[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
251 views2 pages

03 Fruit of The Loom V CA

This case involves a trademark infringement claim filed by Fruit of the Loom against General Garments Corporation regarding its trademark "Fruit for Eve". The Supreme Court held that there was no infringement because while the marks shared some similarities like the word "Fruit" and a design of a red apple, there were also substantial differences that would prevent confusion. Specifically, the shape of the hang tags was different, they had different designs beyond the apple, and different color schemes. These differences in the overall appearance of the marks meant that consumers would not be confused as to the source or origin of the goods.

Uploaded by

eieipayad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
251 views2 pages

03 Fruit of The Loom V CA

This case involves a trademark infringement claim filed by Fruit of the Loom against General Garments Corporation regarding its trademark "Fruit for Eve". The Supreme Court held that there was no infringement because while the marks shared some similarities like the word "Fruit" and a design of a red apple, there were also substantial differences that would prevent confusion. Specifically, the shape of the hang tags was different, they had different designs beyond the apple, and different color schemes. These differences in the overall appearance of the marks meant that consumers would not be confused as to the source or origin of the goods.

Uploaded by

eieipayad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

03. Fruit of the Loom v.

CA, General Garments Corporation AUTHOR: Pineda/Concepcion


[133 SCRA 405; 1984] NOTES:
TOPIC: infringement
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

There is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive
purchasers as to the origin or source of the commodity.

A comparison between trademarks must be made. Comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in
their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a US corporation, with the trademark Fruit of the Loom. It manufactures undergarments.

Respondent is a domestic corporation, with the trademark Fruit for Eve. It also manufactures undergarments.

Petitioner filed a case for cancellation of Respondent's trademark Fruit for Eve. It alleges there is colorable imitation as regards the sound "Fruit" and the
appearance of the hang tag consisting of a big red apple. Petitioner claims that the prominent and dominant features found in both Petitioner's and Respondent'
trademark are the word "Fruit" and the big red apple design.

ISSUE(S):
W/N there is confusing similarity to support a claim of infringement and warrant the cancellation of Respondent's trademark

HELD:
NO. There are substantial differences that overcome any similarities, hence, there is no infringement.
RATIO:
There is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive
purchasers as to the origin or source of the commodity.

A comparison between trademarks must be made. Comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in
their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached.

Standing by itself, Fruit of the Loom is wholly different from Fruit for Eve. The Court does not agree with Petitioner that the dominant feature of both trademarks
is the word Fruit, for even in the printing of such word in both hang tags, there is no special emphasis made.

As to the design and coloring scheme of the hang tags, while there are similarities in the two marks like the red apple, there are striking differences:
(a) Shape of hang tag: Petitioner's is round, Respondent's is rectangular
(b) Different designs, apart from red apple
(c) Different colors: Petitioner's is brown, Respondent's is pink
The similarities of the competing trademarks in this case are completely lost in the substantial differences in the design and general appearance of their
respective hang tags. The trademarks are not similar to each other, so as to cause confusion to consumers. The ordinary purchaser must be credited with a
minimum level of intelligence to be able to see the obvious differences between the two trademarks.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

You might also like