. Name recognition is a form of goodwill that can’t be bought.
In Philippines, we have made famous brand names as generics. Kodak and Colgate have become synonymous with any camera and toothpaste respectively. Using that culture trait, is quite advantageous here. Let me explain.
When we hear the phrase, “Mag Kodakan tayo”, it means it’s time for picture taking. When a sari-sari store hears the question, “Pabili ng Colgate”, toothpaste is being asked for. Any store clerk will inherently and without thinking will look for those brands instead of cheaper alternatives. These brand names have been ingrained in our instinct.
Now here comes the hamburger chain which started as an ice cream store in Chinatown. After three decades, it is now a superbrand. The whole idea of trademark is associating names or symbols to the origin of the goods or service. For example, when we say Corolla, we don’t think of Honda but of Toyota.
Going back to the hamburger chain, its brand name is a made up word that has nothing to do with food (well, maybe honey). It has been in the country so long that it has been recognized as a leader in the food industry. We know many brand names that neither describe nor indicate the service or the product it is named after. For example, a coffee company named after a celestial male deer. In this country of ours, mention that name, we all know its about the hamburgers.
In case this issue goes to appeal with the highest court of the land, we will finally have some jurisprudence to settle the issue of trademark confusion.
For questions regarding intellectual property, feel free to email me.
No comments:
Post a Comment