{"id":1830,"date":"2020-08-10T06:34:57","date_gmt":"2020-08-10T06:34:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/?p=1830"},"modified":"2024-04-23T03:16:59","modified_gmt":"2024-04-23T03:16:59","slug":"elementor-1830","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/?p=1830","title":{"rendered":"OPPO Wins Trademark Opposition Against Copycat APPO Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The brand \u201cOPPO\u201d started in China in 2001 and has since been known for its high-performing low-range smartphones, eventually ranking number 5 in the worldwide ranking of market share in 2019. In 2013, the trademark \u201cOPPO\u201d under Class 9 (tablet computers, smartphones, etc.) became a registered trademark in the Philippines in the name of Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. OPPO was the official smartphone partner of the Philippine Basketball Association in 2016, and continues to be a popular smartphone brand in the country. <\/em><\/p>

On December 13, 2019, the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) upheld the rights of the mark \u201cOPPO\u201d against the confusingly similar mark \u201cAPPO Technology\u201d in Sky Capital Limited vs. Jeremy Padilla Huang<\/em>.\u00a0The Adjudication Officer of the BLA rules on the two marks below:<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code, which provides for the basis for Opposition cases based on confusing similarity, proscribes registration of a mark that nearly resembles a registered trademark which falls under the same or related goods and services. Based on this, the Adjudication Officer ruled that APPO Technology cannot be registered because it is visually and aurally similar to OPPO and is registered under the same good and services.<\/p>

Citing Emerald Garments Manufacturing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals\u00a0<\/em>and Etepha A.G. vs. Director of Patents,\u00a0<\/em>the Adjudication Officer found confusing similarity as follows:<\/p>

\u201cit is apparent that Respondent-Applicant adopted Opposer\u2019s OPPO mark and then replaced the first letter \u201cO\u201d with the letter \u201cA\u201d to form the word APPO and add the word TECHNOLOGY\u2026However, adding, removing or changing some letters of a registered mark cannot avoid confusion. In looking at the marks of the parties, we can readily see that the prominent features are the words \u2018OPPO\u2019 in Opposer\u2019s mark and \u2018APPO\u2019 in the case of Respondent-Applicant\u2019s mark. It is the feature which strikes the eye of the consumer and easily remembered or retained in the mind and easily recalled. APPO is visually similar to OPPO such that the likelihood that the public will be confused, mistaken or be deceived into believing that they are one and the same, or that they are associated, connected, or affiliated with each other is very high and inevitable. Consequently, any impression or information that the public may have may be attributed to Opposer or vice versa to the prejudice of the Opposer.\u201d<\/a><\/p>

She also ruled that OPPO and APPO are aurally similar, as \u201cwhen pronounced, they sound the same that one cannot be distinguished from the other.\u201d She cited Marvex Commercial Hawpia & Co. et. al.<\/em>,\u00a0where the Supreme Court held that \u201csimilarity of sound is sufficient ground for this Court to rule that the two marks are confusingly similar when applied to merchandise of the same descriptive properties.\u201d<\/p>

Moreover, although the application for the mark APPO Technology showed goods different from that of the Opposing mark, the adjudication officer took note of goods actually sold by APPO Technology as submitted by the opposer. She held that according to the evidence submitted, the mark APPO Technology is used for similar goods and are \u201csold thru the same channels of trade\u2026such that the purchasing public will likely be mistaken, deceived, or otherwise misled into thinking that they are one and the same or that they are affiliated when in fact they are not.\u201d<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

By: Atty. Joyce Anne C. Raboca<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The brand \u201cOPPO\u201d started in China in 2001 and has since been known for its high-performing low-range smartphones, eventually ranking number 5 in the worldwide ranking of market share in 2019. In 2013, the trademark \u201cOPPO\u201d under Class 9 (tablet computers, smartphones,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ip"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1830"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1830\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3831,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1830\/revisions\/3831"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}