BAR 2025: Q.12- COMM LAW & TAX: Trademark similarity and likelihood of confusion

Описание: BAR 2025 - COMM LAW & TAX
QUESTION NO. 12

XYZ Inc. filed before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Trademark Application No. 1-2025-12345 for the mark “TURTLE AND DEVICE.” XYZ Inc.’s mark is an image of a turtle with the word “Turtle” on its side. ABC Inc. opposed the application, alleging that XYZ Inc.’s mark is confusingly similar or identical to its own mark, which is an image of a tortoise sans any accompanying words. In its defense, XYZ Inc. argued that the entirety or totality, not just the dominant part, of the marks should be considered in determining whether there is infringement. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, ABC Inc.’s opposition is valid. Under Section 123.1(d) of the Intellectual Property Code, a mark is confusingly similar if it causes confusion as to origin. The Supreme Court in McDonald’s v. L.C. Big Mak Burger held that visual similarity can cause confusion even without identical wording. Here, both marks depict similar animals, and the addition of the word “Turtle” does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. Thus, XYZ Inc.’s application should be denied.


This video is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content presented may not reflect the most current legal standards, answers or interpretations. No guarantee is made regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information.
THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTED ANSWER. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.


#BAR2025
#CommercialLaw #TaxationLaw #CommercialLawQ&A #TaxQ&A #TaxLaws
#amicuscurious
#AMYzingBar2025
For Educational Purposes only. Aral-aral din, pag may time ;)