By Ma. Syril Diesta

When similarity is obvious, is confusion automatic? The Supreme Court says no.

In Innolab Industries, Inc. v. United Laboratories, Inc. (G.R. No. 257075, 5 August 2025), the Supreme Court of the Philippines delivered a pointed reminder on a principle often misunderstood in trademark law: similarity between marks, without more, does not bar registration. What the law demands is proof substantial, concrete, and grounded in consumer perception that such similarity is likely to cause confusion among ordinary purchasers. Beyond the parties involved, this decision sends a clear signal to brand owners, startups, and practitioners alike.

Highlights of the Ruling

• Mere similarity between marks is insufficient to bar registration. There must be a clear showing that the assailed mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion among ordinary purchasers. Likelihood of confusion must be established through evidence-based standards.
• Quasi-judicial and administrative bodies such as the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) are not bound by technical rules of procedure and should observe liberality in the interest of substantial justice.

Facts of the Case

On 29 July 2015, Innolab Industries, Inc. (Innolab) filed an application with IPOPHL to register the mark “INNOLAB” under:

• Class 3 – soaps, perfumery, oils, cosmetics and cosmetic preparations, personal care, skin care, and hair products
• Class 5 – pharmaceutical and sanitary preparations, food supplements, cosmetics, and household hazardous substance products

United Laboratories, Inc. (Unilab), one of the country’s most dominant pharmaceutical companies, opposed the application, arguing that “INNOLAB” was confusingly similar to its registered “UNILAB” marks in Class 5, shown below:

The IPOPHL Bureau of Legal Affairs sustained the opposition. Innolab’s appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the appeal fee, and this dismissal was later affirmed by the IPOPHL Director General and the Court of Appeals. What began as a trademark dispute thus became entangled with procedural technicalities.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court ordered the registration of the INNOLAB mark (Application No. 4-2015-008549), provided that no other verified opposition is pending.

1. Substantive Issue – Likelihood of Confusion

While acknowledging that INNOLAB and UNILAB share some degree of similarity, the Court ruled that Unilab, as the opposing party, carried the burden of proving not only similarity, but that such similarity was likely to cause confusion among ordinary purchasers. Unilab failed to meet this burden.

The Court emphasized that likelihood of confusion must be determined using evidence-based standards, applying a multifactor test grounded in consumer perception and market conditions, not speculation. These factors must be proven by substantial evidence, which may include:

• Testimony of stringently qualified witnesses
• Market surveys conducted using appropriate methodology
• Proper sampling and scope
• Evidence reflecting relevant market conditions

The Court further rejected Unilab’s reliance on the fact that both marks covered Class 5 goods, holding that product classification is no longer determinative of legal relatedness. Strict reliance on classification was abandoned to prevent problematic precedents under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Notably, Unilab’s own evidence undermined its claim. Its products did not bear the plain “UNILAB” word mark but instead prominently displayed the “UNILAB and LOGO” mark.

The Court observed that the difference between INNOLAB and UNILAB and LOGO was more pronounced than the difference between the plain text marks “INNOLAB” and “UNILAB.”

Thus, if Unilab intended to show that consumers were likely to confuse the marks, presenting packaging bearing a strikingly different logo weakened, rather than supported, its case.

1. Procedural Issue – Liberal Application of Rules

The Court held that the IPOPHL and the Court of Appeals misapplied the rules in dismissing Innolab’s appeal solely due to the non-payment of the appeal fee.

Proceedings before administrative agencies are governed by liberality, not rigid technicalities. Procedural rules exist to serve justice, not defeat it. The Court held that because the failure to pay the fee did not prejudice any party’s due process rights, the IPOPHL should have allowed Innolab to correct the omission, pay the fee belatedly, and be heard on appeal.

By dismissing the appeal outright, the IPOPHL denied the parties a genuine opportunity to have their dispute resolved by a tribunal with the necessary technical expertise. The Court’s ruling serves as a caution against procedural gatekeeping that sacrifices substantive justice at the altar of formality.

In summary

• The quantum of evidence in administrative trademark cases is substantial evidence. An opposing party cannot rely solely on similarity of marks; if it invokes factors under the multifactor test, it must prove each with concrete evidence.
• Procedural technicalities must yield to substantial justice in proceedings before quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. The outright dismissal of Innolab’s appeal deprived the parties of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion

The Innolab v. Unilab ruling sends a strong message: trademark opposition is not an exercise in assumption, but in proof. Allegations of confusion must be supported by real-world evidence, not market dominance or formalistic comparisons. At the same time, administrative justice must prioritize fairness over rigid technical rules.

By ordering the registration of the INNOLAB mark, the Supreme Court not only protected a legitimate trademark applicant, but also strengthened the integrity, rationality, and evidentiary discipline of Philippine trademark jurisprudence, reminding all stakeholders that in trademark law, evidence, not eminence, ultimately prevails. For further questions or advice on how this ruling may affect your trademark applications or IP portfolio, please contact us at hello@kass.asia