Image taken from the Comcast presskit (https://corporate.comcast.com/press/photos)
On June 30, 2020, the Intellectual Property Office Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO-BLA) rendered a favorable decision for the Opposer Comcast Corporation in its opposition case against the mark “COMFAST.”
The Opposer Comcast Corporation is a large cable television company in the United States famous for producing entertainment and news under NBCUniversal. Its portfolio as a company also includes development in broadband technology, under which it uses the mark “COMCAST.” The “COMCAST” trademark is registered around the world — including the Philippines — under Reg. No. M/0/1339259 (June 2, 2017).
Actual use of the mark taken from the Comcast presskit.
Invision Distribution Corp. filed a trademark application for “COMFAST” on April 25, 2019 for “Computer monitors, Network routers, Wireless routers, Ethernet repeaters, Wi-Fi Antennas, Computer network hubs, switches and routers, Chip card reader and Network cards” — goods related to the business of Comcast Corporation.
Comcast Corporation argued that the “COMFAST” mark is confusingly similar to its trademark, being phonetically similar in all letters but one and representing identical goods and services. As it is the prior user and true owner of the “COMCAST” trademark and enjoys priority in filing and registration in the Philippines, its mark is protected from confusingly similar marks such as the mark in question.
The respondent-applicant, on the other hand, did not file an answer to the opposition and allowed the deadline to lapse.
True to the arguments of Comcast Corporation, the IPO BLA ruled in its favor and declared that the mark “COMCAST” is an arbitrary mark:
“The difference in the first letter of the [second] syllable, CAST and FAST, is insignificant and negligible. When COM is appended to FAST to form the word COMFAST, the same sounds similar to Opposer’s COMCAST.
xxx
Coupled with the fact that the Respondent-Applicant will apply its mark on goods under Class 9, same as Opposer’s goods, the likelihood of confusion results. The Opposer’s mark is an arbitrary mark with respect to the goods it identifies. The use of the confusingly similar word coupled with a device does not sufficiently differentiate one mark from the other.”
The Respondent-Applicant did not file an appeal to the decision. Consequently, the IPO Bureau of Trademarks has denied the application of Invision Distribution Corp. for the mark “COMFAST.”
VeraLaw represented Comcast Corporation in this case.