G.R. No. 190065 ; August 16, 2010
DERMALINE, INC., Petitioner, vs. MYRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Dermaline, Inc. filed an application with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for the registration of the stylized wordmark “DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC.” for various health and beauty services under Class 44. Respondent Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., owner of the registered trademark “DERMALIN” for pharmaceutical skin preparations under Class 5 since 1977, filed a Verified Opposition. Myra alleged that Dermaline’s mark was confusingly similar to its own, violating Section 123 of the Intellectual Property Code, as the dominant feature “DERMALINE” was practically identical to “DERMALIN” in appearance, sound, and connotation, and would cause public confusion and dilute its goodwill.
Dermaline countered that the marks, viewed in their entirety, were distinct, and the associated goods and services—beauty treatments versus medicinal products—were unrelated, precluding any likelihood of confusion. The IPO-Bureau of Legal Affairs sustained Myra’s opposition and rejected Dermaline’s application. The IPO Director General dismissed Dermaline’s appeal as filed out of time, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the rejection of Dermaline’s trademark application on the ground of confusing similarity with Myra’s registered mark.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the IPO and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the application of trademark infringement principles under the Intellectual Property Code, specifically the likelihood of confusion. The Court applied the Dominancy Test, which focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing marks. It found that the dominant word “DERMALINE” was aurally and visually almost identical to Myra’s “DERMALIN,” with the mere addition of the letter “E” being insufficient to distinguish them. The pronunciation and commercial impression created by both marks were essentially the same.
The Court further ruled that the relatedness of the goods and services was a critical factor. Despite different classifications (beauty services vs. pharmaceuticals), both marks were used in connection with skin treatment and care, targeting the same class of consumers concerned with skin conditions. This created a likelihood that the public would mistakenly believe Dermaline’s services were connected to or endorsed by Myra. The prior refusal of a similar application by Dermaline also supported the finding against registration. Consequently, the protection afforded to Myra’s registered mark under Section 147 of the Intellectual Property Code was upheld, barring the registration of a deceptively similar mark that would likely cause confusion.