NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
Supreme Court Blocks Nikon-Style Trademark Over Risk Of Confusion
Photo credit: SC
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has stopped a local firm from registering a trademark that closely resembles the globally known “NIKON” brand, ruling that it could mislead consumers.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied the petition of ISCO Holding Corporation and upheld earlier rulings rejecting its “NIKON & DESIGN” trademark application.
ISCO had sought to use the mark for home and household products, arguing that its goods are unrelated to those of Nikon Corporation and that differences in logo design—such as an anchor symbol and color variations—would prevent confusion.
But the Court wasn’t convinced.
It emphasized that trademarks are meant to clearly identify the source of goods or services. Under Philippine law, owners of registered trademarks have the exclusive right to prevent others from using marks that are identical or confusingly similar—even if the products involved are different.
The Court also recognized Nikon’s brand as a well-known trademark, citing its long-standing global use, strong market presence, and extensive recognition in the Philippines.
Applying the “dominancy test,” which focuses on the most memorable part of a trademark, the Court found that both marks prominently feature the word “NIKON.” Since the word is spelled the same, presented in bold letters, and sounds identical, the overall impression of both marks is essentially the same.
Because of this, the Court said consumers could easily assume a connection—such as thinking the products are made, endorsed, or connected to Nikon, especially given the brand’s strong reputation.
The ruling also warned that allowing ISCO to use the mark could dilute the distinct identity of the Nikon brand, weakening its ability to stand out in the market.
The case stemmed from a back-and-forth at the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, where the Bureau of Legal Affairs initially denied the application, later reversed by another office, and eventually reinstated by the Court of Appeals of the Philippines—a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In the end, the message from the High Court was clear: well-known brands enjoy strong protection, and even small similarities can be enough to block a trademark.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Court’s Third Division denied the petition of ISCO Holding Corporation and upheld earlier rulings rejecting its “NIKON & DESIGN” trademark application.
ISCO had sought to use the mark for home and household products, arguing that its goods are unrelated to those of Nikon Corporation and that differences in logo design—such as an anchor symbol and color variations—would prevent confusion.
But the Court wasn’t convinced.
It emphasized that trademarks are meant to clearly identify the source of goods or services. Under Philippine law, owners of registered trademarks have the exclusive right to prevent others from using marks that are identical or confusingly similar—even if the products involved are different.
The Court also recognized Nikon’s brand as a well-known trademark, citing its long-standing global use, strong market presence, and extensive recognition in the Philippines.
Applying the “dominancy test,” which focuses on the most memorable part of a trademark, the Court found that both marks prominently feature the word “NIKON.” Since the word is spelled the same, presented in bold letters, and sounds identical, the overall impression of both marks is essentially the same.
Because of this, the Court said consumers could easily assume a connection—such as thinking the products are made, endorsed, or connected to Nikon, especially given the brand’s strong reputation.
The ruling also warned that allowing ISCO to use the mark could dilute the distinct identity of the Nikon brand, weakening its ability to stand out in the market.
The case stemmed from a back-and-forth at the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, where the Bureau of Legal Affairs initially denied the application, later reversed by another office, and eventually reinstated by the Court of Appeals of the Philippines—a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In the end, the message from the High Court was clear: well-known brands enjoy strong protection, and even small similarities can be enough to block a trademark.
Apr 25, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
