M.A. Clarke vs Manila Candy Co.

Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on Twitter2share on TumblrShare on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0
SPONSORED ADS

Intellectual Property Law – Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Trade Names – Trademark Infringement – Unfair Competition 

Since 1905, Clarke has been producing and selling candies in islands of the Philippines. His trademark has always been an image of a rooster or locally known as “manok” (Manoc). Thus, his candies have been known as “Manok candies”. He had the trademark registered in November 2011. Later, two of his men left his employ and they established a company of their own which was also geared to manufacture candies, the company was called Manila Candy. For their trademark, they chose to use the image of two roosters which are in a fighting position. In June 1912, Clarke sued Manila Candy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Candy is guilty of unfair competition.

HELD: Yes. Though indeed, Manila Candy’s trademark of two roosters is visually different from Clarke’s trademark of an image of just one rooster, no reason has been suggested for the use of this particular design with its predominant display of two roosters as the trade-mark of Manila Candy other than that alleged by the Clarke; that is to say, that Manila Candy well knowing that Clarke had used a rooster as his trade-mark, hoped to secure an unfair advantage by misleading the public, and inducing it to believe that its candies bearing a representation of two roosters were made in the Clarke’s factory, which had always marked its goods with one or more pictures of a single rooster, and at the same time had made extensive use of this design in connection with its advertising campaigns. There were a hundred other animals or images that could have been used by Manila Candy to promote its new brand of candies yet it chose to use that of the established trademark used by Clarke.

 

Read full text here.

SPONSORED ADS