In the prosecution of trademark applications, and in intellectual property violation cases, visual dissimilarities are often used as basis to counteract any objection or allegation of confusing similarity. Distinct fonts, altered spellings or added design elements are commonly invoked to argue that marks are sufficiently distinguishable, rendering the likelihood of confusion remote. Recent trademark rulings underscore a long-established but often overlooked principle: sound matters as much as sight – and sometimes more. 

Two recent decisions of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) involving disparate industries accentuate this point. In both cases, the opposers prevailed, with the BLA finding that aural similarity under the dominancy test was sufficient to bar registration, notwithstanding differences in spelling, visual presentation or market context. Considered together, these cases reflect a pragmatic approach in deciding trademark cases – a mark’s aural impression may be just as important, if not more so, than its visual appearance. 

ACTEMRA versus AXTERA: How aural similarity is assessed when pharmaceutical products are involved 

In Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (C/2024/498, Decision No. CD-2025/9023 dated December 5, 2025), the BLA sustained the opposition against the mark AXTERA, which covers pharmaceutical preparations, on the basis of its confusing similarity with the opposer’s earlier registered mark ACTEMRA. 

The BLA emphasized that trademark similarity is assessed using the dominancy test, which accords greater weight to the dominant features of the marks. As both marks were word marks, the comparison necessarily focused on the words itself. 

The BLA observed that ACTEMRA and AXTERA share the letters A-T-E-R-A in the same sequence, with its only difference being the presence of the letters C, X and M. More significantly, the BLA found that the marks are strikingly similar in sound. The syllabic structure and pronunciation – particularly the opening and closing sounds – were deemed “almost indistinguishable by ear,” rendering the marks confusingly similar under the idem sonans – Latin for “sounding the same” – doctrine. 

The decision reiterates that idem sonans does not require absolute identity in pronunciation. It is sufficient that the marks produce a confusingly similar sound effect, such that an ordinary purchaser may be misled. This principle has been consistently recognized in decisions involving trademark oppositions and cancellations.  

Crucially, the BLA held that a stricter standard applies to trademarks which cover prescription pharmaceutical products, where confusion may result in physical harm to the consuming public. In this case, banking on previous decisions of the Office of the Director General of the IPOPHIL, the BLA ruled that even prescription drugs are not immune from confusion, as physicians and pharmacists, though trained, are not infallible. Handwritten prescriptions, verbal orders and imperfect recall increase the risk of error. This decision stresses that “medical preparations are for ultimate human consumption or use. They are particularly all for ailments of the human body. Confusion in such products can have serious consequences for the patient. Confusion in medicines must be avoided. Prevention of confusion and mistakes in medicines is too vital to be trifled with.” Consequently, a lower quantum of proof is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for medicinal products. 

BONJOUR versus BAUJOUR: Sound and recall in food and retail services 

A similar reasoning prevailed in BAKEIP Limited v. QAF Limited (C/2023/240, Decision No. AD-2025/01 dated December 5, 2025) where the director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs affirmed the opposition, holding that the marks BONJOUR and BAUJOUR, used in relation to food products and bakery services are confusingly similar.  

In this case, the respondent-appellant BAKEIP argued that differences in spelling, added descriptive terms and figurative elements distinguish the marks. However, the BLA director disagreed holding that the presence of figurative elements in both marks is of no moment following the dominancy test. As between the design/figurative elements and the word elements BONJOUR and BAUJOUR, the latter dominate the marks as these are what consumers will most likely recall and use in actual trade. As established by jurisprudence, “if a mark comprises both wording and a design, greater weight is often given to the wording, because it is the wording that purchasers would use to refer to or request the goods or services.” 

As noted by the BLA director, comparing the dominant word elements BONJOUR and BAUJOUR, the marks convey the same sound, connotation and commercial impression to the public. The two marks produce the same sound when pronounced.  

The substitution of letters (“O-N” with “A-U”) was characterized as a trivial alteration insufficient to eradicate confusion. The decision further emphasized that confusion cannot be avoided by merely dropping, adding or changing a few letters of a registered mark when the resulting sound remains effectively the same. 

In this case, the BLA director also gave weight to market realities. In food and retail services, consumers commonly rely on pronunciation, word-of-mouth, and auditory recall rather than careful visual inspection. Customers ask for bread, pastries, or café products by name; they do not dissect spelling differences or scrutinize logos. Thus, even if the marks are not visually identical, aural similarity alone can mislead consumers as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Visual embellishments and descriptive add-ons (“Bakery”, figurative elements) do not neutralize confusion when the dominant word elements are phonetically similar.  

The common thread: Aural similarity as a decisive factor in opposition cases 

While used in different industries – life-saving pharmaceuticals on one hand, and everyday food and retail services on the other – both decisions converge on a single point: when the dominant word elements of competing marks sound alike, the risk of confusion is real, actionable, and legally cognizable. Both decisions reaffirm that sound-based confusion is not a secondary consideration but is actually a decisive factor. 

The recent ACTEMRA/AXTERA and BONJOUR/BAUJOUR decisions conveys a clear message: a mark is not judged only by how it looks on paper, but by how it sounds in the marketplace. In an environment where consumers rely on memory, pronunciation, and word-of-mouth, aural similarity can – and often does – tip the balance in favor of confusion. 

For applicants, this means greater care in brand selection. For rights holders, it provides reassurance that Philippine trademark authorities remain vigilant in protecting marks not just from visual imitation, but from sound-based encroachment as well. 

Whether in the context of highly regulated pharmaceutical or medicinal products or everyday consumer goods and services, the IPOPHL continues to recognize that marks are remembered, requested, and recommended as much by sound as by sight. As repeatedly held in a long line of cases, “trademarks are designed not only for the consumption of the eyes, but also to appeal to the other senses, particularly, the faculty of hearing. Thus, when one talks about the opposer’s trademark or conveys information thereon, what reverberates is the sound made in pronouncing it.” 

The dominancy test, along with the long-standing idem sonans doctrine, ensures that trivial variations or added design elements cannot shield applicants from a finding of confusing similarity when the competing marks sound substantially the same.