This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PRIORITY IN ADOPTION AND USE/ EXCLUSIVE USE
Atty. Eric Recalde From 1946 to 1955 Ng Kian Giab's family merely bought ready made polo shirts and undershirts to each of which they then sewed the label "Marca Piña" before resale to the public. • In 1955 the father transferred the business to Ng Kian Kee, who put up a factory — the Hongkong T-Shirt Manufacturer — and started producing undershirts bearing the trademark. When he decided to continue his studies in 1957, he, in turn, transferred the business to respondent. Decision of the Director of Patents • Director of Patents, however, declared that neither of them "satisfactorily adduced definite and conclusive proof of their asserted dates of first use of the trademark "Marca Piña"; and relying on the rule that "in inter plates cases, when neither of the parties have (has) satisfactorily proven the date of first use alleged in their applications, such date shall be confined to the filing date of the said application,” and granted the application of senior party applicant Ng Kian Giab. • Respondent Director disregarded all the evidence submitted by both parties and relied exclusively on the filing dates of the applications in reaching his conclusion as to the dates of first use by the senior party applicant and the junior party applicant, respectively. • Director of Patents gave due course to the application of Ng Kian Giab for registration of the trademark "Marca Piña" and representation thereof, and rejected Chung Te's own application for registration of the same trademark and a similar representation. Issue/ Answer: • Who between Chu Teng and Ng Kian Gab should be allowed to register the trademark "Marca Piña"? / Chung Te Ratio Decidendi: • Where an applicant for registration of a trademark states under oath the date of his earliest use, and later on he wishes to carry • 1
CHUNG TE vs. NG KIAN GIAB and THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS G.R. No. L-23791. November 23, 1966 Facts: Chung Te's contention: • March 13, 1957 an application for the registration of the same trademark "MARCA PIÑA. and Representation" was filed by Chung Te (Application No. 5544), although it was subsequently considered abandoned by reason of his failure to answer the communication of the Principal Trademark Examiner dated September 25, 1957. • Chung Te claims that since January 8, 1951 he had been using the trademark on undershirts (de hilo), T-shirts, and baby dresses. • For a long time petitioner was the purchasing agent for his father-in-law, who owned the Liong Bee Shirt Factory. Afterwards he decided to go into the same business for himself. His father-in-law, who theretofore had been using the tr • the factory became a member of the Philippine Chinese Underwear Manufacturers Association. According to Juanito Vitug, secretary of the association, before a firm was admitted as member it was required to inform the association of the trademark it was using to identify its products; and he found that among the files of the association the sample labels "Marca Piña" submitted by petitioner when he applied for membership were included. • Petitioner also applied for business permit (LIONG SUN Shirt Factory) It appears from his application that he had commenced business on February 1, 1952. Ng Kian Giab's contention: • Ng Kian Giab stated in his application that he had been using the trademark on undershirts since December 6, 1955. • At the hearing he sought to prove that his family had been using it since 1946. Jmvdg
Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law back his first date of use to an earlier date he then takes on the greater burden of presenting "clear and convincing evidence" of adoption and use as of that earlier date. testimonial evidence presented by Ng Kian Giab and their witnesses falls short of the kind of proof required of respondent. It is doubtful that respondent's father would pay Genoveva Santos as high as P0.02 per label (which did not even bear his name) on polo shirts which he had purchased readymade, and which he could very well have sold without any label. The documentary evidence show clearly that respondent's use began only in 1955. petitioner has established prior use and adoption of the questioned trademark, for which reason he and not respondent Ng Giab is the one entitled to registration thereof. the decision of the Director of Patents is reversed. Petitioner is adjudged prior user of the trademark MARCA PIÑA and representation thereof, and its registration in his name is ordered Where the testimonial evidence for both parties has been entirely disregarded, and reliance is placed solely on the filing dates of the applications as proof of the respective dates of first use, then the abandoned application filed by the junior party applicant becomes cogent evidence to show that he first used the trademark as of the date of its filing SY CHANG vs. GAW LIU G.R. No. L-29123. March 29, 1972 Facts: • a petition was filed by Sy Chang to cancel a certificate of registration No. 10637, of a trademark, LION and TIGER issued by the Philippines Patent Office on December 12, 1963 in favor of respondent Gaw Liu • grounds: he had previously used such a trademark since 1952 on aniline basic colors or goods similar to those manufactured or sold by respondent whom Jmvdg Atty. Eric Recalde he accused of fraudulently appropriating and registering the same with full knowledge that he was not the owner. • The application was filed on February 20 of that year, the use of such trademark on his product consisting of dyestuffs allegedly dating back to 1956. • His firm allegedly is engaged in the manufacture of dyestuff, crayone, stationery, and school supplies, and in the sale of dyestuff the trademark LION and TIGER label has been adopted since 1952. • The witness identified a LION-TIGER label being used by Petitioner. It was designed for Venus Commercial in 1952 by Mr. Gaudencio Eugenio, a free lance artist who confirmed this fact by testifying that around June, 1952, upon request of Sy Chang, he designed a label for dyestuff, the LION & TIGER label, for which he was duly compensated. • The design was in turn first printed by Majestic Press owned by the other witness, Antonio T. Cheng, who affirmed that he knew Venus Commercial because of a printing job in 1952 pertaining to the 10,000 pieces of LION-TIGER label. Gaw Liu's contention: • Gaw Liu himself testified that he was engaged in chemical manufacturing since the Japanese occupation, with offices at Magdalena St., Manila. • in 1947, he used and adopted the brand TIGER for his dyestuff and later, he allegedly adopted LION & TIGER, made some sales, as shown by an invoice dated December 10, 1951 issued to Pue Chong Beng of Zamboanga. • He confirmed having known Venus Commercial in 1951 or 1952 through the owner he knew only as 'Mr. Cao' who used to offer him discarded materials such as dyestuff and empty cans. He also admitted knowing witness Sy Chang who worked for Venus Commercial, but only after 1952, but he had never been inside the firm's establishment; neither had he received any 2
or 1952. Asked how he advertised his trademark LION-TIGER. No further sales were made as the record eloquently shows. because the Respondent was not able to prove his date of first use in commerce of the trademark LION-TIGER he is deemed to have used it on the filing date of his application which is February 20. but he sold it cheaper to convince people to use it both parties admitted that there was an arranged meeting between them to reach an amicable settlement with regard the trademark Lion & Tiger. considerable sale since his adoption thereof combined with promotional work suitable to popularize the trademark. the party will be limited to the filing of the application as the date of his first use. in which case his evidence.000 as value for the trademark which was then registered in his name Atty. petitioner having shown "that at the time the respondent filed his application for registration and for years prior thereto. but such meeting never pushed through as Gaw Liu is asking for 80. they started using the LION brand in 1952 or 1953. except those made by him to Pua Chong Beng. 1963 the superior right of petitioner in view of • • • • • Issue: • WON Gaw Liu had proven that he has prior use of the trademark Lion and Tiger as oppose to the claim of Sy Chang Answer: • negative. or 1951. Venus Commercial sold dyestuff in 1950. Eric Recalde facts as presented though. must be definite. 1956. in all inter partes proceedings. however. the conclusion reached is that the presumption had been rebutted. the allegation of date of use in the application for registration of the applicant or of the registrant cannot be used as evidence in behalf of the party making the same. radio or handbills. After it stopped selling dyestuff of the 'Lady' brand. continuous adoption and use of the trademark which should consist in. the Respondent said that it was a small business so he did not advertise it either by newspaper. the evidentiary burden of proving invalidity rests upon the petitioner. may be considered as negligible and sporadic. From the Jmvdg • • • • Trademark Cases 3 . inter alia. and free from doubt or inconsistencies. The burden of going forward is thus shifted to the respondent who must show that the subject matter of registration is. according to his application he first used it in commerce on June 10. He was not able to show extensive sales. using another brand he described as a lady carrying on her back two children holding two rotating small drums. Ratio Decidendi: • Gaw Liu was asked to explain why he claimed to have used the trademark in 1947 when. According to him. distinctive of his goods. He explained that it was because the Patent Office required two months use at the time the application was filed • Where the rebuttable character of the validity of registration of the trademark registered in the name of respondent is put in issue. clear.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law calendar from said firm. testimonial or documentary. either by newspaper. the record is wanting in proof sufficient to show that Respondent-Registrant has actually and substantially adopted and used the trademark so as to show that his firm was the source or origin of his dyestuff. Under the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases (Rule 173). He never presented proof required by law to invest him with exclusive. it has been admitted by respondent that he never advertised the trademark. These matters are necessary especially when Respondent alleges use on a date earlier than that alleged in his application. In case no testimony is taken as to the date of use. in fact. or handbills. which. radio. he was not the exclusive user of the trademark LION-TIGER.
stressed in his order of cancellation that the trademarks in question are "confusingly similar". However. estoppel and acquiescence would not apply in this case for it has not been shown that Kaisha abandoned the use of the trademark • CA further held that Pagasa knew of the use of trademark "YKK" by respondent which are the initials of the company. • 5 1/2 years after respondent's registration Pagasa filed an application for registration of exactly the same or identical trademark of "YKK" for zippers under class 41 which was allowed on April 4. Trade Names and Service-Marks. and a systematic preservation of the records to support his claim of continuous use. mistake or deception. 1968 with Certificate of Registration No. such as the making of the design. such as the filing of this petition for cancellation. the discussion made by the Senior Trademark Examiner of the Patents Office regarding the registrability of the mark revealed that "the concurrent registration of subject mark is not likely to cause purchasers confusion. that Kaisha filed a petition for cancellation after a lapse of almost seven (7) years. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. Issue/Answer: • WON it is correct to say that the equitable principles of laches. • Director of Patents cancelled Registration No. as amended (An Act to Provide for the Registration and Protection of Trade-Marks. Pagasa argued that there was laches on the part of Kaisha considering that notwithstanding the fact that the trademark was registered for the use of petitioner. Eric Recalde 1975. the actual use on the goods. advertising in calendars." since the "over-all commercial impression of the marks are grossly different and used on goods not only falling under different classification.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law what the decision called "the chain of circumstances" favorable to him namely his "use thereof in commerce. yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the 4 • PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs. and other acts of dominion. November 19. but also possessing different descriptive properties. estoppel and acquiescence cannot be applied in the instant case/ negative (Sec. CA G. • The Trademark Law is very clear. • CA held that the equitable principles of laches. 13756 in the name of Pagasa based on Section 4 (d) of RA 166. 1982 Facts: • Sometime on November 9. The Certificate of Registration No. Atty. etc. respondent Kaisha filed with the Director of Patents a petition for cancellation of petitioner's registration of exactly the same trademark "YKK". and notwithstanding this knowledge it later on sought trade registration of the same trademark in its favor. 1961.R. Jmvdg Trademark Cases . it was not until January 23. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant.) • on appeal to CA. • Alleging that both trademark ("YKK") are confusingly similar. 13756. the printing of the design on labels. 10637 issued to Gaw Liu for the trademark LION & TIGER is "ordered cancelled. • The products are sold through different trade channels or cutlets and are noncompeting. No. 9331 in favor of respondent Kaisha covering the trademark "YKK" (Yoshida Kogyo Kabushiki) for slide fasteners and zippers in class 41. 9. Trademark Law) • WON it is the fact of registration that vests one's right to a trademark/ negative (there must be prior commercial use) Ratio Decidendi: • The Director of Patents. the Philippines Patent Office issued Certificate of Registration No. being used on similar products under the same classification of goods. L-54158.
definite and free from inconsistencies. or x x x section 2. may be considered applied. can ask for the cancellation of a similar or the same trademark. Trademark Law see page 11 Section 9-A of the Trademark Law "Equitable principles to govern proceedings: In opposition proceedings and all other inter partes proceedings in the Patent Office under this Act. 4. — There is hereby established a register of trademarks. Registration of trade-marks. tradenames and service marks which shall be known as the principal register. demand that petitioner should be allowed to continue the use of the subject mark and the mark which was supposedly registered under the name of respondent be deemed cancelled. therefore." The evidence for respondent must be clear. even after a lapse of more than five (5) years. The owner of a trademark. not those guilty of laches. 1955 and 5 Jmvdg Trademark Cases .R. the registration of which was never opposed by the prior registrant. tradenames. and service marks on the principal register. equitable principle of laches. tradename or service mark used to distinguish his goods. 1983 Facts: • On December 11. including a provision on equitable principle to protect only the vigilant. business or services from the goods. Eric Recalde xxx xxx xxx "(d) Consists of or comprises a mark or trade name which so resembles a mark or trade name registered in the Philippines or a mark trade name previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned as to be likely.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Philippines the subject mark. • respondent wanted goodwill and a wide market established at the expense of the petitioner but for its benefit. to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers. Provision in question: Section 4 (d) of RA 166 "Sec. and Unno's registration (Registration No. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION G. • An unreasonable length of time had already passed before respondent asserted its right to the trademark. • As the same trademark had been previously registered in favor of Unno. respondent General Milling Corporation filed an application for the registration of the trademark "All Montana" to be used in the sale of wheat flour. • Equity and justice. continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others. INC." dissenting opinion: (Aquino) • He who comes to court must come with clean hands • Pagasa acted in bad faith in registering the YKK trademark as it knows of the existence of Yoshida Kogyo Kabushiki and the latter's engineers even helped Pagasa with respect to business UNNO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. 9589). General Milling Corp's contention: • alleged that it started using the trademark "All Montana" on August 31. of considerable sales since its first use. L-28554. as Senior Party-Applicant to determine which party has previously adopted and used the trademark "All Montana. • It is most unfair if at anytime. as Junior/Party-Applicant. There is a presumption of neglect already amounting to "abandonment" of a right after a party had remained silent for quite a long time during which petitioner had been openly using the trademark in question. It is precisely the intention of the law. Such inaction on the part of respondent entitles petitioner to the equitable principle of laches. 1962. February 28. it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive. a previous registrant. business or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register unless it: Atty. • The invoices submitted by respondent which were dated way back in 1957 show that the zippers sent to the Philippines were to be used as "samples" and "of no commercial value. the Chief Trademark Examiner declared an interference proceeding between General Milling's application (Serial No. vs. estoppel and acquiescence where applicable. when applied to or used in connection with the goods. No. 9732). business or services of the applicant.
Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law subsequently was licensed to use the same by Centennial Mills. and had no right to apply for its registration. indentor or distributor. Only the owner of a trademark. may make application for the registration of a foreign trademark. 6 • • • • • • • Trademark Cases . or indentor and distributor are presumed to be owned by the manufacturer or packer. the application is remanded to the Chief Trademark Examiner for proper proceeding before issuance of the certificate of registration. indentor or distributor acquires no rights to the trademark of the goods he is dealing with in the absence of a valid transfer or assignment of the trade mark. Ratio Decidendi: • The right to register trademark is based on ownership. the Senior Party could not be regarded as having used and adopted it. • various shipments. 1962. trade name or service mark used to distinguish his goods. Inc. trade name or service mark may apply for its registration and an importer. merely acted as exclusive distributor of All Montana wheat flour in the Philippines. as indentor or broker for S. a mere importer and distributor acquires no rights in the mark used on the imported goods by the foreign exporter in the absence of an assignment of any kind Trademarks used and adopted on goods manufactured or packed in a foreign country in behalf of a domestic importer. The Deed of Assignment itself constitutes sufficient proof of General Milling Corporation's ownership of the trademark "All Montana. U. documents. Only owners of the trademark can apply for its registration. 1956. When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for. A local importer. by virtue of a deed of assignment executed on September 20. Unno Commercial Enterprises. trade name or service mark if he is duly authorized by the actual owner of the name or other mark of ownership. Inc. Unno Commercial Enterprise's contention: • argued that the same trademark had been registered in its favor on March 8. service mark. business or service from the goods. broker or indentor can appropriate. • The term owner does not include the importer of the goods bearing the trademark.A. Issue/Answer: • WON Unno. • Under the Trademark Law only the owner of the trademark. whether he is only an importer. broker. or Jmvdg Atty." showing that Centennial Mills was a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon.S. a local firm. use and own a particular mark of its own choice although he is not the manufacturer of the goods he deals with. invoices and other correspondence of Centennial Mills. he has no right to apply for the registration of the same. ownership of a trademark is not acquired by the mere fact of registration alone. as a mere indentor can apply for the registration of the trademark of its principal / negative. broker. Eric Recalde other mark of ownership. unless there is a written agreement clearly showing that ownership vests in the importer. but because it is primarily geographically descriptive.. shipping thousand of bags of wheat flour bearing the trademark "All Montana" were shown by petitioner and maintained that anyone. trade name.. Inc. however. 1962 asserting that it started using the trademark on June 30.H. business or service of others is entitled to register the same. Huang Bros. unless such importer is actually the owner thereof in the country from which the goods are imported. & Co. Director of Patents' decision • the Junior Party-Applicant is adjudged prior user of the trademark ALL MONTANA. and the absolute and registered owner of several trademarks for wheat flour all of which were assigned by it to respondent General Milling Corporation. Inasmuch as it was not the owner of the trademark. broker.
120900. the senior user. cannot and should not be allowed to feign that the junior user had invaded the senior user's exclusive domain. the use of the same trademark on the latter's product cannot be validly objected to. the Court held: since the senior user has not ventured in the production of briefs. 1985. Registration does not perfect a trademark right. dyestuff). The certificate of registration confers upon the trademark owner the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified in the certificate. Incorporated vs. private respondent NSR Rubber Corporation filed an application for registration of the mark CANON for sandals in the BPTTT. the BPTTT issued its decision dismissing the opposition of petitioner and giving due course to private respondent's application for the registration of the trademark CANON. • petitioner failed to attach evidence that would convince the Court that petitioner has also embarked in the production of footwear products. there is a world of difference between the paints. when a trademark is used by a party for a product in which the other party does not deal.R. • CA affirmed the BPTTT decision and held Jmvdg Trademark Cases . • On November 10. of the registrant's ownership of the trademark and of the exclusive right to the use thereof. subject to the conditions and limitations stated therein. • the exclusive right of petitioner in this case to use the trademark CANON is limited to the products covered by its certificate of registration. an item which is not listed in its certificate of registration. chemical products. • The Court affirms respondent Director of Patent's decision declaring respondent General Milling Corporation as the prior user of the trademark "All Montana" on wheat flour in the Philippines and ordering the cancellation of the certificate of registration for the same trademark previously issued in favor of petitioner Unno Commercial Enterprises. such as the interference proceeding at bar. private respondent can use the trademark CANON for its goods classified as class 25 (sandals). July 20. Issue/ Answer: • WON the use of the tradename CANON by defendant would cause prejudice to petitioner / negative Ratio Decidendi: • the ownership of a trademark or tradename is a property right that the owner is entitled to protect as mandated by the Trademark Law. 7 CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA vs. Eric Recalde that “CANON” can be used by private respondent for its sandals because the products of these two parties are dissimilar. • Under Rule 178 of the Rules of the Patent Office in Trademark Cases. CA and NSR RUBBER CORPORATION G. • A Verified Notice of Opposition was filed by petitioner alleging that it will be damaged by the registration of the trademark CANON in the name of NSR Rubber Corp. 2000 Facts: • On January 15. • since the certificate of registration of petitioner for the trademark CANON covers class 2 (paints. see page 11 herein Atty. • In Faberge. and dyestuff of petitioner and the sandals of private respondent. toner. 14 the Director of Patents is expressly authorized to order the cancellation of a registered mark or trade name or name or other mark of ownership in an inter partes case. Clearly. Intermediate Appellate Court.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Registration merely creates a prima facie presumption of the validity of the registration. chemical products. toner. 1992. No. • The BPTTT declared NSR Rubber Corp in default for failure to file Answer within the prescribed period and allowed petitioner to present its evidence ex-parte. However. provision in question: • Section 2-A of the Trademarks Law (Republic Act 166).
The products of petitioner are sold through special chemical stores or distributors while the products of private respondent are sold in grocery stores. name. (3) No time limit shall be fixed for seeking the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks or used in bad faith. are signatories. either administratively if their legislation so permits. of which both the Philippines and Japan. dresses. LEE" used on skirts. averred that petitioner's Jmvdg Trademark Cases 8 .) filed with the BPTTT a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. shorts. of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be wellknown in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the present Convention and used for identical or similar goods. SR 5054 (Supplemental Register) for the trademark "STYLISTIC MR. to refuse or to cancel the registration and to prohibit the use of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction. CORP vs." • the Paris Convention." Article 6bis of the Paris Convention states: Atty. Petitioner failed to comply with the third requirement of the said memorandum that is the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods. and d) the person claiming must be the owner of the mark (The Parties Convention Commentary on the Paris Convention. not a patent or copyright or anything else. or at the request of an interested party." Memorandum dated 25 October 1983 to the Director of Patents by Hon. CA. Thus. industrial designs. b) the subject of the right must be a trademark. sold or dealt in by others. jackets. U. jeans. Inc. shirts and lingerie under Class 25. (2) A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed for seeking the cancellation of such a mark. 166 (Trademark Law) and Art. 29 is a multilateral treaty that seeks to protect industrial property consisting of patents. utility models.S. 100098. VIII of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.D. the Trademark Law. Eric Recalde (1) The countries of the Union undertake. Geneva. sari-sari stores and department stores. blouses. • Based on the memorandum by Ongpin.. The countries of the Union may provide for a period within which the prohibition of use must be sought. Lee Co. emblem. issued on 27 October 1980 in the name of Emerald Garment (Philippines) • H.A. Ongpin a) the mark must be internationally known. BOP and H. (Delaware. Switzerland. • The term "trademark" is defined by RA 166. Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. 1985)' EMERALD GARMENT MFTG. imitation or translation. December 29. symbol. No. socks.. Article by Dr. as including "any word. service marks. No. liable to create confusion.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law the two classes of products in this case flow through different trade channels.A. 37 of R. IESDCH c) the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods. Lee Co. this Office believes that there is no automatic protection afforded an entity whose tradename is alleged to have been infringed through the use of that name as a trademark by a local entity. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith. sign or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them for those manufactured. jogging suits. INC G. Provision in question: • Article 8 of the Paris Convention.D. Roberto V. trade names and indications of source or appellations of origin.R. whether or not it forms part of a trademark. and at the same time aims to repress unfair competition. Bogsch. the evident disparity of the products of the parties in the case at bar renders unfounded the apprehension of petitioner that confusion of business or origin might occur if private respondent is allowed to use the mark CANON. briefs.D. 1995 Facts: • On 18 September 1981 H. the country of petitioner. • Regarding the applicability of Article 8 of the Paris Convention. to wit: "A tradename shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration. invokes Sec. trademarks. LEE COMPANY.
or general appearance of the trademark or tradename with that of the other mark or tradename in their over-all presentation or in their essential. meaning. and to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other. sound. Eric Recalde private respondent may be considered "officially" put on notice that petitioner has appropriated or is using said mark. mistake and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods. that duplication or imitation is not necessary. words. is the function and purpose of registration in the supplemental register. • using the test of dominancy. it was only on 18 September 1981 that private respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner's certificate of registration for the said trademark. or such resemblance of the infringing mark to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives. It is undeniably the dominant feature of the mark.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law trademark "so closely resembled its own trademark. as to be likely. when applied to or used in connection with petitioner's goods. content." Colorable imitation refers to such similarity in form. otherwise known as the Law on Trade-marks. and not abandoned. 5054 was published in the Official Gazette and issued to petitioner and not May 1. Lee's petition for cancellation and opposition to registration. 20 the date the certificate of registration SR No. LEE" since 1 May 1975. No. 166. then infringement takes place. the essential element of infringement is colorable imitation. 1975. This term has been defined as "such a close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary purchasers." • the Director of Patents rendered a decision granting H. substantive and distinctive parts as would likely mislead or confuse persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article.D. to cause confusion. special arrangement. Issue/ Answer: • WON H. 9-A of R. It is well to reiterate that the determinative factor in ascertaining whether or not the marks are confusingly similar to each other is not whether the challenged mark would actually cause confusion or deception of the purchasers but whether the use of such mark would likely cause confusion or mistake on the part of the buying • • • Trademark Cases 9 . ◦ The likelihood of confusion is further made more probable by the fact that both parties are engaged in the same line of business." • CA affirmed the Director of Patents' decision • Emerald contends that H. Director of Patents declared that petitioner's trademark was confusingly similar to private respondent's mark because "it is the word 'Lee' which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. Lee is estopped from instituting an action for infringement before the BPTTT under the equitable principle of laches pursuant to Sec. • It was only on the date of publication and issuance of the registration certificate that Jmvdg Atty. yet. 'LEE' as previously registered and used in the Philippines. which.A. 2 tests: ◦ test of dominancy: if the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another by reason of which confusion and deception are likely to result. D.D. a similarity in the dominant features of the trademark would be sufficient. Lee's prior registration is enough to confer upon it the exclusive ownership of the trademark Lee in opposition to Emerald's / negative Ratio Decidendi: • the reckoning point of ownership of Emerald is 27 October 1980. Trade-names and Unfair Competition • Emerald alleges that it has been using its trademark "STYLISTIC MR. after all.
No. business or services. continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others. Equitable principles to govern proceedings. has not acquired ownership over said mark. counterfeit. or advertising of any goods. — In opposition proceedings and in all other inter partes proceedings in the patent office under this act. prints. "LEE" is primarily a surname. and acquiescence. Registration of trade-marks. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant. private respondent failed to prove prior actual commercial use of its "LEE" trademark in the Philippines before filing its application for registration with the BPTTT and hence. any reproduction. without the consent of the registrant. or colorable imitation to labels. acquire exclusive ownership over and singular use of said term. 166. Petitioner's trademark is the whole "STYLISTIC MR. in the main.A. receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods. 9-A of R. ◦ the ordinary purchaser is not the "completely unwary consumer" but is the "ordinarily intelligent buyer" considering the type of product involved. LEE. what constitutes. Sec. or reproduce. where applicable. business or services from the goods. copy or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction. — There is hereby established a register of trade-marks. packages. therefore." Although on its label the word "LEE" is prominent. equitable principles of laches. estoppel. trade-name or servicemark used to distinguish his goods. wrappers. Actual use in commerce in the Philippines is an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of ownership over a trademark • Atty. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the subject mark. Trade-names and Unfair Competition SEC. No. various kinds of jeans. ◦ Holistic test: mandates that the entirety of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing similarity. copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale. Provisions in question: Sec. it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive. The owner of a trade-mark. business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services.A. trade-names and service-marks which shall be known as the principal register. counterfeit. ◦ The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. — Any person who shall use. 166. Infringement. SEC. the trademark should be considered as a whole and not piecemeal. signs. trade-names and service-marks on the principal register. — The Principal Register SEC. 22. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other. LEE" is not confusingly similar to private respondent's "LEE" trademark. counterfeit. shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided. Private respondent cannot. copy. ◦ the average Filipino consumer generally buys his jeans by brand. may be considered and applied. • For lack of adequate proof of actual use of its trademark in the Philippines prior to petitioner's use of its own mark and for failure to establish confusing similarity between said trademarks. noticeable and substantial enough to matter ◦ the products involved in the case at bar are. or identity of such business. business or services of others shall have • • • • • Jmvdg Trademark Cases 10 . particularly paragraph 4(e): CHAPTER II-A.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law public. The dissimilarities between the two marks become conspicuous. otherwise known as the Law on Trade-marks. offering for sale. Eric Recalde The Trademark Law is very clear. the trademarks involved as a whole and rule that petitioner's "STYLISTIC MR. 4 of R. private respondent's action for infringement must necessarily fail. 9-A. of considerable sales since its first use. 4.
in business and in the service rendered. 1933. — A certificate of registration of a mark or tradename shall be a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration. may appropriate to his exclusive use a trade-mark. No. corporations. • The phrase "ang tibay" is never used adjectively to define or describe an object. partnerships. What are registrable. in the manufacture and sale of slippers. The ownership or possession of trade-mark. SEC. or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this act: Provided. further. 166) which explicitly provides that: CHAPTER II. how acquired. Certificate of registration prima facie evidence of validity. that the goods or articles on which the two trademarks are used are similar or belong to the same class. business or services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them. • Ana Ang registered the same trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants and shirts on April 11. and such fact is officially certified. December 14. • Teodoro filed a complaint against Ang • RTC rendered decision in faor of Ang on the grounds that the two trade-marks are dissimilar and are used on different and non-competing goods • CA reversed the RTC decision and ruled that by uninterrupted and exclusive use since 1910 in the manufacture of slippers and shoes. 1915. SEC. 666.R. Ownership of trade-marks. and as a trade-name on January 3. ANG vs. or a service-mark not so appropriated by another.A. unless it: xxx xxx xxx. and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods. shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights to the law. Atty.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law the right to register the same on the principal register. 2 and 2-A of the Philippine Trademark Law (R. No. or when applied to or used in connection with the goods. (e) Consists of a mark or trade-name which." both as a trade-mark and as a tradename. Sec. business or services from others. 48226. as in this section provided. • He formally registered it as a trade-mark on September 29. or is primarily merely a surname Sec. TORIBIO TEODORO G. respondent's trade-mark has acquired a secondary meaning. and established a factory for the manufacture of said articles in the year 1937. 20 of the Trademark Law SEC. and service marks owned by persons. 1932. — Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in lawful business. That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines. 20. 2. tradenames. • "Ang Tibay" is not a descriptive term within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Law but rather a fanciful or coined phrase which may properly and legally be appropriated as a trade-mark or trade-name. corporations. and indoor baseballs since 1910. tradename. / negative Ratio Decidendi: • The phrase "Ang Tibay" is an exclamation denoting admiration of strength or durability. 11 Jmvdg Trademark Cases . partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons. Registration of Marks and Trade-names. Issue/Answer: • WON the trademark and tradename “Ang Tibay” is a descriptive word which will bar its registration. That said trade-marks. trade-names and service-marks. the registrant's ownership of the mark or trade-name. trade-names. 2-A. shoes. heretofore or hereafter appropriated. when applied to or used in connection with the goods. — Trade-marks. or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed: And Provided. by actual use hereof in manufacture or trade. business or services of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them. Eric Recalde REGISTRABILITY ANA L. service-mark. by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. to distinguish his merchandise. or who renders any lawful service in commerce. a trade-name. business or services specified in the certificate. with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language. subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. and that the use by petitioner of said trade-mark constitutes a violation of sections 3 and 7 of Act No. 194 Facts: • Toribio Teodoro has continuously used "Ang Tibay.
and other articles of wear for men. they would. be held by the courts to belong to the same class if the simultaneous use on them of identical or closely similar trade-marks would be likely to cause confusion as to the origin. • They would be considered as not falling under the same class only if they are so dissimilar or so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely that the purchaser would think the first user made the second user's goods.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Issue on who is the lawful registrant: Teodoro • Doctrine of secondary meaning: ◦ This doctrine is to the effect that a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article on the market. pants. having obtained the registration for the said articles the trademark of "Wellington. bing a geographical can be registered . • As the term cannot be appropriated as a trademark or a tradename. • It is certainly not farfetched to surmise that the selection by petitioner of the same trade-mark for pants and shirts was motivated by a desire to get a free ride on the reputation and selling power it has acquired at the hands of the respondent. • the same trade-mark. women. nevertheless. No. or personal source. and children. and it is a general rule that the same cannot be appropriated as the subject of an exclusive trademark or tradename. • Petitioners allege that the use of the words "Wellington Department Store" as a business name and as a corporate name by the defendant-appellee deceives the public into buying defendant corporation's goods under the mistaken belief that the names are the plaintiff's or have the same source as plaintiffs' goods. January 10. no action for violation thereof can be maintained. drawers. • Defendants raises the defense of dissimilarity of the goods that they deal in • court a quo dismissed the complaint and held that Wellington Co.negative • WON defendant is guilty of unfair competition . and a certificate issued in his favor. His application therefor was approved by the Bureau of Commerce. in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public. As observed in another case. the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product. Eric Recalde approaching the mark of a business rival. Issue/Answer: • WON Wellington. 3 the field from which a person may select a trade-mark is practically unlimited. 1946. 1953 Facts: • Si Heng & Dee are engaged in the business of manufacturing shirts. thereby resulting in damage to them.R. • Although two noncompeting articles may be classified under two different classes by the Patent Office because they are deemed not to possess the same descriptive properties. because geographically or otherwise descriptive. ANG SI HENG and SALUSTIANA DEE vs. could not cause confusion in trade and that. of the second user's goods. WELLINGTON DEPT STORE INC G. as 12 Jmvdg Trademark Cases . They have been in that business since the year 1938." • Benjamin Chua applied for the registration of the business name "Wellington Department Store" on May 7. might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that. has not been used by any enterprise. therefore. used on unlike goods.negative Ratio Decidendi: • mere geographical names are ordinarily regarded as common property. there could be no objection to the use and registration of a well-known mark by a third party for a different class of goods. and hence there is no excuse for impinging upon or even closely Atty. L-4531.
and was used as a trademark by the owners thereof (the Rosenthals of Maiden Form Co. which means slowly or in an easy manner. on the grounds that it is a common descriptive name of an article or substance on which the patent has expired • Appellant claims that the trademark "Adagio" has become a common descriptive name of a particular style of brassiere and is. MAIDEN FORM BRASSIERE CO.. No. Issue/Answer: • WON Adagio is a descriptive word incapable of registration / negative Ratio Decidendi: • The evidence shows that the trademark "Adagio" is a musical term. 1961) dismissed Romero's petition for cancellation of the registration of the trademark "Adagio" for brassieres manufactured by respondent Maiden Form Brassiere Co. inter alia. and confusion will result by the use of the disputed name by the defendants' department store. ANDRES ROMERO vs." while the former does not purport to be so. Eric Recalde 'Adagio" for the Brassieres manufactured by it. without objection on the part of respondent company. • Neither can the public be said to be deceived into the belief that the goods being sold in defendant's store originate from the plaintiffs." issue of unfair competition: • While there is similarity between the trademark or tradename "Wellington Company" and that of "Wellington Department Store. INC G. such that its articles and products have acquired a well-known reputation. 166 (Trademark Law). it is used in an 13 Jmvdg Trademark Cases . 166. respondent company. because the evidence shows that defendant's store sells no shirts or wear bearing the trademark "Wellington. 1946 • Director. 166) of the trademark Atty. having found. • Director of Patents (of January 17. 1937. filed with respondent Director of Patents an application for registration (pursuant to Republic Act No." but other trademarks • doctrine in Ang vs Teodoro cannot be applied because the evidence submitted by the appellants did not prove that their business has continued for so long a time that it has become of consequence and acquired a goodwill of considerable value.R.. • no action may lie in favor of the plaintiffsappellants herein for damages or injunctive relief for the use by the defendantsappellees of the name "Wellington. that said trademark is "a fanciful and arbitrary use of a foreign word adopted by applicant as a trademark for its product. 1964 Facts: • On February 12. respondent company alleged that said trademark was first used by it in the United States on October 26. • Being a musical term. In its application. Inc. It is urged that said trademark had been used by local brassiere manufacturers since 1948. 1957. in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act No. and in the Philippines on August 31. unregistrable. New York) because they are musically inclined. 1957. therefore. • plaintiffs.. L-18289. • petitioner filed with respondent Director a petition for cancellation of said trademark.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law none is granted by the statute in such cases. that it is neither a surname nor a geographical term. March 31.appellants have not been able to show the existence of a cause of action for unfair competition against the defendantsappellees." no confusion or deception can possibly result or arise from such similarity because the latter is a "department store. nor any that comes within the purview of Section 4 of Republic Act No. on August 13. a foreign corporation. approved for publication in the Official Gazette said trademark of respondent company.
L-19906. • The likelihood of purchasers to associate these products to a common origin is not far-fetched. • On the other hand. the different styles or types of its brassieres. or deception. L-18337. • respondent Director of Patents did not err in dismissing the present petition for cancellation of the registered trademark of appellee company. FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and ALLIED MANUFACTURING AND TRADING CO. being manufactured by said Chua Che. January 30. • Sy Tuo claims that he owns the tademark and had been using it since 1951 as mark Jmvdg Trademark Cases 14 . Sterling Products International. it must be intentional and voluntary. Both from the standpoint of priority of use and for the protection of the buying public and. "Chansonette". and nail polish as opposed to Chua Che's use which was admittedly only in 1957. Furthermore. No. 1965 Facts: • Under date of October 30. Ratio Decidendi: • while it is no longer necessary to establish that the goods of the parties possess the same descriptive properties. the use of X-7 for laundry soap is but a natural expansion of business of the opposer. are products intended for use in the home and usually have common purchasers. it becomes manifest that the registration of said trademark in favor of applicant-appellant should be denied. PHILIPPINE PATENT OFFICE and SY TUO G. even though the goods fall into different categories • The products of appellee are common household items now-a-days. April 30. STERLING PRODUCTS INT'L INC. of course. Chua Che presented with the Philippines Patent Office a petition praying for the registration in his favor the trade name of "X-7" • Director of Patents denied the application for use on soap Class 51.R. (SPI on medicine) and defendant Farbenfabriken CHUA CHE vs.. Provisions in question: Section 2 of Republic Act No. lipstick. adopted other musical terms such as "Etude". and not involuntary or even compulsory. mistake. "Prelude". namely. "Over-ture". There must be a thoroughgoing discontinuance of any trade-mark use of the mark in question" • "Non-use because of legal restrictions is not evidence of an intent to abandon. appellee's rights to the trademark "X-7". and the decision appealed from is therefore hereby affirmed.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law arbitrary (fanciful) sense as a trademark for brassieres manufactured by respondent company. • It also appears that respondent company has. On abandonment of trademark by private defendant: • "To work an abandonment. No. INC. respondent company's long and continuous use of the trademark "Adagio" has not rendered it merely descriptive of the product. in the same manner as laundry soap. Inc. registration of a trademark should be refused in cases where there is a likelihood of confusion. vs. 166 as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act 865 see page 11 herein Atty. • Director of Patents held: The products of the parties. the disuse must be permanent and not ephemeral. Eric Recalde for perfume.. while specifically different. to identify. 1958. as a trademark. upon the opposition of respondent Sy Tuo. 1969 Facts: • each of the principal suitors. with costs against the appellant. as previously required under the Trade Mark Act of 1905. likewise. G.R. and "Concerto". Issue/ Answer: • WON allowing Chua Che to register the same mark for laundry soap would likely to cause confusion on the purchasers of X-7 products by SY Tou / affirmative.
that nothing herein contained in this Sec. FBA applied for the registration of the BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE trademark with the Philippines Patent Office for animal and plant Jmvdg Trademark Cases 15 .. Farben. III shall: ◦ Affect in any way the rights or title of the defendants Bayer. Germany. use or sale of aspirin. 13081 These trademark rights were assigned to SPI on December 30. or from paying to I. Affect or diminish any right. pharmaceutical or other drug or chemical products. patent applications. On November 18. 1959. and by suits for damages. processing. in or to or under any heretofore acquired and presently existing patents." AMATCO) started selling FBA's products especially "Folidol. or impair any rights or remedies of said defendants. or any supplements. disputes with regard the ownership of the name and mark were resolved by 2 agreements between Winthrop's and FFB U. 1262-S for BAYER. 1947." But to avoid confusion. a German.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. their successors. patent applications. the Bayer contract of 1926. 1260-S for BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE. trade-names (such as the name 'Bayer' and the 'Bayer Cross' mark and registrations thereof). amendments or modifications thereof.G. it directed defendants "to add a distinctive word or words in their mark to indicate that their products come from Germany. patent licenses or trademarks" • ◦ • • • • • • • • • The trademarks BAYER and BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE were then registered in the Philippines under the old Trademark Law (Act 666) by The Bayer Co. on August 1. their successors. SPI was issued by the Philippines Patent Office on June 18. 1939 for which it was issued Certificate of Registration No. No." The word BAYER was the surname of Friedrich Bayer. the subsidiary in New York was declared as an enemy controlled corp so its assets were sold to Sterling Corp. At about the year 1888 it started to manufacture pharmaceutical preparations also. and any and all amendments or supplements thereto are declared and adjudged to be unlawful under the Anti-Trust Laws of the United States. trademarks. subsidiaries or assigns. successors or assigns. title or interest of said defendants. patent licenses. 1942 and the assignment was recorded in the Philippines Patent Office on March 5. The company was at first engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemicals.S. subsidiaries or assigns. or. be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained from carrying out or enforcing any of the aforesaid contracts.Provided. any royalties or share of profits pursuant to said contracts Atty. and the defendants Bayer and Sterling. FFB is the original owner of the name and mark. provided by statute or convention. however." a chemical insecticide which bears the BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE trademark. in or to the name 'Bayer' and the 'Bayer Cross' mark or registrations thereof. processes or formulae relating to the manufacturing. The registration of these trademarks was only for "Medicines. organized a drug company bearing his name — Friedr. who. — at Barmen. 1863. and their respective successors and subsidiaries. Inc. (FBA on insecticides) seeks to exclude the other from use in the Philippines of the trademarks BAYER and BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE. or any of them. its successors. 1948 two new certificates of registration: No. The trial court declared itself "in favor of the solution that favors division of the market rather than monopoly. When the war broke out. its subsidiaries. aspirin compounds. subsidiaries or assigns. FFB was based in Germany and had a subsidiary company in New York. injunction or other remedy with respect to any such patents. Eric Recalde with respect to sales following the effective date of this decree. District Court for Southern New York held that: The Bayer contract of 1923.: the BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE trademark on April 18. Bayer et comp.
• if the certificate of registration were to be deemed as including goods not specified therein. Registration in the United States is not registration in the Philippines. in fact. nevertheless. Inc. 2-A. On February 25. then a situation may arise whereby an applicant may be tempted to register a trademark on any and all goods which his mind may conceive even if he had never intended to use the trademark for the said goods. • But defendants ask us to delist plaintiff's BAYER trademarks for medicine from the Principal Register. RA 166 see page ii herein Trademark Cases 16 . or personal source. For. This rule is spelled out in our Trademark Law • adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. does not exist. it was on said goods that the BAYER trademarks were actually used by it in the Philippines. • Neither will the 1927 registration in the United States of the BAYER trademark for insecticides serve plaintiff any. • Plaintiff is not the first user thereof in the Philippines. Issue/Answer: Ratio Decidendi: • actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark. 1960. of the second user's goods. The Bayer Co.. the certificates of registration for medicines issued by the Director of Patents upon which the protection is enjoyed are only for medicines. Therefore. SR-304. they would. it suffers from the defect of non-use. and the public would then • Jmvdg Atty. And defendants may continue using the same trademarks for insecticides and other chemicals. be held by the courts to belong to the same class if the simultaneous use on them of identical or closely similar trademarks would be likely to cause confusion as to the origin. Said trademarks had been registered since 1939 by plaintiff's predecessor. ◦ confusion of business: "Here though the goods of the parties are different. (relate “Ang Tibay” case) • It was not plaintiff's predecessor but defendant's namely Farbenfabriken or Bayer Germany that first introduced the medical products into the Philippine market and household with the Bayer mark half a century ago • Plaintiff cannot now say that the present worth of its BAYER trademarks it owes solely to its own efforts. provision: Sec. claiming right thereto for said use. • Although two noncompeting articles may be classified under two different classes by the Patent Office because they are deemed not to possess the same descriptive properties. • plaintiff may hold on to its BAYER trademarks for medicines. Defendants' claim is stale. The trademarks do not necessarily link plaintiff with the public. Nothing in those certificates recited would include chemicals or insecticides. the defendant's product is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the plaintiff. Such right "grows out of their actual use • The BAYER trademarks registered in the Philippines to which plaintiff SPI may lay claim are those which cover medicines only.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law destroying agents. it is not insulated from the charge that as it marketed its medicines it did so with an eye to the goodwill as to quality that defendants' predecessor had established. FBA was issued a certificate of registration in the Supplemental Register. Eric Recalde be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which. not medicines. • two types of confusion ◦ 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.
Perez' product. PEREZ G. 166. according to her. Eric Recalde own name/ negative Ratio Decidendi: • "Because the corporation was allegedly going bankrupt and the members were deserting. even if permitted to use said trademark. DR. and that the labels submitted by the registrant are the very containers bearing the trademark "WONDER" which are owned by her and which she has been exclusively and continuously using in commerce • after Dr. • the trademark "WONDER" has long been identified and associated with the product manufactured and produced by the Dr. Perez filed with the Patents Office on February 23. Jose R. No. • The exclusive distributor does not acquire any proprietary interest in the principal's trademark. It merely empowers the petitioner as exclusive distributor to own the package and to create a design at her pleasure. 1959.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law CRISANTA Y. • Petitioner's act in defraying substantial expenses in the promotion of the 17 Trademark Cases . she further alleged the written contract between her and the registrant (respondent) wherein. the right to register trademark is based on ownership and a mere distributor of a product bearing a trademark. the Respondent terminated the agreement in July. JOSE R. petitioner Crisanta Y. • the agreement never mentioned transfer of ownership of the trademark. Perez and the same was only for a term. and thereafter he asked the Petitioner to become the distributor of his products • Crisanta Y. as amended. Gabriel • "Because the corporation was allegedly going bankrupt and the members were deserting. Jose R. Perz had perfected his research and obtained a certificate of label. has no right to and cannot register the said trademark • Petitioner urges that the agreement of exclusive distributorship executed by and between her and respondent vested in her the exclusive ownership of the trademark "WONDER". the Respondent terminated the agreement in July. but not the right to appropriate unto herself the sole ownership of the trademark so as to entitle her to registration in the Patent Office. Yangga who happens to be the brother of the Petitioner Crisanta Y. he made an agreement (January. 1959. respondent Dr. 1974 Facts: • Dr. It was then being managed by Mariano S. Republic Act No. Gabriel claiming that he had been using the subject mark since 1959 filed with the Patent Office a petition for cancellation of the trademark "WONDER from the supplemental register alleging that the registrant was not entitled to register the said trademark at the time of his application for registration • In support of her petition. L-24075. 1959) with a certain company named 'Manserco' for the distribution of his soap. January 31. GABRIEL vs. • On October 19. • Under Sections 2 and 2-A of the Trademark Law. But a scrutiny of the provisions of said contract does not yield any right in favor of petitioner other than that expressly granted to her — to be the sole and exclusive distributor of respondent Dr. Perez Cosmetic Laboratory. Jose R. 1962. the latter has recognized her right of use and ownership of said trademark. and thereafter he asked the Petitioner to become the distributor of his products • Director of Patents rendered his decision denying the petition of Gabriel to cancel the certificate of registration Issue/Answer: • WON Gabriel. 1961 an application for registration of the trademark "WONDER" in the Supplemental Register.R. Gabriel appears to be a mere distributor of the product by contract with the manufacturer. as a mere distributor have the right to register the subject mark in her Jmvdg Atty.
capable to indicate origin. 1960. as in this case. Alleged date of first use of the trademark by respondent was on February 10. • the mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on articles of a different description. a Chinese citizen residing in Iloilo City. 1982 Facts: • Private respondent filed with the Philippine Patent Office an application for registration of the trademark "CAMIA" for his product. butter. • Emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics. butter. cooking oil and soap are so related that the use of the same trademark "CAMIA'' on said goods would likely result in confusion as to their source Atty. • where no confusion is likely to arise. which likewise falls under Class 47.vs. which is ham. July 30. in the sense that others may use the same mark on unrelated goods. Petitioner opposed the application claiming that it first used said trademark on his products: lard. and he who first adopted it cannot be injured by any subsequent appropriation or imitation by others. • Director of Patents rendered a decision allowing registration of the trademark "CAMIA" in favor of Ng Sam. this alone cannot serve as the decisive factor in the resolution of whether or not they are related goods. No. and the public will not be deceived. Thus. anyway. ham." • While ham and some of the products of petitioner are classified under Class 47 (Foods and Ingredients of Food).Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Respondent's goods and the printing of the packages are the necessary or essential consequences of Paragraph 6 of the agreement because. Issue/Answer: • WON the product of respondent Ng Sam. 1959. But it should be so distinctive and sufficiently original as to enable those who come into contact with it to recognize instantly the identity of the user. some of which are likewise classified under Class 47. INC. ham. • Opposer's products are ordinary day-to-day household items whereas ham is not necessarily so. cooking oil. and those of petitioner consisting of lard. registration of a similar or even identical mark may be allowed.finding that `the goods of the parties are not of a character which purchasers would be likely to attribute to a common origin. then it is apparent that it cannot identify a particular business. • A trademark is designed to identify the user. • The term "CAMIA" is descriptive of a whole genus of garden plants with fragrant white flowers. • if a mark is so commonplace that it cannot be readily distinguished from others. / negative Ratio Decidendi: • the right to a trademark is a limited one.. filed an application with the Philippine Patent Office for registration of the identical trademark "CAMIA" for his product. which falls under Class 47 (Foods and Ingredients of Food). significant and distinctive. • The trademark "CAMIA" was first used in the Philippines by petitioner on its products in 1922 and registered the same in 1949 • On November 25.R. and those acts are incumbent upon her to do. "It must be affirmative and definite." • the business of the parties are non18 Jmvdg Trademark Cases . PHILIPPINE REFINING CO. Eric Recalde or origin. L-26676. respondent Ng Sam. polishing materials and soap of all kinds. as it would redound to her own benefit as distributor. the goods of the parties are not of a character which purchasers would be likely to attribute to a common origin. NG SAM G. abrasive detergents. those activities are normal in the field of sale and distribution.
the goods are obviously different from each other — with "absolutely no iota of similitude" They are so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely that purchasers would think that petitioner is the manufacturer of respondent's goods. August 31. counterfeit. as to be likely.CA and UNITED CIGARETTE CORPORATION G. or advertising of any goods. are so related to each other that it might reasonably be assumed that they originate from one manufacturer. though they are not in actual competition. or reproduce. 1982 Facts: • Esso filed a case against United Cigarette Corp for trademark infringement alleging that after the latter had acquired in November. the judgment was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. packages." Atty. petroleum products. The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on unrelated articles of a different kind. to the detriment of its own products. copy or colorably imitate any such mark or tradename and apply such reproduction. prints. counterfeit. business services of the applicant. 19 ESSO STANDARD EASTERN. the same trademark used by petitioner in its quality petroleum products which was likely to cause confusion or deception on the part of the purchasing public as to its origin or source. texture or quality. Jmvdg • • • • • • • Trademark Cases . to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers. L-29971. factory and patent rights of La Oriental Tobacco Corporation. non-competing goods may be those which. wrappers. and the product of respondent. cigarettes. 1 It is undisputed that the goods on which petitioner uses the trademark ESSO. counterfeit. it began to use the trademark ESSO on its cigarettes. are non-competing. No. copy or colorable imitation to labels. business or services. Issue/Answer: • WON United Cigarette Corp can be held liable for trademark infringement / negative Ratio Decidendi: • The law defines infringement as the use without consent of the trademark owner of any "reproduction. • On appeal. provision: Section 4(d) of Trademark law "a mark which consists of or comprises a mark or tradename which so resembles a mark or tradename registered in the Philippines or a mark or tradename previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned. when applied to or used in connection with the goods. copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or tradename in connection with the sale. private respondent admitted the use of the trademark ESSO on its own product of cigarettes but claimed that these were not identical to those produced and sold by the petitioner • The trial court found United Cigarette Corp guilty of infringement of trademark. 1963 the business. or identity of such business. INC vs.R.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law competitive and their products so unrelated that the use of identical trademarks is not likely to give rise to confusion. Eric Recalde offering for sale. when they possess the same physical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to their form. signs. 2 The products of each party move along and are disposed through different channels of distribution." Implicit in this definition is the concept that the goods must be so related that there is a likelihood either of confusion of goods or business. • In its answer. business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services. Goods are related when they belong to the same class or have the same descriptive properties. receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods. much less cause damage to petitioner. composition.
/ affirmative Ratio Decidendi: • The ownership of a trademark or tradename is a property right which the owner is entitled to protect "since there is damage to him from confusion or reputation or goodwill in the mind of the public as well as from confusion of goods. The determinative factor in ascertaining whether or not marks are confusingly similar to each other "is not whether the challenged mark would actually cause confusion or deception of the purchasers but whether the use of such mark would likely cause confusion or mistake on the part of the buying public When the law speaks of "purchaser. and is in fact the dominant word in petitioner's corporate name. January 8. Another factor why respondent's application should be denied is the confusing similarity between its trademark "UNIVERSAL CONVERSE AND DEVICE" and petitioner's corporate name and/or its trademarks "CHUCK TAYLOR" and "ALL STAR DEVICE" which could confuse the purchasing public to the prejudice of petitioner. vs. • CONVERSE RUBBER CORP. that the word "CONVERSE" belongs to and is being used by petitioner. EVALLE G. and TIBURCIO S. therefore. Inc. but is widely and favorably known in the Philippines through the use therein of its products bearing its corporate and 20 • A comparison of the labels of the samples of the goods submitted by the parties shows a great many differences on the trademarks used." the reference is to ordinary average purchasers a foreign corporation which has never done any business in the Philippines and which is unlicensed and unregistered to do business here.R. • Respondent. respondent has no right to appropriate the same for use on its products which are similar to those being produced by petitioner. • Petitioner Converse Rubber Corporation filed its opposition to the application for registration • Director of Patents dismissed the opposition of the petitioner and gave due course to respondent's application. considering that they appear to be of high expensive quality. CA decision affirmed. Eric Recalde for registration of the trademark in question. 1987 Facts: • Respondent Universal Rubber Products. L-27906. in the stipulation of facts. • CONVERSE" is the dominant word which identifies petitioner from other corporations engaged in similar business. No. admitted petitioner's existence since 1946 as a duly organized foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture of rubber shoes. UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS. Knowing. This admission necessarily betrays its knowledge of the reputation and business of petitioner even before it applied Jmvdg • • • • • • • Trademark Cases . INC. The sales of 12 to 20 pairs a month of petitioner's rubber shoes cannot be considered insignificant. Appropriation by another of the dominant part of a corporate name is an infringement The unexplained use by respondent of the dominant word of petitioner's corporate name lends itself open to the suspicion of fraudulent motive to trade upon petitioner's reputation. Issue/Answer: • WON the respondent's partial appropriation of petitioner's corporate name is of such character that it is calculated to deceive or confuse the public to the injury of the petitioner to which the name belongs. filed an application with the Philippine Patent office for registration of the trademark "UNIVERSAL CONVERSE AND DEVICE" used on rubber shoes and rubber slippers. which not too many basketball players can afford to buy.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law • 3 Atty.
" Atty. has a legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the foreign corporation. organized and existing in and under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. . . Eric Recalde Corporation." under Registration No. Ratio Decidendi: • It should be postulated at this point that respondent is not suing in our courts "for the recovery of any debt. inserting Section 21-A in the Trademark Law. which is a party to an international convention or treaty relating to marks or tradenames on the repression of unfair competition to which the Philippines may be a party. shall be entitled to the benefits and subject to the provisions of this Act . domiciled in. Answer: affirmative GENERAL GARMENTS CORP vs. or growing out of any business which it has transacted in the Philippine Islands. 10059 issued on November 15. "Tradenames of persons described in the first paragraph of this section shall be protected without the obligation of filing or registration whether or not they form parts of marks. for assorted men's wear. 1971 Facts: • GGC is the owner of the trademark "Puritan.. . • "The purpose of such a suit is to protect its reputation. a right in rem. shirts jackets. which it may assert and protect in any of the courts of the world — even in jurisdictions where it does not transact business — just the same as it may protect its tangible property.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law tradename. otherwise known as the Trademark Law: "Sec. No. business in the Philippine Islands and which is unlicensed and unregistered to do business here. Sec. . or false designation of origin and false description. 166. claim or demand. "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen CAPACITY TO SUE OF FOREIGN ENTITIES central issue: WON the foreign company not doing business nor registered in the Philippines has the standing to sue a Philippine domiciled business entity for infringement before Philippine courts. 1964 the Puritan Sportswear Jmvdg Trademark Cases 21 . Rights of Foreign Registrants-Persons who are nationals of. corporate name and goodwill which has been established through the natural development of its trade for a long period of years. September 30. or have a bona fide or effective business or commercial establishment in any foreign country. when it appears that they have personal knowledge of the existence of such a foreign corporation. and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same goods as those of the foreign corporation. such as sweaters. allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to bring an action in Philippine courts for infringement of a mark or trade-name. in the doing of which it does not seek to enforce any legal or contract rights arising from. • "The right to the use of the corporate or trade name is a property right.R. 1962 by the Philippine Patent Office. but is widely and favorably known in the Islands through the use therein of its products bearing its corporate and trade name has a legal right to maintain an action in the Islands. filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of the trademark "Puritan" registered in the name of General Garments Corporation." for which a license to transact business in the Philippines is required by Section 69 of the Corporation Law.A. U. for unfair competition. undershirts and briefs. Provision: Article 8 of Paris Convention provides that "a trade name [corporate name] shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration. L-24295. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and PURITAN SPORTSWEAR G. 37 of RA No. • On March 9." • Republic Act No.S. 638. • "A foreign corporation which has never done . whether or not it forms part of the trademark. real or personal against trespass or conversion. 37.
sportswear and other garment products of the company. ." • In any event. when applied to or used in connection with goods. 43242) and "Lacoste" (Application Serial No. who believes that he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark or trade-name." "SEC. 63796-97. the petitioner filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. apply to cancel said registration upon any of the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx (c) That the registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section four. Nos. unless it: xxx xxx xxx (d) Consists of or comprises a mark or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-name registered in the Philippines or a mark or trade-name previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned. Grounds for cancellation. Hemandas & Co. may. a trade-mark acknowledges no territorial boundaries of municipalities or 22 Jmvdg Trademark Cases . in relation to Sec. vs. 1984 Facts: • In 1975. • Search warrants based on violation of Art. on one of the grounds enumerated in Section 4. 17. respondent in the present case is not suing for infringement or unfair competition under Section 21-A. S. to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers. The former was approved for publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments • On March 21. 43241). 18. The owner of a trade-mark. SR-2225 (SR stands for Supplemental Register) for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts.R. as amended. 1980. A. FERNANDEZ and GOBINDRAM HEMANDAS G. title. ◦ The first kind of action. of the view that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines needs no license to sue before Philippine courts for infringement of trademark and unfair competition. assigned to respondent Gobindram Hemandas all rights. May 21. at the time it brings complaint. Two years later. . business or services from the goods. a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued Reg. this Court was. business or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register. — Any person. otherwise known as the Corporation Law. and it still is. as to be likely. ◦ while a suit under Section 21-A requires that the mark or tradename alleged to have been infringed has been "registered or assigned" to the suing foreign corporation. trade-name or servicemark used to distinguish his goods. • Hemandas & Co. 4. • Since it is the trade and not the mark that is to be protected. • On November 21. the second partakes of an administrative proceeding before the Patent Office (Sec. No. 1983. 189 of RPC were issued against Hemandas • Hemandas filed a motion to quash the search warrants and the same was granted by the respondent court Ratio Decidendi: • As early as 1927. 8).. Eric Recalde LA CHEMISE LACOSTE. Provisions: "Section 17(c) and Section 4(d) of the Trade Law provide respectively as follows: "SEC. it applied for the registration of the same trademark under the Principal Register. business or services of the applicant.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law hundred and fifty-nine. . but for cancellation under Section 17. or . . it may be stated. trade-names and service-marks which shall be known as the principal register. Registration of trade-marks. and interest in the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE". is cognizable by the Courts of First Instance (Sec. 27). the petitioner filed its application for registration of the trademark "Crocodile Device" (Application Serial No. a suit for cancellation of the registration of a mark or tradename under Section 17 has no such requirement." Atty. upon the payment of the prescribed fee. . Chapter II thereof.
The case filed by petitioner is a criminal case. a treaty or convention is not a mere moral obligation to be enforced or not at the whims of an incumbent head of a Ministry. In this case. Eric Recalde in international commerce and not belonging to him is to render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks and tradenames. We cannot allow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue. and the composite mark of LACOSTE and the representation of the crocodile or alligator. of not much significance. with effect. upholding the right of the petitioner to maintain the present suit before our courts for unfair competition or infringement of trademarks of a foreign corporation. Supplemental Registration • A certificate of registration in the Supplemental Register is not prima facie evidence of the validity of registration.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law states or nations. or services specified in the certificate. there was no compelling justification for the about face. "CHEMISE LACOSTE". Pat. Any pretensions of the private respondent that he is the owner are absolutely without basis The records show that the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner's products bearing the trademark LACOSTE date back even before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were first marketed in the Philippines. foreign goods bearing infringement marks or trade names (Rule 124. It creates a legally binding obligation on the parties founded on the generally accepted principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda which has been adopted as part of the law of our land. the lower court should be given the opportunity to correct its errors. business. petitioner's capacity to sue would become. or committed specific omissions. Off. the crocodile or alligator device. petitioner is the owner of the trademarks "LACOSTE". To allow Hemandas to continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason that he was the first registrant in the Supplemental Register of a trademark used Atty. Issue of probable cause: • Probable cause has traditionally meant such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof • probable cause "presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. therefore. but extends to every market where the trader's goods have become known and identified by the use of the mark. violating a given provision of our criminal laws • True. Such a certificate of registration cannot be filed. Since the violation is against the State. Revised Rules of Practice Before the Phil. in Trademark Cases) • Section 19-A of Republic Act 166 as amended not only provides for the keeping of the supplemental register in addition to the principal register but specifically directs that: ◦ "The certificates of registration for marks and trade names registered on the supplemental register shall be conspicuously different from certificates issued for marks and trade names 23 • • • • • Jmvdg Trademark Cases . of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods. if there be any. is recognizing our duties and the rights of foreign states under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to which the Philippines and France are parties. with the Bureau of Customs in order to exclude from the Philippines. but the rectification must be based on sound and valid grounds.
Provisions RPC: Art. — The penalty provided in the next proceeding article shall be imposed upon: Atty. fraudulent designation of origin. Sec 1 (g) Omnibus Investment Code(1) “A foreign firm which does business through middlemen acting on their own names. convention or law. or false designation of origin and false description. the Minister of Trade. 3. trade-mark or service mark or of himself as the owner of such trade-name. by treaty. or in which it is domiciled. at the time it brings the complaint. pursuant to the treaty obligation of the Philippines. 189. either as to the goods themselves. • Registration on the supplemental register is not constructive notice of registrant's claim of ownership.' has found that among other well-known trademarks 'Lacoste' is the subject of conflicting claims. and false description. • A supplemental register is provided for the registration of marks which are not registrable on the principal register because of some defects prejudicial question • The proceedings pending before the Patent Office involving IPC Co. applications for its registration must be rejected or refused. Thus." Rule I. in unfair competition and for the purposes of deceiving or defrauding another of his legitimate trade or the public in general. as amended. i. "(2) Appointing a representative or distributor who is domiciled in the Philippines. as 'the competent authority of the country of registration.e. unless said representative or distributor has an independent status. apply. shall sell his goods giving them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer. although it may be cancelled after its issuance. fraudulent registration of trade-mark. trade-mark or service mark. otherwise known as the Corporation Law.. shall not be deemed doing business in the Philippines. and not in the name or for the account of a principal. annex or use in connection with any goods or services or any container or containers for goods a false designation of origin or any false description or representation and shall sell such goods or services. ◦ the validity of registration. Unfair competition. grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. The pending case before the Patent Office is an administrative proceeding and not a civil case. • The case which suspends the criminal prosecution must be a civil case which is determinative of the innocence or. That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen. such as indentors. trade-name or service mark. ◦ the registrant's ownership of the mark ◦ and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark. Any person who by means of false or fraudulent representation or declarations orally or in writing or by other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes the registration of a trade-name. for unfair competition. Neither may it be the subject of interference proceedings. prima facie evidence of. 2. For this reason. 21-A. as in the case of the principal register. the latter is doing business in the Philippines. commercial brokers or commission merchants shall be the ones deemed to be doing business in the Philippines.. Section 21-A of Republic Act No. commercial brokers or commission merchants. But such indentors. Any person who. it transacts business in its name and for its account." • The registration of a mark upon the supplemental register is not.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law registered on the principal register. 1658 do not partake of the nature of a prejudicial question which must first be definitely resolved. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or tradename has been registered or assigned under this Act may bring an action hereunder for infringement. • In the case at bar. 166 "Sec. Provided. where a foreign firm is represented by a person or local company which does not act in its name but in the name of the foreign firm. trade-mark or service mark or an entry respecting a trade-name. the guilt of the accused. Eric Recalde 1. subject to the availability of other defenses." Jmvdg Trademark Cases 24 . • It is not subject to opposition. Any person who shall affix. whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act numbered Fourteen Hundred and Fifty-Nine. or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained or the device or words thereon or in any other features of their appearance which would be likely to induce the public to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer or shall give other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose..
IAC and ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE. counterfeit copy or colorable imitation thereof. Every other remedy is a special proceeding. issue of lis pendens • for lis pendens to be a valid ground for the dismissal of a case. IAC and MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION G.G. • The suffix "Tann" means an altar. 75067 February 26. the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. • Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of alright. as well as with the Bureau of Domestic Trade under Certificate of Registration No. Patent Office two (2) petitions for the cancellation of Certificates of 25 PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER. the place of offering in Chinese and this was adopted to harmonize the corporate name and the corporate logo of two hands in cup that symbolizes the act of offering to the Supreme Being for business blessing. the petitioner filed with the Phil. INC. Tokyo in which the establishment was first located and "Tan" which was taken from "Tanji Kosuge the First". • the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court and ordered the respondent judge to dismiss the civil case filed by the petitioner and further held that petitioner has no legal capacity to sue under Sec. • respondent registered "Isetann Department Store. Eric Recalde KABUSHI KAISHA ISETAN vs. 1980. • The trademark "Isetan" and "Young Leaves Design" were registered in Japan covering more than 34 classes of goods. or the prevention or redress of a wrong. restraining the private respondent and the Director of Patents from using the trademark "PUMA' or any reproduction. 1983. 4701 and 4714. Reg. 32020. the petitioner applied for the registration of "Isetan" and "Young Leaves Design" with the Philippine Patent Office under Permanent Serial Nos. actions • On November 28. may only be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action. • the Court of Appeals likewise erred in holding that the requisites of lis pendens were present so as to justify the dismissal of the case Jmvdg Trademark Cases . respectively. No. Defendant's contention: • Private respondent. the other case pending between the same parties and having the same cause must be a court action. On October 3. 21A of RA 166 Ratio Decidendi: • supra. vs. on the other handclaims that it used the word "Isetann" as part of its corporated name and on its products particularly on shirts in Joymart Department Store sometime in January 1979. Isetann Department Store. K.R. No. 1936. • The petitioner alleges that it first used the trademark Isetan on November 5.. as in cases of La Chemise Lacoste and Converse Rubber Corp. Nos. November 15. 1985. 52422 and 52423 respectively.R.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Section 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court "A petition for the suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a pre-judicial question in a civil case. and to withdraw from the market all products bearing the same trademark. Inc. 1988 Facts: • Puma filed a complaint for infringement of patent or trademark with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Mil-Oro • On July 31." Atty. 1991 Facts: Petitioner's contention: • Kabushi Kaisha Isetan is the owner of the trademark "Isetan" and the "Young Leaves Design". G. 75420. It states that the trademark is a combination of "Ise" taken from "Iseya" the first name of the rice dealer in Kondo." and Isetann and Flower Design in the Philippine Patent Office under SR.
"MARK TEN". If no appeal is filed within the periods here fixed. Inc. & Section 2-A see page 11 herein PHILIP MORRIS. we must honor our obligation thereunder on matters concerning internationally known or well known marks. when required by law. then within ten (10) days from notice or publication. the name cannot claim to be internationally well-known. No more than one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed any party. • There is no product with the name "Isetann" popularized with that brand name in the Philippines. Such right grows out of their actual use. provisions: • Sec. give out price lists on certain goods. RA 166 SECTION 2. One may make advertisements. of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. issue circulars. Adoption is not use. Al vs. No. award. Inc. this Treaty provision clearly indicated the conditions which must exist before any trademark owner can claim and be afforded rights such as the Petitioner herein seeks and those conditions are that: ◦ the mark must be internationally known or well known. • The records show that the petitioner has never conducted any business in the Philippines. 91332. 1993 Facts: petitioner's contention: • Philip Morris and the 2 other companies as subsidiaries of Philip Morris. the Philippines is a signatory to this Treaty and. order. this was however denied by the SEC • Director of Patents dismissed the suit for cancellation of registration filed by petitioner • IAC likewise dismissed the case Ratio Decidendi: • A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademarks Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename. The last 2 are suing on isolated transactions • As registered owners of "MARK VII". 2 RA 5343 SECTION 2. if publication is required by law for its effectivity. reputation. It has never promoted its tradename or trademark in the Philippines. It has absolutely no business goodwill in the Philippines. et. Appeals to Court of Appeals. Eric Recalde any exclusive right to its use Indeed. For trademark is a creation of use. award. ◦ the mark must be for use in the same or similar kinds of goods. the ruling. SR-4717 and SR-4701 • the petitioner also filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a petition to cancel the mark "ISETAN" as part of the registered corporate name of Isetann Department Store. decision or judgment or from the date of its last publication.R.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Supplemental Registration Nos. order. and "LARK" per certificates of registration issued by the Philippine Patent 26 Trademark Cases . but these alone would not give exclusive right of use. hence. July 16. CA and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP G. However. is the name of a store and not of products sold in various parts of the country. • Adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. • The records show that among Filipinos. not a patent or copyright or anything else. or in case a motion for reconsideration is filed within that period of fifteen (15) days. • Any goodwill. and ◦ the person claiming must be the owner of the mark. • The mere origination or adoption of a particular tradename without actual use thereof in the market is insufficient to give Jmvdg Atty. it has no right to the remedy it seeks. or knowledge regarding the name Isetann is purely the work of the private respondent. ◦ the subject of the right must be a trademark. • Isetann Department Store. Under the law. — Appeals to the Court of Appeals shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the ruling. decision or judgment shall become final and may be executed as provided by existing law.
Rather. which petitioners have done in the case at hand. He said there is no specific provision in the rules prohibiting such refiling • The petitioner will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries. Enrique Madarang.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law Office on April 26. is in actual use and available for commercial purposes anywhere in the Philippines. 1964. Relative to this condition precedent. for the same can always be refiled. and should. plaintiffs-petitioners asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation has no right to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the allegedly identical or confusingly similar trademark "MARK" in contravention of Section 22 of the Trademark Law. but existing adjective axioms require that qualifying Atty. there can be no disagreement to the guiding principle in commercial law that foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for infringement primarily because of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law when the legal standing to sue is alleged. it must additionally allege its personality to sue. 1973. the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. rules of international law are given a standing equal. the abandonment of an application is of no moment. therefore. not superior. Eric Recalde circumstances necessary for the assertion of such right should first be affirmatively pleaded it is not sufficient for a foreign corporation suing under Section 21-A to simply allege its alien origin. be precluded during the pendency of the case from performing the acts complained of via a preliminary injunction defendant's contention: • Fortune Tobacco Corporation admitted petitioners' certificates of registration with the Philippine Patent Office subject to the affirmative and special defense on misjoinder of party plaintiffs • it claims that the word “mark” is a common word which cannot be exclusively appropriated Ratio Decidendi: • there is no proof whatsoever that any of plaintiffs' products which they seek to protect from any adverse effect of the trademark applied for by defendant. 1964. it may be observed that petitioners were not remiss in averring their personality to lodge a complaint for infringement especially so when they asserted that the main action for infringement is anchored on an isolated transaction Given these confluence of existing laws amidst the cases involving trademarks. and March 25. as shown by plaintiffs' own evidence furnished by no less than the chief of Trademarks Division of the Philippine Patent Office. petitioners may have the capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of lack of business activity in the Philippines on account of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law but the question of whether they have an exclusive right over their symbol as to justify issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their trademarks in the Philippines in line • • • • • Jmvdg Trademark Cases 27 . May 28. Atty. • a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may have the right to sue before Philippine Courts. In other words. Secondly. to national legislative enactments A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename.
It is thus incongruous for petitioners to claim that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines files a complaint for infringement. or after registration. as amended. — A certificate of registration of a mark or trade name shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration. it inevitably follows that no conceivable damage can be suffered by them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their "right" to be protected. subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein. the registrant's ownership of the mark or trade name. publication of the application is necessary. while registration in the Supplemental Register is not. selling and distributing cigarettes under the trademark "MARK"? • are private respondent's acts complained of by petitioners causing irreparable injury to petitioners' rights in the premises? Ratio: -I• the legal effects of registration of a trademark in the Principal Register in the Office of the Director of Patents. • Petition dismissed separate opinion: Justice FELICIANO: dissenting issues: • is there a clear legal right to the relief asked by petitioners in the form of a preliminary injunction to restrain private respondent from manufacturing.." Registration in the Principal Register gives rise to a presumption of the validity of the registration. No. Registration in the Principal Register is constructive notice of the registrant's claims of ownership. Such a foreign corporation may have the personality to file a suit for infringement but it may not necessarily be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the emblem in the local market. Eric Recalde same in connection with the goods. which may be contested through opposition or interference proceedings. the registrant's ownership of the mark. the entity need not be actually using its trademark in commerce in the Philippines. In application for registration in the Principal Register.II foreign corporations and corporations domiciled in a foreign country are not disabled from bringing suit in Philippine 28 • • • • • • • • Trademark Cases . Certificates of registration under both Registers are also different from each other.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law with Sections 2 and 2-A of the same law. registration in the Principal Register is a basis for an action for infringement.A. . Milling Corp. 20. Proof of registration in the Principal Register may be filed with the Bureau of Customs to exclude foreign goods bearing infringing marks while it does not hold true for registrations in the Supplemental Register. Registration in the Principal Register is limited to the actual owner of the trademark (Unno Commercial Enterprises v. This is not so in applications for registration in the Supplemental Register. Section 20 of R. and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the • Jmvdg Atty. 166. Certificate of registration prima facie evidence of validity. • In view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint that they are not engaged in business in the Philippines. sets out the principal legal effects of such registration: ◦ "Sec. 120 SCRA 804 ) and proceedings therein pass on the issue of ownership. whether preliminary or definitive. Gen. There is no such presumption in registrations in the Supplemental Register. in a petition for cancellation. business or services specified in the certificate." a mere application for registration cannot be a sufficient reason for denying injunctive relief. and his right to the exclusive use thereof . while registration in the Supplemental Register is merely proof of actual use of the trademark and notice that the registrant has used or appropriated it.
" one of the basic rules of the Convention. Jur. No. without necessity for obtaining registration or a license to do business in the Philippines. ◦ second. they indicate origin or ownership of the articles to which they are attached. 166 relating to affidavits of continued use. they guarantee that those articles come up to a certain standard of quality. "Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trade-mark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties. but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name is likely to lead to a confusing of source. they advertise the articles they symbolize. Petitioners urge that private respondent's Atty. or for unfair competition. . The damage which petitioners claim they are sustaining by reason of the acts of private respondents. 576) or is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer. Eric Recalde use of its confusingly similar trademark "MARK" is invasive and destructive of petitioners' property right in their registered trademarks Modern authorities on trademark law view trademarks as symbols which perform three (3) distinct functions: ◦ first. or that petitioners' trademarks are not in fact used in trade and commerce in the Philippines. Article 2. paragraph 1 of the Paris Convention embodies the principle of "national treatment" or "assimilation with nationals. That petitioners are not doing business and are not licensed to do business in the Philippines. a corporate national of a member country of the Paris Union is entitled to bring in Philippine courts an action for infringement of trademarks. and without necessity of actually doing business in the Philippines. 52 Am. as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended his business into the field (see 148 ALR 56 et seq. ◦ third. damage through trademark infringement on the part of a local enterprise.Intellectual Property Law AUF School of Law courts to protect their rights as holders of trademarks registered in the Philippines. or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy • • • • • • • • • Jmvdg Trademark Cases 29 .III That petitioners are not doing business and are not licensed to do business in the Philippines. does not by any means mean either that petitioners have not complied with the requirements of Section 12 of R. does not necessarily mean that petitioners are not in a position to sustain.A. and do not in fact sustain. are not limited to impact upon the volume of actual imports into the Philippines of petitioners' cigarettes. Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Paris Convention restrains the Philippines from imposing a requirement of local incorporation or establishment of a local domicile as a pre-requisite for granting to foreign nationals the protection which nationals of the Philippines are entitled to under Philippine law in respect of their industrial property rights.