Faberge v IAC Digest

G.R. NO. 71189, NOVEMBER 4, 1992

Facts of the Case:
Co Beng Kay applied for the registration of the trademark 'BRUTE' to be used it its underwear
(briefs) products. The petitioner opposed on the ground that there is similarity with their own
symbol (BRUT, Brut33 & Device) used on its aftershave, deodorant, cream shave, hairspray
and hair shampoo/soaps and that it would cause injury to their business reputation. It must be
noted that the petitioner never applied for registration of said trademark for its brief products.
The Patent Office allowed Co Beng Kay the registration and this was further affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
Issue: Is there confusing similarity between the challenged marks and that its use would
likely cause confusion on the part of the purchasers?
HELD: NONE. Co Beng Kay may rightly appropriate the mark. In this case Sec. 20 (Philippine
Intellectual Property Law) is controlling. The certificate of registration issued confers the
exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified by the first user in the
certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated therein. Moreover, the two products are
so dissimilar that a purchaser of one (a brief) would not be misled or mistaken into buying the
other (such as an aftershave).