Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation vs. The Director of Patents and Luis P. Pellicer

    Uploaded by

    Knarf Mids
    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation applied to register the trademark "Verbena" and a representation of a Spanish lady for cosmetic products. Luis P. Pellicer opposed the application on the grounds that "Verbena" is a generic term for a type of flower and the image of a lady is commonly used in trade. The Director of Patents denied registration, finding that "Verbena" descriptively refers to the genus of plants used in cosmetic products and the image of a lady does not uniquely identify the source. The court upheld this decision, noting that generic terms cannot be exclusively claimed and "Verbena" had not acquired secondary meaning through substantially exclusive use for the required period.

    Copyright:

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

    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation vs. The Director of Patents and Luis P. Pellicer

    Uploaded by

    Knarf Mids
    114 views1 page
    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation applied to register the trademark "Verbena" and a representation of a Spanish lady for cosmetic products. Luis P. Pellicer opposed the application on the grounds that "Verbena" is a generic term for a type of flower and the image of a lady is commonly used in trade. The Director of Patents denied registration, finding that "Verbena" descriptively refers to the genus of plants used in cosmetic products and the image of a lady does not uniquely identify the source. The court upheld this decision, noting that generic terms cannot be exclusively claimed and "Verbena" had not acquired secondary meaning through substantially exclusive use for the required period.

    Original Description:

    corpo

    Original Title

    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation vs. the Director of Patents and Luis p. Pellicer

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation applied to register the trademark "Verbena" and a representation of a Spanish lady for cosmetic products. Luis P. Pellicer opposed the application on the grounds that "Verbena" is a generic term for a type of flower and the image of a lady is commonly used in trade. The Director of Patents denied registration, finding that "Verbena" descriptively refers to the genus of plants used in cosmetic products and the image of a lady does not uniquely identify the source. The court upheld this decision, noting that generic terms cannot be exclusively claimed and "Verbena" had not acquired secondary meaning through substantially exclusive use for the required period.

    Copyright:

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

    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation vs. The Director of Patents and Luis P. Pellicer

    Uploaded by

    Knarf Mids
    The East Pacific Merchandising Corporation applied to register the trademark "Verbena" and a representation of a Spanish lady for cosmetic products. Luis P. Pellicer opposed the application on the grounds that "Verbena" is a generic term for a type of flower and the image of a lady is commonly used in trade. The Director of Patents denied registration, finding that "Verbena" descriptively refers to the genus of plants used in cosmetic products and the image of a lady does not uniquely identify the source. The court upheld this decision, noting that generic terms cannot be exclusively claimed and "Verbena" had not acquired secondary meaning through substantially exclusive use for the required period.

    Copyright:

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

    THE EAST PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORPORATION vs.

    THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS


    and LUIS P. PELLICER
    G.R. No. L-14377, December 29, 1960
    FACTS: Marcelo T. Pua filed with the Office of the Director of Commerce an application for the
    registration under Act 666 of the composite trademark consisting of the word "Verbena" and
    representation of a Spanish lady, with specific evident set of designs. Respondent Luis P.
    Pellicer filed an opposition to the application on the following grounds: (a) that the picture of a
    lady is common in trade and the name "Verbena" is the generic name of a flower and, therefore,
    neither may be exclusively appropriated or registered by the applicant.
    The Director of Patents favored the Pellicer, alleging that the term "Verbena" is "generically
    descriptive or misdescriptive of the products, namely lotion, face powder, hair pomade and
    brillantine, while the representation of a Spanish lady is not only deceptively misdescriptive of
    the source or origin, but also common in trade," and, resulting to the denial of East Pacifics
    registration.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the term Verbena is registerable.
    HELD: The term "Verbena" is descriptive of a whole genus of garden plants with fragrant
    flowers used in connection with cosmetic products. Regardless of other connotations of the
    word, the use of the term cannot be denied to other traders using such extract or oils in their
    own products. It follows that the Director of Patents correctly held the term to be nonregisterable in the sense that petitioner company would be entitled to appropriate its use to the
    exclusion of others legitimately entitled, such as oppositor Pellicer.
    In a leading case, Caswell vs. Davis, 17 Am. Rep. 233, 241, 242, the court, on a similar issue,
    said:
    There is no principle more firmly settled in the law of trademarks, than that words or phrases
    which have been in common use and which indicate the character, kind, quality and composition
    of the thing, may not be appropriated by any one to his exclusive use. In the exclusive use of
    them the law will not protect. . . .
    The claim that the petitioner is entitled to registration because the term "Verbena" has already
    acquired a secondary significance is without merit. The provisions of law (Rep. Act No. 166, sec.
    4) require that the trademark applied for must have "become distinctive of the applicant's
    goods", and that a prima facie proof of this fact exists when the applicant has been in the
    "substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark or tradename, for five years next
    preceding the date of the filing of the application for its registration".

    You might also like