Berris Agricultural Co. opposed Abyadang's application for the trademark "NS D-10 PLUS" for fungicide, arguing it was confusingly similar to Berris' trademark "D-10 80 WP" for the same fungicide product containing the same active ingredient. The IPO ruled in favor of Berris, but the CA reversed this on appeal. The Supreme Court found that both products contained the dominant component D-10 and were likely to cause confusion, especially as they were for the same goods, and that Abyadang's product could be seen as an upgrade of Berris' product.
Berris Agricultural Co. opposed Abyadang's application for the trademark "NS D-10 PLUS" for fungicide, arguing it was confusingly similar to Berris' trademark "D-10 80 WP" for the same fungicide product containing the same active ingredient. The IPO ruled in favor of Berris, but the CA reversed this on appeal. The Supreme Court found that both products contained the dominant component D-10 and were likely to cause confusion, especially as they were for the same goods, and that Abyadang's product could be seen as an upgrade of Berris' product.
Berris Agricultural Co. opposed Abyadang's application for the trademark "NS D-10 PLUS" for fungicide, arguing it was confusingly similar to Berris' trademark "D-10 80 WP" for the same fungicide product containing the same active ingredient. The IPO ruled in favor of Berris, but the CA reversed this on appeal. The Supreme Court found that both products contained the dominant component D-10 and were likely to cause confusion, especially as they were for the same goods, and that Abyadang's product could be seen as an upgrade of Berris' product.
11. Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. Vs. Norvy Abyadang G.R. No.
183404, 13 October 2010)
Abyadang filed a trademark application with the IPO for the
mark "NS D-10 PLUS" for use in connection with Fungicide. Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. filed an opposition against the trademark citing that it is confusingly similar with their trademark, "D-10 80 WP" which is also used for Fungicide also with the same active ingredient.
The IPO ruled in favor of Berries but on appeal with the CA, the CA ruled in favor of Abyadang.
ISSUE: Whether there is confusing similarity between the
trademarks.
RULING:
Yes. The SC found that both products have the component D-
10 as their ingredient and that it is the dominant feature in both their marks. Applying the Dominancy Test, Abyadang's product is similar to Berris' and that confusion may likely to occur especially that both in the same type of goods. Also using the Holistic Test, it was more obvious that there is likelihood of confusion in their packaging and color schemes of the marks. The SC states that buyers would think that Abyadang's product is an upgrade of Berris'.