T)FCTSTGN NO .
R5-7 9
bFr,FMAFR ?,
3985
61. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rapiihl i r
of
t-hp Phil j i1I)i nes
Ministry of Tr .acl«- and Industr y
FHJLTPPiNF PATFNT OFFICE
403 Midland Rldg .
Ri :Pndia F>:t ., Makati MM .
rARI,OCK, TNC .,
)
T.NTFR PARTF.S CASE NO . 1293
Opposer, nPPOSTTION TO :
6
AnPln, ~nrial No . 23393
Pi 1 ecl : Fehr»ary 2 6, 1973
Tnnl irant ; (',jrlin(I Limite d
- lip rc;u-,- ) Trademark
MRLOCV
ii, Pr9 nn : RrakPs for
vehicles an--I parts and
fittings for siirh hrakes
CTRI,TNC T,TMTTF,D ,
ReGnnnrlent-Annl irant
DF( T^,TC1N NO . R5-79 (TM)
DeremhPr 2, 19R 5
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
n F C T S T O N
Garlock, Tnc . lorlgerl on July 2r-), 1979 jt5 opposition
to the registration of the trademark "GiRL .GCK" used on
brakes for vPhirle5 and parts anH fittings for such brakes
in Class 12 filed with this Office on February 26, 1973 by
Girlinc; r,imited hearing Application Serial . No . 23393
published on Page 3141, of the Official Gazette, Volume 75,
No .
14 dated April 2, 1979 whi-h w,4s officially released on
June 4, 1979 .
njlPn ;ar ic a forairln cnrrnrat-jon rlii lv nrnAni zed under
the 1.awG nf thP qtata of nhin, ti, q .A ., doing business -r
No .
1?5(1 Midtown Tower, Rochester, New Ynrk ; 11 . .S,A,, while
Rpspn* ► r1Pnt-APpl i c'?nr i,=: a foreign company of Frigland with
hiiS i neaG address at '1'ympl n J Rj rmi nryham, Fnql anrl .
The nr_n,inr1G
follows :
q
a
allpapri
in the herein Opposition are as
DECISION NO . 85-79 DECEMBER 2, 1985
61 8
"1, The nnpnsar is the owner registrant and
has used the trademark 'CARtOrK' in trade arid in
commerce in the Philippines long prior to that of
respondent-Applicant . Said trademark 'aARl .nr' is
covered
by certificate of RPgis*rai-ion No . 5290-R
AatoA 10 October 1954 .
It
9, The ahnva trademark 'AARl.,nrx' which the
Opposer has rr.Pated And Adopted is well known in
the Philippines and throughout the world . "
In support of
the following facts :
its opposition, npposer has relied on
"1 . The opposer has used the trademark
'GARLOCK' in trade and in commerce in the
Philippines long pior to that of respondent .
Said tr.ademark is covered by Certificate of
Registration No . 5790-R dated 10 October 1954 .
2.
Opposer's trademark 'GARr,OCK' is well
known
in the Philippines
and has excellent
reputation
in the Philippines because of the high
and superior quality, as well as adver.tisements,
on nlipnSPr's Prndnct covered by said mark .
'A .
The
arPli rat inn
opposition was filed only on
rPC~nnrJ?ni-annlirant claims
no 1 9 lime 1991 .
-, nhiPct of this
?F P e bruary 1973 and
use of the mark only
4, AnPlir .ant'4 allPnPd mark 'rTRL0CR1 is
confusingly similar to opprIsAr's trademark
'( .ART,nCK', Mnrpnvpr, the goods covered by both
marks belong to the same rlass of goods, particularly Tnt . t'lass 1? of the Official Classification of Goods of the Patent Office, per Patent
Office Administrative order No . 20, dated
Fehrr.iar.y 9, 1978 amending Rule 15 and Rule 82 of
the Revised Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases .
-4
5 . The registration of the applicant's
alleged mark would violate opposer's rights and
Interests in its trademark 'GARLrJCK' because the
said mark is confusingly similar . Moreover,
confusion between opposer's and applicant's
respective businesses and products as well as the
I
ftFf;T G T ON Nn . R 5- 7 9 nFCFMRFR 2, 1 9 R r.,
(; 1 q
----------------------------------------------------------(9,1111-ion
and
trAd Pnlark i -,
1
1n~s; r,F r1is-tinctivNnac4-; of nnpnser''
P
The afnrpmentinnarl Opposition was verified by the
Opposer nn flrttiher
171
1.979 anrl wa -~ S)lhmi f:t".eCl fn tho--ir
Office on Nnvpmhar 6, 1979 .
.Tan) la ry 17, 19$ 0 , this Office ^ent •i Notice to the
On
RPSpnndPnt-AnpljrAnt to file its Answer to the Opposition
enclosed thPrpwi th, within f j . ft,-~Pn (1 S ) days from receipt
thereof . Rut instead of filing its Answer, RespondentApplicant filed on FPhrnarv 1 1 , 19 8 0 a Motion to Dismiss
At that hearing, counsel
which was heard on March 6, 1980 .
the Opposer manifested his intention to file an
for
Opposition to the said Motion which he actnally did on
March 11., 1 .98(l .
On Av g 1)st 1 9, J 9RI1 ; th i -~ nf f i t- s-% i SSned an Or (I Pr givi ng
dne course to the Mot inn of P,snondPnt-Appl .icant, dis)niqqing the inst-ant f)nnn!=~ ifiinn on the grounds that it was
fi1P d
out
Of
4-j Me . 9e1'1Pra1 clays, t•herpafter, on GeptPmber
1
q
Rf1
~
rnnn5P1
f nr the nnnn,i-r filed a Motion for RPr'nn ; i~ .
nrrlPr, alleging and
t`Iarafijnn of the aforP -, ai,~l r1i 5 mi ;Ga1
p
Prrnrc~
made
hy thi -, Office in
nn intinn out therein t- h
nr .ant ing Re .-~nnndent' ~, Motion to T) i-mi sG th i-, Opposition .
Cnnvj n(7erj of the mPr i 1- nf thP ornnndc a1 ] eoPr1 in
(1pnn5Pr'c, Mntlnn for RPrnnGirlerahinn, this Off ire set ar :ide
dismissal nrrlPl" dated ] 9, 19R(1 by a--ah~-Prll)ent
j t -,
•Tannry n, 1.4R1. . Under the latter
Office Order rl A tP d
nrder, ResponflPrti :-Ann] i rant was required to f i l e it-, Answer
to the Notice of. Opposition within fifteen (l5) days from
receipt of said order .
\
In its Answer filed on March 26, 1981, RespondentApplicant either denied or professed no knowledge of the
truth or falsity of all the material averments mad,- in the
subject Opposition .
Tssnes havinq been JninPd•_ this Office notified the
parties that a pra-trial conference would be held on May 5,
19R1 . After several rPsattings, the pre-trial hearing was
terminated At thc• hearing of November 5, 19R1 .
Ft)r failure to appear at the sherllll ed hearing of Marrh
counsel for the RespnnrlPntR, 1.9R ?
due notice,
despite
Annl i r'ant moved in open court that this case he rl i :=;mi GGed .
i
11F,('TST(IN NO,
RS-79 nF,l'F,MRF.R 7, 19 8 5
67 0
----------------------------------------------------------Tn response to this move, counsel for npposer filed on
March 9, ]982 a Manifestation which satisfactorily
explained his late arrival by five minutes at the March 8
hearing referred to above . Per. Office Order No . 87-100
dated Marrh 7 3 , 1987, this office denied the foregoing
Motion to Dismiss of the herein Respondent-Applicant, with
a warning, however, that Opposer's counsel should appear on
time at the subsequent scheduled hearings .
In one of the hearings of this case, parties through
counsels agreed that inasmuch as their respective evidences
are purely documentary, no testimonial hearing was conducted . Hence, Opposer marked its evidence at the hearing of.
May
26, 1982
(Pxhs . "A" to "0"1] on June 73, 19A2 (Fxhs .
nFn to 'IT") ; and on July 13, 1 9R9 (Fxhs . " .1" to °T.°) and,
acrnr-Aingly, was
given
ten ( 1- 0 ) days within which to file
its Formal Offer of FvirlPncP and the Respondent-Applicant
was given five (5) days from receipt thereof to file its
objections anA/nr rnmmente .
Meantime, howPvPr, at thP hParing of September 77,
19R7
before
the flnpnsPr'G counsel could submit its Written
Formal Offer of RviAPnrP, RPSnnndPnt-Applicant1s counsel
disclosed thereat for the first time the fact that Certif- ira te
of
Registration
No . 77 9 7 1 was already issued to it
(Respondent) for the subject trademark 'GIRLOCK' on July
11, 1979 even antedating herein Opposition which was filed
on
July
25, 1979 . Confronted with and perplexed by this
development of the herein case, this Office required both
parties to submit their respective written positions on
this matter .
On November F, -]982, Respondent submitted its
Compliance, manifesting therein the view that since its
Appliratinn Seri-i1
No .
2334 l
for the trademark 'rTRLQCK'
has already matured into Registration No . 29673 on July 11,
1979, this matter can no longer be the subject of herein
Oppositton filed in accordance with section R of Republic
Art No, 1 99 ; as ?mPnd?d . On the other hand, in its
Compliance submitted to this Office on November 12, 19 8 2,
Opposer holds the view "that the Certificate of Registration No . 77 6 7'1 iCQuJPfI before the expiration of the
period for filing Opposition, per nrnvici .nn of Section in,
R .A . 1f,f,,
.iG
.7menf1Pf1, has no valid legal existence and is
n i ll] and vniA, because the issuing Officer lnirectnr of
patentEl has eXrPe A P (1 his powers in violation of said
Section 10 of R .A . 1Fi(,, as amended, citing the rA~P of
Rarii-n rnmmnnicatinn
vs .
Ran.tiago, SR SCRA 493" . Opposer
I
T)FCTSTf1N NO .
Q1
R5-79 nFC_ .FMRFR 7, 198 .r+
-----------------------------------------------------------
I
A I So
i nvok p 11
Section 7 ; Mil a q of the Rul ps o f which
not nleanle d
in
its
previous
provides
"thatdefenses
ar
)
1
,
()n[)os
i t i nrl or
[~~Yt
j
r~ll
in
i
t-fi
,
An
-,
«'r
to
this
Pl ea d ings,
nnfF
Pre-Trial
rI
vF,
nca
tagQ
of
the
case
are
during
the
deemed to have been waived" .
This Office arlnntpr' the position of the cminsel for
nnnnSPr ; it hpinrj mno•P in ;ernrrl ;-+mr•+- with Hip lnw ani1 th e
R t-7?
ruleS on the mattpr . Hr-,r(-P,, i n itc Raanl i)t i nn N o
rlatarj Anril %ri 19R? . thi ; of fjr p rPr'ai I Pri ('P rfifirafP of
.TUIy
1 1 ; 1 (17q for the
R?0 i -,firAfiinn Nn .
9 7h7 i~ ;naCl nr,
t•ra(1Pmark "C;TRT,f)r".K' 1 i n favnr of harp i n RNGnnnr1Pnt .
The ahove referred RNsnl ifl- i on haG haPn the ;~~hiect of
a Mnt- jnn for RprnnSjrlPrafiinn hy Ra~nnn~Pnt i hrnnnh rnnn~al
filpr9 nn ,11inp 1.qR? : an nnnn-, il- inn to sairl Motion for
Rat-nnG i rlPrat- inn was f i 1 Pra
on ,TrnnP 1 7 ; 1 9RR by rnrnnc :P 1 for
the nnnn<;Rr ; anrl A Reply t-(~ the fnr,-nning Opposition war,
also filed on .Tnly 1 .1, 1,9Rl by ronnsPl for RPsPnnr9ent .
a car'-fill rnn ~, i a Pr A tion
all the arguments
Aft-pr
of
i n thP ahnvF nl PaC9 i n ( -rG ; fi h i c5 O ff irp, in its Order
averred
. 1t ) I V Ifl .
1 aR?, ri ]- ; P ~l that the herein
Nn . RR-ROR rlat ;P(9
Respondent's Motion fnr RPrnn -~ irlPrat i nn waS denied Tn the
GamP nrrlPr, rni I iispl f( ) r uFS(~nn~erifi-A!Jnl i cant was required
tp
-, iihmi t it's nl -) iPrt i o n -~ o r comments to the Pormal Offer of
npnoser's counsel to this O ffice on
F:viC1Pn('e
submitted by
May ;n, 198 1 consisting of the follnwinq exhibits, to wit :
FXh s
" A+' - (`Prf-ifir,atp
of
Rr?nPw.a J
R-lf(14
dated
Nnv~mh~r 7F ; 1975 signed by the DirPrt-nr
of
trarlamark
1
y
Pat-Pnts
x x
to thN offPrt that- the
~~(;ART .()C fi'~
Phil iPninp PatPnt
i ,, rpn i Si-PrPC1
in
t he
nffic'P .
C'Prtifiratinn
of
fhP Philippines Patent
YhP A_Gf~
Tlirarfinr of
Office - ir~nPrl
by
PffPr'tth
PatPnt~ x x x to the
;:4 t R,xhihit
thP
rNrnrrlG of
a t-rnN ropy from
"A" i S
G airl
„A-7" anri
IrA- ?rr
1
Office .
RNrnn(i a nri third pages of th p
rpri-i.fir .atP of ro-newal containing the
trarlpmark "C:ART_,n("K" hp i ng rPnewed .
DECIStON NO .
85-79
DECEMBER
2,
1985
62 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Bn
-
°A-l" anrlnp- -;o n
nr o
VI
C-l
Cer.tificate
of. Renewal dated June 20,
1955 signed by the Director x x x to the
effect that the trademark "GARLOCK" is
registered in the Philippines and is
being renewed registration . This
exhibit clearly shows that the abov e
trademark has been originally registered
on nrt.nhar in, 1994 i
-i
PPtI tion £~r Renewal of Registration to
~hnw thaf the trarieleark "( :ARLOCK" owned
by the ni,PotPr is registered in the
Phi7inpinPs ainre nrtoher 10, 1 .924,
Affidavit of nse dated April 25, 1980
which was filed in thP Philippine Patent
Office on ,7une 73 , 19R0 .
of
"C-2 "
nnu
('Prtificate
consul of
Philippines
regarding the
of Authen*)cation by the
the Republic of the
in
New
York, U .S .A .
above Affidavit .
Covering letter of the above Affidavit
addressed to the Director of Patents to
show that products bearing the trademark
"OARLOCK" are
used here in the
Philippi .nes .
- Certification from the Office of the
Secretary of State of Delaware to the
effPC't thaf C.ar1 0 ck, Inc . of New York,
II .4,A, ha-,- ioPrnPA with Garlock, Inc . of.
Delaware and the merger has resulted
intn a rnrnnral'inn ra11Pr1 I :,arlnrk, Inc .
PYisting nnAP .r, the laws of nPlaware .
" - PerrifiratP nf Aii theni•iration
by
L•ennirlpe T . Caday, Consul reneral of the
RPnnhlir_ of thP Ph ilinPinPC ,
rrn- 7 n
- Certification by the Secretary of State
of the United
States of America, Henry
Kissinger .
ap-3"
Certification from the Office of the
Secretary of State of Ohio to the
d.
nFC,T4TnN Nn . R rS - 7 9
nRr.FMRFR 2j 198 5
62 1
() r n .l .a, -~ rF,
rfr~, - f t- hat- r, . I nr ;c '•nr- .
}-ia,~. i-rp Fn ahKn - uo d
hv Cnlt f nci, I ;t r i~S,
T n c- , of Ohio anrl will now hp gnvarnr,rj by
tl,P 1aw<; of nhin . Ti~f rr,r'' 1 call ion
3
T n(i us Fr iPs,
f+art ho r sta f?F : t'hZt f`nl tInc .
nf
Oh in h .z 3
'
,n~jPd
itr ;i
-~, n a Ti le to
(4ar1oc`k, T„ r, .,
;,r Oh i o c .nrr,,)raticn .
"D-4" - Cartifir ;rtp of Authentication
by
4J?nc'F~~ .1 ~~ Q,airo]gico, Vic-^oncul ot: the
Rei?llf•1 i r~• of the Phil New Yutk,
U .P .A . to :w4now how Garlock, Tnc . of Ohio
evolved ~nd that the certification has
bePn 1~- rj ;, "' i zed before the pro-per author itic-s .
i-n
show that the
Pnwer
nf Attorney
cn, l n - .n l on rprnrrl i hnr i7.eri to
rNnraGPn t thP (lnnnc,.: r
Tradpmprk T, i r'pnsp ArlrpPmPnt betwaen
(;arlnr!r Ph i1inninPti C;arln,rk q .A,, a
rnrnnr ;-ii- i nn nf' thF Fdi~-mh1 i rr n i= Panama
wh i rh h .anr'll p~ . I•l- n'iPr ~aa~ n pon r -i t i nr+-, of
CZarlnrk J Tnr-, nt rlhin ,
r+F-1 " to tip, -A o f
rrF!-9r ►
-
Pa 0 «z ;z;
1
to 9 of i-h~, aiintrp At3rFnmartf ,
Slnnatiarp
of 14 . n . Petting, renreser i ti ng
c ;ar1 oc k
P1 i 1 ; roin --;i ,
to show that only
r , i r 1 nrk Pkl i 1 i pP° nP,., has h, Pn grante d an
ar,thnr i ty to manufacture the products of
C4r'nrk, Tnc .
with the trademark
"GAR 1,nC'K" .
11
nFrr
F-
++C,++
,111t
Invoice of Garlock Philippines dated
•T,.tr 1,- 7, 1 9 32 showinq that products
hParirig the trademark "rARLOCK" have
hE,An sold in thp Philippines .
T nvni r~ ,~, Ma terl lona 1 Fi, 1_qR2 ;
,TrrnP 1 (-1 Jr
1R 9
arl(1 May 1 2, 1qR2 ,
Tapn~rtiuPly .
- Rhi nni rig flnr>> -nt rl?tArl -Tone 7, 1 9R2
shnwi no t- h ;+Y !;ar1 n r k nrn~lrtrtG WerP
imPnri- ari into the Phi 1 i nnin~- ~ t n -,ho w
i
DECISTON NO . 8 5-79 DECEMBER 2, 1 985
62 4
----------------------------------------------------------that "GARJ,OCk" products have been sold
and are well-known in the Philippines .
Advertisement Appearing
in Volume X,
1990 November 5 and 6 of the Philippine
Mining and Engineering Journal, Page 11
ther?of, which clearly shows that
"rARr,nrK" nrodnrts,
c l.l ch as expansion
-inints, gasketG, chevrnn, piston cup an d
ni-hPrs that ara
used
on vPhi.rJeS
ar e
i
I
I
wpil-known in the Philippines .
rataingnP
( 7ailnrk Tnrj uStrial RPaling
of
Prndnrtc diGtrihntPd by Garlock
Philippines tn its rliPntc cnnSistinn of.
part Ps to show that products of
CArlnrk ; Inc . and (:ar)ork Philippines
have hePn advPrtis?d in the Philippines .
-
Aff.i.davit Of Use filed by Garlock, Tnc .
on D ecember. 7, 1959 .
:X'
- Stamp of the Philippine Patent office on
the above Affidavit of Ilse .
- Authentication of the above Affidavit
before the proper authorities .
-
Notice
of
Acceptance
o f said Affidavit
by the Philippine Patent Office .
Affidavit
1,97n .
of
Use filed on January 5,
- AnthPntir?tinn of the above Affidavit by
the prnnPr anthoritiPs .
-
NntirP
Of
ArrPrtanrP by thP
v
Philippine
P?tPnt ilffi .cP of tine above Affidavit to
ehnw that
the trademark
" r ARi .t)rK" has
bean
continuously
used
in
the
Philippines
q inrv it was originally
regi st?ralj .
t9A3,
In response to Office Order No . A3-3f13 dated July 20 ,
Respondent-Applicant by counsel filed on August 1,
19A3 its comments an d
FXhi.hits .
objections to the foregoing offer of
Z,.
1)F.CI S I ON NO .
R-79 DFrF.MRFR 2,
62 5
1995
PPr nffirP (?rMPr Nn, f??-=1 41 rl,;;t-Pri Aiirnic,`• 11 ~ 1 (1 R?, a11
the PxF ) ihi t s 9 11 hmittal hy fhF n~,~nnser
k. P rF
;4 4J m itfr' d
in
it for what PVar t-hpi
Pvi rlPnra
arP
wnrth i n a of t h o
rlP^ i q i nn of t h i s a wi t h thn -, ;4 i r1 nh 1 pr t i nn~, hnwPvP r
hp i nn maria .as n ;4 rt- o f r h P rPrr,r i, thrrrPnf "
r1Pnt
AftPr sPvpral ra ~= ptl-in a q If nn NnvPmhar '3, 19R3, Rnnrnri nGPl nrPaan''Prl i f•s rln ;- i rl i-a rv avi riPnrP r n ' : i I ; by
J
~
it 3 - a ur r~4n~ rir7rr
tinv, nf Fxi-iihit•~ 1'rf
i-n r,R" . On that- ,;Amp ~7atP of hPar i nn J Ra'~nnnrlnnt' S c'OUn' ;PI
was rrivFn f i ftPPn ( 1 5 ) rlay,:~ therefrom to submit its Written
Fnrmal Offer of Fvirlanrp, an .l nnpnSer's cnrinsel. was given
ten ( 1 n 1 (1 .ays from receipt of a copy thereof to siihmit its
objections anrl/or comments thereto . Respondent's -vidence
consisted of the following exhibits :
Fxhs .
n1n anrl of la of
Carl-if i c a t'•a
of Renewal Mr) .
F--1 F* 0 4
issued
NnvPrrrher 2F, lq7`, in the name of
c;a, )nri , Inc . ;
p ,- 1 r ;- o r a n h stating the
g nqrls
(- nv r- rarj by ~ t hP trademark
t„ show thN
.~V+-(~ nt of the
nC;ARf,c) rK It
rii,rhrof
("arlnrk ; Tnr , to I lG P the M,irk,
a(;ARr,nrK"
;q nrl thp ry or) rla Pyr1 ri~ i ~rP l y
)
y
t
h
n rnark .
rnvara ( l '
"7 r' anri - TrarlPm :,rk : nn1 i r• ;r3i- i nr. f i l arl b y
"7a" RPc;nnn .lPnfi-Annl i C• :Yrt wh i C- I-)
was
~r~h~ HnriF~nt i v~ LA . ,:; icin F, rl RPr i a i No .
???9? ;
pa ranr ,-; n h nn»mp rat jnrr the nnnrl~ r- ()V, reCl
by t-hp mark -,nnnl,t hn ht, rar7i si-ararl .
lf
91-41V And
91 '1 -ar 1
-
rFrtifi---4 1-o- o f Rari s ttr a tinn No . 2 7f,7 1
t I- rl i n f,av cir ~ o f (;i r 1 i n q T . i rrli tPri on
1r.lly 11, 1-r ) 7 q ;
nara q r ap h enumerating the
+'ha mark
on nrlS aYi- 1n c; ivPty
using
r.egistPrPd .
n4n
- Certified
copy of. Girling Limited's Home
Registration, British Registration No .
976632 .
"4a - Paragranh showing the r1 ass of. goods
covered by the registered mark, namely,
('1aSS 1 9
i n respect of "hraKPG fur
vPhiclP'c~ and part-- anri fittings for such
nr,4 kP -~ " .
*
T1FrTSTnN NO .
A 5 -79 pFCFMPRR ') ,
1985
6 26
----------------------------------------------------------- RatalnnnP
nf C,ar'nrk Industrial Scaling
Prr)rlnrl-c
rnneictinn of 59 pqgPS showing
the products hearing the mark "CTRT,nCK° .
-
y
Advertisement appearing
in Vq). time
X,
November
5 and 9 , 1.4Rn of the Philippine
Mining and
F.nninPPring Journal., on Page
11. thereof, which clearly
sh o ws the
goods hearing the "rART .nCK" trademark .
- Invoice of (arlock Philippines dated
.June 75, 19A2 showing the products using
the mark "GARLOCK" .
"8"
Invoice of. June 16,
3 982 showing the
goods bearing the mark "GARLOCK" to show
rlPar)y the specific goods covered by
certificate of Renewal R-1604 which are
nearly unrelated to
fhp goods of
RPCponflpnt-Anpl.irant .
nn NnvPmhPr
71 , 19R4, nnnnaPr'c counsel submitted its
objections to Fxhi .hits "A" and °Za° on the ground that they
are
null and vniA, Notwithstanding Anrh nhiPrtinnG, this
nffirp, Per its Order Nn . A'1 -495 dated nPremher 5, 1 9 A1,
admitted all the Pxhihita for whatever they ,arP wnrth, with
the objections thereon to he made aq part of The records of
the rasp . NPrPfrnm ; hnth nartiPS were riirPrteri to submit
simultaneously their respective Mpmeirancla on the case .
The primary issue to be resolved in this case is
whether or not Responftent-App]icant 's trademark "( ;TRLOCK"
is confusingly similar to the Oppncer.'s trademark "GART,OCK .
Opposer believes and so submits that the above trademarks "GARLnCK" and "GJRLOCK" are confusingly similar to
each other and argued, thus :
"The determinative factor in a contest involving registration of trademark is not whether the
challenged mark would actually cause confiision or
deception
of the purchaser but whether the use of
such mark would likely rAusp confusion or mistake
on the part nl= the buying nnhJic . Tn short, to
rnnstitutP
.an infrinnamont of an evicting tradpmark x x x and warrant adPnia1 of an application
for registration, thP law does not require that
the competing trademarks must he cn identirql as,
:f
T1F.f'TGTnN NO . Rri-79 nF.(:FMRF.R
t n nrnrli 1 r- P
art-n, 4 l
, rrr;r
e?
9 . 19Rri
or
wnrn
irl
7
hP
., Ilffir'iPnt, fnr F1i1rnn4P-, of thP l .9 w, i"hAt the
~imi larit-_v hp +-wp .~ n thn ~w n
nr
thPrP is a r%n°."ibi 1 i ty
i i
likelihood
o f thpnrchasP of the olrlpr hrand mi -,tak i nrJ the newer
h r .a n (i f or j i' ." f A m p r i r• a n W i r a C "a i- ) I
fn . V
ni rPctor of Patent ;, ? 1 S ("RA `)44 ;
su~nl i Pri l
:inrl,, r Crc,r i no
the nnsSihility or likelihood of
Tn thP above casp,
the nurcha-,er mistaking the .-)thPr i -, not far EP tchacl . The
two worr1 ; consist of qPvPn iPrt .Wrq . Tn f .artr the only
(.11 fferP.n('e is the ,PrnrIrl l.aa-tFi- hit which i?1'ter is very
i .nsinnif-icant- . Ti- is hirlhly nri-. :ihlP i-hai- a person nirrrhas i ng a commodity with ♦ hP trademark "rT RT,nrK." will buy t he
samP harail~a he mi c-Fhi- think t- hat• i fi i c a lnrnrli l rt- Of
C ;arl nrk, Tnr . There l i e s Hip - •_nnftlG i nr7 .
I
Tha
foremost
n,taaf i nn in trarlPmark raGa~ mii -, t'•• :al s n he
aakc, rl
from
t- hP RPGPnnrlPnt-Annl i r•ant- of All the marks rhat
r .an h e rnnrHiv p rl Whv
nnlv
~ fnr .a mark whirh i 5 similar tn
. 'I~
The :-an,wPr is very simple . The
that
of the
nnr,n q Pr' R ?~
on thp o q o rlwi 1 1
Racnnnrl p nt•-Annl i rani- wnnl ry 1 i i :a i-n r i r1a
nPnaratfiarl
hy thp nnnnl ar i fiy o f the nrnrlnr•i- -, o f the nnnn C, ; ar
FcnPr i a 1 1 y since thp Opposer hp-, os arl tha
-~ amP
-, i nra 1 9 ~1 4 .
R p SnnnrlPnt-Annl i r•ar i t,
o n chP other hanrl, sulhrr~i t•; that
tra~lamark
"C,TRT
.nC
K"
cannot
he deemed i' n be cnnf. , t -; i n (j l ;
its
n
n
nnGPr
1s
trademark
" ( IART,nf`K" G inc• e the two
similar with
the goods covered by
;i<
;nifirar
r-P
t•hat
marks differ
in
i
hn*h 1-r a rlemark -~ do not belong to the s ame class ; and that
Opposer
I a ; not used its tra f ta ma r k for 17,rAkes and parts and
covered by Respondent's application .
firrin g s which are
i t~ ar,3 u menfion
the
anchored
Resnon d Pnt-A-pn] i rant
followin g grounds :
"1 , Ti-iF r.nnn~ r.nvFRFn BY Ti4F. AUPT,T(:ANT' .q
MARK ARF C :T,FART,Y 11NRFT .ATRT) AND TITGTTNf'T FROM THAT
OF nPpnSFR' .q ANTI 1-iFNf F Ti-TF. MARK9 C,ANNnT RF
CnNFiJ4TNf;T .Y STMTT .AR WTTi-( FACH nTHF.R . "
RaqnnnrlPni -Ann1 i rant f i 1 Prl a t•ra rlpmark application f or thp
mark "C,TRT,nC-K" rntrari :'l g nnnrlc; unrloz r f"1 A .q -. 1 ir c; nPr^iFir•a11y
Pnr i mPrat-arl as " hraka~ f or vPh i ^ 1 Pa, and n ;; :-I-- and f i tt- i nna
for c;iirh hrakP q " . while !lniinsPr' !:-, trar9amark "f ;ART,nr-K'+ iinrlHr
nf Renewal Nn ' R-1 K 0 4 rn vP rc ci nn ( l r, nrlrlar C1 aa~
CPri- i f i rate
1 7r GnPrifir-ally P nImp rafi ou rl as fnll~,w•, -
i)FCISTnN NO .
85-79 nF.nFMAER
7,
1985
62 8
----------------------------------------------------------'IParkinn and Packing material in general made
wholly or from various combinations of asbestos,
ruhher, cotton flax, copper, lead, iron and
bahbits, namely, those known as steam, high
pressure stoam, hot water, hydraulic arid,
ammonia and air. packing ; and bushings, gaskets,
hose and flexible conduits of all kinds, diaphragm, pump valves, v?lve parts and facings,
moulded
rubbPr goods, riibber or rubber-like
compoRitions, floor coverings, bolting and belt
larinn, asbestos rope and wirks .°
( Rxh . Iola
RPCnnnrlent-Anpl i cant further contended that from th e
foregoing nrn d nrt rmmj) ari .,:; nn,
there ran he no confusing
cimilarity
between the ellh_iPrt marks
G i .nrc
they cover
qnnde .
unrelated
the nnndc are nnrPlatPd hnrancP they rln
not hPlnnn to the same
rl.aS A
!11(;TRT,n("K11
(`lass 1 . 7 ;
11
r ART .nf
as
K11 - ('1 .7CC
enllnri .7tPf1
by
thP
17),
nor do they serve the same
1111rpnCP,
Supreme Court when it eaid l' thll$ :
°ThP
fnnrh
affirms on the basis 0f
the
controlling doctrine the appealed decision x x x
einrP
it rlParly appears that the goods on which
the trademark FSSn is used by Respondent is noncompeting and entirely unrelated to the products
of Petitioner, so that there is no likelihood of
confusion or deception on the part of the
purchasing public as to the origin or source of
the gonds .l' (Rsso Standard Pastern, Inc . vs .
Court of Appeals, 116 SrRA 336 )
RPspnnA?nt-Annlicant f.nrthPr arnued that there can be
no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public since
the nnn As
hParing the trademarks of the OpnnsPr and the
RPSnonflPnt -annlirqnt are not Sold, used or distributed to
f- hp
nnhlir like ordinary r_nmmorrjal nnnAc ; that the
nrnAn .rts are rnnfinPrl tn consumers eyprrising mechanical or
engineering skill or PXrPrtiRP ; and that where confusing
similarity between twn marks
is
the iGC11P, regard must
necessarily he given
to
i'hP class of persons who hny the
particular nrndllrt and the circumstances ordinarily
attendant
to
ita arnniaition as discussed above (RtPpha,
A .(, . va . nirPrtnr of Patpnts, 1f, R(-RA 4951 .
IITT . nPPnS .F.R HAS NOT IJCF.i) TTS TRADEMARK FOR
RRAKRS ANTI PARTS ANT) FITTINGS WNT('H ARF. COVRREi?
RV RF.SPnNflF.NTIS APPT,TCATTtIN ."
ZI
nECTRinN NO .
I
Br;-79 n1+;C:FMRFR 2, 19R5
62 9
1{rlrl j fi i nr• ? 1 v s:P~r,nri~~r i -A )r~I i r-ii nt •it'crll~ll t CljapoSt'z
a l 1 PrrPrl
nl P,~4 ry l ngs nor ha~= i t nYnvPn that it
in
its
11SPfl
its re.rJigtPre.d m a rk nf: A PT . rl(''K" for "hY~T,F
for v s- hicle s
and
pa rtG anri f)t!-ir1 (1 .-, in wT-(ir? ) A r P tYhp r)nf'lI) ,3I
~nor1S
on
whi r h `hr- Re,-; nnrlrlant' ,
:nrark "rTRT,nCK"
is (_lsed ;
never
thaf rhP nrc+5ant:,arKc; anrl "( ;TRT,n("K" arp iiSFrl on
annrlG fnr di f fGrar l- r) (1rnn!~; Fanrl that t-lia n(1rnoGP for
whirh t-ha rrnr.~, , - 4 ra n r~rl i =; al t .Lik P n in•I- n rnna irlF 1 rat ; nn
in determining
what- her r•nnfn~inn q imilarifiy axihPtwapn
two marks
(mmFn,:4 Oil Co . xr5 . Wpnr-hl ar . 7 4 NYI~ 11 4f1 : C"hi ;rrh
•
J
.
9 nwi nht Cn . vc . Ri1sG ~ 99 F97F j T,aytnn P(1rp Frinrl Co v~ .
( :hiirrh 1G nwinht Cn . . 1 R 7 F s ri i .
9 R . 19R r', ; af}"Pr 1-hic raqp has hpan submitted
for
A ori -- inn hilt hvFr.rp it- rn111r1 he rlarirlarl~ nnnp .;;Pr'S
rniln-'al filarl a Mani factarion infnrmir(o this office that it
( 1 aw f i rm of nnnncPr' ; rnrln-,P 1) is in rPrP i n t of a telex
On May
it
c~nrrPsnnnrlPnrP from i tC r•1 i ant wi th fihe mPssage that
nnnnfiPr anrl RaGnnnrlPnt h .a~ra a0-,-),rF(1 into a worldwide SPtfi1PAgreement
mPnt
the mAi n t-hxt of which is hereiinder quoted,
to wit
"T,T .c;14AnR 4?274 1
URFF A-8 (791 OUR P-1.8798 rAPT .nC.K- VS
(;TRT,nf':K TNTRR PARTF :P, (`APF, NO . 12q! r,AR[ .nr.K TNC AND i,11CAR TNn1 ;vTRTF~7 i .Tn
( F:UCCFSSnR TO (:TRT, iNr; T,Tn, 1 HAVP
FNTF;RFn T NTC) A WnRT .nLIT r,F ^FTTI,FMFNT
Af;RF.FMFNT PP ITqF. nF TFTFTR MARKS ( :ART .nC':K
ANn f:TRT .(1CK, C;ART,nCK CAN NOW 1T7,F. TTS
MARK ONLY WTTTd TNT CT,AR g 17 t';nnnq (~F.AT .q
ANn PAf".KTN(;R ) AND T,iTCAR CAN NOW TIRF. TTS
CTRT .nC'K MARK WTTT-T TNT ;`T .A .tiR 1? r;nnnR
(RRAKF .^, AND F.XHATI .qT qV .qTF.M .ti ) . PT,P.
AnVT P,F. PRF^F.NT !c~TATiTr, nF CAqF. TN nR11F.R
TO F.Nn C.nNFT,TC:T TN PHTT,TPPTNF. .q_ PT .~'.
1<
TT .X RF.PT,V . TNY ANn RFC;ARn q
( ;AT .WAY T,TRHAn4 "
From thP f or ari n inrr tPxt-_ ii- rn ) llrl
he rlaarlv aPPn thaf
nnnn4Pr shni11r1 J confine
the use of it-5 mark "C:ARi .,n ('K" only
goods fall i nn under C1 a~s 17 (~c.a 1 S anc9 nark i nrys ) ; wh i 1 P
on
F?PGnnnrlPnt-RPr~istrant
;hpi)lrl 1 ikNwiGe
confine the use of
it-,
mark nn ri nnrl c~
f,a 1 1 i n o
ilnrlar
C1 n : ; ~ 1 7 ( hrakPS A n d
exhaust
text
14
syGtPms ) .
Respondent wa .^-. fiirnl.G}lPrl a ropy of the
f:'nUnsel f o r
of
the
said tPlex communication for r nmment and suc h
T'.F•C7STQN NO .
RS-79 T1Rf;FMpF.R 2 . ?qA5
F3 n
----------------------------------------------------------WaS rnnfirmeA as shown in his ManifPr .tatjnp and Motion
submitted to this llffirP no RPntamhPr 19, 19 8 5 ,
The ahnvP Worldwide Settlement AnrPPfiPnt between the
Arkrt i Pc not being contrary to l a w , pnhl i r CnGtnnte, pub] 3 c
Mora Is
and rnihlir nnlirv i q hereby A rlnnt•oA and annrnvPrT ae
haci -, for the amirahlP settlement of hhie raea .
W14RRF.Ft1RF., in view of all the fnrPnnin~ nrpmicPe, this
Opposition filed by f .arlnrk, Inc . of the ttnit?d States of
AmArira anainc} 1-hP rPgia1-rAtinn of the trafiPm?rk °f:TRT , II('K"
( :irt i.nrt r imitPrl of F.nrtland ic, a . it is h?rehyr
by
rnncitiPrPr1 WTTHpRAWN in accordance with the afnrPritetj
Worldwide Settlement Agreement between the parties . Accordingly, Application Serial No . 2 1 1 9 3 for thp rPgistration
of the t r a d emark nr.TRLOCK" to he used on "vehicle brakes
and exhaust systems rCl?cs 1 .21 only should be given due
course, strictly subject, however, to the limitations set
forth in the attached telexed Worldwide Settlement
Agreement" .
4
Let the records of this case he transmitted to the
Trademark Fxamining Division for appropriate Ar-tion .
SQ f1RnRRRn .
(R(7n . i (`RRAR C. .'SANnTR(,(1
nirPrtnr
'~Y