INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FERRERO, S.P.A., IPCNo. 14-2016-00228 Opposer, Opposition to:

Appln. Serial No. 4-2015-011982

-versus- Date Filed: 16 October 2015

TROPICANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., TM: COCOTELLA COCONUT Respondent-Applicant. COCOA SPREAD

NOTICE OF DECISION

CRUZ AAARCELO & TENEFRANCIA Counsel for Opposer 9th, 10th, llth& 12th Floors, One Orion 11th Avenue corner University Parkway, Bonifacio Global City Taguig City 1634

ATTY. CLAIRE B. CORRAL Counsel for Respondent-Applicant Unit 3K Bright Place Condominium 19 Scout Bayoran, South Triangle Quezon City

GREETINGS:

Please be informed that Decision No. 2018 - -ft dated 30 April 2018(copy enclosed) was promulgated in the above entitled case.

Pursuant to Section 2, Rule9 of the IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 16-007 series of 2016, any party may appeal the decision to the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs within ten (10) days after receipt of the decision together with the payment of applicable fees.

Taguig City, 04 May 2018.

MARILYN F. RETUTAL IPRS IV Bureau of Legal Affairs

@ www.ipophii.gov.ph q intellectual Property Center Q [email protected] #?8 Upper McKinlcy Ro-vd Q .632-2386300 McKmloy H,l, (own Canter w l-ort Bonifacio, laguiq '.'/ Ji +632-5539480 1634Ph*pf«rK!S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FERRERO, S.P.A., IPC No. 14-2016-00228 Opposer, Opposition to: -versus- Appln. Serial No. 4-2015-011982 Date Filed: 16 October 2015 TROPICANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Trademark: "COCOTELLA COCONUT Respondent-Applicant. COCOA SPREAD" x x Decision No. 2018- ?i

DECISION

Ferrero, S.P.A.,1 ("Opposer") filed an opposition to Trademark Application Serial No. 4-2015-011982. The application, filed by Tropicana Food Products, Inc., ("Respondent-Applicant")2, covers the mark "COCOTELLA COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" for use on "coconut cocoa spread" under Class 30 of the International Classification of goods and services3.

According to the Opposer, it is one of the world leaders in the confectionary industry. Still owned and ran by the Italian Ferrero family, the Opposer has built its success on a number of strong brands, including "", "KINDER", "", "MON CHERI", and "". The"NUTELLA" products accounts one- fifth of its turnover alongsidethe other chocolate products. After World War II, due to shortage of cocoa supplies in , created a sweet paste made from , sugar and a little cocoa he named "GIANDUJOT". This was shaped like a loaf and could be sliced and served on top ofbread. By 1951, this paste was transformed into a product that could easily be spread and became known as "SUPERCREMA". Thereafter, in 1964, Pietro's son, Michelle, improved the recipe and created "NUTELLA". By 1978, the product reached Australia and the rest of the world. Since 2007, fans of "NUTELLA" celebrate "World Nutella Day" every 05 February on social media.

On 05 April 1990, the Opposer filed a trademark application for "NUTELLA", which eventually ripened to registration on24 July 1991. It now contends that the Respondent-Applicant's mark "COCOTELLA COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" is confusingly similar with its registered mark. In support of its opposition, the Opposer submitted the following as evidence:4

1A corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Italy with principal office address at Piazzale Pietro Ferrero 1, 12051 Alba, , Italy. 2 A domestic corporationwith known address at Km. 84, Maharlika Highway, San Pablo City, Laguna 4000. 3 The Nice Classification is a classification of goods and services for the purpose of registering trademarks and service marks based on a multilateral treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. The treaty is called the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks concluded in 1957. 4 Marked as Exhibits "A" to "M", inclusive.

@ www.ipophil.gov.ph q Intellectual Property Center Q [email protected] tt?8 UPPCI McKink.y Road Q .632-2386300 Fo,lMcKinleyBonilack,.Hill lownTngu.qCenterO-^ jg +632-5539480 1634 Philippines 1. certified true copy of Trademark Registration No. 51044 for the mark "NUTELLA"; 2. certified true copy of Certificate of International Registration No. 1191051; 3. copy of the publication page of the contested mark; 4. printout of "The story of Ferrero Group and its mission from Ferrero.com; 5. printout of Dany Mitzman, "Nutella: How the world went nuts for a spread", BBC magazine dated 18 May 2014; 6. printout of "History" from Nutella.com; 7. printout of the "World Nutella Day" webpage; 8. printout of WIPO International Registration No. 281788 taken from ROMARIN; 9. copies of the Statement of Grant of Protection for International Registration Nos. 1073241 and 1191051 in different countries; and, 10. copies of its United States registration certificates.

The Respondent-Applicant filed its Verified Answer on 28 October 2016 alleging, among other things, that its company has been founded in 1975and is one of the most diversified and most integrated coconut processor in the world. It produces many other brands, including "COCONUT KING", "NATURE'S GIFT", "ORGANICMCT" and "VIRGIN OIL". Among its most popular products are organic extra virgin coconut oil since 1985, aseptic coconut cream, coconut water and organic cream powder. Since then more innovative foods and none food virgin coconut oil products were offered to the discriminating coconut lovers. Most of the coconut products it produced may be certified Kosher, Halal or Organic. Also, it boasts non-food products and organic/conventional products such as lip balm, mouth freshener and nasal spray.

The Respondent-Applicant moreover alleges "COCOTELLA COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" is one of the products it developed, made of coconut milk, sugar and cocoa. It is one of its banner products used in international food exposures. It maintains that this mark is distinct from the Opposer's "NUTELLA" trademark visually, phonetically and conceptually. The Respondent-Applicant's evidence consists of the affidavit of Sing Tiu, with annexes.5

The parties were referred to mediation butthe case was not settled as there was no consensus as to the key issues. On 19 March 2018, the Preliminary Conference was conducted where the parties requested for the termination thereof on the same day. The parties were then directed to submit their respective position papers. After which,the case is deemed submitted.

5 Marked as Exhibit "4", with annexes. The issue to be resolved is whether the trademark "COCOTELLA COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" may be registered in favor of the Respondent-Applicant.

Section 123.1 (d) of Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines ("IP Code") provides that:

"123.1. A mark cannot be registered ifit:

(d) Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a mark with an earlier Tiling or priority date, in respect of: (i) The same goods or services, or (ii) Closely related goods or services, or (Hi) If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive orcause confusion: jaorTEmphasis supplied.)

Records reveal that at the time the Respondent-Applicant filed its application on 16 October 2015, the Opposer has valid and existing registrations of its "NUTELLA" marks issued as early as 24 July 1991.

To determine whether there is confusing similarity, the competing marks marks are reproduced as follows:

Opposer's marks: nutella nutella

Respondent-Applicant's mark: cocotella COCONUT COCOA SPREAD

Both the Opposer and the Respondent-Applicant use the suffix "TELLA". While the former uses "NUT" as a prefix, the latter appropriates the word "COCO". This notwithstanding, the marks are still confusingly similar. The words "NUT" and "COCO" merely connote one of the ingredients of their respective products, which are hazelnut and coconut, respectively. As such, these do not words do not add distinctive quality to the marks. Also, the words "COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" after the word "COCOTELLA" are merely generic and/or descriptive and thus do not make the Respondent-Applicant's mark any more distinguishable. It appears that the Respondent-Applicant merely substituted the word "COCO" for the word "NUT" in the Opposer's mark in arriving at the contested trademark. After all, confusion cannotbe avoided by merely adding, removing or changing some letters of a registered mark. Confusing similarity exists when there is such a close or ingenuous imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary persons, or such resemblance to the original as to deceive ordinary purchased as to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other.6

Noteworthy, the competing marks both cover cocoa spreads or spreads containing cocoa. Thus, the products have the same target consumers and flow in the same channels of trade. Therefore, the probability that the consumers will be mistaken, confused or deceived that "COCOTELLA COCONUT COCOA SPREAD" is in any way connected to or associated with "NUTELLA". While the Respondent- Applicant went all-out explaining its coconut business and/or goods, it did not give any reason how it came up with the suffix "TELLA". Of course, as in all other cases of colorable imitations, the unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of terms and combinations of letters and designs available, the Respondent-Applicant had to choose those so closely similar to another's trademark if there was no intent to take advantage of the goodwill generated by the other mark.7

6 Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 112012, 04 April 2001. 7 American Wire & Cable Company vs. Director of Patents, G.R. No. L-26557, 18 February 1970. Succinctly, Callman notes two types of confusion. The first is the confusion of goods "in which event the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other." In which case, "defendant's goods are then bought as the plaintiff's, and the poorer quality of the former reflects adversely on the plaintiff's reputation." The other is the confusion of business. "Here though the goods of the parties are different, the defendant's product is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the plaintiff, and the public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist."8

Finally, it is emphasized that the essence of trademark registration is to give protectionto the owners of trademarks. The function of a trademark is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed; to secure to him who has been instrumental in bringing into the market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill; to assure the public that they are procuring the genuine article; to prevent fraud and imposition; and to protect the manufacturer against substitution and sale of an inferior and different article as his product.9 The Respondent-Applicant's mark failed to meet this function.

Accordingly, this Adjudication Officer finds and concludes that the Respondent-Applicant's trademark application is proscribed by Sec. 123.1 (d) of the IP Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant opposition is hereby SUSTAINED. Let the filewrapper of Trademark Application Serial No. 4-2015- 011982 be returned, together with a copy of this Decision, to the Bureau of Trademarks for information and appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

TaguigCity, 30 APR 2G18

ATTY. Z'SA MAY B. SUBEJANO-PE LIM Adjudication Officer Bureau of Legal Affairs

8 Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. vs. Dy, G.R. No. 172276, 08 August 2010. 9 Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, 19 November 1999.