Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-54158 August 31, 1984 PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, TI URCIO S. E!ALLE "s D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts, "() *OS+IDA ,OG*O ,A US+I,I ,AIS+A, respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Peña & Marcos and Francisco Lava, Jr. for petitioner. The olicitor !eneral for respondent Appellate "ourt. #omulo, Ma$anta, %uenaventura & delos An&eles for private respondent. RESOL A-UINO, J.: !his case is about the conflictin# clai$s of Pa#asa "ndustrial Corporation and %oshida &o#'o &abushi(i &aisha for the trade$ar( %&& for )ippers. !he *irector of Patents issued to %oshida on Nove$ber +, ,+-, Certificate of Re#istration No. +.., for the said trade$ar( for slide fasteners and )ippers in class /,. "t clai$ed to have used the trade$ar( since eptem$er ', '()*. Not0ithstandin# that prior re#istration, the *irector on April +, '(,-, or $ore than si1 'ears later, issued to Pa#asa Certificate of Re#istration No. ,.23- for the sa$e trade$ar(for its )ippers, based on alle#ed use of the trade$ar( since March ', '(,,. On 4anuar' 5., ,+23, %oshida as(ed the *irector to cancel the re#istration in favor of Pa#asa. !he trade$ar(, used for the sa$e product b' t0o different entities, has caused confusion, $ista(e and deception. !he *irector e1plained that the duplicitous re#istration 0as attributable to the fact that his e1a$iner 6$iserabl' overloo(ed6 the anterior re#istration b' %oshida. 7ad it not been for such costl' oversi#ht, Pa#asa8s application 0ould have been re9ected. "n his decision of Ma' 3, ,+22, the *irector cancelled Pa#asa8s certificate of re#istration in accordance 0ith section / :d; and chapter "< of Republic Act No. ,--. Pa#asa appealed to the Court of Appeals 0hich in its decision dated =ebruar' -, ,+>? affir$ed the cancellation. "t found that prior to ,+-> Pa#asa (ne0 that %oshida 0as the re#istered o0ner and user of the %&& trade$ar( 0hich is an acron'$ of its corporate na$e. !adao %oshida, the president of %oshida, and !suto$u "sa(a the e1port $ana#er, visited in ,+-? :,+-3; Pa#asa8s factor' 0hich 0as $anufacturin# )ippers under the Ro'al brand Anacleto Chi, Pa#asa8s president visited in turn %oshida8s factor' in !o'o$a,4apan. !he Appellate Court concluded that Pa#asa8s (no0led#e that %oshida 0as usin# the %&& trade$ar( precludes the application of the e@uitable principle of laches, estoppel and ac@uiescence. "t noted that !"ON

Pa#asa acted in bad faith. As observed b' %oshida8s counsel, Pa#asa8s re#istration of %&& as its o0n trade$ar( 0as an act of in#ratitude. Pa#asa appealed to this Court. !he Second *ivision in a decision dated Nove$ber ,+, ,+>5, reversed the decision of the Appellate Court :,,> SCRA 35-;. %oshida filed a $otion for reconsideration 0hich 0as denied in the resolution of 4anuar' ,5, ,+>.. "t 0as #ranted leave to file a second $otion for reconsideration over Pa#asa8s opposition. !he case 0as transferred to the %anc. Ae hold that the second $otion for reconsideration should be #ranted. Pa#asa contended ori#inall' that the Appellate Court erred in holdin# that Pa#asa cannot invo(e the e@uitable principles of laches, estoppel and ac@uiescence because %oshida had not abandoned the %&& trade$ar( and Pa#asa 0as a0are of its prior e1istence and re#istration. "t alle#edl' erred further in rulin# that re#istration #ives the re#istrant a vested ri#ht in the trade$ar(. !hese contentions are devoid of $erit. !he appeal should not have been #iven due course. !he *irector of Patents sensibl' and correctl' cancelled the re#istration in favor of Pa#asa 0hich has not sho0n an' se$blance of 9ustification for usurpin# the trade$ar( %&&. !he re#istration in favor of Pa#asa 0as ad$itted b' the *irector to be a $ista(e. 7e said that Pa#asa8s application should have been denied outri#ht. Pa#asa cannot rel' on e@uit' because he 0ho co$es into e@uit' $ust co$e 0ith clean hands. E@uit' refuses to lend its aid in an' $anner to one see(in# its active interposition 0ho has been #uilt' of unla0ful or ine@uitable conduct in the $atter 0ith relation to 0hich he see(s relief :.? C.4.S. ,??+;. 6Re#istration is sufficient prima.facie proof that all acts necessar' to entitle the $ar( to re#istration 0ere dul' perfor$ed6 :>2 C.4.S. /5,;. Obviousl', %oshida8s prior re#istration is superior and $ust prevail. A7ERE=ORE, the decisions of the *irector of Patents and the Court of Appeals are affir$ed. Costs a#ainst the petitioner. SO OR*ERE*. Fernando, ".J., Teehan/ee, Ma/asiar, A$ad concur. antos, Melencio.0errera, Plana, 1scolin and !utierre2, JJ.,

"oncepcion, Jr., !uerrero, #elova, "uevas, and 3e la Fuente, JJ., too/ no part.

.G.R. No. 11158/. 0u(% 11, 1//12 S+ANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL +OTEL MANAGEMENT LTD., S+ANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., MA,ATI S+ANGRI-LA +OTEL AND RESORT, INC. "() ,UO, P+ILIPPINE PROPERTIES, INC., petitioners, vs. T+E COURT OF APPEALS, +ON. FELI3 M. DE GU4MAN, "s 0u)g%, RTC o' -u%5o( C#t6, $"(&7 99 "() DE!ELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., respondents. .G.R. No. 1148/1. 0u(% 11, 1//12 DE!ELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., petitioner, vs. T+E COURT OF APPEALS, +ON. IGNACIO S. SAPALO, #( 7#s &"8"&#t6 "s D#$%&to$, u$%"u o' P"t%(ts, T$")%9"$:s "() T%&7(o;og6 T$"(s'%$, "() S+ANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL +OTEL MANAGEMENT, LTD., respondents. *EC"S"ON %NARESBSAN!"ACO, J.D On 4une 5,, ,+>>, the Shan#riBLa "nternational 7otel Mana#e$ent, Ltd., Shan#riBLa Properties, "nc., Ma(ati Shan#riBLa 7otel and Resort, "nc. and &uo( Philippine Properties, "nc. :hereinafter collectivel' referred as the EShan#riBLa CroupF;, filed 0ith the Bureau of Patents, !rade$ar(s and !echnolo#' !ransfer :BP!!!; a petition, doc(eted as "nter Partes Case No. .,/3, pra'in# for the cancellation of the re#istration of the EShan#riBLaF $ar( and ESF deviceGlo#o issued to the *evelopers Croup of Co$panies, "nc., on the #round that the sa$e 0as ille#all' and fraudulentl' obtained and appropriated for the latterHs restaurant business. !he Shan#riBLa Croup alle#ed that it is the le#al and beneficial o0ners of the sub9ect $ar( and lo#oI that it has been usin# the said $ar( and lo#o for its corporate affairs and business since March ,+-5 and caused the sa$e to be speciall' desi#ned for their international hotels in ,+23, $uch earlier than the alle#ed first use thereof b' the *evelopers Croup in ,+>5. Li(e0ise, the Shan#riBLa Croup filed 0ith the BP!!! its o0n application for re#istration of the sub9ect $ar( and lo#o. !he *evelopers Croup filed an opposition to the application, 0hich 0as doc(eted as "nter Partes Case No. .35+. Al$ost three :.; 'ears later, or on April ,3, ,++,, the *evelopers Croup instituted 0ith the Re#ional !rial Court of Jue)on Cit', Branch ++, a co$plaint for infrin#e$ent and da$a#es 0ith pra'er for in9unction, doc(eted as Civil Case No. JB+,B>/2-, a#ainst the Shan#riBLa Croup. On 4anuar' >, ,++5, the Shan#riBLa Croup $oved for the suspension of the proceedin#s in the infrin#e$ent case on account of the pendenc' of the ad$inistrative proceedin#s before the BP!!!. !his 0as denied b' the trial court in a Resolution issued on 4anuar' ,-, ,++5. !he Shan#riBLa Croup filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Soon thereafter, it also filed a Motion to "nhibit a#ainst Presidin# 4ud#e =eli1 M. de Cu)$an. On 4ul' ,, ,++5, the trial court denied both $otions. !he Shan#riBLa Croup filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, doc(eted as CABC.R. SP No. 5+??-. On =ebruar' ,3, ,++., the Court of Appeals rendered its decision dis$issin# the petition for certiorari. !he Shan#riBLa Croup filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 0hich 0as denied on the #round that the sa$e presented no ne0 $atter that 0arranted consideration. 7ence, the instant petition, doc(eted as C.R. No. ,,,3>?, based on the follo0in# #roundsD

On 4anuar' . On =ebruar' 5./>?5. PRO7"B"!"ON AN* MAN*AM S. On the other hand. !he filin# of a suit to enforce the re#istered $ar( 0ith the proper court or a#enc' shall e1clude an' other court or a#enc' fro$ assu$in# 9urisdiction over a subse@uentl' filed petition to cancel the sa$e $ar(.3>? and . $anda$us and prohibition. B !he filin# of a suit to enforce the re#istered $ar( 0ith the proper court or Bureau shall e1clude an' other court or a#enc' fro$ assu$in# 9urisdiction over a subse@uentl' filed petition to cancel the sa$e $ar(. .. 1ffect of filin& of a suit $efore the %ureau or 4ith the proper court . . . despite the institution of an "nter Partes case for cancellation of a $ar( 0ith the BP!!! :no0 the Bureau of Le#al Affairs. raisin# the issue ofD A7E!7ER OR NO!. denied in a Resolution dated =ebruar' . A petition for revie0 0as thereafter filed. !he core issue is si$pl' 0hether./>?5 0ere ordered consolidated./3 an r#ent Motion to Suspend Proceedin#s. other0ise (no0n as the "ntellectual Propert' Code. Nos..++>. "NASM C7 AS BO!7 !7E C"<"L AC!"ON AN* !7E A*M"N"S!RA!"<E PROCEE*"NCS 7ERE "N<OL<E* MA% COBEK"S! AN* !7E LAA *OES NO! PRO<"*E =OR AN% PRE=ERENCE B% ONE O<ER !7E O!7ER. the BP!!!.++5. as follo0s L Section . issued an Order den'in# the Motion. On March 5+. on October 5>. Not0ithstandin# the fore#oin# provisions.5 of Republic Act No. the *evelopers Croup filed in "nter Partes Case No.5. . . !7E 7ONORABLE PRES"*"NC 4 *CE S7O L* "N7"B"! 7"MSEL= =ROM !R%"NC !7E "N=R"NCEMEN! CASE.R. !7E "N=R"NCEMEN! CASE S7O L* BE *"SM"SSE* OR A! LEAS! S SPEN*E*I AN* "". the adverse part' can file a subse@uent action for infrin#e$ent 0ith the re#ular courts of 9ustice in connection 0ith the sa$e re#istered $ar(... C. doc(eted as C. the earlier filing of petition to cancel the mark with the Bureau shall not constitute a .. .. Section 2. 522/5. provides to 0it L Section 2. . Rule >.R. b' one part'. the earlier filing of petition to cancel the mark with the Bureau of Legal Affairs shall not constitute a prejudicial question that must e resolved efore an action to enforce the rights to same registered mark ma! e decided. No. Sapalo.. SP No. >5+. the court or the ad$inistrative a#enc' vested 0ith 9urisdiction to hear and ad9udicate an' action to enforce the ri#hts to a re#istered $ar( shall li(e0ise e1ercise 9urisdiction to deter$ine 0hether the re#istration of said $ar( $a' be cancelled in accordance 0ith this Act. C"<EN !7E ES!ABL"S7E* =AC!S AN* C"RC MS!ANCES ON RECOR* AN* !7E LAA AN* 4 R"SPR *ENCE APPL"CABLE !O !7E MA!!ER. =ro$ the denial b' the BP!!! of its r#ent Motion to Suspend Proceedin#s and Motion for Reconsideration.R.!7E 7ONORABLE CO R! O= APPEALS CRA<EL% AB SE* "!S *"SCRE!"ON AN* COMM"!!E* A RE<ERS"BLE ERROR "N NO! ="N*"NC !7A!D "...3. !7E RESPON*EN! CO R! ERRE* "N 7OL*"NC !7A!. .?.. of the Re#ulations on "nter Partes Proceedin#s. Si$ilarl'. Mean0hile.. Ae rule in the affir$ative. the *evelopers Croup filed 0ith the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. the Court of Appeals dis$issed the petition for lac( of $erit.3. provides.++. On the other hand.++5. A Motion for Reconsideration 0as filed 0hich 0as. ho0ever. invo(in# the pendenc' of the infrin#e$ent case it filed before the Re#ional !rial Court of Jue)on Cit'. Section .++/. throu#h *irector "#nacio S. !7E RESPON*EN! *"REC!OR 7A* 4 R"S*"C!"ON !O R LE AS 7E *"* AN* 7A* NO! "NC RRE* AN% CRA<E AB SE O= *"SCRE!"ON CORREC!"BLE B% !7E EK!RAOR*"NAR% REME*"ES O= CER!"ORAR". doc(eted as CABC. :E$phasis provided. "ntellectual Propert' Office.

. the earlier institution of an "nter Partes case b' the Shan#riBLa Croup for the cancellation of the EShan#riBLaF $ar( and ESF deviceGlo#o 0ith the BP!!! cannot effectivel' bar the subse@uent filin# of an infrin#e$ent case b' re#istrant *evelopers Croup.++-. business or services specified in the certificate. upon 0hich the infrin#e$ent case is based. L a. *evelopers CroupHs Certificate of Re#istration in the principal re#ister continues as Epri$a facie evidence of the validit' of the re#istration. . "nc. in its sound discretion. an action. as 0ell as the re$ed' of in9unction and relief for da$a#es. the dispositive portion of 0hich readsD A7ERE=ORE. is e1plicitl' and un@uestionabl' 0ithin the co$petence and 9urisdiction of ordinar' courts.2 of Republic Act No. !he rationale is plainD Certificate of Re#istration No. as applied in the case at bar. evidentl'. =urther$ore. ho0ever.+?/. other0ise (no0n as the !radeBMar( La0. to defer to the findin#s or resolutions of ad$inistrative tribunals on certain technical $atters.--. Ae heldD Ae cannot see an' error in the above dis@uisition. dated March >. the re#istrantHs o0nership of the $ar( or tradeBna$e... *eclarin# defendantsH use of said $ar( and lo#o as an infrin#e$ent of plaintiffHs ri#ht theretoI .. re$ains valid and subsistin# for as lon# as it has not been cancelled b' the Bureau or b' an infrin#e$ent court. for infrin#e$ent or unfair co$petition. "nc. the infrin#e$ent court rendered a *ecision. in controversies involvin# speciali)ed disputes. 0ould $erel' behoove re#ular courts. 0hile the instant Petitions have been pendin# 0ith this Court. On the other hand. did not escape the appellate court for it li(e0ise decreed that for E#ood cause sho0n.. the issue raised before the BP!!! is @uite different fro$ that raised in the trial court. "t $i#ht be $entioned that 0hile an application for the ad$inistrative cancellation of a re#istered trade$ar( on an' of the #rounds enu$erated in Section . JB+.--. an application 0ith BP!!! for an ad$inistrative cancellation of a re#istered trade $ar( cannot per se have the effect of restrainin# or preventin# the courts fro$ the e1ercise of their la0full' conferred 9urisdiction. !he issue raised before the BP!!! 0as 0hether the $ar( re#istered b' *evelopers Croup is sub9ect to cancellation. falls under the e1clusive co#ni)ance of BP!!! :Sec. .prejudicial question that must e resolved efore an action to enforce the rights to same registered mark ma! e decided. As such. . and a#ainst defendants Shan#riBLa "nternational 7otel Mana#e$ent. Ma(ati Shan#riBLa 7otel and Resort. 7ence. Ltd. 6nc. !he la0 and the rules are e1plicit. "nc. Shan#riBLa Properties. the lo0er court.B>/2-. !his rule. *evelopers Croup $a' thus file a correspondin# infrin#e$ent suit and recover da$a#es fro$ an' person 0ho infrin#es upon the for$erHs ri#hts. A contrar' rule 0ould undul' e1pand the doctrine of pri$ar' 9urisdiction 0hich. the issue raised before the trial court 0as 0hether the Shan#riBLa Croup infrin#ed upon the ri#hts of *evelopers Croup 0ithin the conte$plation of Section 55 of Republic Act .+. as a$ended. pholdin# the validit' of the re#istration of the service $ar( EShan#riBLaF and ESBLo#oF in the na$e of plaintiffI b. 111 111 111 Surel'. v. as the Shan#riBLa Croup clai$s prior o0nership of the disputed $ar(. :E$phasis provided. 9ud#$ent is hereb' rendered in favor of plaintiff *evelopers Croup of Co$panies. and of the re#istrantHs e1clusive ri#ht to use the sa$e in connection 0ith the #oods. !he case of "onrad and "ompan5. and &uo( Philippine Properties. . $a' suspend the action pendin# outco$e of the cancellation proceedin#sF before the BP!!!. "nc. 7o0ever. in Civil Case No. !radeBMar( La0. si$pl' e1pressed. "ourt of Appeals is in point.F Since the certificate still subsists.

and shall be controlled thereb'. >5+. No. P3??.???. Orderin# defendants. "ntellectual Propert' Office. !he said *ecision is no0 on appeal 0ith respondent Court of Appeals. Bureau of Patents. !rade$ar(s and !echnolo#' !ransfer. so $ust the cancellation case 0ith the BP!!! :no0 the Bureau of Le#al Affairs. Let a cop' of this *ecision be certified to the *irector. to provide a 9udicious resolution of the issues at hand. . Republic Act No. v. or an' cop'. 53. "n the sa$e li#ht. reproduction or colorable i$itation thereof.-. =ollo0in# both la0 and the 9urisprudence enunciated in "onrad and "ompan5. "ourt of Appeals . their representatives. !here can be no den'in# that the infrin#e$ent court $a' validl' pass upon the ri#ht of re#istration. albeit the sa$e is still on appeal. Costs a#ainst defendants. in whole or in part. in the pro$otion. . Such a situation is certainl' not in accord 0ith the orderl' ad$inistration of 9ustice. 0ho shall $a(e appropriate entr' upon the records of the Bureau. the Re#ional !rial Court. .. for his infor$ation and appropriate action in accordance 0ith the provisions of Section 53./>?5. 0ent further and upheld the validit' and preference of the latterHs re#istration over that of the Shan#riBLa Croup.?? as attorne'Hs fees and e1penses of liti#ation. No. . provides to 0it L SEC. the onl' issue sub$itted for resolution is the correctness of the Court of AppealsH decision sustainin# the BP!!!Hs denial of the $otion to suspend the proceedin#s before it. advertise$ent. to inde$nif' plaintiff in the a$ounts of P5. si#ns. order the cancellation of the registration. Ae are not un$indful of the fact that in C. 4ud#e$ent and orders shall be certified b' the court to the *irector. 0here the issue of the validit' of the re#istration of the sub9ect trade$ar( and lo#o in the na$e of *evelopers Croup 0as passed upon. %et.R.???.A. 9ointl' and severall'. continue independentl' fro$ the infrin#e$ent case so as to deter$ine 0hether a re#istered $ar( $a' ulti$atel' be cancelled.???. a#ents. advertise$ents or other $aterials bearin# said $ar( and lo#o in their possession andGor under their controlI and e. licensees.--. Authorit5 to 3etermine #i&ht to #e&istration 7 "n an! action involving a registered mark the court ma! determine the right to registration... the infrin#e$ent case can and should proceed independentl' fro$ the cancellation case 0ith the Bureau so as to afford the o0ner of certificates of re#istration redress and in9unctive 0rits. :Sec. 7o0ever. :E$phasis provided. 6nc. in #rantin# redress in favor of *evelopers Croup. Orderin# defendants. "n an' event. SO OR*ERE*. !o allo0 the Bureau to proceed 0ith the cancellation case 0ould lead to a possible result contradictor' to that 0hich the Re#ional !rial Court has rendered. the Court of Appeals has the co$petence and 9urisdiction to resolve the $erits of the said R!C decision. the cancellation case filed 0ith the Bureau hence beco$es $oot.c. to per$anentl' cease and desist fro$ usin# andGor continuin# to use said $ar( and lo#o.-.--a. R. assi#nees and other persons actin# under their authorit' and 0ith their per$ission. rendition of their hotel and allied pro9ects and services or in an' other $anner 0hatsoeverI d. of Republic Act No. and otherwise rectif! the register with respect to the registration of an! part! to the action in the e#ercise of this. Aith the decision of the Re#ional !rial Court upholdin# the validit' of the re#istration of the service $ar( EShan#riBLaF and ESF lo#o in the na$e of *evelopers Croup.?? as actual and co$pensator' da$a#es. $aterials and paraphernalia used b' the$ andGor destro' an' and all prints. ob9ects. . Section . 0e find it apropos to order the suspension of the proceedin#s before the Bureau pendin# final deter$ination of the infrin#e$ent case. Orderin# defendants to re$ove said $ar( and lo#o fro$ an' pre$ises.

"n a decision. P7#. LeviHs appealed the case before the Court of Appeals :CA. but also failed. to suspend further proceedin#s in "nter Partes Case No. and orderin# the Bureau of Le#al Affairs.B>/2-.++-. &apunan. a 0holl' o0ned subsidiar' of the *ela0areBbased 9eans $a(er. LeviHs various trade$ar(s 0ere first used in here in .. the hi#h court said 6the filin# 0ith the CA of a petition for revie0 to @uestion the 4ustice secretar'Hs resolution re#ardin#.!he supre$e Court has upheld 4ustice depart$entHs dis$issal of a trade$ar( suit filed b' Levi Strauss :Philippines. a pla' of LeviHs patch sho0in# t0o opposin# horses bein# 0hipped b' t0o $en also in an atte$pt to pull the 9eans apart..+++. prosecution la0'er =lorencio dela Cru) dis$issed the co$plaint..?3 $ar( on the bac(poc(et of its 9eans. 9ac(ets and shirts in the Philippines. no part. 4. $ar( on the LeviHs brand. probable cause is an i$proper re$ed'. *avide. 44. "ntellectual Propert' Office. ./3. "n . No. P%)$"s". Police had searched the business$anHs office based on a co$plaint for unfair co$petition.) . sided 0ith <o#ue. in . SUIT !S RI!AL MANILA.+/-. !he local brandHs patches also depicted three $en on each side atte$ptin# to tear apart a pair of 9eans. SO OR*ERE*. "nc. =inall'. <o#ue has ac@uired cop'ri#ht protection for the $ar(s "n .++>..Hs a#ainst another 9eans $anufacturer.++3. :Chair$an.#88#(%s . si$ilar to the 3?. before the "ntera#enc' Co$$ittee on "ntellectual Propert' Ri#hts for sellin# si$ilar products under the brand na$e L"<EHS. JB+. "n . Silvestre Bello """. Levi Strauss.. LE!I=S LOSES TRADEMAR.. "n its rulin#. 9ud#$ent is hereb' rendered dis$issin# C. !he prosecutor said <o#ue had not tried to deceive consu$ers even if it printed a .. Puno and Pardo. in vie0 of the fore#oin#. us#(%ss<o$. it sued business$an !on' Li$Hs <o#ue !raders Clothin# Co.... C. concur. 4r.. 7is successor. . revised the decision.R. to a0ait the final outco$e of the appeal in Civil Case No. the third division of the hi#h court ruled #overn$ent prosecutors had not abused their authorit' 0hen the' found no sufficient evidence to pursue the case.3>? for bein# $oot and acade$ic. $anufactures and sells LeviHs pants. 4r.4. rulin# out the li(elihood of confusion bet0een the co$petin# products. then 4ustice Secretar' Serafin Cuevas overturned the Bello decision.6 > I$" P. then 4ustice Secretar' !eofisto Cuin#ona.<+EREFORE.

SUMMER!ILLE GENERAL MERC+ANDISING "() COMPAN*. doc(eted as Civil Case No. to distribute and $ar(et "hin "hun u products in the Philippines had alread' . ?B . for brevit'. &ho filed a co$plaint for in9unction and da$a#es 0ith a pra'er for the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction. assi#nee of the patent re#istration certificate.++.+. petitioner Elidad C. alle#ed as their defense that Su$$erville is the e1clusive and authori)ed i$porter.: Before us is a petition for revie0 on certiorari of the *ecision.+>? under Re#istration Certificate No. is the re#istered o0ner of the cop'ri#hts "hin "hun u and 8val Facial "ream "ontainer9"ase . doin# business under the na$e and st'le of .-2>I that she also has patent ri#hts on "hin "hun u & 3evice and "hin "hun u for $edicated crea$ after purchasin# the sa$e fro$ Juintin Chen#. on the other hand. respondents. .++5 of the Re#ional !rial Court. Branch +?. J.+O. of the Court of Appeals settin# aside and declarin# as null and void the Orders 5 dated =ebruar' .?+5-.++5 and March . ?B. COURT OF APPEALS. and ANG TIAM C+A*.++. and An# !ia$ Cha'.. 115?58 M"$&7 19. dated Ma' 5/. !he facts of the case are as follo0sD On *ece$ber 5?. JB+.?. DE LEON. that the authorit' of Juintin Chen#. as sho0n b' Certificates of Cop'ri#ht Re#istration No. petitioner.B. doin# business under the na$e and st'le of &EC Cos$etics Laborator'. of Jue)on Cit' #rantin# the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction. thereb' $isleadin# the public.3> and No. 1//1 ELIDAD C. 0R. +ON. . a#ainst the respondents Su$$erville Ceneral Merchandisin# and Co$pan' :Su$$erville. the re#istered o0ner thereof in the Supple$ental Re#ister of the Philippine Patent Office on =ebruar' 2. .Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DI!ISION G. and resultin# in the decline in the petitioner8s business sales and inco$eI and. that the respondents should be en9oined fro$ alle#edl' infrin#in# on the cop'ri#hts and patents of the petitioner. vs..R. !he respondents. reBpac(er and distributor of "hin "hun u products $anufactured b' Shun %i =actor' of !ai0anI that the said !ai0anese $anufacturin# co$pan' authori)ed Su$$erville to re#ister its trade na$e "hin "hun u Medicated "ream 0ith the Philippine Patent Office and other appropriate #overn$ental a#enciesI that &EC Cos$etics Laborator' of the petitioner obtained the cop'ri#hts throu#h $isrepresentation and falsificationI and. No. !he petitioner8s co$plaint alle#es that petitioner. . . /35+I that respondent Su$$erville advertised and sold petitioner8s crea$ products under the brand na$e "hin "hun u.EC COSMETICS LA ORATOR*. . in si$ilar containers that petitioner uses..

. pra'in# for the nullification of the said 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction issued b' the trial court. !rade$ar(s and !echnolo#' !ransfer cannot be e@uated 0ith re#istration in the principal re#ister. vs. JB+. =ernande).++5 and March .+. SP No. . SO OR*ERE*. .. the petition is hereb' #iven due course and the orders of respondent court dated =ebruar' . .R. a circular prohibitin# foru$ shoppin#. &ho.2. doin# business under the st'le of &EC Cos$etic Laborator'. After due hearin# on the application for preli$inar' in9unction. for preli$inar' in9unction.. . SO OR*ERE*. the' did not include therein a certificate of nonBforu$ shoppin#. the latter $oved to dis$iss the petition for violation of Supre$e Court Circular No.. .R. 52>?. After the respondents filed their repl' and al$ost a $onth after petitioner sub$itted her co$$ent. so$e obstacles 0hich the use $ust still overco$e before he can clai$ le#al . ..?.++.been ter$inated b' the said !ai0anese Manufacturin# Co$pan'. 0hich is dul' protected b' the !rade$ar( La0.':4phi'. Accordin# to the petitioner. to the effect that plaintiff 0ill pa' to defendants all da$a#es 0hich defendants $a' sustain b' reason of the in9unction if the Court should finall' decide that plaintiff is not entitled thereto.t 111 111 111 As ratiocinated in La Che$ise Lacoste.???./ On April 5/.++5. S. On Ma' 5/. 5>B+. SP No. !he respondents opposed the petition and sub$itted to the appellate court a certificate of nonBforu$ shoppin# for their petition.S. rulin# in favor of the respondents.B.n. the dispositive portion of 0hich readsD A7ERE=ORE. $ore si#nificantl'. . the trial court #ranted the sa$e in an Order dated =ebruar' . the appellate court ruled thatD !he re#istration of the trade$ar( or brandna$e 6Chin Chun Su6 b' &EC 0ith the supple$ental re#ister of the Bureau of Patents.?+5. the respondents filed a petition for certiorari 0ith the Court of Appeals. the dispositive portion of 0hich readsD ACCOR*"NCL%.++5.++5 #rantin# the 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction and den'in# petitioners8 $otion for reconsideration are hereb' set aside and declared null and void. B' the ver' fact that the trade$ar( cannot as 'et be on #uard and there are certain defects.++5. plaintiff is re@uired to file 0ith the Court a bond e1ecuted to defendants in the a$ount of five hundred thousand pesos :P3??. 52>?..D 6Re#istration in the Supple$ental Re#ister. therefore.5+ SCRA .3 "n #rantin# the petition. is hereb' #ranted.??./ . Conse@uentiall'.+. doc(eted as CABC. or on Au#ust .+. the respondents did not state the doc(et nu$ber of the civil case in the caption of their petition and. the appellate court rendered a *ecision in CABC. !he respondents $oved for reconsideration but their $otion for reconsideration 0as denied b' the trial court in an Order dated March . Respondent court is directed to forth0ith proceed 0ith the trial of Civil Case No. serves as notice that the re#istrant is usin# or has appropriated the trade$ar(. the application of plaintiff Elidad C.++5.?.and resolve the issue raised b' the parties on the $erits.

/ Phil 3.6 !he petitioner filed a $otion for reconsideration.5/ of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in !rade$ar( Cases but considerin# all the facts ventilated before us in the four interrelated petitions involvin# the petitioner and the respondent. !he reliance of the private respondent on the last sentence of the Patent office action on application Serial No. 0e have held that the presu$ption is rebuttable. SP No... !he supposed presu$ption not onl' runs counter to the precept e$bodied in Rule .??. Li$ 7oa. . the trial court rendered a *ecision 2 barrin# the petitioner fro$ usin# the trade$ar( Chin Chun Su and upholdin# the ri#ht of the respondents to use the sa$e.+3>.++/. "< RESPON*EN! 7ONORABLE CO R! O= APPEALS COMM"!!E* CRA<E AB SE . v. the trial court 0ent on to hear petitioner8s co$plaint for final in9unction and da$a#es.++. therefore. et al. !his she follo0ed 0ith several $otions to declare respondents in conte$pt of court for publishin# advertise$ents notif'in# the public of the pro$ul#ation of the assailed decision of the appellate court and statin# that #enuine "hin "hun u products could be obtained onl' fro$ Su$$erville Ceneral Merchandisin# and Co. . v.?-.o0nership of the $ar( or as( the courts to vindicate his clai$s of an e1clusive ri#ht to the use of the sa$e. "t 0ould be deceptive for a part' 0ith nothin# $ore than a re#istration in the Supple$ental Re#ister to posture before courts of 9ustice as if the re#istration is in the Principal Re#ister. 52>?. $isplaced and #rounded on sha(' foundation. -? Phil +5>I La %ebana Co.. chua Seco M Co. As even in cases 0here presu$ption and precept $a' factuall' be reconciled. On 4une . "" RESPON*EN! 7ONORABLE CO R! O= APPEALS COMM"!!E* CRA<E AB SE O= *"SCRE!"ON AMO N!"NC !O LAC& O= 4 R"S*"C!"ON "N RE= S"NC !O PROMP!L% RESOL<E PE!"!"ONER8S MO!"ON =OR RECONS"*ERA!"ON. .. One $a' be declared an unfair co$petitor even if his co$petin# trade$ar( is re#istered :Par(e. :People v. LB. Ma' .R./. the Court of Appeals pro$ul#ated a Resolution > den'in# the petitioner8s $otions for reconsideration and for conte$pt of court in CABC. . it is devoid of factual basis.?.5. not conclusive. !he trial court did not a0ard da$a#es and costs to an' of the parties but to their respective counsels 0ere a0arded Sevent'B=ive !housand Pesos :P23..R. """ "N *ELA%"NC !7E RESOL !"ON O= PE!"!"ONER8S MO!"ON =OR RECONS"*ERA!"ON. each as attorne'8s fees. No. this petition anchored on the follo0in# assi#n$ent of errorsD " RESPON*EN! 7ONORABLE CO R! O= APPEALS COMM"!!E* CRA<E AB SE O= *"SCRE!"ON AMO N!"NC !O LAC& O= 4 R"S*"C!"ON "N =A"L"NC !O R LE ON PE!"!"ONER8S MO!"ON !O *"SM"SS. !7E 7ONORABLE CO R! O= APPEALS *EN"E* PE!"!"ONER8S R"C7! !O SEE& !"MEL% APPELLA!E REL"E= AN* <"OLA!E* PE!"!"ONER8S R"C7! !O * E PROCESS. !he petitioner dul' appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals.???.?+3/ that 8re#istrants is presu$ed to be the o0ner of the $ar( until after the re#istration is declared cancelled8 is. *avis M Co. &iu =oo M Co. "n the $eanti$e. C.. On October 55. . nreported... 7ence. but reco#ni)in# the cop'ri#ht of the petitioner over the oval shaped container of her beaut' crea$.

Ae cannot li(e0ise overloo( the decision of the trial court in the case for final in9unction and da$a#es.5 "n relation thereto. Rule + of the Revised "nternal Rules of the Court of Appeals 0hen it failed to rule on her $otion for reconsideration 0ithin ninet' :+?. da's fro$ the ti$e it is sub$itted for resolution.. A trade$ar( is an' visible si#n capable of distin#uishin# the #oods :trade$ar(.. the appellate court denied the petitioner8s ri#ht to see( the ti$el' appellate relief..3 Petitioner has no ri#ht to support her clai$ for the e1clusive use of the sub9ect trade na$e and its container. "n order to be entitled to e1clusivel' use the sa$e in the sale of the beaut' crea$ product. involves an inventive step and is industriall' applicable. . !he appellate court ruled onl' after the lapse of three hundred fift'Bfour :. the user $ust sufficientl' prove that she re#istered or used it before an'bod' else did. !he petitioner8s cop'ri#ht and patent re#istration of the na$e and container 0ould not #uarantee her the ri#ht to the e1clusive use of the sa$e for the reason that the' are not appropriate sub9ects of the said intellectual ri#hts. the petitioner contends that the appellate court violated Section -. on the other hand. or services :service $ar(. Ae rule in favor of the respondents. of an enterprise and shall include a sta$ped or $ar(ed container of #oods. a trade na$e $eans the na$e or desi#nation identif'in# or distin#uishin# an enterprise.. "n dela'in# the resolution thereof. da's. and. refer to an' technical solution of a proble$ in an' field of hu$an activit' 0hich is ne0. "n the case at bar. . =inall'. Ae first find it appropriate to rule on 0hether the cop'ri#ht and patent over the na$e and container of a beaut' crea$ product 0ould entitle the re#istrant to the use and o0nership over the sa$e to the e1clusion of others. . one of the #rounds for the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction is a proof that the applicant is entitled to the relief de$anded.+ !he petitioner faults the appellate court for not dis$issin# the petition on the #round of violation of Supre$e Court Circular No. Mean0hile. a preli$inar' in9unction order $a' be #ranted onl' 0hen the application for the issuance of the sa$e sho0s facts entitlin# the applicant to the relief de$anded.O= *"SCRE!"ON AMO N!"NC !O LAC& O= 4 R"S*"C!"ON "N =A"L"NC !O C"!E !7E PR"<A!E RESPON*EN!S "N CON!EMP!. . that the ri#ht of co$plainant is clear and un$ista(able. Also. either for a li$ited period or perpetuall'. . !hus. not havin# proven that she has re#istered a trade$ar( thereto or used the sa$e before an'one did. !he said decision . !he dispositive portion of said decision held that the petitioner does not have trade$ar( ri#hts on the na$e and container of the beaut' crea$ product. and the 0hole or part of such relief consists in restrainin# the co$$ission or continuance of the act or acts co$plained of. !rade$ar(. that there is an ur#ent and para$ount necessit' for the 0rit to prevent serious da$a#e./ Patentable inventions. Conse@uentl'. or on 4une .++/. cop'ri#ht and patents are different intellectual propert' ri#hts that cannot be interchan#ed 0ith one another.? !his is the reason 0h' 0e have ruled that it $ust be sho0n that the invasion of the ri#ht sou#ht to be protected is $aterial and substantial.. the scope of a cop'ri#ht is confined to literar' and artistic 0or(s 0hich are ori#inal intellectual creations in the literar' and artistic do$ain protected fro$ the $o$ent of their creation. a preli$inar' in9unction order cannot be issued for the reason that the petitioner has not proven that she has a clear ri#ht over the said na$e and container to the e1clusion of others.. Rule 3> of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. petitioner describes as arbitrar' the denial of her $otions for conte$pt of court a#ainst the respondents.. !he na$e and container of a beaut' crea$ product are proper sub9ects of a trade$ar( inas$uch as the sa$e falls s@uarel' 0ithin its definition.3/. Pursuant to Section . the petitioner applied for the issuance of a preli$inar' in9unctive order on the #round that she is entitled to the use of the trade$ar( on "hin "hun u and its container based on her cop'ri#ht and patent over the sa$e. 5>B+.

n petitions for certiorari before the Supre$e Court and the Court of Appeals. !his is prohibited b' Section -. a decision den'in# the applicantB plaintiff8s ri#ht to a final in9unction. ... Nonetheless. La Vista cate#oricall' pronounced that the issuance of a final in9unction renders an' @uestion on the preli$inar' in9unctive order $oot and acade$ic despite the fact that the decision #rantin# a final in9unction is pendin# appeal. An in<unction issued $5 the trial court after it has alread5 made a clear pronouncement as to the plaintiff>s ri&ht thereto. the petitioner i$properl' raised the technical ob9ection of nonBco$pliance 0ith Supre$e Court Circular No. Before #ivin# due course thereto. Conversel'. Rule . !he petitioner li(e0ise contends that the appellate court undul' dela'ed the resolution of her $otion for reconsideration. althou#h appealed. the proceedin#s for preli$inar' in9unction cannot stand separatel' or proceed independentl' of the decision rendered on the $erit of the $ain case for in9unction. %ourt of Appeals.-. Rule -. the provisions of Section 5.++. v. Ae disa#ree. shall be observed. b' filin# a $otion to dis$iss the petition for certiorari filed in the appellate court. necessitatin# counterB$anifestations fro$ private respondents 0ith the last one bein# filed on Nove$ber +. 0e find that the said issue has li(e0ise been rendered $oot and acade$ic b' our rulin# that she has no ri#ht over the trade$ar( and. 5>B+.++. the trial court havin& appreciated the evidence presented. She therefore could no lon#er sub$it a $otion to dis$iss nor raise defenses and ob9ections not included in the ans0erGco$$ent she had earlier tendered. . after the same issue has $een decided on the merits.of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure 0hich provides that 6:". is proper. the issue 0as raised one $onth after petitioner had filed her ans0erGco$$ent and after private respondent had replied thereto.2 Aith respect to the purported da$a#es she suffered due to the alle#ed dela' in resolvin# her $otion for reconsideration. it is 0ellBsettled that nonBobservance of the period for decidin# cases or their incidents does not render such 9ud#$ents ineffective or void. the petition 111 :italics supplied.6.of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. !he petitioner ar#ues that the appellate court erred in not dis$issin# the petition for certiorari for nonBco$pliance 0ith the rule on foru$ shoppin#. and not a motion to dismiss . Bein# an ancillar' re$ed'. . !he #rantin# of an in9unctive 0rit based on a technical #round rather than co$pliance 0ith the re@uisites for the issuance of the sa$e is contrar' to the pri$ar' ob9ective of le#al procedure 0hich is to serve as a $eans to dispense 9ustice to the deservin# part'.. !his is supported b' our rulin# in La $ista Association. to 0itD "onsiderin& that preliminar5 in<unction is a provisional remed5 4hich ma5 $e &ranted at an5 time after the commencement of the action and $efore <ud&ment 4hen it is esta$lished that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and onl5 4hen his complaint sho4s facts entitlin& such reliefs === and it appearin& that the trial court had alread5 &ranted the issuance of a final in<unction in favor of petitioner in its decision rendered after trial on the merits === the "ourt resolved to 3ismiss the instant petition havin& $een rendered moot and academic. a $otion to dis$iss shall be filed 0ithin the ti$e for but before filin# the ans0er to the co$plaint or pleadin# assertin# a clai$. that is. But 0e find that petitioner contributed to this dela' 0hen she filed successive contentious $otions in the sa$e proceedin#. substantial 9ustice and e@uit' re@uire this Court not to revive a dissolved 0rit of in9unction in favor of a part' 0ithout an' le#al ri#ht thereto $erel' on a technical infir$it'. :italics supplied. renders $oot and acade$ic an' ob9ection to the prior dissolution of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction.. !hirdl'.on the $erits of the trial court rendered the issuance of the 0rit of a preli$inar' in9unction $oot and acade$ic not0ithstandin# the fact that the sa$e has been appealed in the Court of Appeals. =irst. Secondl'. the last of 0hich 0as on October 52. !he $erit of the $ain case havin# been alread' deter$ined in favor of the applicant. the preli$inar' deter$ination of its nonBe1istence ceases to have an' force and effect. Rule 3-. the court $a' re@uire the respondents to file their co$$ent to. not4ithstandin& the fact that the decision rendered is not 5et final 111. "nc.. nder Section .

0e rule that the Court of Appeals correctl' denied the petitioner8s several $otions for conte$pt of court.t =inall'. SO OR*ERE*. . the said decision nullif'in# the in9unctive 0rit 0as i$$ediatel' e1ecutor'. .. Aith costs a#ainst the petitioner. to the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction. 52>?. ':4phi'. !here is nothin# conte$ptuous about the advertise$ents co$plained of 0hich.+ of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. pursuant to Section / of Rule .R.++. Moreover.n. are hereb' AFFIRMED. SP No. $erel' announced in plain and strai#htfor0ard lan#ua#e the pro$ul#ation of the assailed *ecision of the appellate court. the petition is DENIED.++/. respectivel'.conse@uentl'. . as re#ards the proceedin#s in CABC. !he *ecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated Ma' 5/. and 4une . A7ERE=ORE.

. chair$an and ponente. !he dispositive part of the decision reads as follo0sD "n the li#ht of the fore#oin# anal'sis and under the plain lan#ua#e of the applicable rule and principle on the $atter. No. a#ents. presided over b' 4ud#e 4esus O.?/.: On Septe$ber .. or substantiall' identical 0ith or li(e the bottles and labels no0 e$plo'ed b' the defendant for that purpose. the Court of Appeals :Si1th *ivision co$posed of 4ustice 4ose C. %una&. !he decision of the trial court is hereb' RE<ERSE*. puttin# up. J. 1993 RE<ER*.. sell or pal$ off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiffBco$plainant. . reversed the trial court. COURT OF APPEALS "() SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. ala2ar. respondents. offerin# or announcin# for sale. servants and e$plo'ees are hereb' per$anentl' en9oined and restrained fro$ $anufacturin#..R.. dis$issin# SMC8s co$plaint because AB" 6has not co$$itted trade$ar( infrin#e$ent or unfair co$petition a#ainst6 SMC :p. or suppl'in# Beer Pale Pilsen.++?.. Metro Manila. Bersa$ira.+?.. A$ad antos & Associates and 5cip. C< No. San Mi#uel Corporation :SMC. 0ernande2 & !atmaitan for petitioner. Case. sellin#.>+. and =ile$on 7. . . R!C Branch .R. Asia Bre0er' "nc.BC. Aldecoa 4r. On Septe$ber . filed a co$plaint a#ainst Asia Bre0er' "nc. T+E +ON. and 4ustices <enancio *.. or an' si$ilar preparation. as $e$bers. . :AB".+>>. #ollo. advertisin#.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. $anufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantiall' identical 0ith or li(e the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Mi#uel Corporation e$plo'ed for that purpose. its officers. ASIA GRI@O-A-UINO.. Mendo)a. 1/3543 0u. or in bottles or under labels 0hich are calculated to deceive purchasers and consu$ers into the belief that the beer is the product of the plaintiff or 0hich 0ill enable others to substitute.--. #oco. a decision 0as rendered b' the trial Court. 3-. :San Mi#uel Corporation vs. 4r. ?apunan La4 8ffice for private respondent. 5>. SMC appealed to the Court of Appeals :C.6 5. INC. vs. for infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition on account of the latter8s BEER PALE P"LSEN or BEER NA BEER product 0hich has been co$petin# 0ith SMC8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN for a share of the local beer $ar(et.++.A. On Au#ust 52. Ae find the defendant Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated C "L!% of infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition. Civ. Ca$pos. petitioner. !he defendant Asia Bre0er' "nc. and a ne0 9ud#$ent entered in favor of the plaintiff and a#ainst the defendant as follo0sD :.?..3. No. Pasi#.

or suppl'in# Beer Pale Pilsen.??. b' 0a' of e1e$plar' da$a#es.I to recall all its products bearin# the $ar( 6Beer Pale Pilsen6 fro$ its retailers and deliver these as 0ell as all labels. there are e1ceptions to this #eneral rule.. !he lone issue in this appeal is 0hether AB" infrin#es SMC8s trade$ar(D an Mi&uel Pale Pilsen 4ith #ectan&ular 0ops and Malt 3esi&n.. $olds.???. !he decision of the trial court is hereb' RE<ERSE*.???. 0rappers.??.??. and the' areD :. :/.. AB" appealed to this Court b' a petition for certiorari under Rule /3 of the Rules of Court.. the findin#s of the Court of Appeals upon factual @uestions are conclusive and ou#ht not to be disturbed b' us. :.??. or an' si$ilar preparation. offerin# or announcin# for sale. or in bottles or under labels 0hich are calculated to deceive purchasers and consu$ers into the belief that the beer if the product of the plaintiff or 0hich 0ill enable others to substitute.???.???. prints. "n due ti$e. 7o0ever. si#ns. !he defendant Asia Bre0er' "nc. its officers. b' 0a' of e1e$plar' da$a#es. Ahen the conclusion is #rounded entirel' on speculation. :5. pac(a#es. is hereb' ordered to render an accountin# and pa' the San Mi#uel Corporation double an' and all the pa'$ents derived b' defendant fro$ operations of its business and the sale of #oods bearin# the $ar( 6Beer Pale Pilsen6 esti$ated at appro1i$atel' =ive Million Pesos :P3. v. puttin# up. advertisin#. !he defendant Asia Bre0er' "nc. +?. Standard Brands "nc. a#ents.???. :/. servants and e$plo'ees are hereb' per$anentl' en9oined and restrained fro$ $anufacturin#. $aterials and other $eans of $a(in# the sa$e to the Court authori)ed to e1ecute this 9ud#$ent for destruction. and thereb' co$$its unfair co$petition a#ainst the latter. and as a #eneral rule. "t is a factual issue :Phil. is hereb' ordered 1 to recall all its products bearin# the $ar( Beer Pale Pilsen fro$ its retailers and deliver these as 0ell as all labels. and a ne0 9ud#$ent entered in favor of the plaintiff and a#ainst the defendant as follo0sD :. the above dispositive part of the decision. prints. or substantiall' identical 0ith or li(e the bottles and labels no0 e$plo'ed b' the defendant for that purpose. !he defendant is further ordered to pa' the plaintiff attorne'8s fees in the a$ount of P53?.. !he defendant is further ordered to pa' the plaintiff attorne'8s fees in the a$ount of P53?.??.???. $aterials and other $eans of $a(in# the sa$e to the Court authori)ed to e1ecute this 9ud#$ent for destruction. pon a $otion for reconsideration filed b' AB".???.:5. $olds. sell or pal$ off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiffBco$plainant. :p. !he defendant Asia Bre0er' "nc. Ae find the defendant Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated !@6LTA of infrin&ement of trademar/ and unfair competition . $anufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantiall' identical 0ith or li(e the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Mi#uel Corporation e$plo'ed for that purpose. sur$ises and con9ecturesI . !he defendant is hereb' ordered to pa' plaintiff the su$ of !0o Million Pesos :P5. as $oral da$a#es and 7alf a Million Pesos :P3??.. :. si#ns. pac(a#es.?? plus costs of this suit. receptacles and advertise$ents bearin# the infrin#in# $ar( and all plates. receptacles and advertise$ents bearin# the infrin#in# $ar( and all plates.???.???..???. sellin#.???. 0rappers. #ollo. -3 SCRA 323. !he defendant is hereb' ordered to pa' plaintiff the su$ of !0o Million Pesos :P5. Nut "ndustr' "nc. as $oral da$a#es and 7alf a Million Pesos :P3. 0as $odified b' the separate opinions of the Special Si1th *ivision 1 so that it should read thusD "n the li#ht of the fore#oin# anal'sis and under the plain lan#ua#e of the applicable rule and principle on the $atter.?? plus costs to this suit.

. 552.?5 SCRA >.. SCRA /../I Manero vs. . Court of Appeals. CA. CMS Stoc( Bro(era#e. citin#. :Cru) vs. or identit' of such businessI or reproduce. nder an' of these e1ceptions. "nfrin#e$ent of trade$ar( is a for$ of unfair co$petition :Clar(e vs.. CA. :E$phasis supplied. Ahen the findin#s of said court are contrar' to those of the trial courtI :2. Ahen the 9ud#$ent is based on a $isapprehension of factsI :3. Ahen the findin#s are 0ithout citation of specific evidence on 0hich the' are basedI :>.. business or services on or in connection 0ith 0hich such use is li(el' to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or ori#in of such #oods or services. 6nfrin&ement. cop' or colorabl' i$itate an' such $ar( or tradeBna$e and appl' such reproduction... Ahere there is #rave abuse of discretionI :/./2 SCRA 5. Ahen the inference of the Court of Appeals fro$ its findin#s of fact is $anifestl' $ista(en. Ahere findin#s of the Court of Appeals and trial court are contrar' to each other. .. Ahen the facts set forth in the petition as 0ell as in the petitioner8s $ain and repl' briefs are not disputed b' the respondentsI and :+. counterfeit. .+ SCRA 32-I Casana'an vs.. . "AC. 4hat constitutes .. "AC. Mendo)a vs. the Supre$e Court $a' scrutini)e the evidence on record. !his definition i$plies that onl' re&istered trade $ar(s.?-. -?+I Cuita vs.Phil.>I Saca' vs./5 SCRA 3+. . b' $anufacturin# and sellin# its BEER PALE P"LSEN in a$ber colored steinie bottles of . counterfeit. 55.-I also Ape1 "nvest$ent and =inancin# Corp.:5. in $a(in# its findin#s. absurd and i$possibleI :. !he use of so$eone else8s re#istered . . . 55 of Republic Act No. Court of Appeals. capacit' 0ith a 0hite painted rectan#ular label has co$$itted trade$ar( infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition a#ainst SMC. .5+ SCRA 555. counterfeit. *e 4esus. vs..SCRA 3+2I Manlapa) vs... :Re'nolds Philippine Corporation vs. "nc. 0rappers. Ahen the appellate court.3. .+. 4r. other0ise (no0n as the !rade$ar( La0.. "nc.??. the Court has to revie0 the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findin#s based on the record :Ro$an Catholic Bishop of Malolos.-. pac(a#es. trade na$es and service $ar(s are protected a#ainst infrin#e$ent or unauthori)ed use b' another or others. defines 0hat constitutes infrin#e$entD Sec. Sec. vs..--. Sandi#anba'an. /5?. . . offerin# for sale. or colorable i$itation to labels. cop'. +2 SCRA 2. and the sa$e are contrar' to the ad$issions of both the appellant and the appelleeI :-. CA.. cop' or colorable i$itation of an' re&istered $ar( or tradeBna$e in connection 0ith the sale. shall be liable to a civil action b' the re#istrant for an' or all of the re$edies herein provided. . 0ithout the consent of the re#istrant.SCRA /3> Ncitin# !olentino vs.. si#ns. P An' person 0ho shall use. Court of Appeals. prints.-+ SCRA 55?. receptacles or advertise$ents intended to be used upon or in connection 0ith such #oods. 3. an' reproduction. CA. 0ent be'ond the issues of the case.SCRA . business or services. . 55. vs. vs.2I and Moran. !he present case is one of the e1ceptions because there is no concurrence bet0een the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the lone factual issue of 0hether AB".5? $l. Court of Appeals. . .+> SCRA .. or advertisin# of an' #oods. "nc. SCRA >>O..-2I Carolina "ndustries. Manila Cand' Co. Ahen the findin#s of facts of the Court of Appeals are pre$ised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted on record. .

Si$ilarit' in si)e. 3irector of Patents. such as 0ould be li(el' to cause the one $ar( to be $ista(en for the other.6 :6$id. / :. !rade$ar(s and !echnolo#' !ransfer !rade$ar( Certificate of Re#istration No. 525. NC.+. As described b' the trial court in its decision :Pa#e .5? Ml.. #olloI E$phasis supplied. vs. 0ritten in s$all prints. "ndependent Bre0in# Co. trade na$e or service $ar( is unauthori)ed. citin# Ea#le Ahite Lead Co. hence. . . ./. 523.. vs.2 :. *oes AB"8s BEER PALE P"LSEN label or 6desi#n6 infrin#e upon SMC8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN A"!7 REC!ANC LAR MAL! AN* 7OPS *ES"CNQ !he ans0er is 6No. . CLtd. /? Phil. the (ind that first appeared in the . At the top is a phrase 0ritten in s$all print 6Re#. and confusion and deception is li(el' to result. :Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Off. a rectan#ular desi#n bordered b' 0hat appear to be $uds of flo4ers 4ith leaves. 6San Mi#uel Bre0er'6 :second line. On the other hand. 5d 3>>I . .+3/.?. #ollo. as described b' the trial court. if it is done 60ithout the consent of the re#istrant.. :E$phasis supplied.. !he do$inant feature is 6%eer6 0ritten across the upper portion of the rectan#ular desi#n. Belo0 6Pale Pilsen6 is the state$ent 6And Bottled b'6 :first line. :Philippine Bureau of Patents. thusD "t has been consistentl' held that the @uestion of infrin#e$ent of a trade$ar( is to be deter$ined b' the test of dominanc5. .22. :p.5? $l.-. +3 Phil. Phil. An& an To. Munn & "o.6 !he do$inant feature is the phrase 6 an Mi&uel6 0ritten hori)ontall' at the upper portion. "f the co$petin# trade$ar( contains the $ain or essential or do$inant features of another.?? Phil. Belo0 are the 0ords 6Pale Pilsen6 0ritten dia#onall' across the $iddle of the rectan#ular desi#n.6 "$$ediatel' belo0 6Pale Pilsen6 is the state$ent 0ritten in three lines 6Especiall' bre0ed and bottled b'6 :first line.I reiterated in Lim 0oa vs. "n For$es.. :p.... is not conclusive.. is the phrase 6Net Contents . and 6Philippines6 :third line..6 .. .6 !he 6S6 in 6San6 and the 6M6 of 6Mi#uel. 0hile relevant. consists ofD . and 6Philippines6 :third line. . . . !he phrase 6Pale Pilsen6 appears i$$ediatel' belo0 in s$aller bloc( letters. Oct.. />+. !he rule 0as for$ulated in "o Tion& a vs. .6 "nfrin#e$ent is deter$ined b' the 6test of do$inanc'6 rather than b' differences or variations in the details of one trade$ar( and of another. . Pat.6 and at the botto$ 6Net ContentsD . AB"8s trade$ar(. 6Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated6 :second line.+>-.. 5. . the test 0as si$ilarit' or 6rese$blance bet0een the t0o :trade$ar(s. for$ and color.+3-. dated 5.22.>? =ed. Pflu#h :CC.6 6P6 of 6Pale6 and 6Pilsen6 are 0ritten in Cothic letters 0ith fine stro(es of serifs. NButO this is not such si$ilitude as a$ounts to identit'.-B5. !he re#istered trade$ar( of SMC for its pale pilsen beer isD an Mi&uel Pale Pilsen Bith #ectan&ular 0ops and Malt 3esi&n. . actionable.2/. . 7onover Rubber Co. .. 32+O. *uplication or i$itation is not necessar'I nor it is necessar' that the infrin#in# label should su##est an effort to i$itate.2>?s in En#land and used for printin# Cer$an as distin#uished fro$ Ro$an and "talic. a rectan#ular desi#n NisO bordered b' 0hat appears to be minute &rains arran&ed in ro4s of three in 4hich there appear in each corner hop desi&ns .trade$ar(. . infrin#e$ent ta(es place.D . !o the left is a hop desi#n and to the ri#ht. /+3. .?2 =.. !he @uestion at issue in cases of infrin#e$ent of trade$ar(s is 0hether the use of the $ar(s involved 0ould be li(el' to cause confusion or mista/es in the mind of the pu$lic or deceive purchasers . . "n bet0een is a coat of ar$s and the phrase 6E1pertl' Bre0ed. =. 5. :p. #olloI E$phasis supplied.. .D vs. 3irector of Patents .22. #ollo.. . Neil$an Bre0in# Co..

!he BEER PALE P"LSEN bottle cap is sta$ped 0ith the na$e 6BEER6 in the center. Philippines. -3 SCRA 323. the do$inant feature of AB"8s trade$ar( is the na$eD BEER PALE P"LSEN. :3. :5.. tandard %rands 6nc. !he bac( of the SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN bottle carries the SMC lo#o. No one 0ho purchases BEER PALE P"LSEN can possibl' be deceived that it is SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN. there is absolutel' no si$ilarit' in the do$inant features of both trade$ar(s. SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN is 6Bottled b' the San Mi#uel Bre0er'. !he BEER PALE P"LSEN bottle has a fat. and SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN :currentl' at P2. .6n Phil.53 for a bottle of beer cannot e1pect to receive San Mi#uel Pale Pilsen fro$ the store(eeper or bartender. !he SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN bottle has a slender tapered nec(. bul#in# nec(. =inall'.. Besides the dissi$ilarit' in their na$es. No evidence 0hatsoever 0as presented b' SMC provin# other0ise. 0ith the 0ord 6Beer6 0ritten in lar#e a$ber letters.53 per bottle.6 :/. :.?? per bottle. . Eut 6ndustr5 6nc.. its cop'ri#hted slo#anD 6BEER NA BEERR6 Ahereas SMC8s bottle carries no slo#an. the follo0in# other dissi$ilarities in the trade dress or appearance of the co$petin# products aboundD :. the court 0as $ore specificD the test is 6si$ilarit' in the do$inant features of the trade$ar(s. !he na$es of the $anufacturers are pro$inentl' printed on their respective bottles. 7ence. surrounded b' the 0ords 6Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated Philippines. spellin# or appearance can BEER PALE P"LSEN be said to be confusin#l' si$ilar to SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN.. Neither in sound. Philippines. 0ritten in 0hite Cothic letters 0ith elaborate serifs at the be#innin# and end of the letters 6S6 and 6M6 on an a$ber bac(#round across the upper portion of the rectan#ular desi#n. bold letters. :See E1hibit 6>Ba6. there is a substantial price difference bet0een BEER PALE P"LSEN :currentl' at P/. 9ust as the 0ords 6SAN M"C EL6 do not appear in AB"8s trade$ar(. !he trial court perceptivel' observed that the 0ord 6BEER6 does not appear in SMC8s trade$ar(.6 :2. !he SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN bottle cap is sta$ped 0ith a coat of ar$s and the 0ords 6San Mi#uel Bre0er' Philippines6 encirclin# the sa$e. lar#er than an' of the letters found in the SMC label. !he 0ords 6pale pilsen6 on SMC8s label are printed in bold and laced letters alon# a dia&onal band. under a ro0 of flo0er buds and leaves. One 0ho pa's onl' P/.6 Ahat are the do$inant features of the co$petin# trade$ar(s before usQ !here is hardl' an' dispute that the do$inant feature of SMC8s trade$ar( is the na$e of the productD SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN. :-. vs. On the bac( of AB"8s bottle is printed in bi#. On the other hand..6 0hereas BEER PALE P"LSEN is 6Especiall' bre0ed and bottled b' Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated. 0hereas the BEER PALE P"LSEN bottle has no lo#o. 0hereas the 0ords 6pale pilsen6 on AB"8s bottle are half the si)e and printed in slender bloc( letters on a strai#ht hori2ontal band.

vs. or is pri$aril' $erel' a surna$e. business or services of the applicant is merel5 descriptive or deceptivel5 misdescriptive of them. unless itD 111 111 111 :e. but rather because others are e@uall' entitled to its use.. the' also have the ri#ht to describe the$ properl' and to use an' appropriate lan#ua#e or 0ords for that purpose. and thus li$it other persons in the use of lan#ua#e appropriate to the description of their $anufactures. No one $a' appropriate #eneric or descriptive 0ords. in&redients or characteristics . N5dO 3+>.-. for 6pale pilsen6 are #eneric 0ords descriptive of the color :6pale6.+33O.. !he !rade$ar( La0 providesD Sec. !his rule e1cludin# descriptive ter$s has also been held to appl' to tradeBna$es. Sprin#field.D A 0ord or a co$bination of 0ords 0hich is $erel' descriptive of an article of trade.A. . !he 0ords 6pale pilsen6 $a' not be appropriated b' SMC for its e1clusive use even if the' are part of its re#istered trade$ar(D SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN.E. the' are reasonabl' indicative and descriptive of the thin# intended. Miles Medical Co. .+ :. 3irector of Patents . . .+2-. :Aebster8s !hird Ne0 "nternational *ictionar' of the En#lish Lan#ua#e. for no other reason than that he 0as the first to use the$ in his re#istered trade$ar(. an' $ore than such descriptive 0ords as 6evaporated $il(. !he' belon# to the public do$ain :On# Ai Cui vs. "t 0ill. "n Masso 0ermanos. As to 0hether 0ords e$plo'ed fall 0ithin this prohibition.6 :E$phasis supplied. . NcO . but 0hether in the$selves. ho0ever. vs. its Fualities.N... . business or services of the applicant is primaril5 &eo&raphicall5 descriptive or deceptivel' $isdescriptive of the$.. Mass.. .D C M C Merria$ Co. /.6 6corn fla(es6 and 6coo(in# oil6 $a' be appropriated b' an' sin#le $anufacturer of these food products. /. .. :35 A$. 6Pilsen6 is a 6pri$aril' #eo#raphicall' descriptive 0ord. the ri&ht to the use of such lan&ua&e $ein& common to all . inas$uch as all persons have an e@ual ri#ht to produce and vend si$ilar articles..A. not because it lac(s distinctiveness. Others $a' use the sa$e or si$ilar descriptive 0ord in connection 0ith their o0n 0ares. or of its co$position. tradeBna$e or serviceB$ar( used to distin#uish his #oods. it is said that the true test is not 0hether the' are e1haustivel' descriptive of the article desi#nated.Phil. properl5 descriptive of the article.. A descriptive 0ord $a' be ad$ittedl' distinctive. and as the' are co$$onl' used b' those 0ho understand their $eanin#.. especiall' if the user is the first creator of the article.6 6to$ato (etchup.+3.-. provided the' ta(e proper steps to prevent the public bein# deceived..2. 0hich is a li#ht bohe$ian beer 0ith a stron# hops flavor that ori#inated in the Cit' of Pilsen in C)echoslova(ia and beca$e fa$ous in the Middle A#es.. and not arbitrar'. or 0hen applied to or used in connection 0ith the #oods. 0hen applied to or used in connection 0ith the #oods.. it 0as held that a dealer in shoes cannot re#ister 6Leather Shoes6 as his trade$ar( because that 0ould be $erel' descriptive and it 0ould be un9ust to deprive other dealers in leather shoes of the ri#ht to use the sa$e 0ords 0ith reference to their $erchandise. as inserted b' Sec. *r. Edited b' Philip Babcoc( Cove. >-+B>2?. nabrid#ed.--.6 6cheddar cheese.. . pp. cannot be appropriated and protected as a trade$ar( to the e1clusion of its use b' others.. nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(s. . .. :Rich$ond Re$edies Co. . +/ Phil. business or services fro$ the #oods. -2. or @ualities. pa#e .. the' cannot be appropriated fro$ #eneral use and beco$e the e1clusive propert' of an'one. . business or services of others shall have the ri#ht to re#ister the sa$e Non the principal re#isterO. be denied protection.. and no person can appropriate to himself e=clusivel5 an5 4ord or e=pression. 3/5B3/.6 :Sec. +. Consists of a $ar( or tradeBna$e 0hich.6 :E$phasis supplied. !he o0ner of tradeB$ar(. NeO Republic Act No. of a t'pe of beer :6pilsen6. . . . No. -. characteristics. . *irector of Patents. . . -2. subpar. "f the' are thus descriptive. hence.!he fact that the 0ords pale pilsen are part of AB"8s trade$ar( does not constitute an infrin#e$ent of SMC8s trade$ar(D SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN. 4ur. :5 Call$an. . nonBre#isterable and not appropriable b' an' beer $anufacturer. 5 of R.>.

. of the Philippines. 0hich 0ould be li(el' to influence purchasers to believe that the #oods offered are those of a $anufacturer or dealer other than the actual $anufacturer or dealer. or 0ho other0ise clothes the #oods 0ith such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his le#iti$ate trade. Asia Bre0er' "ncorporated. "n vie0 of the visible differences bet0een the t0o products. :See E1hibits 32B*. business or services of another. An' person.!he circu$stance that the $anufacturer of BEER PALE P"LSEN. capacit' and is also advertised in print. the follo0in# shall be dee$ed #uilt' of unfair co$petitionD :a. disproves SMC8s char#e that AB" dishonestl' and fraudulentl' intends to pal$ off its BEER PALE P"LSEN as SMC8s product. or his business. thusD Sec. An' person 0ho shall $a(e an' false state$ent in the course of trade or 0ho shall co$$it an' other act contrar' to #ood faith of a nature calculated to discredit the #oods. as 0ell as on the bottle cap. !he Cerve)a Especial and the Efes Pale Pilsen use the 6steinie6 bottle. either as to the #oods the$selves or in the 0rappin# of the pac(a#es in 0hich the' are contained. on the bac( of the bottle. . :See rollo. pa#e 33. An' person 0ho b' an' artifice. 5+.5? Phil. is not unla0ful. vs. and television $edia.. Ltd. does not necessaril' constitute unfair co$petition. /. . !he trial court found no infrin#e$ent of SMC8s bottle P . 5+. or in an' other feature of their appearance. As pointed out b' AB"8s counsel. "n this case. /.. or the devices or 0ords thereon. or an' subse@uent vendor of such #oods or an' a#ent of an' vendor en#a#ed in sellin# such #oods 0ith a li(e purpose. or device. and 0ithout in an' 0a' li$itin# the scope of unfair co$petition. . 32BE. . or 0ho e$plo's an' other $eans calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offerin# the services of another 0ho has identified such services in the $ind of the publicI or :c. Republic Act No.5? $l.!he universal test @uestion is 0hether the public is li(el' to be deceived./. has printed its na$e all over the bottle of its beer productD on the label. nfair co$petition is the e$plo'$ent of deception or an' other $eans contrar' to #ood faith b' 0hich a person shall pass off the #oods $anufactured b' hi$ or in 0hich he deals. !he use of AB" of the steinie bottle.+. et al. :Shell Co..--. SMC did not invent but $erel' borro0ed the steinie bottle fro$ abroad and it clai$s neither patent nor trade$ar( protection for that bottle shape and desi#n. !he la0 further enu$erates the $ore co$$on 0a's of co$$ittin# unfair co$petition. business or services. "n particular. !he fact that BEER PALE P"LSEN li(e SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN is bottled in a$berBcolored steinie bottles of . :Sec. . the Court believes it is @uite unli(el' that a custo$er of avera#e intelli#ence 0ould $ista(e a bottle of BEER PALE P"LSEN for SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN.. the @uestion to be deter$ined is 0hether AB" is usin# a na$e or $ar( for its beer that has previousl' co$e to desi#nate SMC8s beer. broadcast. or services.. as a$ended. or an' acts calculated to produce the sa$e result. for those of another 0ho has alread' established #ood0ill for his si$ilar #oods. . 0ho in sellin# his #oods shall #ive the$ the #eneral appearance of #oods of another $anufacturer or dealer.. si$ilar but not identical to the SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN bottle. Nothin# less than conduct tendin# to pass off one $an8s #oods or business as that of another 0ill constitute unfair co$petition. or 0hether AB" is passin# off its BEER PALE P"LSEN as SMC8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN.. Actual or probable deception and confusion on the part of the custo$ers b' reason of defendant8s practices $ust al0a's appear. :b. Ltd. . "nsular Petroleu$ Refinin# Co.

it is not a San Mi#uel Corporation desi#n but a desi#n ori#inall' developed in the nited States b' the Class Container Manufacturer8s "nstitute and therefore lac(s e1clusivit'. no one $a' have a $onopol' of an' color. #ollo. !hirdl'. . As 0as ruled in "alifornia "rushed Fruit "orporation vs. 0hether in li@uid or tablet for$. capacit' is not due to a desire to i$itate SMC8s bottle because that bottle capacit' is the standard prescribed under Metrication Circular No. the rese$blance 0ill not support an action for unfair co$petition. !he Court heldD . !SN of Septe$ber 5?. :p.+-B. Act -5.. a flo0er pot. the shape of the bottle and of the label is uni$portant. ..+>>. !hat the AB" bottle has a . it is a standard t'pe of bottle called steinie.. AB" does not use SMC8s steinie bottle.+3. . AB" e1plained that it used the color 0hite for its label because 0hite presents the stron#est contrast to the a$ber color of AB"8s bottleI it is also the $ost econo$ical to use on labels. of the *epart$ent of !rade. one label sho0in# a doubleBdec(ed 9ar in the center. 0here t0o co$petin# tea products 0ere both labelled as =or$osan tea.+?. Moreover. !an !iao Bo(. No one can have a $onopol' of the color a$ber for bottles.. . Act . Nor can the first user predicate his clai$ to protection on the ar#u$ent that his business 0as established in reliance on an' such unpatented nonfunctional feature. Neither did AB" cop' it. protection a#ainst i$itation should be properl' confined to nonfunctional features. N/th Ed. this court found that the rese$blances bet0een the desi#ns 0ere not sufficient to $islead the ordinar' intelli#ent bu'er.. . both 0ith labels containin# desi#ns dra0n in #reen in( and Chinese characters 0ritten in red in(. Needless to sa'. all bottled beer produced in the Philippines is contained and sold in a$berBcolored bottles because a$ber is the $ost effective color in preventin# trans$ission of li#ht and provides the $a1i$u$ protection to beer.!he court a#rees 0ith defendant that there is no infrin#e$ent of plaintiff8s bottle. /5 Phil. :Petition for Revie0. . Aith re#ard to the 0hite label of both beer bottles. Bein# of functional or co$$on use. and to 0itness 4ose Antonio Carcia. but $ost $edicines. Ahat is all i$portant is the na$e of the product 0ritten on the label of the bottle for that is ho0 one beer $a' be distin#uished for$ the others. firstl'. the shape 0as never re#istered as a trade$ar(. SMC8s bein# the first to use the steinie bottle does not #ive SMC a vested ri#ht to use it to the e1clusion of ever'one else. !he a$ber color is a functional feature of the beer bottle. both sold in 3Bounce pac(a#es $ade of ordinar' 0rappin# paper of conventional color. !he petitioner8s contention that bottle si)e. dated / *ece$ber . . nor of 0hite for labels. 22>. . Not onl' beer. Secondl'.. it is necessar' to suppose a public accusto$ed to bu'. even 6at lar#e e1penditure of $one'. the other. hence. Ta5lor %. . nor of the rectan#ular shape 0hich is the usual confi#uration of labels. the nec( of defendant8s bottle is $uch lar#er and has a distinct bul#e in its upper$ost part.. 5>. /5 Phil. si)e and character co$$onl' and i$$ediatel' used in $ar(etin# such articles :*' Buncio vs.+?.+2+.O. shape and color $a' not be the e1clusive propert' of an' one beer $anufacturer is 0ell ta(en. !rade$ar(s and Monopolies. and "and5 "o. . are sold in a$berBcolored bottles. .-.5? $l. and the easiest to 6ba(e6 in the furnace :p. "n order that there $a' be deception of the bu'in# public in the sense necessar' to constitute unfair co$petition.> =5d >>3. . Even if purel' functional ele$ents are slavishl' copied. and not the e1clusive invention of an' one. . AB" $a(es its o0n steinie bottle 0hich has a fat bul#in# nec( to differentiate it fro$ SMC8s bottle. it is available to all 0ho $i#ht need to use it 0ithin the industr'. and the first user cannot clai$ secondar' $eanin# protection. . because accordin# to plaintiff8s 0itness *eo#racias <illadolid. "n 35 %uncio v.>-. p.+/B. Tan Tiao %o/. As pointed out b' AB".6 :Call$an nfair Co$petition. E1hibit 6C6 is not a re#istration of a beer bottle desi#n re@uired under Rep.. Nobod' can ac@uire an' e1clusive ri#ht to $ar(et articles suppl'in# si$ple hu$an needs in containers or 0rappers of the #eneral for$. a $erchant cannot be en9oined fro$ usin# a t'pe or color of bottle 0here the sa$e has the useful purpose of protectin# the contents fro$ the deleterious effects of li#ht ra's. Sec.-3 but the re#istration of the na$e and other $ar(s of o0nership sta$ped on containers as re@uired b' Rep.+2. Metric S'ste$ Board. . .+. there 0as no unfair co$petition..

and therefore to so$e e1tent fa$iliar 0ith, the #oods in @uestion. !he test of fraudulent si$ulation is to be found in the li(elihood of the deception of persons in so$e $easure ac@uainted 0ith an established desi#n and desirous of purchasin# the co$$odit' 0ith 0hich that desi#n has been associated. !he test is not found in the deception, or possibilit' of the deception, of the person 0ho (no0s nothin# about the desi#n 0hich has been counterfeited, and 0ho $ust be indifferent as bet0een that and the other. !he si$ulation, in order to be ob9ectionable, $ust be such as appears li(el' to $islead the ordinaril' intelli#ent bu'er 0ho has a need to suppl' and is fa$iliar 0ith the article that he see(s to purchase. !he $ain thrust of SMC8s co$plaint if not infrin#e$ent of its trade$ar(, but unfair co$petition arisin# for$ the alle#edl' 6confusin# si$ilarit'6 in the #eneral appearance or trade dress of AB"8s BEER PALE P"LSEN beside SMC8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN :p. 5?+, #ollo; SMC clai$s that the 6trade dress6 of BEER PALE P"LSEN is 6confusin#l' si$ilar6 to its SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN because both are bottled in .5? $l. steinie t'pe, a$berBcolored bottles 0ith 0hite rectan#ular labels. 7o0ever, 0hen as in this case, the na$es of the co$petin# products are clearl' different and their respective sources are pro$inentl' printed on the label and on other parts of the bottle, $ere si$ilarit' in the shape and si)e of the container and label, does not constitute unfair co$petition. !he steinie bottle is a standard bottle for beer and is universall' used. SMC did not invent it nor patent it. !he fact that SMC8s bottle is re#istered under R.A. No. -5. :as a$ended b' RA 32??, An Act to Re#ulate the se of *ul' Sta$ped or Mar(ed Bottles, Bo1es, Cas(s, &e#s, Barrels and Other Si$ilar Containers; si$pl' prohibits $anufacturers of other foodstuffs fro$ the unauthori)ed use of SMC8s bottles b' refillin# these 0ith their products. "t 0as not unco$$on then for products such as patis :fish sauce; and to5o :so' sauce; to be sold in rec'cled SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN bottles. Re#istration of SMC8s beer bottles did not #ive SMC a patent on the steinie or on bottles of si$ilar si)e, shape or color. Most containers are standardi)ed because the' are usuall' $ade b' the sa$e $anufacturer. Mil(, 0hether in po0dered or li@uid for$, is sold in unifor$ tin cans. !he sa$e can be said of the standard (etchup or vine#ar bottle 0ith its fa$iliar elon#ated nec(. Man' other #rocer' ite$s such as coffee, $a'onnaise, pic(les and peanut butter are sold in standard #lass 9ars. !he $anufacturers of these foodstuffs have e@ual ri#ht to use these standards tins, bottles and 9ars for their products. Onl' their respective labels distin#uish the$ fro$ each other. 4ust as no $il( producer $a' sue the others for unfair co$petition because the' sell their $il( in the sa$e si)e and shape of $il( can 0hich he uses, neither $a' SMC clai$ unfair co$petition arisin# fro$ the fact that AB"8s BEER PALE P"LSEN is sold, li(e SMC8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN in a$ber steinie bottles. !he record does not bear out SMC8s apprehension that BEER PALE P"LSEN is bein# passed off as SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN. !his is unli(el' to happen for consu$ers or bu'ers of beer #enerall' order their beer b' brand. As pointed out b' AB"8s counsel, in super$ar(ets and tiendas, beer is ordered b' brand, and the custo$er surrenders his e$pt' replace$ent bottles or pa's a deposit to #uarantee the return of the e$pties. "f his e$pties are SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN, he 0ill #et SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN as replace$ent. "n sariBsari stores, beer is also ordered fro$ the tindera b' brand. !he sa$e is true in restaurants, pubs and beer #ardens P beer is ordered fro$ the 0aiters b' brand. : 8p. cit. pa#e 3?.; Considerin# further that SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN has virtuall' $onopoli)ed the do$estic beer $ar(et for the past hundred 'ears, those 0ho have been drin(in# no other beer but SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN these $an' 'ears certainl' (no0 their beer too 0ell to be deceived b' a ne0co$er in the $ar(et. "f the' #ravitate to AB"8s cheaper beer, it 0ill not be because the' are confused or deceived, but because the' find the co$petin# product to their taste. Our decision in this case 0ill not di$inish our rulin# in 6*el Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Sunshine Sauce Manufacturin# "ndustries,6 ,>, SCRA /,?, /,+, 3 thatD . . . to deter$ine 0hether a trade$ar( has been infrin#ed, 0e $ust consider the $ar( as a 0hole and not as dissected. "f the bu'er is deceived, it is attributable to the $ar(s as a totalit', not usuall' to an' part of it.

!hat rulin# $a' not appl' to all (inds of products. !he Court itself cautioned that in resolvin# cases of infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition, the courts should 6ta(e into consideration several factors 0hich 0ould affect its conclusion, to 0itD the a#e, trainin# and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, 0hether the article is bou#ht for i$$ediate consu$ption and also the conditions under 0hich it is usuall' purchased6 :,>, SCRA /,?, /,>B/,+;. !he *el Monte case involved catsup, a co$$on household ite$ 0hich is bou#ht off the store shelves b' house0ives and house help 0ho, if the' are illiterate and cannot identif' the product b' na$e or brand, 0ould ver' li(el' identif' it b' $ere recollection of its appearance. Since the co$petitor, Sunshine Sauce Mf#. "ndustries, not onl' used rec'cled *el Monte bottles for its catsup :despite the 0arnin# e$bossed on the bottlesD 6*el Monte Corporation. Not to be refilled.6; but also used labels 0hich 0ere 6a colorable i$itation6 of *el Monte8s label, 0e held that there 0as infrin#e$ent of *el Monte8s trade$ar( and unfair co$petition b' Sunshine. Our rulin# in *el Monte 0ould not appl' to beer 0hich is not usuall' pic(ed fro$ a store shelf but ordered b' brand b' the beer drin(er hi$self fro$ the store(eeper or 0aiter in a pub or restaurant. Moreover, SMC8s brand or trade$ar(D 6SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN6 is not infrin#ed b' AB"8s $ar(D 6BEER NA BEER6 or 6BEER PALE P"LSEN.6 AB" $a(es its o0n bottle 0ith a bul#in# nec( to differentiate it fro$ SMC8s bottle, and prints AB"8s na$e in three :.; places on said bottle :front, bac( and bottle cap; to prove that it has no intention to pass of its 6BEER6 as 6SAN M"C EL.6 !here is no confusin# si$ilarit' bet0een the co$petin# beers for the na$e of one is 6SAN M"C EL6 0hile the co$petitor is plain 6BEER6 and the points of dissi$ilarit' bet0een the t0o outnu$ber their points of si$ilarit'. Petitioner AB" has neither infrin#ed SMC8s trade$ar( nor co$$itted unfair co$petition 0ith the latter8s SAN M"C EL PALE P"LSEN product. Ahile its BEER PALE P"LSEN ad$ittedl' co$petes 0ith the latter in the open $ar(et, that co$petition is neither unfair nor fraudulent. 7ence, 0e $ust den' SMC8s pra'er to suppress it. A7ERE=ORE, findin# the petition for revie0 $eritorious, the sa$e is hereb' #ranted. !he decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CABC.R. C< No. 5>,?/ are hereb' set aside and that of the trial court is RE"NS!A!E* and A=="RME*. Costs a#ainst the private respondent. SO OR*ERE*. Earvasa, ".J., %idin, #e&alado, #omero, Eocon, %ellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., too/ no part.

S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s

CRU4, J., dissentin#D !he present ponencia stresses the specific si$ilarities and differences of the t0o products to support the conclusion that there is no infrin#e$ent of trade $ar(s or unfair co$petition. !hat test 0as

re9ected in $' o0n ponencia in *el Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, ,>, SCRA /,?, concurred in b' 4ustices Narvasa, Canca'co, CriSoBA@uino and Medialdea, 0here 0e declaredD Ahile the Court does reco#ni)e these distinctions, it does not a#ree 0ith the conclusion that there 0as no infrin#e$ent or unfair co$petition. "t see$s to us that the lo0er courts have been so preoccupied 0ith the details that the' have not seen the total picture. "t has been correctl' held that sideBb'Bside co$parison is not the final test of si$ilarit'. Such co$parison re@uires a careful scrutin' to deter$ine in 0hat points the labels of the products differ, as 0as done b' the trial 9ud#e. !he ordinar' bu'er does not usuall' $a(e such scrutin' nor does he usuall' have the ti$e to do so. !he avera#e shopper is usuall' in a hurr' and does not inspect ever' product on the shelf as if he 0ere bro0sin# in a librar'. Ahere the house0ife has to return ho$e as soon as possible to her bab' or the 0or(in# 0o$an has to $a(e @uic( purchases durin# her off hours, she is apt to be confused b' si$ilar labels even if the' do have $inute differences. !he $ale shopper is 0orse as he usuall' does not bother about such distinctions. !he @uestion is not 0hether the t0o articles are distin#uishable b' their labels 0hen set aside b' side but 0hether the #eneral confusion $ade b' the article upon the e'e of the casual purchaser 0ho is unsuspicious and off his #uard, is such as to li(el' result in his confoundin# it 0ith the ori#inal. As observed in several cases, the #eneral i$pression of the ordinar' purchaser, bu'in# under the nor$all' prevalent conditions in trade and #ivin# the attention such purchasers usuall' #ive in bu'in# that class of #oods, is the touchstone. "t has been held that in $a(in# purchases, the consu$er $ust depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product 0hich he intends to purchase. !he bu'er havin# in $ind the $ar(Glabel of the respondent $ust rel' upon his $e$or' of the petitioner8s $ar(. nli(e the 9ud#e 0ho has a$ple ti$e to $inutel' e1a$ine the labels in @uestion in the co$fort of his sala, the ordinar' shopper does not en9o' the sa$e opportunit'. A nu$ber of courts have held that to deter$ine 0hether a trade$ar( has been infrin#ed, 0e $ust consider the $ar( as a 0hole and not as dissected. "f the bu'er is deceived, it is attributable to the $ar(s as a totalit', not usuall' to an' part of it. !he court therefore should be #uided b' its first i$pression, for a bu'er acts @uic(l' and is #overned b' a casual #lance, the value of 0hich $a' be dissipated as soon as the court assu$es to anal')e carefull' the respective features of the $ar(. "t has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition to educate purchasers but rather to ta(e their carelessness for #ranted, and to be ever conscious of the fact that $ar(s need not be identical. A confusin# si$ilarit' 0ill 9ustif' the intervention of e@uit'. !he 9ud#e $ust also be a0are of the fact that usuall' a defendant in cases of infrin#e$ent does not nor$all' cop' but $a(es onl' colorable chan#es. Aell has it been said that the $ost successful for$ of cop'in# is to e$plo' enou#h points of si$ilarit' to confuse the public 0ith enou#h points of difference to confuse the courts. =or the above reasons, and the other ar#u$ents stated in *el Monte, " dissent.

A S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s CRU4, J., dissentin#D

the consu$er $ust depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product 0hich he intends to purchase. the value of 0hich $a' be dissipated as soon as the court assu$es to anal')e carefull' the respective features of the $ar(. =or the above reasons. !he avera#e shopper is usuall' in a hurr' and does not inspect ever' product on the shelf as if he 0ere bro0sin# in a librar'.!he present ponencia stresses the specific si$ilarities and differences of the t0o products to support the conclusion that there is no infrin#e$ent of trade $ar(s or unfair co$petition.?. !he bu'er havin# in $ind the $ar(Glabel of the respondent $ust rel' upon his $e$or' of the petitioner8s $ar(. and to be ever conscious of the fact that $ar(s need not be identical. As observed in several cases. Such co$parison re@uires a careful scrutin' to deter$ine in 0hat points the labels of the products differ. and the other ar#u$ents stated in *el Monte. the #eneral i$pression of the ordinar' purchaser. concurred in b' 4ustices Narvasa. A Foot(ot%s . "t has been held that in $a(in# purchases. !he court therefore should be #uided b' its first i$pression. !he $ale shopper is 0orse as he usuall' does not bother about such distinctions. it is attributable to the $ar(s as a totalit'. not usuall' to an' part of it. for a bu'er acts @uic(l' and is #overned b' a casual #lance. she is apt to be confused b' si$ilar labels even if the' do have $inute differences. " dissent. Aell has it been said that the $ost successful for$ of cop'in# is to e$plo' enou#h points of si$ilarit' to confuse the public 0ith enou#h points of difference to confuse the courts. bu'in# under the nor$all' prevalent conditions in trade and #ivin# the attention such purchasers usuall' #ive in bu'in# that class of #oods. 0here 0e declaredD Ahile the Court does reco#ni)e these distinctions. A nu$ber of courts have held that to deter$ine 0hether a trade$ar( has been infrin#ed.>. nli(e the 9ud#e 0ho has a$ple ti$e to $inutel' e1a$ine the labels in @uestion in the co$fort of his sala. SCRA /. "t see$s to us that the lo0er courts have been so preoccupied 0ith the details that the' have not seen the total picture. !he ordinar' bu'er does not usuall' $a(e such scrutin' nor does he usuall' have the ti$e to do so. Ahere the house0ife has to return ho$e as soon as possible to her bab' or the 0or(in# 0o$an has to $a(e @uic( purchases durin# her off hours. is such as to li(el' result in his confoundin# it 0ith the ori#inal. !he @uestion is not 0hether the t0o articles are distin#uishable b' their labels 0hen set aside b' side but 0hether the #eneral confusion $ade b' the article upon the e'e of the casual purchaser 0ho is unsuspicious and off his #uard. is the touchstone. !hat test 0as re9ected in $' o0n ponencia in *el Monte Corporation vs. "f the bu'er is deceived. 0e $ust consider the $ar( as a 0hole and not as dissected. Court of Appeals. the ordinar' shopper does not en9o' the sa$e opportunit'. as 0as done b' the trial 9ud#e. "t has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition to educate purchasers but rather to ta(e their carelessness for #ranted. A confusin# si$ilarit' 0ill 9ustif' the intervention of e@uit'. CriSoBA@uino and Medialdea. "t has been correctl' held that sideBb'Bside co$parison is not the final test of si$ilarit'. Canca'co. . !he 9ud#e $ust also be a0are of the fact that usuall' a defendant in cases of infrin#e$ent does not nor$all' cop' but $a(es onl' colorable chan#es. it does not a#ree 0ith the conclusion that there 0as no infrin#e$ent or unfair co$petition.

No.: Plaintiff sou#ht in the Court of =irst "nstance of Manila to have the defendant perpetuall' en9oined fro$ usin# certain labels or an' other li(e i$itation of plaintiff8s trade$ar( and to recoup da$a#es for the alle#ed infrin#e$ent. MALCOLM. Co$posed of 4ustice 4ose C. !he plaintiff co$pan' brin#s the case to this court b' the usual bill of e1ceptions.R. M NN M CO. 4r.+ =ORBES. L-141B9 O&toC%$ 1B. as chair$an. ANG SAN TO. 4ustice Aldecoa. !he vie0 0e ta(e of the facts $a(es unneccessar' a discussion of an' but the third and fourth assi#n$ents. vs. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C. !he 9ud#$ent rendered b' the trial court dis$issed both the co$plaint and the counterclai$ and dissolved the preli$inar' in9unction theretofore issued. both dissentin#. No. and 4ustices Ricardo =rancisco. LB. 0ith the costs a#ainst the plaintiff.???. ANC SAN !O Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. 0ith a counterclai$ for five thousand pesos :P3. . plaintiffBappellant.. Ca$pos. Alfredo "hicote and Jose Arnai2 for appellee. . !hese areD !hat the trial court erred . Mendo)a and Oscar 7errera. 4ustice Ricardo Pronove.+. #ollo. rel'in# on seven assi#n$ents of error./5-+ October . =rancisco8s concurrin# opinion. 5 !his portion of 4ustice Ca$pos8 ori#inal decision orderin# AB" to render an accountin# to SMC and pa' esti$ated da$a#es of P3. ELTD. retired before a resolution on the $otion for reconsideration 0as pro$ul#ated. full' concurrin#. MUNN D CO. partl' concurrin#. ?incaid and Per/ins for appellant. !he defendant ans0ered 0ith a #eneral denial and a special defense. and lac( of si$ilarit' and e1clusiveness of use b' plaintiff. settin# forth the re#istration of his tradeB$ar(s. .???.???.?? did not carr' enou#h votes to beco$e a decision as onl' 4ustice Ricardo =rancisco concurred full' 0ith hi$.?2. as da$a#es. althou#h concurrin# partiall' 0ith 4ustice Ca$pos8 decision. Ricardo Pronove. J. 0ho had 0ritten a separate dissentin# opinion. defendantBappellee. :L!*. p.-. 1919 FOR ES. Cited in 4ustice R. e1cepted fro$ the portion orderin# an accountin# and pa'$ent of P3 $illion da$a#es. =ile$on 7.F. vs. 7e 0as substituted b' 4ustice Oscar M. 7errera..

are such as 0ould be li(el' to $islead persons in the ordinar' course of purchasin# the #enuine article.+. !hese $ar(s have since been in use b' the defendant co$pan'. . 0hich 0e do on the pa#e follo0in#. !he plaintiff contends that both ele$ents concur in the present caseI the defendant contends that the' do not. nder this la0. Si$ilarit'.>. the co$pan' has used a tradeB$ar( to desi#nate its cotton (ha(i drill. contents. Ne1t. Plaintiff has. 0hich 0ould be li(el' to deceive the bu'in# public. Ae $ean b' this that.in not findin# that the $ar(s used b' the defendant 0ere an infrin#e$ent of plaintiff8s $ar(I and that the defendant 0as #uilt' of unfair co$petition.. is the test of infrin#e$ent of a tradeB$ar(. Moreover. E1act copies could hardl' be e1pected to be found. 0e should have before use so$e of the applicable principles 0hich #o to $a(e up the la0 of tradeB$ar(s and unfair co$petition. "n all cases the court 0ill inspect the tradeB$ar(s to discover both the differences and their rese$blances. 0e thin(. introduced in evidence as E1hibit A. popularl' (no0n b' the co#no$en 6!hree Soldier &ha(i6 or 6Soldier &ha(i. . !he defendant is a $erchant doin# business in the cit' of Manila. four facsi$iles of tradeB$ar(s for (ha(i cloth. or other special arran#e$ent or #eneral appearance of the 0ords of the alle#ed infrin#er8s device. !he issue 0hich is thus presented relates to sections . and Corporations. "nfrin#e$ent 0ould then be sho0n b' a co$parison of the plaintiff8s 0ith the defendant8s $ar(. Relief 0ill ordinaril' be #ranted 0hen it is $anifest fro$ a co$parison of the t0o tradeB$ar(s or articles that one 0as copied fro$ the other. either in #eneral appearance. =or $an' 'ears :eleven 'ears to be e1act. is sufficient to sho0 infrin#e$ent. before 0e consider the rese$blances bet0een these t0o $ar(s. !radeB$ar(s. it has been en#a#ed in the sale of i$ported cotton te1tiles co$prisin# cotton (ha(i drill. Cop'ri#hts. and a de$onstration of a rese$blance bet0een the t0o such as 0ould be li(el' to cause the one $ar( to be $ista(en for the other. ---. as 0e have said. in the Philippine Librar' and Museu$. 0ords. !here is unfair co$petition 0hen there is a si$ilarit'. the co$pan' re#istered this tradeB$ar( in the then *ivision of Archives. 0hen this action 0as be#un. or in device or 0ords. such a co$parison can best be $ade b' puttin# plaintiff8s tradeB$ar(.and 2 of the Philippine !radeB $ar( La0 :Act No. it could $a(e use of effi#ies of soldiers in co$bination 0ith other ele$ents. 0hile the plaintiff could not ver' 0ell clai$ the e1clusive ri#ht to the fi#ure of a soldier for a tradeB$ar(. then the si$ilarit' is such as entitles the in9ured part' to e@uitable protection.-. in parallel colu$ns. !he plaintiff is a li$ited $ercantile co$pan' dul' or#ani)ed and licensed to do business in the Philippine "slands.+?+. $ar(s. to devise its particular $ar(. introduced in evidence as E1hibit B. an infrin#e$ent of a tradeB$ar( results fro$ the fraudulent use of another8s tradeB$ar( or a colorable i$itation thereof. fairl' established his title to a specific tradeB$ar(. and defendant8s tradeB $ar(. so as to pass off the #oods of one $an as those of another. Leavin# out of consideration three of defendant8s tradeB$ar(s. and !radeB$ar(s of the Philippine Covern$ent. Since the 'ear . On October . . Patents.6 On =ebruar' 53. if he ta(es seasonable $easures to assert his ri#hts and prevent their continued invasion.+?3. "f the for$. he deposited 0ith the *ivision of Archives. this is not such si$ilitude as a$ounts to identit'. Cop'ri#hts. !he deceptive tendenc' indicated b' cop'in# or i$itatin# the substantial and distinctive part of the tradeB$ar(. Patents.

?5 =ed. . And it is above all.>>-O. . be laid on top of E1hibit A.>+. !o paraphrase the lan#ua#e of a federal court."ll. One $inor. =le$in# N. Sie#el N. it is seen at once the latter is al$ost 0holl' a tracin# of the for$er. vs. : ee Collinspatt vs. 4. vs. .. Merric( !hread Co. Appl' these rules to the facts. and it is clear that the char#e of infrin#e$ent is satisfactor' proved. appl' these rules to the t0o $ar(s here illustrated. Benha$ N.O.!o @uote the lan#ua#e of Lurton. 352.2I McLean vs.. . an inspection of the t0o $ar(s carries conviction to an unbiased and unpre9udiced $ind that E1hibit B 0as prepared b' so$eone 0ho had seen E1hibit A and that it 0as desi#ned not to differentiate the #oods to 0hich it 0as affi1ed. after all./>I Ball vs. A. 0here the correct and accepted for$ is P cBoBlBoBr.7. Ever' case is. -+. the #rosset of disrespect for that $oral la0 0hich is 60ritten . reliable 0itnesses 0ere called b' the plaintiff 0ho testified that E1hibit B 0as calculated to deceive purchasers. 7ill Co.+??O.>>?O. in #reat $easure. . !his is the usual artifice of the unfair trader. a la0 unto itself. not0ithstandin# his #oods ca$e fro$ the nited States. proof of i$itation. the t0o $ar(s are different in certain respects.. 5/3I Coats vs. 6Ahen there are found stron# rese$blances. Ahether there be an infrin#e$ent of a tradeB$ar(. the natural in@uir' for the court is. if E1hibit B.. As pointed out b' the trial court. =inla'son N. N. !he atte$pt of the defendant 0as to pal$ off upon an un0ar' public his #oods as bein# the #oods of the plaintiff...>+>O. N. the inference is that the' e1ist for the purpose of $isleadin#. as in the nu$ber of soldiers and in the 0ordin#. is the spellin# of the 0ord 6color6 in the t0o tradeB$ar(s. Moreover. 0as not accidental si$ilarit'. but to si$ulate a rese$blance to plaintiff8s #oods sufficientl' stron# to $islead the consu$er. Otto. the t0o $ar(s are si$ilar in certain 0ords and in the #eneral tone #iven to the devices. 3-5I 4oseph *i1on Crucible Co. 0h' do the' e1istQ "f no sufficient ans0er appears.. >> =ed. !his. "n fact. / =ed. is al0a's a @uestion of fact.>2>O.. On the hand. !he plaintiff has used the En#lish spellin# P cBoBlBoBuBr Pand this the defendant Chinese fir$ has follo0ed.. plaintiff8s tradeB$ar(. defendant8s tradeB$ar(. or a sho0in# of unfair co$petition. or $ore specificall'. !his is of the essence of the 0ron# and of the la0 0hich protects le#iti$ate tradeB$ar(s and 0hich prohibits unfair co$petition. althou#h containin# variations sufficient to ar#ue about should the desi#ner be brou#ht into court... certainl'./+ . but nevertheless elo@uent. S..6 :Paris Medicine Co.

. 0R. ee #enerall' 7op(ins."(o L"G Fou()"t#o( G. . !. the follo0in#. Phil. has not had occasion to consider this phase of the case. !he plaintiff shall recover costs in both instances. "f an' are needed..: !his is a petition for revie0 b' 0a' of certiorari of the Court of Appeals8 decision 0hich reversed the order of the Re#ional !rial Court and dis$issed the civil case filed b' the petitioner on the #rounds of litis pendentia and lac( of le#al capacit' to sue. Arellano. @uite si$ilarl' the sa$e on the facts. T+E INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT "() MIL-ORO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. P$oH%&t .. . :/? L. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila !7"R* *"<"S"ON G. concur. petitioner vs. No. OneBhalf of this su$ is so$e0hat speculative in nature. S.. J./. .A$%. DASSLER.. JJ. is hardl' definite enou#h for us to $a(e a findin#. and 0here evidence shall be ta(en for the deter$ination of the da$a#es 0hich should be entered in favor of the plaintiff.R.. 0here a per$anent in9unction shall issue en9oinin# the defendant fro$ usin# the infrin#in# tradeB $ar( E1hibit B or an' other li(e i$itation of plaintiff8s tradeB$ar(...6 Ae hardl' thin( it necessar' to cite further authorities in support of the fore#oin#.???. No.EN R. So ordered.on the tables of eternit'. 1988 PUMA SPORTSC+U+FA RI. vs.. !iu Ca Sion# :N.?2. Conse@uentl'. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P+ILIPPINE 0URISPRUDENCE .+?+O. can be notedD Son# =o M Co.I McLean vs. ?5/B? F%C$u"$6 1B. N.???. Is.EN RUDOLF DASSLER. !he trial court. Torres. !he proof as to the re$ainin# t0ent' thousand pesos :P5?. 4ud#$ent is reversed and the record shall be returned to the trial court. ?5/B? F%C$u"$6 1B. $oreover. GUTIERRE4. . =le$in# :supra. ".G.G. 1988 PUMA SPORTSC+U+FA RI. respondents. Araullo and Avanceña. Johnson...J.. vs.. relatin# apparentl' to the use of all four tradeB$ar(s b' the defendant.FULL TE3T T7% L"G87#.. 4ohnson M Co.net Plaintiff as(s for da$a#es in the a$ount of fort' thousand pesos :P/?.'a4phGl.. it 0ould be better to leave this sub9ect for future deter$ination in the trial court. .I OrrBE0in# M Co. on !radeB$ar(s.R. .

.+>-. the petitioner. 5->23 :pp. "nevitabl'. counterfeit cop' or colorable i$itation thereof.. On 4ul' . petitioner. B35. and to 0ithdra0 fro$ the $ar(et all products bearin# the sa$e trade$ar(. . =ro$ the totalit' of the obtainin# circu$stances.. LB.6 filed a co$plaint for infrin#e$ent of patent or trade$ar( 0ith a pra'er for the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction a#ainst the private respondent before the Re#ional !rial Court of Ma(ati.?. and litis pendentia.-23 and .On 4ul' 53.. 0hich is "dentit' of ri#hts and reliefs pra'ed for.. the trial court denied the $otion to dis$iss and at the sa$e ti$e #ranted the petitioner8s application for a 0rit of in9unction. that is.3 SCRA . 3.8 0hich is a case for the cancellation of the trade$ar( re#istration of the petitionerI and "nter Partes Case No. .+.. . As to the second re@uisite. "n reversin# the order of the trial court. the trial court issued a te$porar' restrainin# order..+/3 and Civil Case No. 5+. three cases 0ere pendin# before the Philippine Patent Office. Rollo.+/3 also bet0een the sa$e parties this ti$e the petitioner pra'in# for the cancellation of private respondent8s Certificate of Re#istration No. versus M"LBORO MAN =AC! R"NC CORPORA!"ON.+-3.. On 4une 5. v.. . restrainin# the private respondent and the *irector of Patents fro$ usin# the trade$ar( 6P MA8 or an' reproduction. "t saidD Obviousl'. .2+. there is a need to resolve the issue as to 0ho is the ri#htful o0ner of the !RA*EMAR& 8P MA8 for soc(s and belts. 533. the ri#hts of the respective parties are dependent upon the resolution of a sin#le issue. !he private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. &. Prior to the filin# of the said civil suit. 8P MA SPOR!SC7 7=ABR"&EN R *OL= *ASSLER. . petitioner has no le#al personalit' to sue. the ri#htful o0nership of the trade$ar( in @uestion.-23 si$ilarl' entitled./2. . the private respondent filed a $otion to dis$iss on the #rounds that the petitioners8 co$plaint states no cause of action. the Court of Appeals ruled that the re@uisites of l is pendens as #round for the $otion to dis$iss have been $et. na$el'D "nter Partes Case No. . pp. :pp. /?B/. respondentBapplicant 0hich is an opposition to the re#istration of petitioner8s trade$ar( 8P MA and *E<"CE8 in the PR"NC"PAL REC"S!ERI "nter Partes Case No..+>3.C. a forei#n corporation dul' or#ani)ed and e1istin# under the la0s of the =ederal Republic of Cer$an' and the $anufacturer and producer of 6P MA PRO* C!S. Rollo. in either the lo0er court or in the Patent Office. .53+. and the ri#ht of the le#al o0ner to have e1clusive use of said trade$ar(. both sides $aintain that the' are the ri#htful o0ners of the trade$ar( 6P MA6 for soc(s and belts such that both parties see( the cancellation of the trade$ar( of the other :see pra'er in private respondent8s co$plaint. On Au#ust +. M"LBORO MAN =AC! R"NC CORPORA!"ON. Rollo. Oct. !he second re@uisite needed to 9ustif' a $otion to dis$iss based on lis pendens is present.+>3.. . 3/B33. !he relief pra'ed for b' the parties in "nter Partes Cases Nos.>+ before respondent court see( for the cancellation of usurper8s trade$ar(. On Au#ust . . the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court and ordered the respondent 9ud#e to dis$iss the civil case filed b' the petitioner. O0nership of the trade$ar( is an essential re@uisite to be proved b' the applicant either in a cancellation case or in a suit for infrin#e$ent of trade$ar(. !he' are the sa$e prota#onists.+>3. the parties are "dentical.After all.+>3.the ri#ht to re#ister a trade$ar( $ust be based on o0nership thereof :Operators "nc. . Anne1 6A6 to the Petition.53+ entitled 8P MA SPOR!SC7 7=ABR"&EN v. respondentBre#istrant. *irector of Patents.

. !his is the e1ception to the #eneral rule that a forei#n corporation doin# business in the Philippines $ust secure a license to do business before said forei#n corporation could $aintain a court or ad$inistrative suit :Sec. that there e1ists a reciprocal treat$ent to Philippine Corporations either b' la0 or convention b' the countr' of ori#in of the forei#n corporation :Sec.--. pp. the record discloses that private respondent 0as suin# under Sec... RA -..-23 0hereb' it concluded that petitioner is the prior and actual adaptor of the trade$ar( 8P MA and *E<"CE used on sports soc(s and belts. as both are coBe@ual in ran( re#ardin# the cases that $a' fall 0ithin their 9urisdiction.. one $ust interpret the$ in a co$ple$entar' $anner for it is presu$ed that the le#islature does not intend an' absurdit' in the la0s it $a(es :Statutor' Construction. Ms is precisel' the reason 0h' both decisions of the *irector of Patents and Re#ional !rial Court are appealable to the "nter$ediate Appellate Court :Sec.As to the third re@uisite.. the trade$ar( of the suin# corporation $ust be re#istered in the Philippines.. na$el'D :a. 7o0ever. as a$ended. in relation to Sec.5+. Corporation Code. Aith re#ard to the petitioner8s le#al capacit' to sue. . /+2. ++ Phil..BA of the !rade$ar( La0 0hich is the private respondent8s failure to alle#e reciprocit' in the co$plaint.. and that M"LBORO CORPORA!"ON is the ri#htful o0ner thereof. there are so$e conditions 0hich $ust be $et before that e1ception could be $ade to appl'. +.. Petition. supra. "t $a' be recalled that the resolution and deter$ination of the issue on o0nership are both 0ithin the 9urisdiction of the *irector of Patents and the Re#ional !rial Court :Sec 53. is fatal to the forei#n corporations8 cause. RA . alvador :. the Philippine Patent Office rendered a decision in "nter Partes Cases Nos. CA P decision.. -B2. . the Court of Appeals li(e0ise held that it had no such capacit' because it failed to alle#e reciprocit' in its co$plaintD As to private respondent8s havin# no le#al personalit' to sue. Martin.>. different foru$s to hear the sa$e case and resolve a $ain and deter$inative issue 0ith both foru$s ris(in# the possibilit' of arrivin# at different conclusions. other0ise. 5. !he Concurrin# Opinion of Chief 4ustice A@uino on the sa$e case is $ore e$phatic 0hen he saidD Respondent Leviton Manufacturin# Co. 5. 3?. Petitioner reco#ni)es that private respondent is the holder of several certificates of re#istration..BA of Republic Act No. "nc. 5 of its co$plaint for unfair co$petition that its action 8is bein# filed under the provisions of Section 5.. Castro.BA. alle#ed in par. "t 0ould thus be confusin# for t0o :5. . Anne1 6A6.BA of Republic Act No. :pp.--. . as a$ended. it further ruledD =ailure to alle#e reciprocit'. ..8 Respondent is bound b' the alle#ation in its co$plaint. as a$ended :p./ SCRA /5?. it bein# an essential fact under the trade$ar( la0 re#ardin# its capacit' to sue before the Philippine courts.. Rollo.. . "n the construction of la0s and statutes re#ardin# 9urisdiction. Citin# the case of Leviton 6ndustries v. that it should sho0 that the State of Ne0 %or( #rants to Philippine Corporations the privile#e to brin# an action for . the decisions and orders of ad$inistrative a#encies rendered pursuant to their @uasiB9udicial authorit' have upon their finalit' the character of res <udicata :Brilliantes v.--...+>-.BA because it has not co$plied 0ith the re@uire$ents hereof that :..53+ and ... its trade$ar( Leviton has been re#istered 0ith the Patent Office and :5. 3. 5.. Petitioner actuall' )eroes on the second re@uisite provided b' Section 5. "t cannot sue under Section 5. p. . Castro.B35.. or that it be the assi#nee thereofD and :b.. BP .BA !rade$ar( La0. !he rule 0hich forbids the reBopenin# of a $atter once 9udiciall' deter$ined b' co$petent authorit' applies as 0ell to 9udicial acts of public e1ecutive and ad$inistrative officers and boards actin# 0ithin their 9urisdiction as to the 9ud#$ents of Courts havin# #eneral 9udicial po0ers :Brilliantes vs. !he record reveals that on March . the for$er 0ould not have instituted cancellation proceedin#s in the Patent8s Office..

or in 0hich it is do$iciled. v. . the Ministr' of !rade on Nove$ber 5?.5+ SCRA . but is 0idel' and favorabl' (no0n in the Philippines throu#h the use therein of its products bearin# its corporate and tradena$e. it had no le#al capacit' to sueI :5. .+>? issued a $e$orandu$ addressed to the *irector of the Patents Office directin# the latter BB 111 111 111 .+52. the petitioner should be #iven the sa$e treat$ent in the Philippines as 0e $a(e available to our o0n citi)ens. :5. "o. !he Court of Appeals further ruled that in issuin# the 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction. Ae are obli#ated to assure to nationals of 8countries of the nion8 an effective protection a#ainst unfair co$petition in the sa$e 0a' that the' are obli#ated to si$ilarl' protect =ilipino citi)ens and fir$s./ =.--. conse@uentl'.B A thereof provides that 6the countr' of 0hich the said corporation or 9uristic person is a citi)en. the petitioner contends that the Court of appeals erred in holdin# thatD :. this Court 0as. "n this petition for revie0.. "n the leadin# case of La "hemise Lacoste. as a$ended. Petitioner $aintains that it has substantiall' co$plied 0ith the re@uire$ents of Section 5.. and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed do$estic corporation is to deal and trade in the sa$e #oods as those of the forei#n corporation. Phil. b' treat'. our courts are bound to ta(e 9udicial notice of such treat'. 3.. 0e ruledD But even assu$in# the truth of the private respondents alle#ation that the petitioner failed to alle#e $aterial facto in its petition relative to capacit' to sue. 0hen it appears that the' have personal (no0led#e of the e1istence of such a forei#n corporation.. and.v. 33. v.BA of Republic Act R. Respondent 8Leviton has to co$pl' 0ith those re@uire$ents before it can be allo0ed to $aintain an action for unfair co$petition. +. pursuant to our Constitution. its co$plaint specificall' alle#ed that it is not doin# business in the Philippines and is suin# under the said Repulbic ActI that Section 5.A.. 5d -. Pursuant to this obli#ation.. Rollo.. has a le#al ri#ht to $aintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof fro$ or#ani)in# a corporation therein bearin# the sa$e na$e as the forei#n corporation.. the doctrine of lis pendens is applicable as a #round for dis$issin# the case and :.2. for$s part of the la0 of the land. to 0hich both the Philippines and =ederal Republic of Cer$an' are si#natories and that since the Paris 8Convention is a treat' 0hich.. !hus. :p. #e5es :3. No. :. in Bestern 1Fuipment and uppl5 "o. and it still is. this Court held that a forei#n corporation 0hich has never done an' business in the Philippines and 0hich is unlicensed and unre#istered to do business here.A .unfair co$petition in that state.. convention or la0. 6nc.. the 0rit of in9unction 0as i$properl' issued. Juotin# the Paris Convention and the case of Vanit5 Fair Mills. :p. As earl' as . the trial court co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion because it deprived the private respondent of its da' in court as the latter 0as not #iven the chance to present its counterBevidence. this Court further saidD B' the sa$e to(en. the petitioner $a' still $aintain the present suit a#ainst respondent 7ernandes.. 1aton. #rants a si$ilar privile#e to corporate or 9uristic persons of the Philippines6 but does not $andatoril' re@uire that such reciprocit' bet0een the =ederal Republic of Cer$an' and the Philippines be pleadedI that such reciprocit' arran#e$ent is e$bodied in and supplied b' the nion Convention for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert' Paris Convention. Accordin# to the petitioner. CA P decision. Ae a#ree. T. of the vie0 that a forei#n corporation not doin# business in the Philippines needs no license to sue before Philippine courts for infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition. Fernande2. . this fact need not be averred in the co$plaint.

!radena$es of persons described in the first para#raph of this section shall be protected 0ithout the obli#ation of filin# or re#istration 0hether or not the' for$ part of $ar(s. ho0ever. "".+-3. =or a treat' or convention is not a $ere $oral obli#ation to be enforced or not at the 0hi$s of an incu$bent head of a Ministr'. La Che$ise Lacoste. "nc. :at pp. is the fact that for lis pendens to be a valid #round for the dis$issal of a case. =ila. !he $e$orandu$ re$inds the *irector of Patents of his le#al dut' to obe' both la0 and treat'. Cloria <anderbilt.-3. 6nc. Eaton Co. C6 +H "#A '.. 0hich is a part' to an international convention or treat' relatin# to $ar(s or tradena$es on the represssion of unfair co$petition to 0hich the Philippines $a' be part'. P Persons 0ho are nationals of. Calvin &lein. therefore.+?. . S.2 of RA No.. !he $e$orandu$ is a clear $anifestation of our avo0ed adherence to a polic' of cooperation and a$it' 0ith an nations.. !he conflictin# clai$s over internationall' (no0n trade$ar(s involve such na$e brands as Lacoste..O. 5d -. Ralph Lauren. Civench'. N!Oo re9ect all pendin# applications for Philippine re#istration of si#nature and other 0orld fa$ous trade$ar(s b' applicants other than its ori#inal o0ners or users./ =. Oscar de la Renta. 0e li(e0ise reB affir$ed our adherence to the Paris ConventionD the nion of Paris for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert' to 0hich the Philippines beca$e a part' on Septe$ber 52. Philippine re#istrants of such trade$ar(s should be as(ed to surrender their certificates of re#istration. Cucci. "t creates a le#all' bindin# obli#ation on the parties founded on the #enerall' accepted principle of international la0 of pacta sunt servanda 0hich has been adopted as part of the la0 of our land. Sasson. :. 0e li(e0ise reBaafir$ed our adherence to the Paris ConventionD !he rulin# in the aforecited case is in consonance 0ith the Convention of Converse Rubber Corporation v.-3. shall be entitled to the benefits and sub9ect to the provisions of this Act . Christian *ior.. Art. niversal Rubber Products. =ernande). Sec. in cases 0here 0arranted.. Anent the issue of lis pendens as a #round for a $otion to dis$iss. v. "t is not..> !he ob9ect of the Convention is to accord a national of a $e$ber nation e1tensive protection 8a#ainst infrin#e$ent and other t'pes of unfair co$petition N<anit' =air Mills. supraD.)D.A. . @niversal #u$$er Products.>+B.. the petitioner sub$its that the relief pra'ed for in its civil action is different fro$ the relief sou#ht in the "nter Partes cases. 4ordache.6 :at p. do$iciled in. v. !he $andate of the afore$entioned Convention finds i$ple$entation in Section . :Constitution. other0ise (no0n as the trade$ar( La0D #i&hts of Forei&n #e&istrants. Pierre Cardin. "t $ust also be obe'ed. to avoid suits for da$a#es and other le#al action b' the trade$ar(s8 forei#n or local o0ners or ori#inal users. "n the case of of "erverse #u$$er "orporation V. Article > thereof provides that 8a trade na$e Ncorporation na$eO shall be protected in all the countries of the nion 0ithout the obli#ation of filin# or re#istration. 4hether or not it forms part of the trademar/. or have a bona fide or effective business or co$$ercial establish$ent in an' forei#n countr'.--.2/ SCRA . hold that the petitioner had the le#al capacit' to file the action belo0. Lanvin and !ed Lapidus. 6nc. Ae. Ceoffre' Beene. as 0ron#l' alle#ed b' the private respondent.. !. 5. More i$portant. the . a personal polic' of Minister Luis <illafuerte 0hich e1pires once he leaves the Ministr' of trade. . "t is further directed that. . .. if an'.

in issuin# E1ecutive Order No.6 Note that the Rule uses the phrase another action.. un0ittin#l' or other0ise. nec(ties. believin# that this #round as interposed b' the defendants is a sufficient #round for the dis$issal of his co$plaint.therefore. As re#ards the propriet' of the issuance of the 0rit of preli$inar' in9unuction. etc. Ae bu' a (itchen appliance. i$itated. aid counterfeiters and intellectual pirates. 0hich e@uall' applies to ad$inistrative a#encies. !his is not 0hat is conte$plated under the la0 because under section . and ite$s of clothin# li(e 9eans. of the @ualit' product. thusBB Action $eans an ordinar' suit in a court of 9ustice b' 0hich one part' prosecutes another for the enforce$ent or protection of alri#ht. found in La "hemise Lacoste. !he #reater victi$ is not so $uch the $anufacturer 0hose product is bein# fa(ed but the =ilipino consu$in# public and in the case of e1portations. supraDI One final point.. a$on# other acts. Fernande2. !Bshirts. . ha)ardous. face po0der. filed a $otion to 0ithdra0 his free patent application No.--/+. the plaintiff. and cheap #oods. :at p. !hus. to stren#then the po0ers of the Minister of !rade and "ndustr' for the protection of consu$ers.D As noted above. perfu$e. No less than the President. the defendants contend that the pendenc' of an ad$inistrative bet0een the$selves and the plaintiff before the Bureau of Lands is a sufficient #round to dis$iss the action.:d.A. the records sho0 that herein private respondent 0as #iven the opportunit' to present its counterBevidence a#ainst the issuance thereof but it intentionall' refused to do so to be consistent 0ith its theor' that the civil case should be dis$issed in the first place. stated that. dated October 2. . "t is. tie the hands of the la0 as it see(s to protect the =ilipino consu$in# public and frustrate e1ecutive and ad$inistrative i$ple$entation of sole$n co$$it$ents pursuant to international conventions and treaties. it is pertinent to reiterate the directive to lo0er courts. /?. "t is essential that 0e stress our concern at the see$in# inabilit' of la0 enforce$ent officials to ste$ the tide of fa(e and counterfeit consu$er ite$s floodin# the Philippine $ar(et or e1ported abroad fro$ our countr'. . !his phrase should be construed in line 0ith Section . Ever' other re$ed' is a special proceedin#.:for$erl' Rule >. As 0e have held in olancho v. 4ud#es all over the countr' are 0ell advised to re$e$ber that court processes should not be used as instru$ents to. v.+>.ver' clear that the Bureau of Land is not covered under the afore$entioned provisions of the Rules of Court. Considerin# the fact that 6P MA6 is an internationall' (no0n brand na$e. P the list is @uite len#th' P pa' #ood $one' rel'in# on the brand na$e as #uarantee of its @ualit' and #enuine nature onl' to e1plode in bitter frustration and helpless an#er because the purchased ite$ turns out to be a shodd' i$itation. a household tool. the infrin#e$ent of internationall' (no0n tradena$es and trade$ar(s. :at p. +. Rule . of the Rules of Court.. one of the #rounds for the dis$issal of an action is that 6there is another action pendin# bet0een the sa$e parties for the sa$e cause. brand' or 0his('.+ SCRA >/>.other case pendin# bet0een the sa$e parties and havin# the sa$e cause $ust be a court action. the du$pin# of substandard. or the prevention or redress of a 0ron#. our i$a#e abroad. . of Rule 5. On the other hand. >3. other toilet articles. 0atches. the Court of Appeals li(e0ise erred in holdin# that the re@uisites of lis pendens 0ere present so as to 9ustif' the dis$issal of the case belo0.. albeit a clever loo(in# counterfeit. and the unfair trade Practices of business fir$s have reached such proportions as to constitute econo$ic sabota#e. 0hich defines the 0ord action. #amos :.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECON* *"<"S"ON G.is RE<ERSE* and SE! AS"*E and the order of the Re#ional !rial Court of Ma(ati is hereb' Reinstated. "t states that the trade$ar( is a co$bination of 6"se6 ta(en fro$ 6"se'a6 the first na$e of the rice dealer in &ondo. 1991 .. !he trade$ar( 6"setan6 and 6%oun# Leaves *esi#n6 0ere re#istered in 4apan coverin# $ore than . Shin9u(u. . "setann *epart$ent Store.R. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P+ILIPPINE 0URISPRUDENCE . the facts are as follo0sD Petitioner &abushi &aisha "setan is a forei#n corporation or#ani)ed and e1istin# under the la0s of 4apan 0ith business address at . also (no0n and tradin# as "setan Co$pan' Li$ited v.den'in# the petitioner8s $otion for reconsideration. !he petitioner alle#es that it first used the trade$ar( "setan on Nove$ber 3. L-?541/ NoI%9C%$ 15. T+E INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT."(o L"G Fou()"t#o( G. P$oH%&t .+>.+>. the Resolution dated 4ul' .6 dis$issin# the petitioner8s appeal fro$ the decision of the *irector of PatentsI and :5.. Fernan C"hairmanD. .. "t is the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6"setan6 and the 6%oun# Leaves *esi#n6.:p !his is a petition for revie0 on certiorari 0hich see(s to set aside B :. /.+.. INC. No. . INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. respondents.AIS+A ISETAN Is.AIS+A ISETAN. !o('o in 0hich the establish$ent 0as first located and 6!an6 0hich 0as ta(en fro$ 6!an9i &osu#e the =irst6... "nc. No. :#ollo.-..R. ??>>2. the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals dated 4une 5. entitled 6&abushi &aisha "setan. .in ACBC.A$%.BChro$e. Shin9u(u.A US+I . 0R. SO OR*ERE*. .. vs. JJ. L-?541/ NoI%9C%$ 15. GUTIERRE4..+>.. On October .to . 4apan.A7ERE=ORE. !he petitioner clai$s to have e1panded its line of business internationall' fro$ ..A US+I ./ classes of #oods.. ET AL. 1991 .. Feliciano. p.+2/. %idin and "ortes. .so :(oG( "() t$")#(g "s ISETAN CO. LTD. SP No. the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 4une 5. 35/55 and 35/5.FULL TE3T T7% L"G87#.+>. T+E DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. petitioner. !o('o..+. J. As #athered fro$ the records. . respectivel'.R. the petitioner applied for the re#istration of 6"setan6 and 6%oun# Leaves *esi#n6 0ith the Philippine Patent Office under Per$anent Serial Nos. concur. "() ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE. "./B.

Private respondent, "setann *epart$ent Store, on the other hand, is a do$estic corporation or#ani)ed and e1istin# under the la0s of the Philippines 0ith business address at /5.B/.? Ri)al Avenue, Sta. Cru), Manila, Philippines. "t clai$s that it used the 0ord 6"setann6 as part of its corporated na$e and on its products particularl' on shirts in 4o'$art *epart$ent Store so$eti$e in 4anuar' ,+2+. !he suffi1 6!ann6 $eans an altar, the place of offerin# in Chinese and this 0as adopted to har$oni)e the corporate na$e and the corporate lo#o of t0o hands in cup that s'$boli)es the act of offerin# to the Supre$e Bein# for business blessin#. On Ma' .?, ,+>? and Ma' 5?, ,+>?, the private respondent re#istered 6"setann *epart$ent Store, "nc.6 and "setann and =lo0er *esi#n in the Philippine Patent Office under SR. Re#. No. /2?, and /2,/, respectivel', as 0ell as 0ith the Bureau of *o$estic !rade under Certificate of Re#istration No. .5?5?. :#ollo, pp. /.B//; On Nove$ber 5>, ,+>?, the petitioner filed 0ith the Phil. Patent Office t0o :5; petitions for the cancellation of Certificates of Supple$ental Re#istration Nos. SRB/2,/ and SRB/2?, statin# a$on# others thatD . . . e1cept for the additional letter 6N6 in the 0ord 6"setan6, the $ar( re#istered b' the re#istrant is e1actl' the sa$e as the trade$ar( "SE!AN o0ned b' the petitioner and that the 'oun# leaves re#istered b' the re#istrant is e1actl' the sa$e as the 'oun# leaves desi#n o0ned b' the petitioner. !he petitioner further alle#ed that private respondent8s act of re#isterin# a trade$ar( 0hich is e1actl' the sa$e as its trade$ar( and adoptin# a corporate na$e si$ilar to that of the petitioner 0ere 0ith the ille#al and i$$oral intention of cashin# in on the lon# established #ood0ill and popularit' of the petitioner8s reputation, thereb' causin# #reat and irreparable in9ur' and da$a#e to it : #ollo, p. 35,;. "t ar#ued that both the petitioner8s and respondent8s #oods $ove in the sa$e channels of trade, and ordinar' people 0ill be $isled to believe that the products of the private respondent ori#inated or e$anated fro$, are associated 0ith, or are $anufactured or sold, or sponsored b' the petitioner b' reason of the use of the challen#ed trade$ar(. !he petitioner also invo(ed the Convention of Paris of March 5?, ,>>. for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert' of 0hich the Philippines and 4apan are both $e$bers. !he petitioner stressed that the Philippines8 adherence to the Paris Convention co$$itted to the #overn$ent to the protection of trade$ar(s belon#in# not onl' to =ilipino citi)ens but also to those belon#in# to nationals of other $e$ber countries 0ho $a' see( protection in the Philippines. :#ollo, p. 355; !he petition 0as doc(eted as "nter Partes Cases Nos. ,/-? and ,/-, : #ollo, p. 3,/; Mean0hile, the petitioner also filed 0ith the Securities and E1chan#e Co$$ission :SEC; a petition to cancel the $ar( 6"SE!AN6 as part of the re#istered corporate na$e of "setann *epart$ent Store, "nc. 0hich petition 0as doc(eted as SEC Case No. 5?3, :#ollo, p. 35/; On Ma' ,2, ,+>3, this petition 0as denied in a decision rendered b' SEC8s 7earin# Officer, Att'. 4oa@uin C. Cara'#a'. On appeal, the Co$$ission reversed the decision of the 7earin# Officer on =ebruar' 53, ,+>-. "t directed the private respondent to a$end its Articles of "ncorporation 0ithin .? da's fro$ finalit' of the decision. On April ,3, ,+>-, ho0ever, respondent "setann *epart$ent Store filed a $otion for reconsideration. :#ollo, pp. .53B.3.;. And on Septe$ber ,?, ,+>2, the Co$$ission reversed its earlier decision dated =ebruar' 53, ,+>- thereb' affir$in# the decision rendered b' the 7earin# Officer on Ma' ,2, ,+>3. !he Co$$ission stated that since the petitioner8s trade$ar( and tradena$e have never been used in co$$erce on the petitioner8s products $ar(eted in the Philippines, the trade$ar( or tradena$e have not ac@uired a reputation and #ood0ill deservin# of protection fro$ usurpation b' local co$petitors. :#ollo, p. .+5;.

!his SEC decision 0hich denied and dis$issed the petition to cancel 0as sub$itted to the *irector of Patents as part of the evidence for the private respondent. On 4anuar' 5/, ,+>-, the *irector of Patents after notice and hearin# rendered a 9oint decision in "nter Partes Cases Nos. ,/-? and ,/-,, the dispositive portion of 0hich readsD A7ERE=ORE, all the fore#oin# considered, this Office is constrained to hold that the herein Petitioner has not successfull' $ade out a case of cancellation. Accordin#l', "nter Partes Cases Nos. ,/-? and ,/-, are, as the' are hereb', *"SM"SSE*. 7ence, Respondent8s Certificate of Supple$ental Re#istration No. /2,/ issued on Ma' 5?, ,+>? coverin# the tradena$e 6"SE!ANN *EP!. S!ORE, "NC. M =LOAER *ES"CN6 are, as the' are hereb', ordered to re$ain in full force and effect for the duration of their ter$ unless sooner or later ter$inated b' la0. !he correspondin# application for re#istration in the Principal Re#ister of the !rade$ar( and of the tradena$e aforesaid are hereb' #iven due course. Let the records of these cases be trans$itted to the !rade$ar( E1a$inin# *ivision for appropriate action in accordance 0ith this *ecision. On =ebruar' 5,, ,+>-, "setan Co$pan' Li$ited $oved for the reconsideration of said decision but the $otion 0as denied on April 5, ,+>- :#ollo, pp. .33B.3+;. =ro$ this adverse decision of the *irector of Patents, the petitioner appealed to the "nter$ediate Appellate Court :no0 Court of Appeals;. On 4une 5, ,+>-, the "AC dis$issed the appeal on the #round that it 0as filed out of ti$e. !he petitioner8s $otion for reconsideration 0as li(e0ise denied in a resolution dated 4ul' ,,, ,+>-. 7ence, this petition. "nitiall', the Court dis$issed the petition in a resolution dated 4ul' >, ,+>2, on the #round that it 0as filed fourteen :,/; da's late. 7o0ever, on $otion for reconsideration, 0hereb' the petitioner appealed to this Court on e@uitable #rounds statin# that it has a stron# and $eritorious case, the petition 0as #iven due course in a resolution dated Ma' ,+, ,+>> to enable us to e1a$ine $ore full' an' possible denial of substantive 9ustice. !he parties 0ere then re@uired to sub$it their $e$oranda. : #ollo, pp. 5B 5>I Resolution, pp. 52,I /3.; After carefull' considerin# the records of this case, 0e reiterate our 4ul' >, ,+>2 resolution dis$issin# the petition. !here are no co$pellin# e@uitable considerations 0hich call for the application of the rule enunciated in errano v. "ourt of Appeals :,.+ SCRA ,2+ N,+>3O; and 8rata v. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt, et al. :,>3 SCRA ,/> N,++?O; that considerations of substantial 9ustice $anifest in the petition $a' rela1 the strin#ent application of technical rules so as not to defeat an e1ceptionall' $eritorious petition. !here is no dispute and the petitioner does not @uestion the fact that the appeal 0as filed out of ti$e. Not onl' 0as the appeal filed late in the Court of Appeals, the petition for revie0 0as also filed late 0ith us. "n co$$on parlance, the petitioner8s case is 6t0ice dead6 and $a' no lon#er be revie0ed. !he Court of Appeals correctl' re9ected the appeal on the sole #round of late filin# 0hen it ruledD Perfection of an appeal 0ithin the ti$e provided b' la0 is 9urisdictional, and failure to observe the period is fatal.

!he decision sou#ht to be appealed is one rendered b' the Philippine Patent Office, a Fuasi.<udicial bod'. Conse@uentl', under Section 5.:c; of the "nteri$ Rules of Court, the appeal shall be #overned b' the provisions of Republic Act No. 3/./, 0hich provides in its Section 5I Sec. 5. Appeals to "ourt of Appeals. B Appeals to the Court of Appeals shall be filed 0ithin fifteen :,3; da's fro$ notice of the rulin#, a0ard, order, decision or 9ud#$ent or fro$ the date of its last publication, if publication is re@uired b' la0 for its effectivit'I or in case a $otion for reconsideration is filed 0ithin that period of fifteen :,3; da's, then 0ithin ten :,?; da's fro$ notice or publication, 0hen re@uired b' la0, of the resolution den'in# the $otion for reconsideration. No $ore than one $otion for reconsideration shall be allo0ed an' part'. "f no appeal is filed 0ithin the periods here fi1ed, the rulin#, a0ard, order, decision or 9ud#$ent shall beco$e final and $a' be e1ecuted as provided b' e1istin# la0. Attention is invited to that portion of Section 5 0hich states that in case a $otion for reconsideration is filed, an appeal should be filed 0ithin ten :,?; da's fro$ notice of the resolution den'in# the $otion for reconsideration. !he petitioner received a cop' of the Court of Appeals8 resolution den'in# and received b' us on Au#ust >, ,+>-, its $otion for reconsideration on 4ul' ,2, ,+>-. "t had onl' up to Au#ust ,, ,+>- to file a petition for revie0 0ith us. !he present petition 0as posted on Au#ust 5, ,+>-. !here is no @uestion that it 0as, a#ain, filed late because the petitioner filed an e1Bparte $otion for ad$ission e1plainin# the dela'. !he decision of the Patent Office has lon# beco$e final and e1ecutor'. So has the Court of Appeal decision. Re#ardin# the petitioner8s clai$s of substantial 9ustice 0hich led us to #ive due course, 0e decline to disturb the rulin#s of the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals. A funda$ental principle of Philippine !rade$ar( La0 is that actual use in co$$erce in the Philippines is a preBre@uisite to the ac@uisition of o0nership over a trade$ar( or a tradena$e. !he trade$ar( La0, Republic Act No. ,--, as a$ended, under 0hich this case heard and decided providesD SEC. 5. Bhat are re&istra$le.B !rade$ar(, tradena$es and service $ar(s o0ned b' persons, corporation, partnerships or associations do$iciled in the Philippines and b' persons, corporations, partnerships or associations do$icided in an' forei#n countr' $a' be re#istered in accordance 0ith the provisions of this ActD Provided, !hat said trade$ar(s, tradena$es, or service $ar(s are actuall' in use in co$$erce and services not less than t0o $onths in the Philippines before the ti$e the applications for re#istration are filedD And provided, further, !hat the countr' of 0hich the applicant for re#istration is a citi)en #rants b' la0 substantiall' si$ilar privile#es to citi)ens of the Philippines, and such fact is officiall' certified, 0ith a certified true cop' of the forei#n la0 translated into the En#lish lan#ua#e, b' the #overn$ent of the forei#n countr' to the Covern$ent of the Republic of the Philippines. :As a$ended b' R.A. No. >-3;. SEC. 5BA. 84nership of trademar/s, tradenames and service mar/sJ ho4 acFuired . B An'one 0ho la0full' produces or deals in $erchandise of an' (ind or 0ho en#a#es in an' la0ful business, or 0ho renders an' la0ful service in co$$erce, b' actual use thereof in $anufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered, $a' appropriate to his e1clusive use a trade$ar(, a tradena$e, or a service $ar( not so appropriated b' another, to distin#uish his $erchandise, business or service fro$ the $erchandise, business or service of others. !he o0nership or possession of a trade$ar(, tradena$e, service $ar(, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this

/ N. One 0a' $a(e advertise$ents. 7ieo'a Mura(a$i.N. :S' Chin# v. "ourt of Appeals. Ae ruled in Pa&asa 6ndustrial "orporation v.. =lo0in# fro$ this is the trader8s ri#ht to protection in the trade he has built up and the #ood0ill he has accu$ulated fro$ use of the trade$ar(. 2Ba. !he invoices :E1hibits 2. Ca0 Lui. 6t reFuires actual commercial use of the mar/ prior to its re&istration. the fact of e1portin# the$ to the Philippines cannot be considered to be e@uivalent to the 6use6 conte$plated b' the la0.section provided. Ma'u$i !a(a'a$a and Mr. Mr. and >Bb. definite and free fro$ incosistencies.A. -.> SCRA 35. !here can be no @uestion fro$ the records that the petitioner has never used its tradena$e or trade$ar( in the Philippines. !he underl'in# reason for all these is that purchasers have co$e to understand the $ar( as indicatin# the ori#in of the 0ares. !he petitioner8s 0itnesses. 6Sa$ples6 are not for sale and therefore. nder the la0. it has no ri#ht to the re$ed' it see(s./>B. . #ive out price lists on certain #oodsI but these alone 0ould not #ive e1clusive ri#ht of use. of considerable sales since its first use.+>5O. Respondent did not e1pect inco$e fro$ such 6sa$ples6. !he petitioner8s co$pan' is not licensed to do business in the PhilippinesI 5. v."#A )K. !he records sho0 that the petitioner has never conducted an' business in the Philippines. "t has never paid a sin#le centavo of ta1 to the Philippine #overn$ent. 6nc. continuous adoption of the trade$ar( 0hich should consist a$on# others. Adoption is not use. B !here is no dispute that respondent corporation 0as the first re#istrant.+-+O. "n fact.6 :Pa&asa 6ndustrial "orp. shall be reco#ni)ed and protected in the sa$e $anner and to the sa$e e1tent as are other propert' ri#hts (no0n to the la0. "t is un(no0n to =ilipinos e1cept the ver' fe0 0ho $a' have noticed it 0hile travellin# abroad. 6!here 0ere no receipts to establish sale. ''. Adoption alone of a trade$ar( 0ould not #ive e1clusive ri#ht thereto.>. // SCRA . ad$itted thatD . in this 0a'D A rule 0idel' accepted and fir$l' entrenched because it has co$e do0n throu#h the 'ears is that actual use in co$$erce or business is a prere@uisite to the ac@uisition of the ri#ht of o0nership over a trade$ar(.. "t has absolutel' no business #ood0ill in the Philippines. "t has never pro$oted its tradena$e or trade$ar( in the Philippines. "ourt of Appeals :.. L'(-KMI E$phasis Supplied.. 111 111 111 .6 !hese provisions have been interpreted in terlin& Products 6nternational.. 'et it failed to full' substantiate its clai$ that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the sub9ect $ar(I it did not present proof to invest it 0ith e1clusive. a prior re#istrant cannot clai$ e1clusive use of the trade$ar( unless it uses it in co$$erce. issue circulars. The Trademar/ La4 is ver5 clear. v.. and no proof 0ere presented to sho0 that the' 0ere subse@uentl' sold in the Philippines. :As a$ended b' R. No. Such ri#ht #ro0s out of their actual use./+. sub$itted b' respondent 0hich 0ere dated 0a' bac( in . Far$enfa$ri/en %a5er Actien&esellschaft :52 SCRA ..=or trade$ar( is a creation of use.+32 sho0 that the )ippers sent to the Philippines 0ere to be used as 6sa$ples6 and 6of no co$$ercial value6.D . !he petitioner8s trade$ar( is not re#istered under Philippine la0I and . !he evidence for respondent $ust be clear.5.

nless one #oes to the store called "setann in Manila.3. *ir. 2-5. Phil. Olsen. :Chua Che v. N# &ian Ciab. of Patents. !o illustrate B "f a ta1icab or bus co$pan' in a to0n in the nited &in#do$ or "ndia happens to use the tradena$e 6Rapid !ransportation6. refers to advertisin# in Japan or other forei#n places.+->OI &ee Boc v.6 :5 Call$ann.. Co. or (no0led#e re#ardin# the na$e "setann is purel' the 0or( of the private respondent. Co. !he rule is that the findin#s of facts of the *irector of Patents are conclusive on the Supre$e Court. SCRA -2 N.E. v. price lists. 5+. that the principle of territorialit5 of the Trademar/ La4 has $een reco&ni2ed in the Philippines. : terlin& Products 6nternational. Aalter E.-+ = 5d . Patent Office. is the na$e of a store and not of product sold in various parts of the countr'. An' #ood0ill.. L. he 0ould never (no0 0hat the na$e $eans. !he conclusions of the *irector of Patents are li(e0ise based on applicable la0 and 9urisprudenceD Bhat is to $e secured from unfair competition in a &iven territor5 is the trade 4hich one has in that particular territor5. that na$e 0ould be co$pletel' alien to hi$. p.+/3 ed. :Consu$ers Petrolu$ Co. . "setann *epart$ent Store. !here is 0here his business is carried on 0here the #ood0ill s'$boli)ed b' the trade$ar( has i$$ediate valueI 0here the infrin#er $a' profit b' infrin#e$ent. . . !he clai$ of the petitioner that $illions of dollars have been spent in advertisin# the petitioner8s products. and on si#ns and stationer'. . !he Paris Convention for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert' does not auto$aticall' e1clude all countries of the 0orld 0hich have si#ned it fro$ usin# a tradena$e 0hich happens to be used in one countr'. p. or the Philippines.> SCRA 2/2 N.. !he petitioner8s trade$ar( is not bein# used on products in trade. b' the petitioner8s o0n ad$ission.+-3OI Chun# !e v.. 2. As Call$ann puts it.. ed. 6nc. even thou#h such adoption is publicl' declared. it does not necessaril' follo0 that 6Rapid6 can no lon#er be re#istered in #anda. "nc.+-+OI E$phasis supplied. petitioner8s 0itness..+--OI Marve1 Co$$ercial Co.??-. As stated b' the *irector of Patents B .2> N./ SCRA 32? N. !his case $ust be differentiated fro$ cases involvin# products bearin# such fa$iliar na$es as 6col#ate6.+--OI Li$ &iah v. >35. nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(s./ N. Petra 7a0pia M Co. "nc. >>. 53 SCRA />3 N. such as b' use of the na$e in advertise$ents. "t $i#ht be pertinent at this point to stress that 0hat is involved in this case is not so $uch a trade$ar( as a tradena$e. there is no need for advertisin#.> SCRA . &a'nee.+N. v. circulars. . Leader =illin# Stations Corp.+2?O. v. Far$enfa$ri/en %a5er A/tien&esellachaft . of "LL. . Consu$ers Co. !he records sho0 that a$on# =ilipinos. v. the na$e cannot clai$ to be internationall' 0ellB(no0n. reputation. !he $ere ori#ination or adoption of a particular tradena$e 0ithout actual use thereof in the $ar(et is insufficient to #ive an' e1clusive ri#ht to its use :4ohnson Mf#.. "t 0as also established fro$ the testi$on' of Att'. 6Sin#er6. or business in the Philippines. . <illasanta. =i9i. Mass. until a =ilipino bu'er steps inside a store called 6"setan6 in !o('o or 7on#(on#.. or 6Son'6 0here the products are $ar(eted 0idel' in the Philippines.. the la0 of trade$ar(s 6rests upon the doctrine of nationalit' or territorialit'. . Si$ilarl'. 6!o'ota6.+/.5. $anufacture. No pro$otional activities have been underta(en in the Philippines. Evidence 0as introduced on the e1tensive pro$otional activities of the private respondent. that the petitioner has never en#a#ed in pro$otional activities in the Philippines to populari)e its trade$ar( because not bein# en#a#ed in business in the Philippines. . !here is nothin# ne0 in 0hat 0e no0 sa'. 52 SCRA . Plaintiff itself concedes :Brief for PlaintiffB Appellant. provided the' are supported b' substantial evidence. citin# "n#enohl v.. !here is not product 0ith the na$e 6"setann6 populari)ed 0ith that brand na$e in the Philippines.

?>>2. SO OR*ERE*. . den'in# its $otion for reconsideration.+>-. it beco$es all but too obvious that the . the $ar( $ust be internationall' (no0n or 0ell (no0nI b. pre$ises considered..but the $otion 0as denied on 5 April . . *irector Ceneral of the Aorld "ntellectual Propert' Or#ani)ation. SP NO. therefore. Paras and %idin. the appellate court rendered a decision dis$issin# the appeal for havin# been filed out of ti$e. the appeal doc(eted therein as ACBC.. S0it)erland. hence. !he respondent re#istered its trade$ar( in .+>. !he people 0ho bu' at "setann Store do so because of "setann8s efforts...+>-.J.. the $ar( $ust be for use in the sa$e or si$ilar (inds of #oodsI and d. "t has continuousl' used that na$e in co$$erce. !here is no sho0in# that the 4apanese fir$8s re#istration in 4apan or 7on#(on# has an' influence 0hatsoever on the =ilipino bu'in# public./-? and . On 5 4une .+>?.R..0ithin 0hich to file its notice of appeal to this Court. appellant ad$its that it received on April .+>3. petitioner filed 0ith the Philippines Patent Office t0o :5. S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s PADILLA. separate opinionD "t appears that on 5> Nove$ber .. On 5/ 4anuar' . A7ERE=ORE.. SRB/2. Fernan. nder the la0./-.. 0e $ust honor our obli#ation thereunder on $atters concernin# internationall' (no0n or 0ell (no0n $ar(s.+>-. concur. the petition is hereb' *"SM"SSE*.+>.2 and SRB/2?. . "t heldD "n the case at bar.+>-. Bo#ach. =ebruar' . pon these pre$ises. ".. J. not a patent or cop'ri#ht or an'thin# elseI c. the *irector of Patents rendered a 9oint decision dis$issin# the petitions in the aforesaid cases. petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Supple$ental Re#istration Nos. a cop' of the Resolution dated April 5. Petitioner $oved for reconsideration on 5.+2+. . doc(eted therein as inter Partes Cases Nos. Petitioner appealed to the "nter$ediate Appellate Court :no0 Court of Appeals. "t has established a #ood0ill throu#h e1tensive advertisin#. this !reat' provision clearl' indicated the conditions 0hich $ust e1ist before an' trade$ar( o0ner can clai$ and be afforded ri#hts such as the Petitioner herein see(s and those conditions are thatD a. Ceneva. appellant had onl' up to April 5. the person clai$in# $ust be the o0ner of the $ar( :!he Parties Convention Co$$entar' on the Paris Convention. . the Philippines is a si#nator' to this !reat' and. Article b' *r."ndeed. JJ.+>-. the sub9ect of the ri#ht $ust be a trade$ar(. 7o0ever.

.I and co$pliance 0ith the :this.+-?...-3 SCRA . >+>I Santia#o v./-. of course. ?>>2. the Court spea(in# thru Mr.+>>. Caban#on..L. this Court had ruled. the appeal doc(eted therein as ACBC. the appellate court rendered a decision dis$issin# the appeal for havin# been filed out of ti$e. C. LB. 33 Phil. C. !he notice of appeal 0as in fact filed 5/ da's after receipt of the Resolution den'in# appellant8s $otion for reconsideration. / SCRA . C.I Pa$polina v. . ti$e and a#ain. On 5 4une . be A=="RME* and the present petition should be *"SM"SSE*.> Phil. <alen)uela. 3/.notice of appeal 0hich 0as filed onl' on Ma' 3...? 4anuar' . On 5/ 4anuar' .5./-? and . but 9urisdictional. separate opinionD "t appears that on 5> Nove$ber . . 2> Phil.+5. 5-.+>-. .+-5. LB. ++I Caisip v. ../?52. Since petitioner8s appeal to the Court of Appeals fro$ the decision of the *irector of Patents 0as ad$ittedl' filed out of ti$e. Le#aspi. the *irector of Patents rendered a 9oint decision dis$issin# the petitions in the aforesaid cases.3.R. "n %ello vs. SRB/2. Petitioner $oved for reconsideration on 5. and $a' be e1ercised onlu in the $anner and in accordance 0ith the provisions of the la0 :A#uila v.+-?. Fernando. Au#./->/.6 :A#uilar vs. A S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s PADILLA. 0as filed 0hen the decision sou#ht to be appealed had alread' beco$e final. and there 0as no co$pellin# reason #iven as to 0h' the appeal 0as filed out of ti$e.+>-.-+2?.+>-. 7ence. " see.A.B. Sui)a.5+. >. . =ebruar' . no need or reason to #o into the $erits of the abortive appeal. so that if said period is not co$plied 0ith. .R. LB. therefore./ and.R. .+2. No. Au#ust .. doc(eted therein as inter Partes Cases Nos.. J. that co$pliance 0ith the re#le$entar' period for perfectin# an appeal is not $erel' $andator'.+>. the 9ud#$ent beco$es final and e1ecutor' and the appellate court does not ac@uire 9urisdiction over the appeal :La'da v. 4ustice 4. . also of the . No. Blanco.3 da's provided under Batas Pa$bansa Bilan# . Petitioner appealed to the "nter$ediate Appellate Court :no0 Court of Appeals.. period for appeal is considered absolutel' indispensable for the prevention of needless dela's and to the orderl' and speed' dischar#e of 9udicial business :Altavas Conlu v.>?.. 4ul' . . the present petition for revie0 on certiorari. petitions for cancellation of Certificates of Supple$ental Re#istration Nos.2 and SRB/2?. !he decision of the Court of Appeals dis$issin# the peititioner8s appeal should.+>-. therefore. Re'es heldD !he ri#ht to appeal is not a natural ri#ht nor a part of due processI it is $erel' a statutor' privile#e. "t heldD . 4anuar' 5+. 6"ndeed.5 Phil. . SP NO. . the appellate court ac@uired no 9urisdiction over said appeal and the decision of the *irector of Patents had beco$e final and e1ecutor'.+>-. Petitioner $oved for reconsideration but its $otion 0as denied in the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated . petitioner filed 0ith the Philippines Patent Office t0o :5.3 da's provided for under Section 5 of Republic Act No.. LB.+>?. !he perfection of an appeal 0ithin the re#le$entar' period is not. Navarro. 0hich period is be'on# the ori#inal period of .but the $otion 0as denied on 5 April . therefore. a $ere technicalit' but $andator' and 9urisdictional...

the Court spea(in# thru Mr. LB. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C.. vs. 33 Phil.+-MAR<EK COMMERC"AL CO.L.+5+2 *ece$ber 55. >.. appellant ad$its that it received on April .+-?. so that if said period is not co$plied 0ith.I and co$pliance 0ith the :this. nder the la0.+>-. Caban#on.. this Court had ruled.. also of the . of course.5+. it beco$es all but too obvious that the notice of appeal 0hich 0as filed onl' on Ma' 3. that co$pliance 0ith the re#le$entar' period for perfectin# an appeal is not $erel' $andator'. . appellant had onl' up to April 5.>?. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT . No.. the appellate court ac@uired no 9urisdiction over said appeal and the decision of the *irector of Patents had beco$e final and e1ecutor'.-+2?. 4ul' . 7ence. Sui)a. den'in# its $otion for reconsideration.5. 3/.+2.? 4anuar' . . 5-./->/. and there 0as no co$pellin# reason #iven as to 0h' the appeal 0as filed out of ti$e. !he notice of appeal 0as in fact filed 5/ da's after receipt of the Resolution den'in# appellant8s $otion for reconsideration..+5.+>. " see./ and. C. .+>-. and $a' be e1ercised onlu in the $anner and in accordance 0ith the provisions of the la0 :A#uila v.+>-. therefore. . the 9ud#$ent beco$es final and e1ecutor' and the appellate court does not ac@uire 9urisdiction over the appeal :La'da v. !he decision of the Court of Appeals dis$issin# the peititioner8s appeal should. pon these pre$ises. ti$e and a#ain.-3 SCRA . . period for appeal is considered absolutel' indispensable for the prevention of needless dela's and to the orderl' and speed' dischar#e of 9udicial business :Altavas Conlu v.. LB.0ithin 0hich to file its notice of appeal to this Court.. LB. / SCRA . but 9urisdictional. 4anuar' 5+. Fernando.. Petitioner $oved for reconsideration but its $otion 0as denied in the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated . >+>I Santia#o v.6 :A#uilar vs. no need or reason to #o into the $erits of the abortive appeal. . therefore.+>-. E! AL. . 0as filed 0hen the decision sou#ht to be appealed had alread' beco$e final. C.I Pa$polina v.+>>. a cop' of the Resolution dated April 5. LB.+-5. <alen)uela.3. "NC. . PE!RA 7AAP"A and CO.B.R.. . be A=="RME* and the present petition should be *"SM"SSE*. .R. !he perfection of an appeal 0ithin the re#le$entar' period is not. LB. 2> Phil. Blanco. Au#. Navarro. 0hich period is be'on# the ori#inal period of ."n the case at bar. the present petition for revie0 on certiorari. . "n %ello vs. 4ustice 4..3 da's provided under Batas Pa$bansa Bilan# . Au#ust . ++I Caisip v.> Phil. Le#aspi. C. No. 6"ndeed.. therefore./?52. Since petitioner8s appeal to the Court of Appeals fro$ the decision of the *irector of Patents 0as ad$ittedl' filed out of ti$e.5 Phil. No. .. ...+-?.A. . therefore.R.3 da's provided for under Section 5 of Republic Act No. a $ere technicalit' but $andator' and 9urisdictional. Re'es heldD !he ri#ht to appeal is not a natural ri#ht nor a part of due processI it is $erel' a statutor' privile#e.

alle#in# that the re#istration of such trade$ar( 0ould violate its ri#ht to and interest in the trade$ar( 6SALONPAS6 used on another $edicated plaster. the *irector of Patents in his decision of Au#ust . J. "nc.6 to the .+3+ filed an opposition thereto.2+?. !he oppositor then interposed the present appeal. Oct. on 4ul' 5/. Pat. 8ffice of the olicitor !eneral for respondent 3irector of Patents../.. the ri#ht to re#ister trade$ar(s. or deception a$on# the purchasers 0ill not li(el' and reasonabl' occur6 0hen both trade$ar(s are applied to $edicated plaster. tradena$es and service $ar(s b' an' person. 3onato for respondent Petra 0a4pia and "o.. INC. .. statin# in part that 6confusion. L!*. 0hich is re#istered in its na$e under Certificate of Re#istration 3/>-. Ana and Lasam for petitioner. . as a$ended... assertin# its continuous use in the Philippines since 4une +. L-1919? D%&%9C%$ 11. a corporation also dul' or#ani)ed under the la0s of the Philippines :hereinafter referred to as the oppositor. Should the application be re9ected on the #round that the applicant $ade false representations in placin# the phrase 6Re#. and the burden is upon the applicant to prove such o0nership :Operators. M..+-. sent b' 6OSA&A BOE&" &A"S7A. on the stren#th of e1hibits 3 and . . on October . "nc. ta.. CASTRO.+-.+-3. :. . No. !his $otion 0as denied in a resolution of Nove$ber 52. !he Marve1 Co$$ercial Co.. partnership or association do$iciled in the Philippines or in an' forei#n countr'. . . E1hibit 3 is a letter dated 4une 5?.R. PETRA +A<PIA "() CO..Manila EN G.. 0ith the Philippine Patent Office. A. !he *irector of Patents found. vs. petitioner. . "() T+E DIRECTOR OF PATENTS. "s the applicant the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6QI :5.. Phil. corporation. dis$issed the opposition and #ave due course to the petition. !he oppositor $oved to have the decision reconsidered.: Petra 7a0pia M Co.>. de Santos :Botica *ivisoria. respondents. Off. . "s the applicant the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6L"ONPASQ6 nder sections 5 and 5BA of the !rade Mar( La0.for the applicant. 5+. .. is based on o0nership.+3-. and that both trade$ar(s 0hen used on $edicated plaster 0ould $islead the public as the' are confusin#l' si$ilar...6 belo0 the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6 on its cartonsQ.+3> filed a petition for the re#istration of the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6 used on $edicated plaster. na$el'. vs. a partnership dul' or#ani)ed under the la0s of the Philippines and doin# business at 3/. et al. 19BB ANC MAR!E3 COMMERCIAL CO. issued b' the *irector of Patents on Septe$ber 5+. that the latter has 6satisfactoril' sho0n6 its o0nership of the trade$ar( sou#ht to be re#istered. After due hearin#.+3>. $ista(e. !he issues stated b' the *irector of Patents in his decision are the sa$e ones no0 tendered b' the oppositor for resolution. Manila :hereinafter referred to as the applicant. . !he *irector of Patents. and :. "s the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6 confusin#l' si$ilar to the trade$ar( 6SALONPAS6Q Ae do not consider the second issue of an' i$portanceI 0e 0ill thus proceed to resolve the first and third issues. LB.+3>.

but that it is the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6 :par. . this sheet is un$ar(ed. -. :E$phasis ours. . 3 0ill reveal. for distribution in the Philippines.. !his assertion is not tenable.. on 0hich is t'pe0ritten a certification that the si#natures of the presidents of the t0o na$ed co$panies :referrin# to the si#natures in e1h. !he assi#n$ent $ust be in 0ritin#.2 and para#raph 5 of section . has assi#ned.. At all events. ho0ever. "t is even contradicted b' e1h. and have found none.6. consideration. neither aver$ent can be accorded the 0ei#ht of an assi#n$ent of o0nership of the trade$ar( in @uestion under the !rade Mar( La0. A careful scrutin' of e1h. last par. and 0hich appears to be the seller. -. vs. 5. the applicant is not entitled under the la0 to re#ister it in its na$e :Operators. :Sec. Althou#h the *irector of Patents is the official vested b' la0 0ith the po0er to ad$inister the re#istration of trade$ar(s and tradena$es. -. L!*. as a$ended. E1hibit . :Sec. AB. !hus e1h. e1h.6 !here is no proof that as such representative. L!*. . that the sender of the letter. . of R. B si$pl' states that 6L"ONPAS6 is 6$anufactured e1clusivel' for Petra 7a0pia M Co. unsi#ned. ac(no0led#ed before a notar' public or other officer authori)ed to ad$inister oaths or perfor$ other notarial acts and certified under the hand and official seal of the notar' or other officer. Ahile e1h. e1h. "t follo0s fro$ the above dis@uisition that e1hs. the for$er has been authori)ed b' the latter to sell the trade$ar( in @uestion. . 6have been dul' 0ritten b' the$selves6. 3 is not ac(no0led#ed. and tends to confir$ the contents of e1hibit 3. 3 and . the other evidence on record conclusivel' belies the i$port of e1h.6I e1h.--. As a $atter of fact. ceded. Ae have thu$bed the record in @uest of an' definitive evidence that it is a correct translation of the 4apanese characters found on another un$ar(ed and unpa#ed sheet. E1h.. validit5 or transfer in the Philippines of such re&istration shall $e &overned $5 the provisions of this Act . and conve'ed all its 6ri#hts. for a T. . -.applicant 0hich tends to sho0 that the for$er..does not bear the ac(no0led#$ent conte$plated b' the aforesaid la0. .6 in favor of the latter. 6OSA&A BOE&" &A"S7A L!*. 5.2. par.6 is a representative of 6AS NARO P7ARMACE !"CAL "N* S!R% CO. A states that the applicant is $erel' the 6e1clusive distributor6 in the Philippines of the 6L"ONPAS6 penetrative plasterI e1h. "nc. describes the applicant as the 6Philippine sole distributor6 of 6L"ONPAS6I e1h.are le#all' insufficient to prove that the applicant is the o0ner of the trade$ar( in @uestion. undated and unsealed. particularl' b' the last para#raph of section .asserts that the for$er is not a representative of the latter. pon the third issue. -. E1h. .is a 9oint 6SAORN S!A!EMEN!6 0hich appears to have been e1ecuted b' the presidents of 6OSA&A BOE&" &A"S7A. 3 on its face appears to have been si#ned onl' b' so$eone 0hose position in the co$pan'8s 6Sundries *ept.6 is not describedI the si#nature is not le#ible.6.6 and 6AS NARO P7ARMACE !"CAL "N* S!R% CO. is $erel' a representative of the $anufacturer 6AS NARO P7ARMACE !"CAL "N* S!R% CO.6 Not bein# the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6L"ONPAS6 but bein# $erel' an i$porter andGor distributor of the said penetrative plaster. supra. Moreover. unpa#ed. *irector of Patents. the applicant preli$inaril' asserts that there is no 9ustification for this Court to disturb an' findin# $ade b' the *irector of Patents on appeal. his opinion on the $atter of si$ilarit' or dissi$ilarit' of trade$ar(s and tradena$es is not conclusive upon this Court 0hich $a' pass upon such deter$ination. 3 sho0s that 6OSA&A BOE&" &A"S7A. "n this case. althou#h a sheet of paper is attached to e1h. interests and #ood0ill in the tradena$e L"ONPAS Medicated Plaster ..A. 0hich provide as follo0sD !he re#istration of a $ar( under the provisions of this section shall be independent of the re#istration in the countr' of ori#in and the duration.

6PAS6. And 0here #oods are advertised over the radio. /. 6!he i$portance of this rule is e$phasi)ed b' the increase of radio advertisin# in 0hich 0e are deprived of help of our e'es and $ust depend entirel' on the ear6 :Operators.. Bal$aceda.. #e&ala. ". %en&2on. Ma/alintal. ". J. . Ae have therefore proceeded to anal')e the t0o $ar(s. is hereb' dis$issed. 2+3 that the na$e 6Lusolin6 is an infrin#e$ent of the trade$ar( 6Sapolin6. concur.. citin# Ni$s. #e5es.. "t is our considered vie0 that the trade$ar(s 6SALONPAS6 and 6L"ONPAS6 are confusin#l' si$ilar in sound. and the petition belo0 of the respondent Petra 7a0pia M Co. J. sound ver' $uch ali(e.L. st'le. si)e or for$at of the trade$ar(s..+/2. the sound effects are confusin#l' si$ilar. in his boo( 6!radeMar( La0 and Practice6. but on a co$parison of the spellin#. 6SALONPAS6 and 6L"ONPAS6. Si$ilarit' of sound is sufficient #round for this Court to rule that the t0o $ar(s are confusin#l' si$ilar 0hen applied to $erchandise of the sa$e descriptive properties :see Celanese Corporation of A$erica vs. *irector of Patents. pp. 0hen the t0o 0ords are pronounced. -2>B-2+. . furnishes no indication of the ori#in of the article and therefore is open for appropriation b' an'one :Ethepa vs. "oncepcion. LB5?-. as 0e have alread' observed. as co$in# 0ithin the purvie0 of the idem sonans rule. the 6SALONPAS6 $ar( is not before us. as the sound of the t0o na$es is al$ost the sa$e. in disa#ree$ent 0ith that of the *irector of Patents. 6%usea6 and 6 BCBA6.%. 5. !0o letters of 6SALONPAS6 are $issin# in 6L"ONPAS6I the first letter a and the letter s. bein# $erel' descriptive. cites.. vs. Both these 0ords have the sa$e suffi1. vs. . Leon A$dur. +3 Phil. Our $eticulous e1a$ination of the entire record has failed to 'ield a sa$ple of such $ar(. E. .J. !he follo0in# rando$ list of confusin#l' si$ilar sounds in the $atter of trade$ar(s. !he La0 of nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(s. is not based on a co$parison of the appearance. *irector of Patents. nfair Co$petition and !rade Mar(s. .. 0hich is used to denote a plaster that adheres to the bod' 0ith curative po0ers. vol. *irector of Patents. visBaBvis each other. 0ill reinforce our vie0 that 6SALONPAS6 and 6L"ONPAS6 are confusin#l' si$ilar in soundD 6Cold *ust6 and 6Cold *rop6I 64ant)en6 and 64a))BSea6I 6Silver =lash6 and 6SupperB=lash6I 6Cascarete6 and 6Celborite6I 6Celluloid6 and 6Cellonite6I 6Chartreuse6 and 6Charseurs6I 6Cute16 and 6Cuticlean6I 67ebe6 and 6Me9e6I 6&ote16 and 6=e$ete16I 6Uuso6 and 67oo 7oo6.. shape. at the cost of the latter respondent.3. *u Pont. JJ. *irector of Patents. pp.+B/5. 6Pas.. si$ilarit' in sound is of especial si#nificance :Co !ion# Sa vs. . Naldivar and anche2. . and 6SevenB p6 and 6Le$onB p6.+--. ACCOR*"NCL%. supra. for$./-. sound and pronunciation of the t0o 0ords. the decision of the respondent *irector of Patents is set aside. 3i2on. on the basis of 0hat 0e can derive fro$ the record for a co$parative stud'.!he 6SALONPAS6 $ar( is not before this Court. culled fro$ Ni$s. and $a' properl' beco$e the sub9ect of a trade$ar( b' co$bination 0ith another 0ord or phrase. !he re#istration of 6L"ONPAS6 cannot therefore be #iven due course. 5d. "n the case at bar. /th ed. 0hich 0e can not $a(e because./>.3/ =. . vol.. 6Stein0a' Pianos6 and 6Steinber# Pianos6.. "n Co !ion# vs. Be that as it $a'. And our conclusion. this Court une@uivocall' said that 6Celdura6 and 6Cordura6 are confusin#l' si$ilar in soundI this Court held in Sapolin Co. -2 Phil..P. "nc. 0hen spo(en. March .

1valle. pants. :"nter Partes Case No. E! AL. 19B8 0OSE P.. 5+.: Petition for revie0 of the decision of the respondent *irector of Patents in an interference proceedin#. the herein petitioner. On .> Septe$ber .4ul' . Ana filed an application for the re#istration of the tradena$e =LORMEN S7OE MAN =AC! RERS :S7OE MAN =AC! RERS disclai$ed.+-5. and children.L. 0. L-13/13 August 31. . J.+-> 4OSE P. RE*ES. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C. findin# for the senior part' applicant.+3+.+-5. ANA vs. 4une . LB5. Sta. S!A. . 8ffice of the olicitor !eneral for respondent Ti$urcio . the respondent *irector #ave due course to Mali0at8s application and denied that of Sta. 7is clai$ of first use in co$$erce of the said tradena$e is > April . Au#ust . 5 of the !rade Mar( La0 re@uires actual use in the Philippines of not less than t0o $onths before application $a' be filed. Sec. Francisco for petitioner. and a#ainst the 9unior part' applicant 5 4ose P. 4ose P. On 5.. After trial.Foot(ot%s . clai$in# first use in co$$erce of the said $ar( on .?5. Ana. $en. 0hich is used on shirts. =LOREN!"NO MAL"AA!.R. . "atalino .. Sta.. the herein private respondent. the *irector of Patents declared an interference.R.. =lorentino Mali0at. respondents.+33. #( 7#s &"8"&#t6 "s D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts. !he clai$ of first use 0as subse@uentl' a$ended to . Maravilla for respondent Florentino Mali4at. #odolfo A. No. "n vie0 of the ad$ittedl' confusin# si$ilarit' bet0een the trade$ar( =LORMANN and the tradena$e =LORMEN. 0hich is used in the business of $anufacturin# ladies8 and children8s shoes.+-5.. Ana. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. No. 9ac(ets and shoes for ladies. . ANA. STA. FLORENTINO MALI<AT "() TI URCIO S. petitioner. vs. E!ALLE. =lorentino Mali0at filed 0ith the Patent Office an application for re#istration of the trade$ar( =LORMANN.3 4anuar' .

. havin# also been re#istered 0ith the Bureau of Co$$erce on 4anuar' . since his findin#s 0ere based on facts stipulated in the course of the trial in the interference proceedin#s./. "". !he *irector of Patents erred in not findin# that respondent :senior part'Bapplicant. and should have allo0ed the concurrent use of tradena$e =LORMEN S7OE MAN =AC! RERS and the trade$ar( =LORMANN provided it is not used on shoes. =lorentino Mali0at has been en#a#ed in the $anufacture and sale of $ens0ear shirts. 4ose P. " respectfull' concur and ad$it all those stipulations above $entioned.+3. appealed to this Court. <. =lorentino Mali0at be#an usin# the trade$ar( =LORMANN on shoes on 4anuar' .n. the Social Securit' S'ste$ and the Aor($en8s Co$pensation in . since . =RANC"SCOD %our 7onor please.B. A!!%. !he *irector of Patents erred in declarin# that Mali0at has the prior ri#ht to the use of his trade$ar( on shoes and such ri#ht $a' be carried bac( to the 'ear . 0hen respondent started his tailorin# and haberdasher' business and in holdin# that the $anufacture of shoes is 0ithin the scope of natural e1pansion of the business of a tailor and haberdasher. .+3. failed to establish b' clear and convincin# evidence earlier date of use of his $ar( =LORMANN than that alle#ed in his application for re#istration. Ae can proceed no0 0ith the redirect e1a$ination. !he *irector erred in holdin# that respondent is the prior adopter and user of his $ar( and in concludin# that this is stren#thened 0ith docu$entar' evidence that respondent has been usin# his $ar( since . :!. and pants. . represented b' this hu$ble representation.+-.. 0ith the $utual understandin# of the counsel for the 4unior Part' and the counsel for the Senior Part' in their desire to shorten the proceedin#s of this case. the' have a#reed and ad$itted that Mr.+-5. especiall' on $atters that are ad$itted and not controverted b' both parties. !hat Mr. hence. falsus in o$nibus6 and should have disre#arded the$. !he recorded stipulation is as follo0sD A!!%.+3+I that the na$e =LORMEN S7OE MAN =AC! RERS is re#istered 0ith the Bureau of Co$$erce on April >. "<.. is en#a#ed solel' in the $anufacture of shoes under the fir$ na$e =LORMEN S7OE MAN =AC! RERS since April . !he *irector of Patents erred in not findin# false and fabricated respondent8s testi$onial and docu$entar' evidence and *irector should have applied the rule 6=alsus in uno. !he findin#s of the *irector that Mali0at 0as the prior adopter and user of the $ar( can not be contradicted.. Sta.+-5 and 0ith other depart$ents of the #overn$ent. not satisfied 0ith the decision. respondent is not entitled to carr' bac( the date of first use to a prior date. polo shirts. li(e the Bureau of Labor. as sho0n b' E1hibits 6A6 and 6AB56. + Au#ust .+-5. usin# =LORMANN as its trade$ar(. as tailor and haberdasher. MARA<"LLAD On behalf of the Senior Part' Applicant. Ana. 7EAR"NC O=="CERD !he court reserves the resolution on those stipulations.+3. the 4unior Part' Applicant in this case. !hat Mr.!he latter. pp.s.+-5 and the fir$ na$e =LORMANN S7OES under 0hich these shoes 0ith the trade$ar( =LORMANN 0ere $anufactured and sold 0as first used on 4anuar' . !he petitioner assi#ned the follo0in# errorsD ".. . !he *irector of Patents erred in failin# to appl' the stricture that parties should confine use of their respective $ar(s to their correspondin# fields of business.+3+. """.

+-3. no $ore. throu#h counsel.>. . that after his receipt of the decision. Ae find no substantiation of the char#e that the stipulation of facts appearin# on pa#es . pon re@uire$ent b' this Court. if an'.. $onths. !his Court. !he inte#rit' of the record bein# intact. !he rule on 9udicial ad$issions 0as not found or provided for in the old Rules but can be culled fro$ rulin#s laid do0n b' this Court previous to its revision :"rlanda v. filed 0ith this Court. =lorentino Mali0at on + Au#ust . and for a period of seven :2.+-. since . for bein# late the $otion to present additional testi$onial and docu$entar' evidence. or in the course of the trial or other proceedin#s do not re@uire proof and can not be contradicted unless previousl' sho0n to have been $ade throu#h palpable $ista(e. on 5 =ebruar' . he bou#ht the transcript and re@uested the steno#rapher to verif' the contents of pa#es . Counsel for Sta.6 !he reason #iven 0as that 6counsel for Mr. Ana does not recall $a(in# an' stipulation or a#ree$ent of facts 0ith the counsel of Mr.. aside fro$ the concurrence of Mali0at8s counsel and the reservation on the resolution $ade b' the hearin# officerI and that despite her len#th of service. and. 55 Phil. then and no0. Sta. there had been no co$plaint a#ainst her.. petitioner Sta. and unsubstantial. !o be true. Ed.+-. for her to produce the steno#raphic notes. and . Judicial admissions.I 3 Moran 32B3+. despite several re@uests. she has failed to produce said notes. Ana replied to the fore#oin# co$$ents. deferred action on the ob9ection to a portion of the transcript until after hearin#. Pitar#ue. unclear. 0hich is both unti$el' and unhonorable. "t 0as the la0./ of her transcript but. to . had been intercalatedI hence.+-3. as steno#raphic reporter. Revised Rules of Court. 5.+3>.5+. Ana. Ana. fabricated. instead of here in the Supre$e Court. on 5/ *ece$ber . alle#in#. on > April . contradictor'.And the Rules of Court provideD'O4phP'. On 5 April . Ae can not overloo( that even if his char#es 0ere true. it is vain for the petitioner to alle#e that the evidence for respondent Mali0at is false. inconsistent.6 Opposition thereto 0as filed b' Mali0at. bein# an application of the la0 on estoppel. 4ose P. the petitioner is bound b' it. a$on# others.. the presu$ption that the steno#rapher re#ularl' perfor$ed her dut' stands. P Ad$ission $ade b' the parties in the pleadin#s. indefinite.+-. e1cept this one. no lessI that it 0as practicall' and hi#hl' i$possible for her to have intercalated into the records the @uestioned stipulation of facts because of the len#th of counsel8s $anifestations and the different sub9ect $atters of his state$ents. after 3 Ma' .ñQt Sec. it 0as plain and ine1cusable ne#li#ence on his part not to discover earlier the defect he no0 co$plains of. unconvincin#. assertin# that the steno#rapher too( do0n notes on those thin#s 0hich 0ere stated and uttered b' the partiesI that $ovant should have $oved for reconsideration in the Patent Office. denied.. Since the afore@uoted stipulation of facts has not been sho0n to have been $ade throu#h palpable $ista(e..+-/. ./ of the transcript of steno#raphic notes ta(en on + Au#ust . a $otion entitled 6MO!"ON !O OR*ER S!ENOCRAP7ER !O PRO* CE S!ENOCRAP7"C NO!ES AN* !O CORREC! !RANSCR"P! O= S!ENOCRAP7"C NO!ESI !O ALLOA PE!"!"ONER !O A"!7*RAA =ROM S!"P LA!"ON O= =AC!S AN* BE ALLOAE* !O PRESEN! A**"!"ONAL E<"*ENCEI AN* !O S SPEN* PER"O* =OR ="L"NC PE!"!"ONER8S BR"E=. steno#rapher Cleofe Rosales co$$ented on petitioner8s $otion that 0hat she had ta(en do0n 0ere actuall' uttered b' counsel for Sta.+-/. and in not ta(in# steps to correct it .6 :Rule . steno#rapher Rosales sent to the cler( of this Court the transcript of steno#raphic notes.+-3.

22. the courts declared the o0ner of a trade$ar( fro$ the first na$ed #oods entitled to e1clude use of its trade$ar( on the related class of #oods aboveBreferred to. Modern la0 reco#ni)es that the protection to 0hich the o0ner of a trade$ar( $ar( is entitled is not li$ited to #uardin# his #oods or business fro$ actual $ar(et co$petition 0ith identical or si$ilar products of the parties. !he o0ner of a trade$ar(../> ALR.. but is entitled to carr' bac( said stated date of first use to a prior date b' proper evidenceI but in order to sho0 an earlier date of use.. "nc. the proof of date of first use :. earlier than that alle#ed in respondent Mali0at8s application :. and the li(e.+3+.>5 =ed.et se@I 35 A$. one 0a' or another.. =ors'the Shoe Corp. Petitioner 0ould confine the respondent to the use of the $ar( =LORMANN to tailorin# and haberdasher' onl'. et al. 32-. LB5.. LRA . vs. . vs. as 0here prospective purchasers 0ould be $isled into thin(in# that the co$plainin# part' has e1tended his business into the field :see .+3-I Chun# !e vs.. . An application for re#istration is not bound b' the date of first use as stated b' hi$ in his application. More specificall'.. shoes. . Mere dissi$ilarit' of #oods should not preclude relief 0here the 9unior user8s #oods are not too different or re$ote fro$ an' that the o0ner 0ould be li(el' to $a(e or sellI and in the present case. . Ri#ne' M Co.. N# &ian Ciab. . vs. Lad' Esther Corset Shoppe. " believe that it is no0 the co$$on practice a$on# local tailors and haberdashers to branch out into articles of $anufacture 0hich have. "t #oes 0ithout sa'in# that shoes on one hand and shirts. or is in an' 0a' connected 0ith the activities of the infrin#erI or 0hen it forestalls the nor$al potential e1pansion of his business :v. vs. . 2 =ed. et al. 5.> C .before the records 0ere elevated to this Court. >/I 35 A$. business or services fro$ the #oods.. $anufacturers of $en8s clothin# 0ere declared entitled to protection a#ainst the use of their trade$ar( in the sale of hats and caps NRosenber# Bros. 0earin# apparel is not so far re$oved fro$ shoes as to preclude relief.+.+3. 53/ N%S 3>/. LB>??/. . can be no less than clear and convincin# because the fact 0as stipulated and no proof 0as needed.? Ma' ./> ALR 3. "n the case at bar. as a$ended. so$e direct relationship 0ith or appurtenance to #ar$ents or attire to co$plete one8s 0ardrobe such as belts. have the sa$e descriptive properties for purposes of our !rade$ar( La0. Elliott./> ALR -. 4ur. . he is then under a heav' burden. on the #round that petitioner had used the na$e =LORMEN on shoes since . vs. an' $ore than the panca(e flour is fro$ s'rup or su#ar crea$ :Aunt 4e$i$a Mills Co.+-5I but the *irector ruledD . and his proof $ust be clear and convincin# :Anchor !radin# Co. +-5O and of ladies shoes :=ors'the M Co.2+.. providesD Sec. . /. but not on shoes.. 32-. 0hile the respondent used his $ar( on shoes onl' in . or cos$etics and toilet #oods fro$ ladies8 0earin# apparel and costu$e 9e0elr' :Lad' Esther Ltd. Republic Act No. 6to #ar$ents or attire to co$plete one8s 0ardrobe6. .. tradena$e or serviceB$ar( used to distin#uish his #oods. "t $a' be that previousl' the respondent dre0 a closer distinction a$on# (inds of #oods to 0hich the use of si$ilar $ar(s could be appliedI but it can not be said that the present rulin# under appeal is so devoid of basis in la0 as to a$ount to #rave abuse of discretion 0arrantin# reversal. . . . but e1tends to all cases in 0hich the use b' a 9unior appropriator of a trade$ar( or tradena$e is li(el' to lead to a confusion of source.--. business or services of others shall .+. or ba(in# po0der fro$ ba(in# soda :La'ton Pure =ood Co.. vs. Church M Co. Nove$ber . pants and 9ac(ets on the other. hand(erchiefs. !he *irector of Patents. 4ur. 322. :5d.3.?.. . . "t is on this basis that the respondent *irector of Patents adverted to the practice 6a$on# local tailors and haberdashers to branch out into articles of $anufacture 0hich have so$e direct relationship6 .+--.+-5. "n all these cases.. ..

5nd.+-3. ./. "oncepcion. . / citin# Application of S'lvan S0eets Co.2. .--. has the better ri#ht to the use of the $ar(. 7ere.. 5 6!he part' 0hose application or re#istration involved in the interference has the latest filin# date is the 9unior part' ..--. 6$id. . . LB. 5?2. Republic Act No. upon application of the re#istrant and pa'$ent of the re@uired fee. . . Republic Act No. the rese$blance or si$ilarit' of the $ar( =LORMANN and the na$e =LORMEN and the li(elihood of confusion. as a$ended. Rev. and he $a' per$it an' re#istered $ar( or tradena$e to be disclai$ed in 0hole or in partD . unless itD 111 111 111 111 111 111 :d.>. Naldivar.3 !herefore.. cancelled.ñQt Foot(ot%s . anche2. . 0hether or not shirts and shoes have the sa$e descriptive properties.6At an' ti$e. to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasersI 111 111 111 Note that the provision does not re@uire that the articles of $anufacture of the previous user and the late user of the $ar( should possess the sa$e descriptive properties or should fall into the sa$e cate#ories as to bar the latter fro$ re#isterin# his $ar( in the principal re#ister :Chua Che vs.have the ri#ht to re#ister the sa$e on the principal re#ister. business or services of the applicant. .6 :Sec. the prior adopter. tradena$e.6 :Rule .J. the appealed decision is hereb' affir$ed. .. "astro. shall be dee$ed to be in the position of plaintiff. 6An interference is a proceedin# instituted for the purpose of deter$inin# the @uestion of priorit' of adoption and use of a trade$ar(. . ".. An&eles and Fernando. . or serviceB$ar( bet0een t0o or $ore parties clai$in# o0nership of the sa$e or substantiall' si$ilar trade$ar(.6 :Rule . .?BA.'O4phP'. . Patent Office. 3i2on..6 :Sec. . . in the position of defendants. tradena$e or serviceB$ar(. =OR !7E =ORECO"NC REASONS.? 4an. or 0hether or not it is the prevailin# practice or the tendenc' of tailors and haberdashers to e1pand their business into shoes $a(in#. !he $eat of the $atter is the li(elihood of confusion. the *irector $a' per$it an' re#istration to be surrendered.. as to be li(el'. Phil. $ista(e or deception upon purchasers of the #oods of the 9unior user of the $ar( and the #oods $anufactured b' the previous user. Rules of Practice in the Philippines Patent Office. 0ith costs a#ainst the petitioner. is ad$ittedI therefore. et al. are not controllin#. 0ith respect thereto . or for #ood cause sho0n to be a$ended.. 6An' 9unior part' in an interference proceedin#.-2. respondent Mali0at. as a$ended. one to the other. . 0hen applied to or used in connection 0ith the #oods.>/.. and the other parties to such proceedin#s. .. concur. Ma/alintal. JJ. 5?3 =. Consists of or co$prises a $ar( or tradena$e 0hich rese$bles a $ar( or tradena$e re#istered in the Philippines or a $ar( or tradena$e previousl' used in the Philippines b' another and not abandoned.

. COURT OF APPEALS "() SUNS+INE SAUCE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES. under the *el Monte trade$ar( and lo#o. 1 ."(o L"G Fou()"t#o( G. 199/ DEL MONTE CORPORATION "() P+ILIPPINE PAC. %ito.+-+.ING CORPORATION. #e5naldo F. *el Monte also obtained t0o re#istration certificates for its trade$ar( 6*EL MON!E6 and its lo#o. L-?8315 0"(u"$6 15. *el Monte #ranted Philpac( the ri#ht to $anufacture. No. CRU4..: !he petitioners are @uestionin# the decision of the respondent court upholdin# the dis$issal b' the trial court of their co$plaint a#ainst the private respondent for infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition. includin# catsup. On October 52. SRB+. vs. L-?8315 0"(u"$6 15.+-3. COURT OF APPEALS Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ="RS! *"<"S"ON G. in&son for private respondent. 3 !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P+ILIPPINE 0URISPRUDENCE . No. b' the Philippine Patent Office under the Supple$ental Re#ister. 0hich #rants to the nationals of the parties ri#hts and advanta#es 0hich their o0n nationals en9o' for the repression of acts of infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition. is a do$estic corporation dul' or#ani)ed under the la0s of the Philippines.ñQt Bet0een candies and ci#arettes. P$oH%&t . Both the Philippines and the nited States are si#natories to the Convention of Paris of Septe$ber 52. distribute and sell in the Philippines various a#ricultural products.A$%. petitioners.. J. 1 On Nove$ber 5?. . On April . *el Monte authori)ed Philpac( to re#ister 0ith the Philippine Patent Office the *el Monte catsup bottle confi#uration. . .+25. Misa & Lo2ada for petitioners. 199/ DEL MONTE CORPORATION Is.'O4phP'. for 0hich it 0as #ranted Certificate of !rade$ar( Re#istration No. Petitioner Philippine Pac(in# Corporation :Philpac(./ Bet0een toiletries and laundr' soap. Petitioner *el Monte Corporation is a forei#n co$pan' or#ani)ed under the la0s of the nited States and not en#a#ed in business in the Philippines.. respondents.FULL TE3T T7% L"G87#.+-3.R.R..

counterfeit cop' or colorable i$itation to labels. pac(in#. 0rappers. 7avin# received reports that the private respondent 0as usin# its e1clusivel' desi#ned bottles and a lo#o confusin#l' si$ilar to *el Monte8s. @nfair competition. si#ns. includin# the *el Monte bottle. the follo0in# shall be dee$ed #uilt' of unfair co$petitionD . 4 !he product itself 0as contained in various (inds of bottles. 3 !his lo#o 0as re#istered in the Supple$ental Re#ister on Septe$ber 5?.. or advertisin# of an' #oods. business or services on or in connection 0ith 0hich such use is li(el' to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or ori#in of such #oods or services or identit' of such businessI or reproduce. clai$in# that the de$and had been i#nored. P A person 0ho has identified in the $ind of the public the #oods he $anufactures or deals in. the Re#ional !rial Court of Ma(ati dis$issed the co$plaint. his business or services fro$ those of others. .Respondent Sunshine Sauce Manufacturin# "ndustries 0as issued a Certificate of Re#istration b' the Bureau of *o$estic !rade on April . and 0ithout in an' 0a' li$itin# the scope of unfair co$petition. 0hich is no0 faulted in this petition for certiorari under Rule /3 of the Rules of Court. counterfeit cop' or colorabl' i$itate an' such $ar( or trade na$e and appl' such reproduction. or his business. prints. receptacles or advertise$ents intended to be used upon or in connection 0ith such #oods. counterfeit. B After trial. Chapter < hereof. the co$plainants had failed to establish the defendant8s $alice or bad faith. 4hat constitutes . Philpac( and *el Monte filed a co$plaint a#ainst the private respondent for infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition. 5+ of the sa$e la0 states as follo0sD Sec. and shall be sub9ect to an action therefor. Sunshine alle#ed that it had lon# ceased to use the *el Monte bottle and that its lo#o 0as substantiall' different fro$ the *el Monte lo#o and 0ould not confuse the bu'in# public to the detri$ent of the petitioners. 55. 0hich the private respondent bou#ht fro$ the 9un( shops for rec'clin#. "n particular.+>?. pac(a#es. 0hether or not a $ar( or tradena$e is e$plo'ed. =urther$ore. P An' person 0ho shall use. An' person 0ho shall e$plo' deception or an' other $eans contrar' to #ood faith b' 0hich he shall pass off the #oods $anufactured b' hi$ or in 0hich he deals. other0ise (no0n as the !rade$ar( La0. 0ithout the consent of the re#istrant. to en#a#e in the $anufacture. an' reproduction. No. 0hich 0ill be protected in the sa$e $anner as other propert' ri#hts. Sec.--. business or services so identified.. 0ith a pra'er for da$a#es and the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction. cop' or colorable i$itation of an' re#istered $ar( or tradeBna$e in connection 0ith the sale. or 0ho shall co$$it an' acts calculated to produce said result. Philpac( 0arned it to desist fro$ doin# so on pain of le#al action. Such a person shall have the re$edies provided in section t0ent'B three. Section 55 of R. identified b' the lo#o Sunshine =ruit Catsup. shall be liable to a civil action b' the re#istrant for an' or all of the re$edies herein provided. 5 "n its ans0er. business or services. distribution and sale of various (inds of sauce. ri&hts and remedies . ? !his decision 0as affir$ed in toto b' the respondent court. provides in part as follo0sD Sec. or services for those of the one havin# established such #ood0ill. offerin# for sale. 6nfrin&ement. 5+. "t held that there 0ere substantial differences bet0een the lo#os or trade$ar(s of the partiesI that the defendant had ceased usin# the petitioners8 bottlesI and that in an' case the defendant beca$e the o0ner of the said bottles upon its purchase thereof fro$ the 9un( 'ards. .A. 0hich 0as an essential ele$ent of infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( or unfair co$petition. has a propert' ri#ht in the #ood0ill of the said #oods.2. !hereafter. shall be #uilt' of unfair co$petition.+>.

:. "n infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( fraudulent intent is unnecessar' 0hereas in unfair co$petition fraudulent intent is essential. An' person.. !o arrive at a proper resolution of this case. "nfrin#e$ent of trade$ar( is the unauthori)ed use of a trade$ar(. or the devices or 0ords thereon.. 9 and appl'in# the sa$e. :. or device.. either as to the #oods the$selves or in the 0rappin# of the pac(a#es in 0hich the' are contained. SunshineD Re#ular rectan#le. held that there 0as no colorable i$itation of the petitioners8 trade$ar( and lo#o b' the private respondent. to 0itD . business or services of another. or 0ho e$plo's all' other $eans calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offerin# the services of another 0ho has identified such services in the $ind of the publicI or :c. !he respondent court a#reed 0ith the findin#s of the trial court thatD "n order to resolve the said issue. 0ho in sellin# his #oods shall #ive the$ the #eneral appearance of #oods of another $anufacturer or dealer. it is i$portant to bear in $ind the follo0in# distinctions bet0een infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( and unfair co$petition. :5. . or 0ho other0ise clothes the #oods 0ith such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his le#iti$ate trade. or an' subse@uent vendor of such #oods or an' a#ent of an' vendor en#a#ed in sellin# such #oods 0ith a li(e purposeI :b. the respondent court cited the follo0in# test laid do0n b' this Court in a nu$ber of casesD "n deter$inin# 0hether t0o trade$ar(s are confusin#l' si$ilar. 0hereas unfair co$petition is the passin# off of one8s #oods as those of another. 0hich 0ould li(el' influence purchasers to believe that the #oods offered are those of a $anufacturer or dealer other than the actual $anufacturer or dealer. or in an' other feature of their appearance. the Court no0 atte$pts to $a(e a co$parison of the t0o products. the t0o $ar(s in their entiret' as the' appear in the respective labels $ust be considered in relation to the #oods to 0hich the' are attachedI the discernin# e'e of the observer $ust focus not onl' on the predorninant 0ords but also on the other features appearin# on both labels. An' person 0ho b' an' artifice. "n infrin#e$ent of trade$ar( the prior re#istration of the trade$ar( is a prere@uisite to the action.:a. As to the shape of label or $a(eD *el MonteD Se$iBrectan#ular 0ith a cro0n or to$ato shape desi#n on top of the rectan#le. 0hereas in unfair co$petition re#istration is not necessar'. An' person 0ho shall $a(e an' false state$ent in the course of trade or 0ho shall co$$it an' other act contrar' to #ood faith of a nature calculated to discredit the #oods. 8 "n the challen#ed decision.

. "nc. . it does not a#ree 0ith the conclusion that there 0as no infrin#e$ent or unfair co$petition. as 0as done b' the trial 9ud#e.C. "t see$s to us that the lo0er courts have been so preBoccupied 0ith the details that the' have not seen the total picture. As to shape of lo#oD *el MonteD "n the shape of a to$ato. As to color of lo#oD *el MonteD Co$bination of 'ello0 and dar( red. SunshineD Li#hter than *el Monte.. As to label belo0 the capD *el MonteD Seal coverin# the cap do0n to the nec( of the bottle.. J. 0ith 0ords 6*el Monte Jualit'6 in 0hite. 0ith 0ords 6Sunshine Brand6 in 'ello0. Malabon. Philippines. Metro Manila. -. As to brand printed on labelD *el MonteD !o$ato catsup $ar(.5. 3. she is apt to be confused b' si$ilar labels even if the' do have $inute differences. Ahile the Court does reco#ni)e these distinctions.6 SunshineD !here is a label belo0 the cap 0hich sa's 6Sunshine Brand. As to the color of the productsD *el MonteD *ar(er red. . SunshineD Sunshine fruit catsup is clearl' indicated 6$ade in the Philippines b' Sunshine Sauce Manufacturin# "ndustries6 No. SunshineD Entirel' different in shape. 0ith picture of to$atoes 0ith 0ords 6$ade fro$ real to$atoes. Ahere the house0ife has to return ho$e as soon as possible to her bab' or the 0or(in# 0o$an has to $a(e @uic( purchases durin# her off hours. !he avera#e shopper is usuall' in a hurr' and does not inspect ever' product on the shelf as if he 0ere bro0sin# in a librar'.6 2. !he ordinar' bu'er does not usuall' $a(e such scrutin' nor does he usuall' have the ti$e to do so. SunshineD =ruit catsup. *el Monte Avenue. SunshineD Ahite. li#ht #reen and li#ht red.. /. As to the 0ords or letterin# on label or $ar(D *el MonteD Clearl' indicated 0ords pac(ed b' S'su "nternational. 1/ Such co$parison re@uires a careful scrutin' to deter$ine in 0hat points the labels of the products differ. "t has been correctl' held that sideBb'Bside co$parison is not the final test of si$ilarit'. !he $ale shopper is 0orse as he usuall' does not bother about such distinctions.

0ithout a reasonable e1planation. !he 0ord 6catsup6 in both bottles is printed in 0hite and the st'le of the printGletter is the sa$e. is such as to li(el' result in his confoundin# it 0ith the ori#inal. 11 As observed in several cases. 15 !he court therefore should be #uided b' its first i$pression. 13 "n this latter cate#or' is catsup. it is attributable to the $ar(s as a totalit'. But $ass products. the nature and cost of the article. lo0 priced articles in 0ide use. to use the sa$e colors and letters as those used b' *el Monte thou#h the field of its selection 0as so broad. to 0itD a#e. 13 !he bu'er havin# in $ind the $ar(Glabel of the respondent $ust rel' upon his $e$or' of the petitioner8s $ar(. not usuall' to an' part of it. 14 "t has been aptl' observed that the ulti$ate ratio in cases of #rave doubt is the rule that as bet0een a ne0co$er 0ho b' the confusion has nothin# to lose and ever'thin# to #ain and one 0ho b' honest dealin# has alread' achieved favor 0ith the public. 0hether the article is bou#ht for i$$ediate consu$ption and also the conditions under 0hich it is usuall' purchased . the consu$er $ust depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product 0hich he intends to purchase.!he @uestion is not 0hether the t0o articles are distin#uishable b' their label 0hen set side b' side but 0hether the #eneral confusion $ade b' the article upon the e'e of the casual purchaser 0ho is unsuspicious and off his #uard. 18 !he 9ud#e $ust also be a0are of the fact that usuall' a defendant in cases of infrin#e$ent does not nor$all' cop' but $a(es onl' colorable chan#es. !o be sure. Althou#h the lo#o of Sunshine is not a to$ato. and to be ever conscious of the fact that $ar(s need not be identical. Sunshine chose. 11 E1pensive and valuable ite$s are nor$all' bou#ht onl' after deliberate. is the cost of the #oods. the person 0ho infrin#es a trade $ar( does not nor$all' cop' out but onl' $a(es colorable chan#es. an ordinar' bu'er does not e1ercise as $uch prudence in bu'in# an article for 0hich he pa's a fe0 centavos as he does in purchasin# a $ore valuable thin#. "f the bu'er is deceived. 14 nli(e the 9ud#e 0ho has a$ple ti$e to $inutel' e1a$ine the labels in @uestion in the co$fort of his sala. 11 A$on# these. 0e $ust consider the $ar( as a 0hole and not as dissected. 1? "t has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infrin#e$ent and unfair co$petition to educate purchasers but rather to ta(e their carelessness for #ranted. 11 "t has been held that in $a(in# purchases. he has before hi$ a boundless choice of 0ords. 19 Aell has it been said that the $ost successful for$ of cop'in# is to e$plo' enou#h points of si$ilarit' to confuse the public 0ith enou#h points of difference to confuse the courts. the #eneral i$pression of the ordinar' purchaser. At that. the ordinar' shopper does not en9o' the sa$e opportunit'. As previousl' stated. 1B for a bu'er acts @uic(l' and is #overned b' a casual #lance. A confusin# si$ilarit' 0ill 9ustif' the intervention of e@uit'. A nu$ber of courts have held that to deter$ine 0hether a trade$ar( has been infrin#ed. co$parative and anal'tical investi#ation. specificall' his inclination to be cautious. Ahen as in this case. bu'in# under the nor$all' prevalent conditions in trade and #ivin# the attention such purchasers usuall' #ive in bu'in# that class of #oods is the touchstone. e$plo'in# enou#h points of si$ilarit' to confuse the public 0ith enou#h points of differences to confuse the courts. and $atters of ever'da' purchase re@uirin# fre@uent replace$ent are bou#ht b' the casual consu$er 0ithout #reat care. an' doubt should be resolved a#ainst the ne0co$er inas$uch as the field fro$ 0hich he can select a desirable trade$ar( to indicate the ori#in of his product is obviousl' a lar#e one. phrases. Ahat is undeniable is the fact that 0hen a $anufacturer prepares to pac(a#e his product. the value of 0hich $a' be dissipated as soon as the court assu$es to anal')e carefull' the respective features of the $ar(. trainin# and education of the usual purchaser. the fi#ure nevertheless appro1i$ates that of a to$ato. !he predo$inant colors used in the *el Monte label are #reen and redBoran#e. 0hat essentiall' deter$ines the attitude of the purchaser. even if the labels 0ere anal')ed to#ether it is not difficult to see that the Sunshine label is a colorable i$itation of the *el Monte trade$ar(. 15 . the sa$e 0ith Sunshine. colors and s'$bols sufficient to distin#uish his product fro$ the others. As a #eneral rule. 1/ Ae also note that the respondent court failed to ta(e into consideration several factors 0hich should have affected its conclusion. a person 0ho bu's a bo1 of candies 0ill not e1ercise as $uch care as one 0ho bu's an e1pensive 0atch. the inevitable conclusion is that it 0as done deliberatel' to deceive .

it cited the case of hell "o. it held that the Sunshine label 0as not i$proper because the Bureau of Patent presu$abl' considered other trade$ar(s before approvin# it. "n applications for re#istration in the Principal Re#ister. the Shell Case is not on all fours 0ith the case at bar becauseD :. 7o0ever. re#istration in the Principal Re#ister is a basis for an action for infrin#e$ent 0hile re#istration in the Supple$ental Re#ister is not. after re#istration. 1B 0e declared thatD :. totall' obliterated and erased the brandsG$ar( of the different co$panies stenciled on the containers thereof. 6nsular Petroleum. Anent the assu$ption that the Bureau of Patent had considered other e1istin# patents. !hird. Re#istration in the Principal Re#ister is li$ited to the actual o0ner of the trade$ar( and proceedin#s therein on the issue of o0nership 0hich $a' be contested throu#h opposition or interference proceedin#s or. 0hile re#istration in the Supple$ental Re#ister is $erel' proof of actual use of the trade$ar( and notice that the re#istrant has used or appropriated it... before $ar(etin# its product.. v. . On the ar#u$ent that no unfair co$petition 0as co$$itted. "n the case of Loren2ana v. 1? 0here this Court declared that sellin# oil in containers of another 0ith $ar(in#s erased.Co$in# no0 to the second issue. in a petition for cancellation. !here is no such presu$ption in the re#istration in the Supple$ental Re#ister. !he Court observes that the reasons #iven b' the respondent court in resolvin# the case in favor of Sunshine are untenable. publication of the application is necessar'. Second. the absence of intent to deceive 0as supported b' the fact that the respondent therein. Maca&$a. it is to be noted that the Sunshine label 0as re#istered not in the Principal Re#ister but onl' in the Supple$ental Re#ister 0here the presu$ption of the validit' of the trade$ar(. !he reason is that the confi#uration of the said bottle 0as $erel' re#istered in the Supple$ental Re#ister. the re#istrant8s o0nership of the $ar( and his ri#ht to the e1clusive use thereof. the re#istrant8s o0nership of the $ar( and his ri#ht to its e1clusive use are all absent. "t is not sub9ect to opposition althou#h it $a' be cancelled after the issuance. despite the $an' choices available to it and not0ithstandin# that the caution 6*el Monte Corporation. "t can be inferred fro$ the fore#oin# that althou#h *el Monte has actual use of the bottle8s confi#uration. still opted to use the petitioners8 bottle to $ar(et a product 0hich Philpac( also produces. 0ithout intent to deceive. Re#ardin# the fact of re#istration. :5. Corollaril'. 0e find that the private respondent is not #uilt' of infrin#e$ent for havin# used the *el Monte bottle. "n Shell. !his is not so in applications for re#istrations in the Supple$ental Re#ister. !he respondent in the present case $ade no si$ilar effort. Re#istration in the Principal Re#ister #ives rise to a presu$ption of the validit' of the re#istration. the petitioners cannot clai$ e1clusive use thereof because it has not been re#istered in the Principal Re#ister. this did not vest the re#istrant 0ith the e1clusive ri#ht to use the label nor did it #ive rise to the presu$ption of the validit' of the re#istration. it declared that the re#istration of the Sunshine label belied the co$pan'8s $alicious intent to i$itate petitioner8s product. Not to be Refilled6 0as e$bossed on the bottle. 0as not unfair co$petition. =irst. it is reiterated that since re#istration 0as onl' in the Supple$ental Re#ister. Re#istration in the Principal Re#ister is constructive notice of the re#istrant8s clai$ of o0nership. :. !his clearl' sho0s the private respondent8s bad faith and its intention to capitali)e on the latter8s reputation and #ood0ill and pass off its o0n product as that of *el Monte. 0e find that Sunshine. e1cept for a sin#le isolated transaction.

the respondent should be per$anentl' en9oined fro$ the use of such bottles.+>2. the respondent ad$itted that it $ade use of several *el Monte bottles and 0ithout obliteratin# the e$bossed 0arnin#. "n Shell.providesD Sec. As a #eneral rule.. !here $a' 0ell be si$ilarities and i$itations 0hich deceive all. 5555 of the Civil Code. and the $easure of the da$a#es suffered shall be either the reasonable profit 0hich the co$plainin# part' 0ould have $ade. the product of respondent 0as sold to dealers. :5. are RE<ERSE* and SE! AS"*E and a ne0 9ud#$ent is hereb' renderedD :.. !he court $ust rule. "n cases 0here actual intent to $islead the public or to defraud the co$plainin# part' shall be sho0n. A7ERE=ORE. !he decision of the Court of Appeals dated *ece$ber 5/. 0hile in the case at hand. 0hich providesD Art.? and per$anentl' en9oinin# the private respondent fro$ usin# a label si$ilar to that of the petitioners.32. but #enerall' the interests of the dealers are not re#arded 0ith the sa$e solicitude as are the interests of the ordinar' consu$er. . Cancelin# the private respondent8s Certificate of Re#ister No. SRB-. Actions and dama&es and in<unction for infrin&ement . ho0ever. no$inal da$a#es in the a$ount of Pl.??. Aith re#ard to the use of *el Monte8s bottle.-. the' cannot be so easil' deceived li(e the ine1perienced public. the sa$e constitutes unfair co$petitionI hence. of R..:5. in the discretion of the court. la0 and e@uit' call for the cancellation of the private respondent8s re#istration and 0ithdra0al of all its products bearin# the @uestioned label fro$ the $ar(et. or in ever' case 0here an' propert' ri#ht has been invaded. =ortunatel' for the petitioners. had the defendant not infrin#ed his said ri#hts or the profit 0hich the defendant actuall' $ade out of the infrin#e$ent.. not to ulti$ate consu$ers. "n Shell. . !he co$plainin# part'. 18 As Sunshine8s label is an infrin#e$ent of the *el Monte8s trade$ar(. Section 5. Accordin#l'. Of the $an' dru$s used. .A. or in the event such $easure of da$a#es cannot be readil' ascertained 0ith reasonable certaint' the court $a' a0ard as da$a#es reasonable percenta#e based upon the a$ount of #ross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection 0ith 0hich the $ar( or trade na$e 0as used in the infrin#e$ent of the ri#hts of the co$plainin# part'.+>and the Resolution dated April 52. !he court $a' a0ard no$inal da$a#es in ever' obli#ation arisin# fro$ an' source enu$erated in Art. =or it is the for$ in 0hich the 0ares co$e to the final bu'er that is of si#nificance.. upon proper sho0in# $a' also be #ranted in9unction.???. there 0as onl' one container 0here the Shell label 0as not erased. dealers are 0ell ac@uainted 0ith the $anufacturer fro$ 0ho$ the' $a(e their purchases and since the' are $ore e1perienced. that the da$a#e pra'ed for cannot be #ranted because the petitioner has not presented evidence to prove the a$ount thereof. No. Prohibitin# the private respondent fro$ usin# the e$pt' bottles of the petitioners as containers for its o0n products. P An' person entitled to the e1clusive use of a re#istered $ar( or trade na$e $a' recover da$a#es in a civil action fro$ an' person 0ho infrin#es his ri#hts. as it hereb' does a0ard. the petition is CRAN!E*. the' $a' still find so$e s$all co$fort in Art. . the Court can onl' a0ard to the petitioners. 5555.. 5. the da$a#es $a' be doubled. :. 0hat 0as involved 0as a sin#le isolated transaction.

v. . 5/3 = >/5I Penn)oil Co. 3 6d...D Par(e *avies M Co.. Pl'BRite Contractin# Co.> N... Anne1 5 pp.%. Orderin# the private respondent to pa' the petitioners no$inal da$a#es in the a$ount of Pl.--B..? Stuart v. /5B/.2 <orte1 Mf#.C.. p. Notase$e 7osier' v. . +5>. .. l st ed. Potter Arintin#ton. Co.2 SCRA . . +. = 5/. .. ponente. 32 = 5d 3++.. . +? N. +.4. !a$a'o. Earvasa !anca5co.. *. 7ilton.. 5+B. Strauss 5?.>2. = ++. Foot(ot%s . C. <on *orp..-B. =.. &iu =oo M Co.3+ M..Aillia$ Aalt(e M Co.*.4.. Martini M Rossi v.5 McLean v. v.. Ori#inal Records. v.B-. Penns'lvania Petroleu$ Co. . . .6d. -. pp./ Stuart v. *ecision penned b' 4ud#e Ro@ue A. . concur. 44. Anne1 A.. Anne1 B. 5+.. 6d.?5.2. = 5d /+>.. 4. -? Phil. Consu$er8s People8s Products. Ltd. Co. de Al9a$bra Ci#ar and Ci#arette Manufacturin# Co. v. Ste0art Co.<. .??. = 5/.> 7ilton v. Schafer.>B/?.. v. E@ 3-/. 5+> = .3 7el$et Co.->. . . California Pac(in# Corporation. pp... 2 6d. Blan(. . . Chua.C. >B+I Anne1 .5>. pp. 3+ Phil. /. A$ Ari#le' 4r. /2. v. affir$ed in the Court of Appeals b' Co@uia. v.. /+ App. Pandect of Co$$ercial La0 M 4urisprudence. SO OR*ERE*. .. v. .+>.?.. citin# Co$pania Ceneral de !abacos v. . 0ith Luciano and Cui. pp. . =le$in# +. JJ.. ... Phil />3I O#ura v.:. p. + Mead 4ohnson Co. concurrin#. / 6d.. . 5 6$id. > 4ose C.S 5/3I =ischer v. . and the costs of the suit. 5+/I Aard Ba(in# Co. Ste0art Co. !riño.???. <itu#. = 5d . Ceo 7. 2 SCRA 2->I Bristol M'ers Co.AFuino and Medialdea. *irector of Patents. 5//I !ill$an Bendel v. =. N. pp. pp.

"(o L"G Fou()"t#o( G. . No.+ Bic($ore Call Cure Co...*.?.2. GA RIEL. Jesus 6. 53 Aillia$ Aalt(e M Co. Penn' Co.3/ SCRA 25. ./ =. . niversal Rubber Product "nc. p. &arns. 19?4 CRISANTA *. !he La0 of nion of Ne0 4erse'. .?52.5? = 5d +/+.FULL TE3T T7% L"G87#.B. p.. <ol.upra. petitioner. . . Po$lador.*. DR.+/2. pp.... . PERE4 "() +ONORA LE TI URCIO E!ALLE "s D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts.-.. . Rudolf Call$an. 0OSE R.R.. P$oH%&t . .. 52 .. DR./ = 5d >?5. 5./ = >.C.. p.33..C. 5/ 6$id. Supp. Pere2. antos for respondent 3r. pp.352B.?.. Jose #. L-14/?5 0"(u"$6 31. 7. ET AL. v. 4. 5nd ed. respondents. 5? Ba(er and Master Printers 5.. ... .R. >?>. 19?4 CRISANTA *. v.. L-14/?5 0"(u"$6 31. "ru2 and Ea2areno for petitioner.35> cited in Converse Rubber Corporation v.. No..A$%.+/3. /+ App. Ni$s. 0OSE R. vs. 5+/I Standard Oil v.. v. !he La0 of nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(.-. Lee Merchantile Co. 7. GA RIEL Is. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P+ILIPPINE 0URISPRUDENCE ../2 SCRA .. ./. Schafer M Co. . *. Michie . PERE4. Paredes.. . . 55 6$id. nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(. 5.. . Ceo 7. SCRA /. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ="RS! *"<"S"ON G. 5.

8%t#t#o(%$ C$#s"(t" *. P%$%5. !o. 19BB. +%(&%.%) " 9ot#o( 'o$ t7% %"$.% t7%#$ $%s8%&t#I% C$#%'s "() 8%t#t#o(%$ '#.F. G"C$#%.%) " 9ot#o( 'o$ $%&o(s#)%$"t#o( o( t7% g$ou() t7"t t7% )%&#s#o( #s &o(t$"$6 to . 'o$ 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t '#.ut#o( o' t7% &"s% ". !o. O( O&toC%$ 19.%g%) #( t7% s"#) 8%t#t#o(."G "() t7% %I#)%(&%K Cut t7% s"9% G"s )%(#%) o( 0"(u"$6 15. P%$%5.. 1411F 'o$ u('"#$ &o98%t#t#o( G#t7 #(Hu(&t#o( "() )"9"g%s '#.6 us%) C6 $%g#st$"(t "t t7% t#9% 7% "88.6 "() &o(t#(uous.6 us#(g #( &o99%$&% E88. 1959. I!. $%&. !o. &ou(s%..6 '#.%g%) t7% G$#tt%( &o(t$"&t C%tG%%( 7%$ "() t7% $%g#st$"(t E$%s8o()%(tF G7%$%#(. T7%$%"'t%$.%) o( 0"(u"$6 18. $%&. $%&.. 19B5 C6 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ E88. I.. !o.6 18. P$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. 38. 0os% R.%9%(t".F.:&'wph(&. 19B5 C6 $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts 'o$ ..3i5 for respondent 3irector of Patents. "() '$o9 ")I%$t#s#(g.%g#(g "9o(g ot7%$s t7"t J$%s8o()%(t D$. "() $%&og(#5%) oG(%$ t7%$%o' "() t7%$%'o$% %(t#t. 19B1 C6 t7% s"#) &ou$t "g"#(st 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ $%st$"#(#(g 7%$ J'$o9 9":#(g.us#I%. G"C$#%.%) o(% o( S%8t%9C%$ 18.. 19B4 o' t7% $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts )%(6#(g t7% 8%t#t#o( o' 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ C$#s"(t" *..s suC9#tt%) C6 t7% $%g#st$"(t "$% t7% I%$6 &o(t"#(%$s C%"$#(g t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ G7#&7 "$% oG(%) C6 7%$ "() G7#&7 s7% 7"s C%%( %L&."&"( " &#I#. #(g$%)#%(ts "s t7os% o' t7% 8. t7% . s%.F. O( M"6 11.6 $%so. !o."t#o( ".% "( "(sG%$.6. $%&.. &"s% ENo.F.%) 7#s C$#%' o( F%C$u"$6 13. 18-31. 19BB E8.% o(% G"s )%(#%) C6 t7#s Cou$t 'o$ C%#(g . $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts $%()%$%) 7#s )%&#s#o( )%(6#(g t7% 8%t#t#o( to &"(&%. t7#s 8%t#t#o( 'o$ $%I#%G '#. "() $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ T#Cu$&#o EI". I!. 19-31. Issu%s 7"I#(g C%%( Ho#(%). '#. !o. !o.% $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ EI". !o. Co(s%Nu%(t. P%$%5 7") )#%) ". to &"(&%. 19B5 E8. P%t#t#o(%$ '#. 19?3."t#o( o' t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDER '$o9 t7% su88. 0os% R..% '#.%) G#t7 t7% P"t%(t O''#&% " 8%t#t#o( 'o$ &"(&%.%) to #ts $%g#st$"t#o(. Cot7 8"$t#%s G%$% $%Nu#$%) to '#. t7% &"s% G"s suC9#tt%) 'o$ )%&#s#o( o( M"6 11.. %arredo. SR-389 &oI%$#(g t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ us%) o( C%"ut6 so"8 #ssu%) o( M"6 11.. I( su88o$t o' 7%$ 8%t#t#o(. 0os% R. 0os% R. G7#."&: o' 9%$#t E8. J.% '#.Ms 9ot#o( 'o$ "( %Lt%(s#o( o' t#9% G#t7#( G7#&7 to '#.. 41-41.%) 7#s "(sG%$ )%(6#(g %"&7 "() %I%$6 g$ou() 'o$ &"(&%. R%s8o()%(t D$. I!...."C%. Ag"#(. 139-15/. !o.)*t P%t#t#o( 'o$ $%I#%G o' t7% )%&#s#o( )"t%) 0u. "() $%Io:% &%$t#'#&"t% o' $%g#st$"t#o( No.F. R%s8o()%(ts G%$% $%Nu#$%) to "(sG%$ t7% s"9%. Assistant olicitor !eneral Antonio !."#(t#''.F. P%$%5 )#) (ot '#. 19B5 E88.F.8ffice of the olicitor !eneral Antonio P. empio.$%")6 "() . I!.% " C$#%' "s 7#s &ou(s%.ASIAR.#&"t#o( 'o$ $%g#st$"t#o(K t7"t t7% t$")%9"$: G"s (ot us%) "() 7"s (ot C%%( "&tu".%"&7#(g %"ut6 So"8M G#t7 t7% s"9% . s7% 'u$t7%$ ".#9#("$6 #(Hu(&t#o( 7"s C%%( #ssu%) o( S%8t%9C%$ ?. I. "() 'u$t7%$ "I%$$#(g t7"t t7%$% #s 8%()#(g #( t7% Cou$t o' F#$st I(st"(&% o' u. 19B1. )u.#%) 'o$ #ts $%g#st$"t#o(K t7"t #t G"s t7$u '$"u) "() 9#s$%8$%s%(t"t#o( t7"t t7% $%g#st$"t#o( G"s 8$o&u$%) C6 t7% $%g#st$"(tK "() t7"t #t G"s s7% G7o 7"s C%%( "&tu".F.%) 7#s "(sG%$ o( August B. 6$arra and olicitor Alicia V.. I!.F."t%) "() t7%$%'o$% (o &"us% o' "&t#o( %L#sts #( '"Io$ o' 8%t#t#o(%$ E88. MA."t% E88. t7% &%$t#'#&"t% o' $%g#st$"t#o( E88."tt%$ 7"s $%&og(#5%) 7%$ $#g7t o' us% "() oG(%$s7#8 o' s"#) t$")%9"$:K "() t7"t t7% .s "() &7%9#&". #( )u% t#9%. 1.%g#(g t7"t t7% $%g#st$"(t G"s (ot %(t#t.. $%&... 158. $%&.6 us#(g t7% s"#) t$")%9"$: s#(&% M"$&7. "&&o$)#(g to 7%$.I#(g t7% 9"(u'"&tu$% o' C%"ut6 so"8 "() t7% us% o' t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJK t7"t " G$#t o' 8$%. $%&. 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t P%$%5 )#) (ot '#. $%&.%) C6 7#9 "g"#(st 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ #(Io. 9"(u'"&tu$#(g "() 8$o)u&#(g M<o()%$ .."C%.. 1-5. $%&. 14-15. t7% &"s% G"s 7%"$) "() t7%$%"'t%$.#(g "() )#st$#Cut#(g t7% s"9% 8$o)u&tsJK "() t7"t (o $#g7t o' 8%t#t#o(%$ 7") C%%( I#o. 19B1 to 7%$%#( 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. $%g#st%$ ". 53. "() "s su&7 #s t7% $#g7t'u.%) to $%g#st%$ t7% s"#) t$")%9"$: "t t7% t#9% o' 7#s "88.

. t7% s"#) "88.#&"t#o( 'o$ $%g#st$"t#o( o' t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ #( t7% Su88. P%$%5 "s '"$ "s t7% oG(%$s7#8 "() us% o' t7% t$")%9"$: "$% &o(&%$(%).% 93 o' t7% s"9% R%I#s%) Ru. I!. A88$oI". G"s %L8%$#9%(t#(g o( t7% &$%"t#o( o' " C%"ut6 so"8. 1?. P%$%5. 9. 7"s C%%( &o(t#(uous. Cut 'u$t7%$ &o(s#)%$"t#o( t7%$%o' G"s sus8%()%) C6 t7% P"t%(ts O''#&% u(t#. 1?.. s"#) "88. J5JF 8"$t#&u.(..u$% o' 8%t#t#o(%$ to &o98.6 G#t7 Ru.oG G$#(:.F. I. t7% R%s8o()%(t G7o &. ?9-8B..."#9s to C% " 9%)#&".t7 o( August 1/.#&"t#o( G"s &o(s#)%$%) "C"()o(%) u()%$ Ru.. T7%$%"'t%$.J I( 0"(u"$6.6 )%s&$#C%s "() 9%(t#o(s JD$.%s 9? "() 98 o' t7% R%I#s%) Ru.. 1953 "s t7% )"t% o' '#$st us% o' s"#) t$")%9"$: "() August 1. P%$%5 <o()%$ %"ut6 So"8 EI98$oI%) Fo$9u.#%) '$o9 t7% u$%"u o' +%". P%$%5J <o()%$ %"ut6 So"8. +oG%I%$. !o..F. 7%$%#( 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. T7% 9"#( '"&ts o' t7#s &"s% "s suCst"(t#"."#9%) M"$&7 ?. Fo$ su&7 8$o)u&t 7% oCt"#(%) "(ot7%$ &%$t#'#&"t% o' .F.%s o' P$"&t#&% #( T$")%9"$: C"s%s 'o$ '"#.%g%). t7usO . C%$t#'#&"t% o' R%g#st$"t#o( No. SR-389 G"s #ssu%) to "() #( t7% ("9% o' 7%$%#( 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. $%&.% 'o$9u.6 )%s&$#C%s JD$. 1-?. P%$%5 #s t7% oG(%$ o' t7% 8$%s%(t 9"$: . t7% 8%t#t#o(%$ #( t7#s &"s%. $%&. 1959 EEL7. 19B3F. +"I#(g )#s&oI%$%) " Go$:"C..6 su88o$t%) C6 t7% %I#)%(&% o( $%&o$)."#9s t7"t "s#)% '$o9 C. Et. 3-4.2 6 G"6 o' '"&tu". $%s%"$&7%$ "() 9"(u'"&tu$%$.%s. s&"C#%s.s. '$%&:. P%t#t#o(%$ C$#s"(t" *.%s.F .F G7#&7 u()%$ t7% O''#&#"."#9s to C% t7% o$g"(#5%$ "() o(% o' t7% #(&o$8o$"to$s o' JM"(s%$&o."t%) C6 $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts #( t7% )%&#s#o( (oG u()%$ $%I#%G.. 88. S"#) t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ #s us%) C6 s"#) 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t o( C. #t&7#(g.(. )"()$u''. o( M"$&7 13."C%. Es8#$#tu &. Aug. 7% G"s "C. $%&."$. !o. T7#s &%$t#'#&"t% EEL7. 88. t7% s"#) 8%t#t#o( G"s "88$oI%) "() t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ G"s $%g#st%$%).."F..J SuCs%Nu%(t. P$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$.. 0os% R. C$#s"(t" *. "88$oI".s. 1?.st#. Aug. 19B3F. $%&.%s Et."ss#'#&"t#o( o' M%$&7"()#s% ERu. L"t%$.%) o( O&toC%$ 3.so 8"$t#&u. t7#s '"&t 7") (%I%$ C%%( )#s8ut%) C6 t7% P%t#t#o(%$. 19B/ G#t7 t7% P"t%(t O''#&% " 8%t#t#o( to $%g#st%$ t7% s"9% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ "() &. #( 7#s 8%t#t#o( 'o$ $%g#st$"t#o(. "s 8$"6%) 'o$. 0os% R. T7#s G"s &o$$oCo$"t%) C6 M$. '$o9 t7% u$%"u o' +%". 1953 "s t7% )"t% o' '#$st us% o' s"#) t$")%9"$: #( &o99%$&% #( t7% P7#. 19B3F..s. $"s7%s.%9%(t". G"C$#%. Aug. It &oI%$s " C%"ut6 so"8 'o$ C.t7oug7 $%". P%$%5.% to )#s&oI%$ "( #98$oI%) so"8 'o$9u. August C%s"$ Es8#$#tu G7o t%st#'#%) #( '"Io$ o' t7% R%s8o()%(t.s suC9#tt%). 1959 7% 9")% "( "g$%%9%(t G#t7 " &%$t"#( &o98"(6 ("9%) JM"(s%$&oJ 'o$ t7% )#st$#Cut#o( o' 7#s so"8. It G"s t7%( C%#(g 9"("g%) C6 M"$#"(o S. )%t%$9#("t#o( o' t7% 8$%s%(t &"s% Go()%$#(g t7"t t7% 9"tt%$ o' oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ #s #( )#s8ut% Es%% 8.(.%9%(t".(. 0os% R."$. "() s7". S%8t.%"&7#(g o$ G7#t%(#(g t7% s:#( #t ".. R%g#st%$. 8. +% &o(t#(u%) %L8%$#9%(t#(g u(t#. 1958 7% G"s #ssu%) su&7 &%$t#'#&"t%. "$% $%. 13. III. '". C"&:g$ou(). 59-B1. .J ".#(g o' 7"#$.+o motion een filed for su stitution of the heirs in lieu of the deceased private respondent. .. JBJF.#88#(%s Es%% 88. 48. G7#&7 G7#t%(s o$ so9%t#9%s so't%(s t7% s:#(. !o. #( t7% Su88.#&%EsF. 0os% R. "() o( 0u(% B.#%$ '#. S"#) 8%t#t#o( G"s )#s9#ss%) o( NoI%9C%$ 18.. I.#&"(t G"s $%I#I%)."#9%) M"$&7 1/.% 81F o' t7% o"$) o' P"t%(ts '". 19B3F. #('o$9#(g "t t7% s"9% t#9% 8%t#t#o(%$ t7"t J"s s7oG( o( t7% .6 7"$"ss#(g t7% $#g7ts o' t7% .. G"C$#%.%"&7#(g C%"ut6 so"8 EM%)#&"t%) "() S8%&#". '#(".." 7% "88."ss 51.6 (o )o&u9%(t o' #ts &o$8o$"t% %L#st%(&% G"s #(t$o)u&%) "s %I#)%(&% #( t7#s &"s% Et.%s Es%% 8. C.6 $%9oI%s 8#98. *"(gg" G7o 7"88%(s to C% t7% C$ot7%$ o' t7% P%t#t#o(%$ C$#s"(t" *. 1959 "s t7% )"t% o' '#$st us% o' s"#) t$")%9"$: #( &o99%$&%.s. %"$. A't%$ )u% "() 8$o8%$ 8$o&%%)#(gs.. M$. #t "88%"$ t7"t D$.%"&7#(g. 19B1. 19B1 "( "88."t% D$. 7%") . P%$%5 '#.t7 'o$ t7% #ssu"(&% o' " C%$t#'#&"t% o' L"C%. <"6 C"&: #( 1953. 8. o( t7% ot7%$ 7"(). $%&.K 88. !o. R%g#st%$. 49. T7#s )o&u9%(t ". 8." G7#&7 7% &. Et. !o.J EP8.s u()%$ C.6. G"C$#%. I. &. 19B/ C6 t7% P"t%(ts O''#&% Et7$u #ts %L"9#(%$F o( t7% g$ou() t7"t s"#) 8%t#t#o(%$ G"s (ot t7% oG(%$ o' t7% t$")%9"$: soug7t to C% $%g#st%$%).so ". 55-5?."C%.%) G#t7 t7% P"t%(ts O''#&% o( F%C$u"$6 13.

/"$.NO< ALL MEN * T+ESE PRESENTO T+IS AGREEMENT 9")% "() %L%&ut%) C6 "() C%tG%%( DR.6 :(oG( "s JD$.%) "() 8o8u..B/F &%(t"Ios " 8#%&% G7#&7 s7".6 go#(g C"(:$u8t "() t7% 9%9C%$s G%$% )%s%$t#(g. EEL7. 1959.13 1.%&"us% t7% &o$8o$"t#o( G"s ".-%L. GA RIEL.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ o' 7#s 8$o)u&t &". T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t 7%$%C6 C#()s 7#9s%.' to 9":% t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t t7% so. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t 7%$%C6 "g$%%s to s%.#88#(%s 'o$ " 8%$#o) o' '#I% E5F 6%"$s '$o9 )"t% o' 8%$'%&t#o( o' t7#s "g$%%9%(t. 0OSE R. " &o(t$"&t o' JEL&. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t 7%$%C6 "g$%%s "() C#()s 7#9s%.6. o' .% o( t7% 5t7 "() 1/t7 o' %"&7 9o(t7 G#t7 " 9"L#9u9 o' s#Lt6 )"6s '$o9 )"t% o' $%&%#8t o' t7% 9%$&7"()#s% C6 t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$tK 5.//F PESOS G#t7 "&&ou(ts )u% "() 8"6"C. "() t7%$%"'t%$ 7% "s:%) t7% P%t#t#o(%$ to C%&o9% t7% )#st$#Cuto$ o' 7#s 8$o)u&ts Et.. Nu"(t#t6 o' D$.(.%) t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t.1O2/3"4 A52.6. M"$#". J?JK JF-.#8#(o. to t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t t7% "CoI%9%(t#o(%) 9%$&7"()#s% "t t7% $"t% o' s#Lt6 EP..%g". 0"/12"B.#I%$6 o' t7% 9%$&7"()#s% u()%$ &o(t$"&t "t 1558 C"9"$#(%s St.///. " $%s#)%(t o' 1558 C"9"$#(%s St. 4-5.% P7#. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t gu"$"(t%%s t7% 8$o)u&t#o( o' t7% 'u.."... P%$%5 <o()%$ M%)#&"t%) %"ut6 So"8 t7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t &ou. . 1?. o' . P%$%5J <o()%$ M%)#&"t%) %"ut6 So"8M 'o$ t7% G7o."t#o( o' t7% 8%soK 3.. 1959. (oG "() 7%$%#("'t%$ &". (oG "() 7%$%#("'t%$ &". to G#tO .#:%G#s% F#. t7% R%s8o()%(t t%$9#("t%) t7% "g$%%9%(t #( 0u.. Aug.//..%g". 88. "g%. $%(%G"C. "g$%%9%(t o' Cot7 8"$t#%sK 1. M"(#.F T7% "g$%%9%(t #s 7%$%u()%$ $%8$o)u&%).s. PERE4.' to 9":% )%."tt%$ g#I#(g t7% 'o$9%$ " G$#tt%( (ot#&% o' t7% s"9%K .%g%). M"(#. AND CRISANTA *. t7% &ost o' t7% s"9% C%#(g 'o$ t7% "&&ou(t o' t7% 'o$9%$K 4.%) t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t. 7"1+. 7"I% " 9#(#9u9 G%#g7t o' %#g7t6 E8/F g$"9sK PRO!IDED 7oG%I%$ t7"t s"#) 8$#&% 9"6 C% suCH%&t to &7"(g% #( &"s%s o' )%'. 19B3F "() o( S%8t%9C%$ 1.."&"(. "g%.) s%.us#I% D#st$#Cuto$s7#8J G"s %L%&ut%) C%tG%%( t7% P%t#t#o(%$ "() t7% R%s8o()%(t.".+1 .#(% o' T<O T+OUSAND EP1.% "() %L&."t#o( "() #('.% 'o$ "(ot7%$ '#I% E5F 6%"$s "t t7% 9utu"... "() )#st$#Cut%K G#t7 t7% ."$. u. F#. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t 7%$%C6 "g$%%s to %Lt%() to t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t " &$%)#t .J to JF-1J.#8#(o. " $%s#)%(t o' St".

JRJ.#t%$"tu$% "&&o98"(6#(g t7% so"8 G#t7 8$#(t#(g &o98"(#%s EEL7s. 1958 EEL7..) Sto$%J "s o' M"$&7 1/. 43-51.%g%).' (ot to g#I% o$ s%. 1959 s7% 7#$%) t7% s%$I#&%s o' E$#C%$to F.. 9%(t#o( s7ou. 8. t7% 7%$%#( P%t#t#o(%$.FJ.% 'o$ t7% &osts "s G%. 19B/ G"s ".#%st o' G7#&7 G"s #ssu%) o( NoI%9C%$ 4. Co.I%$o. EC. $%&.#%st o' G7#&7 G"s August 13.%t o' s".o$%s Et.F.% t7% 8"&:"g%s EEL7s. %t&. JOJ to J-48JF.o C#t6 G7o. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% S%&o() P"$t 7"s t7% %L&. 1958 EEL7.%g%) )%". T7%$%"'t%$ s7% ".J s7oG#(g s". JPJ.s. As 'u$t7%$ %I#)%(&% o' s". !o.. !o. G"C$#%. I!." t7#s 1st )"6 o' S%8t%9C%$. M"6 13. t7% P%t#t#o(%$ 8$%s%(t%) "s G#t(%ss P%)$o A.// EEL7. 8$o)u&ts. J*JF. to#..6 o( M"$&7 11.. JFFJF.(. t7% $")#o EEL7s. G"C$#%.*. A. !o. 88. R%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts s%t 'o$t7 t7% %I#)%(&% o' t7% 8%t#t#o(%$ "s 'o.F.%.JK "() J+JF. G$o&%$6 "() Co. 1959 C6 t7% <o()%$ Co99%$&#". $%&.F."$. ES%% 88. S7% ".. "() J3J to J3-8JF.6 st"$t%) t7% s". At t7#s Hu(&tu$%. I!. "s #t "88%"$s #( t7% $%&o$).%"&7#(g %"ut6 So"8J 9"(u'"&tu$%) C6 D$. 88. EP8.%g%). " Cus#(%ss9"( '$o9 S"( P"C. JAJFK "() t7"t o( S%8t%9C%$ 14.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ #s JC$#s"(t" *. M"6 13. t7% %"$. P%$%5 Cos9%t#& L"Co$"to$6 "() t7"t t7% %L&.%s o' t7% s"9% so"8.#88#(%s EEL7s.(. 0os% R.. 1/-13.. Co. $%&. JDJ "() JEJF "() .* G"C$#%. +%$ )o&u9%(t"$6 %L7#C#ts s7oG t7"t s7% G"s $%g#st%$%) "s " Co(" '#)% F#.%$ "s o' A8$#.J EEL7. 13-14. t":% %''%&t u8o( t7% s#g(#(g t7%$%o'. I(&. T7"t t7% P"$t6 o' t7% F#$st P"$t 7%$%C6 C#()s 7#9s%.#)%sJ EEL7s.. 19B3F. "s ". JTJ. JSJ..6 &"us%) t7% 8$#(t#(g o' t7ous"()s o' CoL%s "() . I!. T7"t t7#s &o(t$"&t #s C#()#(g u8o( t7% ")9#(#st$"to$. s7oG#(g s".%t$#%s. J<JF #()#&"t% t7"t t7% so"8 #s :(oG( "s JD$.. I(&. C"&:g$ou().%g%).%s o' t7% J<o()%$ So"8.. . 1959 s7% oCt"#(%) "(ot7%$ &%$t#'#&"t% o' $%g#st$"t#o( 'o$ t7% '#$9 ("9% J<o()%$ Co99%$&#".#8#(o $%t"#.so ". P%$%5 . IN <ITNESS <+EREOF. t7% %"$.) C% 9")% o' t7% P%t#t#o(%$Ms &o99%$&#". to "(6 8%$so( o$ %(t#t6 t7% s"9% 8$o)u&t o$ "(6 s#9#. 7%#$s "() "ss#g(s o' Cot7 8"$t#%s )u$#(g t7% t%$9 "() )u$"t#o( o' t7#s "g$%%9%(tK 9.so 8$%s%(t%) EEL7s.us#I% $#g7t o' oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% 8"&:"g%s "() t7"t s"#) 8"$t6 #s $%s8o(s#C. t%st#'#%) "s 7"I#(g 8u$&7"s%) '$o9 7%$ J<o()%$J so"8 #( 1959 u8 to 19B1 Et.%s #(Io#&%s u()%$ t7% '#$9 ("9% JC.. JCJFK t7"t s7% G"s )o#(g Cus#(%ss u()%$ t7% ("9% JG"C$#%.6 )%s#g(%) t7% 8"&:"g%s 'o$ G7#&7 s7% 8"#) 7#9 t7% su9 o' P5/. J JF. JIJ-J18JF.. 11-13. t7% 8"$t#%s "() t7%#$ G#t(%ss%s 7"I% 7%$%u()%$ s%t t7%#$ 7"()s "t M"(#. s7% %()%"Io$s to 8$oI% t7"t %I%( C%'o$% t7% %L%&ut#o( o' t7% "g$%%9%(t EEL7 JF-1JF o$ 8"$t#&u.J s7% C%#(g t7% M"("g%$ t7%$%o' EEL7. T7"t t7#s &o(t$"&t G#.so 8$%s%(t%) " '%G s". J4J "() JAAJF.. JGJK JG-.s.%s 8$o9ot#o( o' t7% R%s8o()%(tMs 8$o)u&t C6 %Lt%(s#I% ")I%$t#s%9%(t t7$oug7 so9% 9"g"5#(%s EEL7s. t7% G7#. JMJ "() JNJF #( I"$#ous (%#g7Co$7oo) t7%"t$%s #( t7% P7#. S7% ".B. J<J.%$ #( 9%)#&#(". 43-51. "() t7% &#(%9" C6 9%"(s o' 8$oH%&to$ Js.oGsO F$o9 t7% %I#)%(&% 8$%s%(t%) C6 7%$. "s t7% )%s#g( "() t7% 9"((%$ o' 8"&:#(g t7% s"9%K ?.. J!J... A(ot7%$ Coo:. ES%% 88. JUJ. J-J.#t%$"tu$% EEL7."$ 8$o)u&t o$ 8$o)u&ts o' t7% s"9% ("9% )u$#(g t7% t%$9 "() )u$"t#o( o' t7#s &o(t$"&tK 8. 19B3F G7o ". 1959.%s #(Io#&%s.

o$ t$")%9"$: :(oG( "s JD$.%"$.6 #)%(t#'#%) sou$&% G7o #s (o(% ot7%$ t7"( D$. "s ". PERE4 <ONDER EAUT* SOAP.6 s7oG( #( EL7#C#ts J5J "() JBJ G7#&7. $%&. 'u$t7%$9o$%. J?J. C6 t7% $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts o' t7% 8%t#t#o( to &"(&%.. As su&7. P%t$" +"G8#" D Co. A88$oI". P%$%5 #s t7% $#g7t'u. T7us. 7"s $#g7t to "() &"((ot $%g#st%$ t7% s"#) t$")%9"$: EM"$I%L Co99%$&#".%) t7"t G% "$% 8$%&. Fu$t7%$9o$%.' #s su''#&#%(t to &. +g 9ian 5ia E18 SCRA ?4?FO MT7% $u.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ o' t7% 8$o)u&t.. !o. 0os% R. III. )"t%) August &>.F Cot7 #ssu%) C6 t7% u$%"u o' +%". Co. $%&. !o. "9%()%).u)%) '$o9 9":#(g "( #(Nu#$6 "s t7% '#()#(g o' '"&ts o' t7% D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts #( t7% "Cs%(&% o' "(6 s7oG#(g t7"t t7%$% G"s g$"I% "Cus% o' )#s&$%t#o( #s C#()#(g o( us.. E8. T7#s '"&t #s ". !o.6 'o$ " t%$9.I T7% )%t%$9#("t#o( t7"t D$..F "() t7% s"9% G"s o(. 15. $%&.#& A&t No. P%$%5 7onder %"ut6 So"8. )"t%) June :. JEJ. &%$t#'#&"t% o' $%g#st$"t#o( No..... P%$%5 7") 8$#o$#t6 o' ")o8t#o( "() us% o' t7% s"#) t$")%9"$:... "() t7% 8$o)u&t #)%(t#'#%) C6 t7% Go$)s &"( (%I%$ C% $%g"$)%) "s 7"I#(g %9"("t%) o$ o$#g#("t%) '$o9 "(ot7%$ #()#I#)u".t7 $%'%$$%) to "() $%. Is.6 o( 7#s '#()#(g t7"t D$.. 1/.J " 87$"s% &. T7% Go$)s s%$I% "s "( #()#&"t#o( o' o$#g#(.%"$.$%")6 ")I%$t%) to. 8o#(t out t7"t s"#) 8$o)u&t %9"("t%) '$o9 t7% D$. 18 SCR 11?8K O8%$"to$s. P%$%5 EEL7s. 0os% R."$.M J I( t7% 8$%s%(t &"s%.t7 to D$. 1."C%. As s%t 'o$t7 C6 Justice 6akalintal in %hung 1e vs.. $%s8o()%(t D$. !o. I!. It #s (ot )%(#%) t7"t 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts. #s &. As st"t%) C6 Justice 8ernando in Lim 9iah vs.J EP. %I%( #' 8%$9#tt%) to us% s"#) t$")%9"$:.B'reCCanDE&FwG T7% I%$6 CoL%s-&o(t"#(%$s us%) #( 8"&:#(g t7% s"#) 8$o)u&t ". 88. 0os% R. t7% R%s8o()%(t.J T7#s '"&t.F "() EL7#C#t JBJ "(ot7%$ C%$t#'#&"t% o' L"C%.6s#s o' t7% so"8 8$o)u&t o' 8$#I"t% $%s8o()%(t D$. 0os% R. J8J.6 s7oG( C6 t7% &o(t"#(%$s-CoL%s us%) #( 8"&:#(g t7% 8$o)u&t EEL7s. At t7% t#9% o' t7% "(". 5aw Liu E44 SCRA 15/-151FO JIt #s G%. 11 "() 99. 0os% R. 0os% R. O( t7% ot7%$ 7"().so 9"$:%) "s EL7. P%$%5 Cos9%t#& L"Co$"to$6. 0os% R.so &. 9a!nee %ompan! E15 SCRA 485F "() $%#t%$"t%) C6 7#9 #( t7% suCs%Nu%(t &"s% o' /! %hing vs. G"C$#%. "() "sso&#"t%) G#t7. t7% &o((ot"t#o( #( #ts%. o' G7#&7 #s t7% P%t#t#o(%$. III. P%$%5 Cos9%t#& L"Co$"to$6.6 su88o$t%) C6 %I#)%(&% "() (o g$"I% "Cus% o' )#s&$%t#o( G"s &o99#tt%) C6 s"#) $%s8o()%(t. $%&.<= E8. ot7 &%$t#'#&"t%s #)%(t#'#%) t7% 8$o)u&t &oI%$%) "s JD$. J?J.. R%8uC. III. 1/4. G"C$#%. 94-9B. P%$%5M <ONDER %"ut6 So"8J "s s7oG( "() su88o$t%) C6 EL7#C#t J5J G7#&7 #s " C%$t#'#&"t% o' L"C%.J. JF-1J to JF-1J.us#I% o( t7#s Cou$t.-s%tt. t7% &%$t#'#&"t%s s7oG t7"t t7% u$%"u o' +%". III.%"$. 8$o)u&%$ "() 9"(u'"&tu$%$ o' t7% so"8 8$o)u&t #)%(t#'#%) "s JDR.so 9"$:%) "s EL7. 9%$% )#st$#Cuto$. JDDJ. P%$%5 G"s t7% o$#g#("to$. 0OSE R. J00J "() J. !o. A88$oI". 1/3.ot7% t7% 8$o)u&t "s "( #t%9 o$ " &o99o)#t6 %9"("t#(g '$o9 " 8"$t#&u. oG(%$ o' t7% )#s8ut%) t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ "() t7% &o(s%Nu%(t )%(#". &. A() su&7 '#()#(g o' '"&t #s &o(&. t7%$% G"s ".. 0os% R. 0os% R. J++J ".<. !o.6 &o#(%) C6. I(&. P%$%5M <o()%$ %"ut6 So"8J "() 'u$t7%$ #()#&"t%) t7"t s"#) 8$o)u&t %9"("t%) '$o9 t7% D$.$%")6 " .us#I% o( t7% Su8$%9% Cou$t 8$oI#)%) t7"t t7%6 "$% su88o$t%) C6 suCst"(t#". P%$%5. "s t7% %L&. 8%t#t#o(%$ C$#s"(t" *.so %L7#C#t t7#s '"&t EEL7s. . 15 SCRA 148F. t68#&".F. 8. "88%"$s to C% " 9%$% )#st$#Cuto$ o' t7% 8$o)u&t C6 &o(t$"&t G#t7 t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$. "s st"t%) #( t7% )%&#s#o( u()%$ $%I#%GO JT7%$%'o$%.%) JD$. SR-389 &oI%$#(g s"#) t$")%9"$: #ssu%) to "() #( t7% ("9% o' D$. %I#)%(&%. P%$%5 "s 9"("g%$ o' t7% D$.F. JDJ "() JIIJ ". 1BB. #t &"((ot C% )%(#%) t7"t t7% R%s8o()%(t #s t7% o$#g#("to$ "() 9"(u'"&tu$%$ o' t7% so-&".A 1.#%) o( t7% s"#) la el or trademark of the product as the asis for its certification that the same ?product@ Awas found not adulterated nor mis randed. U()%$ S%&t#o( 1 "() 1-A o' t7% T$")%9"$: L"G..F G7#&7 #()#&"t% "() )%s&$#C% C$#s"(t" *. 98-1/1. P%$%5 Cos9%t#& L"Co$"to$6. &. P%$%5. P%$%5. 13. Is. I(&. t7% $#g7t to $%g#st%$ t$")%9"$: #s C"s%) o( oG(%$s7#8 "() " 9%$% )#st$#Cuto$ o' " 8$o)u&t C%"$#(g " t$")%9"$:. $%&. t7% '#()#(gs o' '"&t o' t7% $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts "$% suCst"(t#". JLLJ. $%&.% #s t7"t '#()#(gs o' '"&ts C6 t7% D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts "$% &o(&. JEEJ. %t ". G%$% C"s%) 9"#(. 88. III.

8.6 C% us%) #( &o((%&t#o( G#t7 t7% s". 1. 5/...) t7"tO T7% st"tut% 8$oI#)%s t7"t Jt7% oG(%$ o' " t$")%9"$: us% #( &o99%$&% 9"6 $%g#st%$ 7#s t$")%9"$: . It 9%$%.% o' 9%$&7"()#s%. "() " $%g#st$"t#o( o' t7% t$")%9"$: C6 t7% )#st$#Cuto$ "s su&7 C%. t7% "g$%%9%(t )o%s (ot %I%( g$"(t 7%$ t7% $#g7t to $%g#st%$ t7% 9"$:. " &o(t$"$6 $u.R.M. T7% '"&t t7"t 8"$"g$"87 B EEL7.us#I% us% o' t7% t$")%9"$:K C%&"us% t7% "g$%%9%(t (%I%$ 9%(t#o(%) t$"(s'%$ o' oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% t$")%9"$:. 51 A9.% "() %L&.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ o' $%s8o()%(t D$..6 s"#) t7"t t7% oCH%&ts o' " t$")%9"$: "$% Jto 8o#(t out )#st#(&t..us#I% oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ. 1B-1?. I(&. %t ". D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts. 1B SCRA 495F. s69Co.) "(6 $#g7t #( '"Io$ o' 8%t#t#o(%$ ot7%$ t7"( t7"t %L8$%ss. P%$%5M 8$o)u&t. EP8. I( t7#s #(st"(t &"s%.N. " t$")%9"$: &"( o(.A.I. %t ". ...#s7 t7%9 "s su&7 ENot% 1 L.6 %98oG%$s t7% 8%t#t#o(%$ "s %L&.) t7us "88%"$ t7"t t7% )%&#s#o( u()%$ $%I#%G #s Cut #( &o(so("(&% G#t7 t7% sou() 8u$8os%s o$ oCH%&ts o' " t$")%9"$:."t#(g Co$8o$"t#o( Is.6 g$"(t 7%$ t7% $#g7t to t7% %L&. I( '"&t.. I( t7% "Cs%(&% o' "(6 #(%Nu#t"C. ECo9$ P"tsF 1/5 USP.% 'o$ t7% &osts "s G%.#%$ 7"s ")o8t%) "() us%) to #)%(t#'6 7#s goo)s."ss "s t7"t o' $%s8o()%(t EC. t7% '$u#t o' 7#s #()ust$6 "() s:#. &#t#(g &"s%s. t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ 7"s .us#I% $#g7t o' oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% 8"&:"g%s "() t7"t s"#) 8"$t6 #s $%s8o(s#C."t#o(s7#8 )o%s (ot t%$9#("t% C%'o$% "88.) 7"I% $%su.%"&7#(g so"8. ("9%.. 44BF. &#t#(g &"s%s. 111. Co$8o$"t#o(.# parte E. I()%%).%"su$%.#&"t#o( o' 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ to $%g#st%$ t7% s"9% t$")%9"$: #( 7%$ '"Io$ to C% us%) o( 7%$ C. P%$&o. G7#&7 'u$t7%$ 7%.E.6 sugg%sts t7"t o(% G7o 9%$%.. t7%$%'o$%.F."t#o( o' t7% t$")%9"$: #( Nu%st#o( "() #( g$"(t#(g t7% 8%()#(g "88.2 ?/4K A. "() to 8$%I%(t '$"u) "() #98os#t#o(.6. EE987"s#s "))%)F.%) )%&#s#o(.%).. P%$%5 Cos9%t#& L"Co$"to$6. "s &o$$%&t.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ to oG( t7% 8"&:"g% "() to &$%"t% " )%s#g( "t 7%$ 8.s " 9"(u'"&tu$%$Ms goo)s C%"$#(g t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$Ms 9"$: "&Nu#$%s "(6 $#g7ts #( t7% 9"$:K (o$ #s t7%$% "(6t7#(g #( t7% st"tut% G7#&7 sugg%sts t7"t su&7 " 8%$so( 9"6 $%g#st%$ " 9"$: G7#&7 7#s su88. P%t#t#o(%$ u$g%s t7"t t7% "g$%%9%(t o' %L&..J 6 st"tuto$6 )%'#(#t#o( " t$")%9"$: #s J"(6 Go$).6 st"t%) #( t7% "88%".us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ )o%s (ot "&Nu#$% "(6 8$o8$#%t"$6 #(t%$%st #( t7% 8$#(&#8".. I!.o(g C%%( #)%(t#'#%) "() "sso&#"t%) G#t7 t7% 8$o)u&t 9"(u'"&tu$%) "() 8$o)u&%) C6 t7% D$.J EEt%87" Is.F III It 7"s C%%( $%8%"t%). N%&%ss"$#. E8? C0S 158-159. !o.s%% 88. .%"&7#(g "() C%"ut6 so"8F . JF-1JF o' t7% "g$%%9%(t 8$oI#)%s t7"t t7% 8%t#t#o(%$ J7"s t7% %L&.o(gs to t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$. "$t#&. .' t7% so. to s%&u$% to 7#9.% t7"t 7"s C%%( so. "( %L&. o$ )%I#&% o$ "(6 &o9C#("t#o( t7%$%o' adopted and used C6 " 9"(u'"&tu$% o$ 9%$&7"(t to #)%(t#'6 his goods "() )#st#(gu#s7 t7%9 '$o9 t7os% 9"(u'"&tu$%) C6 ot7%$s.#&"t#o( 'o$ $%g#st$"t#o( #s '#.% &o()u&t o( t7% 8"$t o' t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$. 8$oI#)%) t7% '#)u&#"$6 $%. Cut (ot t7% $#g7t to "88$o8$#"t% u(to 7%$s%.) u()%$ t7% t$")%9"$: o$ t$")%("9% to t7% %Lt%(t (%&%ss"$6 to %st"C.% 7%$ to $%g#st$"t#o( #( t7% P"t%(t O''#&%. L%#t5. T7% %L&. ut " s&$ut#(6 o' t7% 8$oI#s#o(s o' s"#) &o(t$"&t )o%s (ot 6#%.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$s7#8 %L%&ut%) C6 "() C%tG%%( 7%$ "() $%s8o()%(t I%st%) #( 7%$ t7% %L&. #( C$#(g#(g #(to 9"$:%t " su8%$#o$ "$t#&. 0os% R. 0u$. .t%) #( t7% &"(&%. $%&. T7%$% #s (ot7#(g #( t7% st"tut% G7#&7 $%9ot%.o6s t7% t$")%9"$: o' t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$ )o%s (ot "&Nu#$% 8$o8$#%t"$6 $#g7ts o' t7% 9"(u'"&tu$%$. G7#&7 #s o' t7% s"9% &. 114 S.6 t7% o$#g#( o$ oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% goo)s to G7#&7 #t #s "''#L%).. "s t7% )%s#g( "() 9"((%$ o' 8"&:#(g t7% s"9%J )#) (ot (%&%ss"$#.% o' t7% #)%(t#&".6 s%. G7o 7"s C%%( #(st$u9%(t".% oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% t$")%9"$: so "s to %(t#t.S.6 g$"(t%) to 7%$ > to C% t7% so.48/. F%$$o)#(% C7%9#&".us#I% )#st$#Cuto$ G7o %98..#(g Gou. It Gou.II 1.Ms t$")%9"$:.

"#9 G"s )#s8os%) &o$$%&t.. 1959. "() 'o$ G7#&7 $%"so( $%s8o()%(t D$.) C6 7%$ E8%t#t#o(%$F #s st#..#(g G#t7 t7% 8$o)u&t J<o()%$ So"8J %I%( C%'o$% t7% %L%&ut#o( o' t7% EL&.' "ssu9%s t7% )#st$#Cut#o( t7%$%o' o$ #' 7% &o(t$"&ts G#t7 "(ot7%$.K 88. 58.F. t7"t 9"(u'"&tu$%) C6 $%s8o()%(t.. Su&7 &. It #s t$u% t7"t s7% 7"s C%%( )%".6 C6 $%s8o()%(t D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts.% C6 t7% P%t#t#o(%$ 9"6 C% $%g"$)%) "s t$")%9"$: us% C6 7%$.s% #98. !o. JI-1J o$ J5-AJ.) o' s". (%I%$t7%. t7os% "&t#I#t#%s "$% (o$9". G"s t7% o$g"(#5%$ "() o(% o' t7% #(&o$8o$"to$s o' t7% M"(s%$&o.so EL7. 1/5. !o. t7% . III. II.% #s " &o(s%Nu%(&% o' t7% JEL&. III.) 7% us% #' 7% 7#9s%. T7#s &o(t#(u%) 'o$ so9%t#9% u(t#. I(&.#&"t#o( t7"t t7% 8$o)u&t to C% so. G7o.%) '#$st t7% )#st$#Cut#o( o' t7% 8$o)u&t J<o()%$ So"8J '$o9 0"(u"$6. #t 'u$t7%$ "88%"$s t7"t 8u$su"(t to t7% EL&.%) "( u('"#$ &o98%t#t#o( &"s% "g"#(st 7%$ E8%t#t#o(%$F .. %L8%(s%s #( t7% 8$o9ot#o( o' t7% R%s8o()%(tMs goo)s "() t7% 8$#(t#(g o' t7% 8"&:"g%s "$% t7% (%&%ss"$6 o$ %ss%(t#".<. &. A() t7% %''%&t o( t7% 8uC. 8.6 #( t7% 9"$:%t#(g "() )#st$#Cut#o( o' t7% s"#) 8$o)u&t.) 7"I% C%%( )#s"st$ous.% #t 9"6 C% "$gu%) t7"t s".us#I% D#st$#Cuto$s7#8 Ag$%%9%(t o( /eptem er &. G7%( t7% "$$"(g%9%(t G"s sto88%) C%&"us% "s &. I!. G7#&7 #ssu%) " G$#t o' 8$%. s7% C%#(g t7% s#st%$ o' M"$#"(o *"(gg" G7o G"s t7%( t7% g%(%$"..%ss #t s7ou. 1?.%g%) C6 7%$%#( $%s8o()%(t. "s C6 "(ot7%$ &o(t$"&t )"t%) Jul! HH. 111.F "() o( &$oss- . !o. %(t#t6 o$ 8%$so( 'o$ %L&. &. #( t7% '#%.s%% 88.F. 9"("g%$ o' s"#) M"(s%$&o. $%&. I. $%&. "s %"$.% "() )#st$#Cut#o(. I(&..#& "s G%. !o. B8. <7#. %I#)%(&% C6 7%$ "g$%%9%(t G#t7 G$"&% T$")#(g Co. 0"(u"$6.6. $%&. ut t7#s )o%s (ot $%su. 88..so C% $%g"$)%) t7"t su&7 s". ut t7#s G"s C%&"us% M"(s%$&o. 'o$ t7% 8$#(t#(g o' CoL%s&o(t"#(%$s 'o$ t7% J<o()%$ So"8J "() t7% .) ". !o.t #( t7% R%s8o()%(tMs su$$%()%$ #( 7%$ '"Io$ o' t7% $#g7t to $%g#st%$ t7% t$")%9"$: #( 7%$ oG( ("9%.. $%&. E"$. J-J "() J<J.8 8$%&#s%.%"&7#(g so"8 E8. )"t%) June HI.) 7"88%( #' t7% '#$st '#I% 6%"$sM 8%$#o) t%$9#("t%s "() t7% R%s8o()%(t )%&#)% (ot to &o(t#(u% G#t7 t7% "g$%%9%(t u()%$ P"$"g$"87 1 t7%$%o'P <7"t t$")%9"$: Gou.. G#t7 t7% P7#.K ".) s"(&t#o( " '". Augusto C%s"$ Es8#$#tu. 19-31. "s #t Gou. t%st#9o(6.%ss $%'ut%) C6 8%t#t#o(%$ #( 7%$ $%Cutt".F. T7%s% &. G7#&7 7"(). $%&."&"(.#%$ #( 7%$ )#$%&t t%st#9o(6..<. t7usO P%t#t#o(%$Ms "&t #( )%'$"6#(g suCst"(t#". "s o( $%s8o()%(t D$.#I%$%) t7%9 to t7% 'o$9%$ G7o #( tu$( 7"().#88#(% $o")&"st#(g Co$8o$"t#o( 'o$ s8ot "((ou(&%9%(t o' t7% 8$o)u&t J<o()%$ So"8J s7oG#(g 7%$ "s t7% s8o(so$ EEL7.o6%) 7%$ E8%t#t#o(%$F to 7%. !o. 0os% R.) ". &."#9 o' %L&. %L8%(s%s #( t7% 8$o9ot#o( o' $%s8o()%(tMs so"8 "s &oI%$%) C6 t7% t$")%9"$: J<ONDERJ "() t7% 8$#(t#(g o' t7% 8"&:"g%s G7#&7 s7% 'u$t7%$ &. !o.#t%$"tu$% "&&o98"(6#(g t7% s"9% EEL7s.%) t7% )#st$#Cut#o( t7%$%o'. II. &o(s%Nu%(&%s o' P"$"g$"87 B o' t7% "g$%%9%(t C%&"us%.. "s G%. $%&. I(&.us#I% D#st$#Cuto$s7#8 Ag$%%9%(tJ "() #t #(u$%) to t7% C%(%'#t o' t7% R%s8o()%(t C%&"us% #t G"s 7#s t$")%9"$: t7"t G"s C%#(g us%). 7% )#s&oI%$%) t7"t 8%t#t#o(%$ C%g"( 9"(u'"&tu$#(g 7%$ oG( so"8 "() 8... !o.2 G#t7 t7% Cou$t o' F#$st I(st"(&% o' u. P%$%5 Gou. 9u&7 . 18. $%&... 48/-481. 3?9-38/.#9#("$6 #(Hu(&t#o( "g"#(st 7%$..E88."#9s o' $%s8o()%(t G%$% (%I%$ )%(#%).1B5-1?B. $%&. 8. P%$%5 '#."tt%$ 9"(u'"&tu$%) J<ONDERJ so"8 "() )%."#9%) 7"I% C%%( )%s#g(%) t7$u 7%$ %''o$ts "s s7% G"s t7% o(% G7o 7#$%) t7% s%$I#&%s o' "( "$t#st G7o &$%"t%) t7% )%s#g(%) o' t7% s"#) 8"&:"g%s "() t$")%9"$:.us#I% )#st$#Cuto$s7#8P EP. Su&7 " s#tu"t#o( Gou.<."&%) t7%9 #( t7% CoL%s G7#&7 &o(t"#(%) his name and trademark.F.2.. %98. !o. III. I(&. 1959 to 0u.#%$ ")I%$t%) to. "s t%st#'#%) to C6 M$. III. <7"t Gou. J9J.us#I% D#st$#Cuto$s7#8 Ag$%%9%(t C%tG%%( 8%t#t#o(%$ "() $%s8o()%(t.so "(&7o$ 7%$ &. 19B1.us#I% oG(%$s7#8 o' t7% t$")%9"$: #( Nu%st#o( o( t7% '"&t t7"t s7% )%'$"6%) suCst"(t#".) $%)ou() to 7%$ oG( C%(%'#t "s )#st$#Cuto$. $%&. 8%t#t#o(%$ st"t%) t7"t 7%$ o&&u8"t#o( G"s 9%$&7"(t "() 9"(u'"&tu$%$ o' C. I! P%t#t#o(%$ Gou. "() t7os% "&ts "$% #(&u9C%(t u8o( 7%$ to )o."#9%) "() ". ! F$o9 t7% $%&o$)s. "(6G"6. I.

April 52. No.*... <IT+ COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER.R. !o. E15 SCRA 49/.t7oug7 s7% &. III.. G7#&7 u()%(#"C.#88#(%s. ". <AN *ORP.)*t T7% L"G87#. !o. %. 'o$&%."G Cut ".6 s7oG( C6 EL7#C#t J9J &o(s#st#(g o' " &":% o' so"8 G#t7 t7% #(s&$#8t#o( C. 6akalintal. 8.%) u8o( to 6#%. $%&. 8%t#t#o(%$ %(g"g%) #( 9"(u'"&tu$#(g "() s%. 1/5.6 sou() #( . T7% )%&#s#o( o' t7% D#$%&to$ o' P"t%(ts #s (ot o(.6 G"s 8$%I#ous.. 44/-441. . M"(u'"&tu$%) C6O C. N. 19B1 to S%8t%9C%$..F. "s C.so &o99%()"C. +%$ us% o' t7% 9"$: J<o()%$J o( t7% so"8 9"(u'"&tu$%) C6 7%$ #s 8"t%(t.#%(. 0ust#&% F%$("()o."(o L"G Fou()"t#o( P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C.#" . s7$%G)(%ss "() #(g%(u#t6 "$% "t " 8$%9#u9. vs. <+EREFORE. <..oG#(g Go$)sO C. P$oH%&t . t7% ."G #s C6 (o 9%"(s &".*. GA RIEL <ONDER EAUT* SOAP. .6 $%g#st%$%) "C$o") "() G7#&7 t7%$%to'o$% 7") C%%( us%) "() ")I%$t#s%) %Lt%(s#I%. L-1?5/1 A8$#. J9J. 1?.% #( t7% '#%$&% &o98%t#t#I% Hu(g. M$. #( C%7".6 o( " t$")%9"$:. t7% 'o.K 88. LB.#:%G#s% $%I%". JJ. T+E DECISION SOUG+T TO E RE!IE<ED IS +ERE * AFFIRMED AND T+E PETITION IS +ERE * DISMISSED. E! AL. t7% s#tu"t#o( o' 7%$%#( 8%t#t#o(%$ #s Go$s%. #' (ot " 7ost#. $%&.) #(I"$#"C.&'wph(&. L!*.F. GA RIEL COSMETIC LA ORATOR* Es%% EL7. st"t%) #( Lim 9iah vs. > <ONDER MEDICATED %"ut6 So"8.6 C6 o(% o' t7% .#(g t7% s"9% :#() o' 8$o)u&ts Gou.% G7#&7 "t t#9% &o(st#tut%s t7% "$%(" o' &o99%$&#". t7usO .. to s&7%9%s '$oG(%) u8o( C6 t7% &o(&%8t o' '"#$(%ss. II... concur. No. t$"(s"&t#o(s.#t%$"tu$% G7%$%#( "88%"$. MEA* 4O7NSON and CO.F To ou$ 9#().sguerra and 6u)oJ 4alma.A$%.. 4. %astro.. 19B1 E88.6 #ts (o) o' "88$oI".. "() D"7. "9o(g ot7%$s.) C% %L&. GA RIEL <ONDER SPECIAL "() "( "&&o98"(6#(g .%.u)%) '$o9 t7% Cus#(%ss Go$.%L"9#("t#o( s7% st"t%) t7"t s7% 9"(u'"&tu$%) M"$I%.%"&7#(g %"ut6 So"8 "s G%. !I OUR %L"9#("t#o( o' t7% %(t#$% $%&o$)s o' t7% 8$%s%(t &"s% .#(g.+-. !o.) $%.*.*.J. $%&. G"C$#%.) "s ". 1B5-1?/.23?.' o' t7% Cou$t."#9%) to 7"I% 9"(u'"&tu$%) t7% s"9% o(. +%$%.R. 1eehankee. <7#. 9a!nee %ompan!. II..6 '$o9 F%C$u"$6. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. 19B3 .%) 8%t#t#o(%$Ms )#s$%g"$) o' t7% $u)#9%(ts o' '"#$ )%".% 'o$ #ts &o(so("(&% G#t7 t7% "88$o8$#"t% %t7#&". st"()"$) G7#&7 C6 (o 9%"(s s7ou.%")#(g )%8"$t9%(t sto$%s #( t7% P7#.

<. 'O4phP'. Manuel A. in holdin# that the $ar( 0hich respondent see(s to re#ister does not rese$ble petitioner8s $ar( as to be li(el' 0hen applied to the #oods to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers. .+-?. Ltd. and :5. "n ans0er to the opposition the applicant alle#ed that its trade$ar( and product 6ALAS&A6 are entirel' different fro$ oppositor8s trade$ar( and product 6ALAC!A6. the *irector of the Patent Office. since applicant8s product covers $il(. in appearance and sound the trade$ar(s 6ALAS&A6 and 6ALAC!A6 are sufficientl' close. 4.5. J.+3-.: On 4une 5.. 7ence... !AN DORP. in holdin# that the trade$ar( sou#ht to be re#istered has beco$e distinctive based on its e1tensive sales. located and doin# business at Couda. . 0ithout pre9udice to the parties adducin# other evidence to prove their case not covered b' this stipulation of facts. the parties respectfull' pra' that the fore#oin# stipulation of facts be ad$itted and approved b' this 7onorable Court. 8ffice of the olicitor !eneral for respondent 3irector of the Patent 8ffice. bein# the o0ner of the trade$ar( 6ALAC!A6 used for po0dered halfBs(i$ $il(. 0hile oppositor8s products cover phar$aceutical preparations for nutritional needs 0hich fall under Class -. it is ar#ued. #oss elph and "arrascoso for petitioner. $il( products. ET AL.S. filed an opposition on the #round that it 0ill be da$a#ed b' the said re#istration as the trade$ar( 6ALAS&A6 and pictorial representation of a Bo'8s 7ead 0ithin a rectan#ular desi#n :ALAS&A disclai$ed. dair' products and infant8s foods 0hich fall under Class /2 =oods and "n#redients of =oods. !he three vo0els are the sa$e in both and the .A. J. filed an application for the re#istration of the trade$ar( 6ALAS&A and pictorial representation of a Bo'8s 7ead 0ithin a rectan#ular desi#n :ALAS&A disclai$ed.6 !he trade$ar( 0as published in an issue of the Official Ca)ette 0hich 0as officiall' released on 4une 3. is confusin#l' si$ilar to its trade$ar( 6ALAC!A6. petitioner. used for $il(. on Au#ust 5-. AUTISTA ANGELO. oppositor filed the present petition for revie0. V. Mead 4ohnson M Co$pan'. !hus. Van 3orp. Petitioner contends that the *irector of the Patent Office erred :. Macias for respondent E. <an *orp. rendered decision dis$issin# the opposition and holdin# that the trade$ar( sou#ht to be re#istered does not sufficientl' rese$ble oppositor8s $ar( 6as to be li(el' 0hen applied to the #oods of the parties to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers6 even if oppositor8s #oods. N. LTD. . a corporation or#ani)ed under the la0s of "ndiana. halfBs(i$ po0dered and po0dered 0hole $il( and those of applicant8s condensed and evaporated $il( are si$ilar as the' have the sa$e descriptive properties.ñQt After issues 0ere 9oined... respondents.. .+3-. Netherlands.+3. $il( products. . N. 0hich refers to Medicines and Phar$aceutical Preparations. a corporation or#ani)ed under the la0s of Netherlands. Ltd.MEAD 0O+NSON "() COMPAN*. 0. petitioner see$s to dispute the findin# of the *irector of the Patent Office b' e$phasi)in# the stri(in# si$ilarities e1istin# bet0een the trade$ar( 6ALAS&A6 0hich is sou#ht to be re#istered and that of 6ALAC!A6 0hich petitioner has lon# re#istered for the protection of its products. 0hich 0as re#istered 0ith the Patent Office on 4une . and after due hearin#. both #oods bein# $il( products. Anent the first point.. dair' products and infant8s foods. !. Aherefore. vs.

... appellant8s $ar( is to be co$pared 0ith all of the oppositor8s $ar(s in deter$inin# the point of confusionI . One of petitioner8s containers has one sin#le bac(#round color. "n this connection. A#ain.public 0ould pronounce the$ short accentin# on the second s'llable. because of their havin# identical suffi1es and three letter prefi1es 0ith the sa$e t0o letters N in the sa$e order. And in support of its contention. !hus 0e find the follo0in# dissi$ilarities in the t0o $ar(sD :a. On the other hand. :b. 0herein it 0as held that S N<"S and N"<"S are @uite different in sound and $eanin# but in their entireties the' are confusin#l' si$ilar in appearance. et al. respondent contends that it is not correct to sa' that in passin# on the @uestion as to 0hether the t0o $ar(s are si$ilar onl' the 0ords 6ALAS&A6 and 6ALAC!A6 should be ta(en into account since this 0ould be a $ost arbitrar' 0a' of ascertainin# 0hether si$ilarit' e1ists bet0een t0o $ar(s. :5. the t0o $ar(s in their entiret' and the #oods the' cover should be considered and carefull' co$pared to deter$ine 0hether petitioner8s opposition to the re#istration is capricious or 0ellBta(en. !he #oods of petitioner co$e in oneBpound container 0hile those of respondent co$e in three si)es. 'ello0ish 0hite and red. Both $ar(s have the sa$e nu$ber of letters and the vo0els are placed on the sa$e position./Bounce tin of full condensed full crea$ $il(I . :c. co$in# to the #oods covered b' the trade$ar(s in @uestion. 0e believe that 0hile there are si$ilarities in the t0o $ar(s there are also differences or dissi$ilarities 0hich are #larin# and stri(in# to the e'e as the for$er. it found on the basis of the evidence before it that the t0o $ar(s are @uite different in sound and $eanin# but that in their entireties the $ar(s are confusin#l' si$ilar in appearance. !he onl' difference lies in the letters 6C!6 in 6ALAC!A6 and 6S&6 in 6ALAS&A6. but in deter$inin# if the' are confusin#l' si$ilar a co$parison of said 0ords is not the onl' deter$inant factor. the li(elihood of confusion $a' be deter$ined b' a co$parison of the $ar(s involved and a consideration of the #oods to 0hich the' are attachedI 5 and :. respondent invo(es the follo0in# rules of interpretationD :. and fro$ its o0n observation arrive at a conclusion as to the li(elihood of confusion./B. 7avin# this vie0 in $ind. /. !he colors too differ. !he si)es of the containers of the #oods of petitioner differ fro$ those of respondent. Sun Oil Co$pan'. Both $ar(s end 0ith the sa$e letter 6A6. !he three letter prefi1es of both $ar(s are identical. Rather. Said the CourtD As alread' noted.!MR ///. Respondent8s $ar( 6ALAS&A6 has all the letters capitali)ed 0ritten in 0hite e1cept that of the condensed full crea$ $il( 0hich is in red.. petitioner cites the case of Esso Standard Oil Co$pan' v. the' are confusin#l' si$ilar in appearance. !he trade$ar(s in their entiret' as the' appear in the respective labels $ust also be considered in relation to the #oods to 0hich the' are attached. Petitioner8s $ar( 6ALAC!A6 has onl' the first letter capitali)ed and is 0ritten in blac(. the court 0ill vie0 the $ar(s 0ith respect to the #oods to 0hich the' are applied. 0e also notice the follo0in# dissi$ilaritiesD . !he containers of respondent8s #oods have t0o color bands. to 0itD . pin( and 0hite. !he discernin# e'e of the observer $ust focus not onl' on the predo$inant 0ords but also on the other features appearin# in both labels in order that he $a' dra0 his conclusion 0hether one is confusin#l' si$ilar to the other. "t is true that bet0een petitioner8s trade$ar( 6ALAC!A6 and respondent8s 6ALAS&A6 there are si$ilarities in spellin#. respondent contends.G5Bounce tin of evaporated $il(I and -Bounce tin of evaporated $il(. to 0itD li#ht blueI the other has t0o bac(#round colors. Ahile 6ALAC!A6 and 6ALAS&A6 differ entirel' in $eanin#. appearance and sound for both are co$posed of si1 letters of three s'llables each and each s'llable has the sa$e vo0el. !he #eneral for$ and sound of the 0ords are of $ar(ed si$ilarit' so as to su##est the li(elihood of confusion.

3i2on.A. #e5es.%. .3.S. . 5d . v.P. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C. LB/>55*ece$ber . Considerin# the substantial difference in the $ar(s as displa'ed on the respective labels of the parties and considerin# the distinctiveness of the $ar( of applicant."n the petitioner8s certificate of re#istration. dair' products and infant8s foods6 as set forth in its application for re#istration 0hich fall under an entirel' different class. Ae have e1a$ined the t0o trade$ar(s as the' appear in the labels attached to the containers 0hich both petitioner and respondent displa' for distribution and sale and 0e are i$pressed $ore b' the dissi$ilarities than b' the si$ilarities appearin# therein in the sa$e $anner as the *irector of the Patent Office. v. "oncepcion.L. La$rador. 5d 253. A7ERE=ORE. J.A. ac@uired fro$ its e1tensive sales. Patents.? C.R.4. Cust M Pat. %en&2on. Paredes. and because of this i$pression 0e are persuaded that said *irector 0as 9ustified in overrulin# petitioner8s opposition. and Ma/alintal JJ../. $il( products. the decision appealed fro$ is affir$ed. . . thus indicatin# that petitioner8s products are not foods or in#redients of foods but rather $edicinal and phar$aceutical preparations that are to be used as prescribed b' ph'sicians.. >> =. or under Class /2 0hich refers to 6=oods and "n#redients of =oods6.J. 5 &ro#er Crocer' M Ban(in# Co. it appears that the sa$e covers 6Phar$aceutical Preparations 0hich Suppl' Nutritional Needs6 0hich fall under Class .. Appl. "n vie0 of the above dissi$ilarities.2 C. and for use of these products there is no need or re@uire$ent of a $edical prescription. 7ence. %arrera.=. . #e&ala. concur. Padilla... Architectural Catalo# Co. . !OR"B"O !EO*ORO Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT .. 0e are not prepared to sa' that said *irector has erred in overrulin# said opposition. Foot(ot%s . /2-.. it is concluded that the applicant8s $ar( does not rese$ble opposer8s $ar( as to be li(el' 0hen applied to the #oods of the parties to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers.??>. respondent8s #oods cover 6$il(. the *irector of the Patent Office overruled petitioner8s opposition in the follo0in# 0iseD. =.5. *od#e Corp. 0ith costs a#ainst petitioner. On the other hand.+/5 ANA L.of the official classification as Medicines and Phar$aceutical Preparations6. ". No. Blue Earth Cannin# Co. ANC vs..

5++.+. "n that 'ear she advertised the factor' 0hich she had 9ust built and it 0as 0hen this 0as brou#ht to the attention of the appellee that he consulted his attorne's and eventuall' brou#ht the present suit. Lichauco and Manuel M. L-4811B D%&%9C%$ 14. her #ross sales a$ounted to P/55. 1941 ANA L.. Marcial P. presidin# absolved the defendant fro$ the co$plaint..+.+. 7is sales in ... Startin# in an obscure shop in . on the #rounds that the t0o trade$ar(s are dissi$ilar and are used on different and nonBco$petin# #oodsI that there had been no e1clusive use of the tradeB$ar( b' the plaintiffI and that there had been no fraud in the use of the said tradeB $ar( b' the defendant because the #oods on 0hich it is used are essentiall' different fro$ those of the plaintiff./.+. Lope) <ito. has steadil' #ro0n 0ith his business to 0hich he has dedicated the best 'ears of his life and 0hich he has e1panded to such proportions that his #ross sales fro$ .? 0ith a $odest capital of P5. "n the follo0in# 'ear :. Petitioner :defendant belo0. ..>.. vs.> a##re#ated P5.2 a$ounted to P.?+. P. Me<ia for respondent.6 !he trial court :4ud#e Juirico Abeto.? but 0ith tireless industr' and unli$ited perseverance. re#istered the sa$e tradeB$ar( 6An# !iba'6 for pants and shirts on April . 7is e1penses for advertise$ent fro$ . holdin# that b' uninterrupted an e1clusive use since . respondent8s tradeB$ar( has ac@uired a secondar' .22. respondent. reversed that 9ud#$ent.5. 0ith 4ustice Padilla as ponente. .+.6 both as a tradeB$ar( and as a tradeBna$e.-/. and indoor baseballs since . and established a factor' for the $anufacture of said articles in the 'ear .R. has continuousl' used 6An# !iba'....2. Respondent !oribio !eodoro.-3.Manila EN BANC G...?53. then an un(no0n 'oun# $an $a(in# slippers 0ith his o0n hands but no0 a pro$inent business $a#nate and $anufacturer 0ith a lar#e factor' operated 0ith $odern $achiner' b' a #reat nu$ber of e$plo'ees.+. and perpetuall' en9oinin# the latter fro$ usin# said tradeB$ar( on #oods $anufactured and sold b' her.+.>. But respondent in his brief sa's that petitioner 60as unable to prove that she had spent a sin#le centavo advertisin# 6An# !iba'6 shirts and pants prior to .+. at first in partnership 0ith 4uan &atindi# and later as sole proprietor. TORI IO TEODORO. "irilo Lim for petitioner. shoes. ANG. J.: Petitioner has appealed to this Court b' certiorari to reverse the 9ud#$ent of the Court of Appeals reversin# that of the Court of =irst "nstance of Manila and directin# the *irector of Co$$erce to cancel the re#istration of the tradeB$ar( 6An# !iba'6 in favor of said petitioner.+.2>2. petitioner.+.+. !uason.+ to . No. !oribio !eodoro.? and in .+..+.+. co$posed of 4ustices Ben#son.>.->5.?. Neither the decision of the trial court nor that of the Court of Appeals sho0s ho0 $uch petitioner has spent or advertise$ent.3.-3. in the $anufacture of slippers and shoes...> to .3-.> a##re#ated P>. O4AETA. 7e for$all' re#istered it as tradeB$ar( on Septe$ber 5+. .. Padilla.. !he second division of the Court of Appeals. and as tradeBna$e on 4anuar' . and Ale1 Re'es. 0ith costs a#ainst the plaintiff. !he #ro0th of his business is a thrillin# epic of =ilipino industr' and business capacit'.?.+. in the $anufacture and sale of slippers.

7e cites a$on# others the case of %a=ter vs.6 as used b' the respondent to desi#nate his 0ares. lastin#. in an e@uall' 0ellBprepared and e1haustive brief. !he phrase 6an& ti$a56 is never used ad9ectivel' to define or describe an ob9ect. (no0n throu#hout the Philippines as products of the An# !iba' factor' o0ned and operated b' the respondent !oribio !eodoro. and in 0hich this Court held that the 0ord 6&anan#a. $a(es a frontal sled#eBha$$er attac( on the validit' of respondent8s tradeB$ar( 6An# !iba'. durable. 6 an& ti$a5 sapatos6 or 6sapatos an& ti$a56 is never used ad9ectivel' to define or describe an ob9ect... /ati$a5. napa/ati$a5 :ver' stron#. stren#th..e. 0hich provides that 0ords or devices 0hich related onl' to the na$e.6 0hich is the na$e of a 0ellB(no0n Philippine tree or its flo0er. "t is also used as an adverb.. "t $a' also be used in a sentence thus.. 6ideal for tooth brushes. ---. could not be appropriated as a tradeB$ar( an' $ore than could the 0ords 6su#ar. 0e ordinaril' sa'. ---. .$eanin#I that the #oods or articles on 0hich the t0o tradeB$ar(s are used are si$ilar or belon# to the sa$e classI and that the use b' petitioner of said tradeB$ar( constitutes a violation of sections . durable. !he cite several cases in 0hich si$ilar 0ords have been sustained as valid tradeB$ar(s. or description of the $erchandise cannot be the sub9ect of a tradeB$ar(. "n vie0 of the conclusion 0e have reached upon the first assi#n$ent of error. a contraction of the 0ord 6anon#6 :0hat or ho0. One does not sa'. econd. First. su##estive of the stor' of sour #rapes. lastin#.. Nua2ua :3 Phil.6 =ro$ all of this 0e deduce that 6An# !iba'6 is not a descriptive ter$ 0ithin the $eanin# of the !radeBMar( La0 but rather a fanciful or coined phrase 0hich $a' properl' and le#all' be appropriated as a tradeB$ar( or tradeBna$e. contend that the 0ords 6An# !iba'6 are not descriptive but $erel' su##estive and $a' properl' be re#arded as fanciful or arbitrar' in the le#al sense. 6An& ti$a5 n& sapatos moR6 :7o0 durable 'our shoes areR6. such as 67oleproof6 for hosier'...-. 6freel' translate in En#lish. =or instance. to the ori#in or o0nership of the 0ares to 0hich it is applied.6 but 6mati$a5 na sapatos6 or 6sapatos na mati$a5.I and the ad9ectives $atiba' :stron#. An# !iba' shoes and slippers are. @ualit'. 5 and 6=ashion(nit6 for nec(ties and s0eaters.6 6tobacco. Counsel for the petitioner sa's that the function of a tradeB$ar( is to point distinctivel'. .6 7e contends that the phrase 6An# !iba'6 as e$plo'ed b' the respondent on the articles $anufactured b' hi$ is a descriptive ter$ because. One does not sa'. !he phrase 6An# !iba'6 is an e1cla$ation denotin# ad$inistration of stren#th or durabilit'. !hat is correct. it is unnecessar' to appl' . had e1actl' perfor$ed that function for t0ent'Bt0o 'ears before the petitioner adopted it as a tradeB$ar( in her o0n business. one 0ho tries hard but fails to brea( an ob9ect e1clai$s.6 or 6coffee. . 6An# tiba'R6 :7o0 stron#R6. Counsel for the petitioner.6 it $eans 6stron#. 6An# #andaR6 Ti$a5 is a root 0ord fro$ 0hich are derived the verb ma&pati$a5 :to stren#htenI the nouns pa&/amati$a5 :stren#th. /asinti$a5 or ma&/asinti$a5 :as stron# as. in a 0ellB0ritten brief.. =or instance. "n this connection 0e do not fail to note that 0hen the petitioner herself too( the trouble and e1pense of securin# the re#istration of these sa$e 0ords as a trade$ar( of her products she or her attorne' as 0ell as the *irector of Co$$erce 0as undoubtedl' convinced that said 0ords :An# !iba'. or of e@ual stren#th. Ae find it necessar' to #o into the et'$olo#' and $eanin# of the !a#alo# 0ords 6An# !iba'6 to deter$ine 0hether the' are a descriptive ter$. instead of sa'in#. !he defendant *irector of Co$$erce did not appeal fro$ the decision of the Court of Appeals. b' association. 0hether the' relate to the @ualit' or description of the $erchandise to 0hich respondent has applied the$ as a tradeB$ar(. !he 0ord 6an#6 is a definite article $eanin# 6the6 in En#lish.. durabilit'. i. "n her second assi#n$ent of error petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holdin# that the 0ords 6An# !iba'6 had ac@uired a secondar' $eanin#. and 0e find that 6An# !iba'. "t see$s stultif'in# and puerile for her no0 to contend other0ise. and 2 of Act No. either b' its o0n $eanin# or b' association.6 7e invo(es section 5 of Act No.ti$a5an :superior stren#th. 6an& ti$a5 sapatos6 or 6sapatos an& ti$a56 to $ean 6durable shoes.6 On the other hand. 0ere not a descriptive ter$ and hence could be le#all' used and validl' re#istered as a tradeB$ar(. /ati$a5an :proof. support. 0hich involved the tradeB$ar( 6A#ua de &anan#a6 used on toilet 0ater. 6Anon# #andaR6 :67o0 beautifulR6. counsel for the respondent.

and this in9unction shall be part of the 9ud#$ent for da$a#es to be rendered in the sa$e cause. ---. and shall be liable to an action for da$a#es and to an in9unction. re@uires the applicant for re#istration of a tradeB$ar( to state.. !he burden of petitioner8s ar#u$ent is that under sections . .6 and 6class of articles. niversal Cooler Corporation. bearin# such tradeB$ar( . . . . Section .6 because it is upon their i$plications that the result of the case hin#es. because those articles do not belon# to the sa$e class of $erchandise as shoes and slippers. vs. M C.-+. 0hich 0ould be li(el' to influence purchasers to believe that the #oods offered are those of the co$plainant.. shall #ive the$ the #eneral appearance of the #oods of another either in the 0rappin# of the pac(a#es... or to deceive purchasers. /-... :Landers. But 0ere it not so. !hese phrases.2. and 5? the re#istration b' respondent of the tradeB$ar( 6An# !iba'6 for shoes and slippers is no safeB#uard a#ainst its bein# used b' petitioner for pants and shirts because the latter do not belon# to the sa$e . in sellin# his #oods. or 0hich to nearl' rese$bles another person8s la0ful tradeB$ar( or tradeBna$e as to be li(el' to cause confusion or $ista(e in the $ind of the public. shall be #uilt' of unfair co$petition. that there can neither be infrin#e$ent of tradeB$ar( under section . the application of the doctrine of secondar' $eanin# $ade b' the Court of Appeals could nevertheless be full' sustained because.. $a' have a preli$inar' in9unction. and Clar( vs.6 Section 2 provides that an' person 0ho.here the doctrine of 6secondar' $eanin#6 in tradeB$ar( parlance.6 bein# neither #eo#raphic nor descriptive.6 Ae have underlined the (e' 0ords used in the statuteD 6#oods of a si$ilar (in. 0as ori#inall' capable of e1clusive appropriation as a tradeB$ar(. or in the devices or 0ords thereon. a$on# others. in that trade and to that branch of the purchasin# public. 0hich refer to the sa$e thin#. . because #eo#raphicall' or other0ise descriptive. !he @uestion raised b' petitioner involve the scope and application of sections . it has ac@uired a proprietar' connotation. and such in9unction upon final hearin#. Salfield. $a' recover da$a#es in a civil actions fro$ an' person 0ho has sold #oods of a si$ilar (ind.2.+> =. =rar'. or in an' other feature of their appearance. as in the cases of tradeB$ar( infrin#e$ent under section . in an' event. Merria$ Co. and 2 of Act No. ---. Third. $i#ht nevertheless have been used so lon# and so e1clusivel' b' one producer 0ith reference to his article that. !his doctrine is to the effect that a 0ord or phrase ori#inall' incapable of e1clusive appropriation 0ith reference to an article of the $ar(et. .. have the sa$e $eanin# as the phrase 6$erchandise of the sa$e descriptive properties6 used in the statutes and 9urisprudence of other 9urisdictions. . nor unfair co$petition under section 2 throu#h her use of the 0ords 6An# !iba'6 in connection 0ith pants and shirts.. if the co$plainant8s propert' in the tradeB$ar( and the defendant8s violation thereof shall be full' established. She also contends under her fourth assi#n$ent of error :0hich 0e dee$ convenient to pass upon to#ether 0ith the third.. Petitioner8s third assi#n$ent of error is. !he co$plainin# part' .. .. And section 5 authori)es the *irector of Co$$erce to establish classes of merchandise for the purpose of the re#istration of tradeB$ar(s and to deter$ine the particular description of articles included in each classI it also provides that 6an application for re#istration of a tradeB$ar( shall be re#istered onl' for one class of articles and onl' for the particular description of articles $entioned in said application.6 6sa$e class of $erchandise. Ae have said that the phrase 6An# !iba'. >3 =... the 0ord or phrase has co$e to $ean that the article 0as his product.6 6#eneral class of $erchandise. b' respondent8s lon# and e1clusive use of said phrase 0ith reference to his products and his business.6 6classes of $erchandise. . and 5? of the !radeBMar( La0 :Act No. provides that no alle#ed tradeB$ar( or trade na$e shall be re#istered 0hich is identical 0ith a re#istered or (no0n tradeB$ar( o0ned b' another and appropriate to the same class of merchandise . 6the &eneral class of merchandise to 0hich the tradeB$ar( clai$ed has been appropriated. . Section . provides that 6an' person entitled to the e1clusive use of a tradeB$ar( to desi#nate the ori#in or o0nership of #oods he has $ade or deals in. . that the Court of Appeals erred in holdin# that pants and shirts are #oods si$ilar to shoes and slippers 0ithin the $eanin# of sections . . N5dO. :C. shall be $ade perpetual.6 Section .

the la0 of unfair co$petition has e1panded to (eep pace 0ith the ti$es and the ele$ent of strict co$petition in itself has ceased to be the deter$inin# factor. !he o0ner of a tradeB$ar( or tradeBna$e has a propert' ri#ht in 0hich he is entitled to protection.. E1perience has de$onstrated that 0hen a 0ellB(no0n tradeB$ar( is adopted b' another even for a totall' different class of #oods. because respondent8s $ar( is not a valid tradeB$ar(. :*erenber#..class of $erchandise or articles as the for$erI that she cannot be held #uilt' of infrin#e$ent of tradeB$ar( under section . "ts #ro0th or develop$ent abreast 0ith that of sister statutes and 9urisprudence in other 9urisdictions is reflected in the follo0in# observation of a 0ellB(no0n authorD !his funda$ental chan#e in attitude first $anifested itself in the 'ear . therefore. could not cause confusion in trade and that. since there is da$a#e to hi$ fro$ confusion of reputation or #ood0ill in the $ind of the public as 0ell as fro$ confusion of #oods. the #radual 0hittlin# a0a' or dispersion of the identit' and hold upon the public $ind of the $ar( created b' its first user. !he $odern trend is to #ive e$phasis to the unfairness of . b' havin# his business reputation confused 0ith and put at the $erc' of the second user. first. ntil about then. Such construction of the la0 is induced b' co#ent reasons of e@uit' and fair dealin#.+. Ae have to appl' this la0 as it has #ro0n and not as it 0as born. But la0 and 9urisprudence $ust (eep abreast 0ith the pro#ress of $an(ind. has #ro0n in its i$plications and practical application. p. !radeBMar( Protection M nfair !radin#. it is done to #et the benefit of the reputation and advertise$ents of the ori#inator of said $ar(.3B. Our !radeB$ar( La0. or personal source. to conve' to the public a false i$pression of so$e supposed connection bet0een the $anufacturer of the article sold under the ori#inal $ar( and the ne0 articles bein# tendered to the public under the sa$e or si$ilar $ar(. and that such unfair tradin# can cause in9ur' or da$a#e to the first user of a #iven tradeB$ar(. there could be no ob9ection to the use and re#istration of a 0ellB(no0n $ar( b' a third part' for a different class of #oods. be held b' the courts to belon# to the sa$e class if the si$ultaneous use on the$ of identical or closel' si$ilar tradeB$ar(s 0ould be li(el' to cause confusion as to the ori#in. nor has it ac@uired a secondar' $eanin#I that pants and shirts do not possess the sa$e descriptive properties as shoes and slippersI that neither can she be held #uilt' of unfair co$petition under section 2 because the use b' her of the tradeB$ar( 6An# !iba'6 upon pants and shirts is not li(el' to $islead the #eneral public as to their ori#in or o0nershipI and that there is no0 sho0in# that she in unfairl' or fraudulentl' usin# that $ar( 6An# !iba'6 a#ainst the respondent. a #ro0in# senti$ent be#an to arise that in the selection of a fa$ous $ar( b' a third part'.edition. used on unBli(e #oods. and nfair !radin#.+. "n the present state of develop$ent of the la0 on !radeBMar(s. .+. inevitabl' results. in virtue of the life continuall' breathed into it. the test e$plo'ed b' the courts to deter$ine 0hether nonco$petin# #oods are or are not of the sa$e class is confusion as to the ori#in of the #oods of the second user. 0e $i#ht uphold petitioner8s contentions.2. !he' 0ould be considered as not fallin# under the sa$e class onl' if the' are so dissi$ilar or so forei#n to each other as to $a(e it unli(el' that the purchaser 0ould thin( the first user $ade the second user8s #oods. the' 0ould. !he ori#inal o0ner is entitled to the preservation of the valuable lin( bet0een hi$ and the public that has been created b' his in#enuit' and the $erit of his 0ares or services. Since .+. As trade has developed and co$$ercial chan#es have co$e about. "f 0e 0ere interpretin# the statute for the first ti$e and in the first decade of the t0entieth centur'. enacted nearl' fort' 'ears a#o. nfair Co$petition. and 0ere to construe it strictl' and literall'. nevertheless. Althou#h t0o nonco$petin# articles $a' be classified under t0o different classes b' the Patent Office because the' are dee$ed not to possess the sa$e descriptive properties. and the courts $ust breathe life into the statutes if the' are to serve their purpose. of the second user8s #oods.. !he courts have co$e to reali)e that there can be unfair co$petition or unfair tradin# even if the #oods are nonBco$petin#. b' prevention of the natural e1pansion of his business and. 0hen it 0as enacted. "t is not of $erel' local applicationI it has its counterpart in other 9urisdictions of the civili)ed 0orld fro$ 0hose 9urisprudence it has also received vitali)in# nourish$ent. /?+. the courts had proceeded on the theor' that the sa$e tradeB$ar(. !hen nonco$petitive products are sold under the sa$e $ar(. there 0as #enerall' the hidden intention to 6have a free ride6 on the tradeB$ar( o0ner8s reputation and #ood 0ill. li(e a constitution. second.ho0ever.

the $anufacturer of the 0ellB(no0n Lincoln auto$obile 0as #ranted in9unctive relief a#ainst the use of the 0ord 6Lincoln6 b' another co$pan' as part of its fir$ na$e... 0hich the defendant atte$pted to use on s'rup.6 for fountain pens. the court holdin# that said 0ord is $erel' descriptive.6 Other fa$ous cases cited on the $ar#in. No. :5/2 =. 8=ford %oo/ "o. a#ainst its use for ci#arsI 3 6RollsBRo'ce. Level %rothers "ompan5 :C. / 6Penslar. N5dO. .the acts and to classif' and treat the issue as a fraud..6 for $edicines and toilet articles.6 for loc(s and (e's. Popular Mechanics "o.>.. Tiffan5 Productions. !eneral 3istilleries "orporation :+3 =.. #i&ne5 & "o. :+> =./.S.? and 6Aater$an. !he case of Aunt Jemima Mills "o. As observed in another case. :.6 7er counsel su##ests that instead of en9oinin# her fro$ usin# it. :/. vs. "n the unli$ited field of choice. because the 0ord 6$echanics6 is $erel' a descriptive na$eI and :. A fe0 of the nu$erous cases in 0hich the fore#oin# doctrines have been laid do0n in one for$ or another 0ill no0 be citedD :. :5. /?2. it has co$e to indicate the ori#in and o0nership of said #oods. vs. the respondent co$pan' :plaintiff belo0. 0as #ranted in9unctive relief a#ainst the use b' the petitioner of the tradeB$ar( 6Lu16 and 6Lifebuo'6 for hair po$ade.6 for auto$obiles. /->.? of respondent8s re#istered tradeB$ar( on slippers and shoes $anufactured b' hi$. the industr' of counsel for the petitioner has enabled hi$ to cite on this point onl' the follo0in# casesD :. "n Tiffan5 & "o.+/. 6nc.net A#ainst this arra' of fa$ous cases.R. !he Court of Appeals found in this case that b' uninterrupted and e1clusive use since . and there the court held that the #oods. "t is certainl' not farfetched to sur$ise that the selection b' petitioner of the sa$e tradeB$ar( for pants and shirts 0as $otivated b' a desire to #et a free ride on the reputation and sellin# po0er it has ac@uired at the hands of the respondent. the proprietar' connotation that a tradeB$ar( or tradeBna$e has ac@uired is of $ore para$ount consideration. 6nc. Ae thin( reasonable $en $a' not disa#ree that shoes and shirts are not as unrelated as fountain pens and ra)or blades. !hese cases cites and relied upon b' petitioner are obviousl' of no decisive application to the case at bar. vs. .la4phil. and hence there is no e1cuse for i$pin#in# upon or even closel' approachin# the $ar( of a business rival.>.. !radeB$ar( Reporter. Lincoln Automo$ile "o. thou#h different.5 the field fro$ 0hich a person $a' select a tradeB$ar( is practicall' unli$ited. a $anufacturer of $otion pictures. a#ainst its use for ra)or blades. "n Teodoro ?ala4 E& ?he vs. . vs. >. .2. a#ainst its use for bic'cles. . involved the follo0in# tradeB$ar(s or tradeBna$esD 6&oda(. she $a' be re@uired to state in her labels affi1ed to her products the inscriptionD 6Not $anufactured b' !oribio !eodoro.. 0herein the court held that #in and canned $il( and crea$ do not belon# to the sa$e classI :5. a 9e0elr' concern.. decided b' this Court on April ..%.6 for sanitar' nap(ins. N5dO.+/.6 ori#inall' used on flour.. a#ainst its use for flourI + 6%ale. Moha4/ Mil/ Products vs. in her fifth assi#n$ent of error petitioner see$s to $a(e a frantic effort to retain the use of the $ar( 6An# !iba'. 0hat could have been petitioner8s purpose in selectin# 6An# !iba'6 if not for its fa$eQ Lastl'. the' havin# been ori#inall' used b' the respondent for soapI !he Court held in effect that althou#h said articles are nonco$petitive. As $a' readil' be noted fro$ 0hat 0e have heretofore said.6 as the na$e of a $a#a)ine. !he $ere relation or association of the articles is not controllin#. Fa4cett Pu$lications. "n Lincoln Motor "o. the plaintiff.6 for ca$eras and photo#raphic supplies..6<o#ue. /3+I 5. N5dO. . fro$ usin# the na$e 6!iffan'. :>? =. vs. 0herein the court held that the 0ords 6Popular Mechanics6 used as the title of a $a#a)ine and dul' re#istered as a tradeB$ar( 0ere not infrin#ed b' defendant8s use of the 0ords 6Modern Mechanics and "nventions6 on a co$petitive $a#a)ine. a#ainst its use for electric flashli#htsI ..6 Ae thin( such practice 0ould be unethical and un0orth' . a#ainst its use for radio tubesI .6 for raisins... the' are si$ilar or belon# to the sa$e class.. N5dO. a#ainst the use of 6Rote16 for va#inal s'rin#esI > 6SunBMaid. ->>..5. 0as #ranted in9unctive relief a#ainst the defendant. 0herein the courts #ranted in9unctive relief. 0herein the plaintiff unsuccessfull' atte$pted to en9oin the defendant fro$ usin# the 0ord 6<isuali)ed6 in connection 0ith histor' boo(s. "olle&e 1ntrance %oo/ "o. :// =. :5-/ N. a#ainst its use for hatsI 2 6&ote1. involved the tradeB$ar( 6Aunt 4e$i$a. for instance..+.. are so related as to fall 0ithin the $ischief 0hich e@uit' should prevent.

CO R! O= APPEALS.. vs.3 R. So ordered.. !o the su##estion of petitioner. vs.. .. :.=. 0ith costs a#ainst the petitioner in the three instances.. No. vs. =ran(lin &nittin# Mills vs. Ben9a$in Cordon :>=.? %ale Electric Corporation vs. Moran. .. =. :../2.. 0ithout $eanin# to be harsh.. N5dO. 5??.?5. Levinson :5/2 f. L. :5?3 =. :. S$ith Co. + SunBMaid Raisin Cro0ers of California vs. 525. 5/2. -3>. Aater$an Co.of a reputable business$an. vs.. N5dO. +255. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT .Aall vs. "nc. 3 Peninsular Che$ical Co. . 53-. concur. +?/.I affir$ed in 5. .5?. :/? =.. E! AL.I 5/ !radeB$ar( Reporter. ... Rosenber# Bros... vs. Aulo.. N5dO. Paras and %oco$o. vs. A$erican Crocer Co. not 0ithout 9ustice thou#h 0ith a tin#e of bitternessD 6Ah' offer a perpetual apolo#' or e1planation as to the ori#in of 'our products in order to use $' tradeB$ar( instead of creatin# one of 'our o0nQ6 On our part $a' 0e add. E! AL. P C. RollsBRo'ce of A$erica :/ =.. :5. 7oleproof 7osier' Co... 5 7u#hes vs. . Foot(ot%s .. N5dO. JJ.R.-. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation P7"L"PP"NE 4 R"SPR *ENCE B = LL !EK! !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation C.. Robertson and !he %ale M !o0ne Co. Co. > &ote1 Co. . . N5dO. Aallach Bros. &oda( C'cle Co. McArthur :/3 =.3. =ashionit S0eater Mills :5+2 =. ..?3. / East$an Co. Supp..I affir$ed in 25 =. .. respondent $a' sa'.2.5 &ass$an M &essner.J. that a selfBrespectin# person does not re$ain in the shelter of another but builds one of his o0n.5 April /. . .-2 =. /-2. :. . N5dO. vs. !ho$psonB7udson Co.. 3?+. E. !he 9ud#$ent of the Court of Appeals is affir$ed.. ".?? =. N5dO.? =. SOC"E!E *ES PRO* "!S NES!LE. 2 <o#ue Co. vs..

trade$ar(s is 6MAS!ER6I or that the #oods of C=C $i#ht be $ista(en as havin# ori#inated fro$ the latter. "nc. color sche$es and the letters of their respective labels.. 4. Petitioner Societe *es Produits Nestle. SP No.6 "n its *ecision No. 5/. !he Court of Appeals defined the issue thusD 6*oes appellant C=CHs trade dress bear a stri(in# rese$blance 0ith appelleeHs trade$ar(s as to create in the purchasin# publicHs $ind the $ista(en i$pression that both coffee products co$e fro$ one and the sa$e sourceQ6 As stated above. S. as the dominant 4ord present in the three :.++.R. 5/.>. MAS!ER ROAS! and MAS!ER BLEN*.A.. a Philippine corporation and a licensee of Societe *es Produits Nestle S.A. 111/11 A8$#. under Serial No. . private respondent C=C Corporation filed 0ith the BP!!! an application for the re#istration of the trade$ar( 6=LA<OR MAS!ER6 for instant coffee... and sound6.. 0as published in the 4ul' .?. if an'. S. +?B/2 dated *ece$ber 52.Manila FIRST DI!ISION G. C=C ar#ued that its trade$ar(. vs.++?. 1//1 SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE. petitioners. "n ans0er to the t0o oppositions. COURT OF APPEALS "() CFC CORPORATION.?. filed an unverified Notice of Opposition. b' C=C of the trade$ar( =LA<OR MAS!ER and its re#istration 0ould li(el' cause confusion in the tradeI or deceive purchasers and 0ould falsel' su##est to the purchasin# public a connection in the business of Nestle. =LA<OR MAS!ER.O !his is a petition for revie0 assailin# the *ecision of the Court of Appeals in CABC. spellin#. to 0itD MAS!ER ROAS! and MAS!ER BLEN*.. On 4anuar' .. is not confusin#l' si$ilar 0ith the for$erHs trade$ar(s. No. .+>> issue of the BP!!!Hs Official Ca)ette.. as a $atter of due course.R.. . !he application..3 C=C elevated the $atter to the Court of Appeals.. 35++/. . especiall' 0hen the $ar(s are vie0ed in their entiret'. reversin# and settin# aside the decision of the Bureau of Patents. the Court of Appeals. . 0here it 0as doc(eted as CAB C. 6e1cept for the 0ord MAS!ER :0hich cannot be e1clusivel' appropriated b' an' person for bein# a descriptive or #eneric na$e. the other 0ords that are used respectivel' 0ith said 0ord in the three trade$ar(s are ver' different fro$ each other L in $eanin#. a#ainst C=CHs application for re#istration of the trade$ar( =LA<OR MAS!ER. respondents. *NARES-SANTIAGO. pronunciation. clai$in# that the trade$ar( of private respondentHs product is 6confusin#l' si$ilar to its trade$ar(s for coffee and coffee e1tracts. reversed *ecision No. =LA<OR MAS!ER. C=C further ar#ued that its trade$ar(. b' considerin# their pictorial representations.R. alle#in# that...+>/. !rade$ar(s and !echnolo#' !ransfer :BP!!!. =LA<OR MAS!ER. "() NESTLE P+ILIPPINES.6 Li(e0ise. 6is clearl' ver' different fro$ an' of NestleHs alle#ed trade$ar(s MAS!ER ROAS! and MAS!ER BLEN*. SP No. INC./ Nestle clai$ed that the use. a S0iss co$pan' re#istered under S0iss la0s and do$iciled in S0it)erland. a verified Notice of Opposition 0as filed b' Nestle Philippines. the BP!!! denied C=CHs application for re#istration.A.5 0hich denied private respondentHs application for re#istration of the tradeB$ar(.>. in the assailed decision dated Septe$ber 5. +?B/2 of the BP!!! and ordered the *irector of Patents to approve . J.

And further belo0 are the inscriptions in 0hiteD 6A selection of pri$e Arabica and Robusta coffee.. +?B/2. !he ans0er therefore to the @uer' is a clearBcut NO. AN* AMER"CAN C%ANAM"* CO. the #larin# dissi$ilarities in their presentation far out0ei#h and dispel an' aspect of si$ilitude. v. are printed across the top of a si$$erin# red coffee cup. the letters are bolder and taller as co$pared to appellant C=CHs and the 0ord 6MAS!ER6 appears on top of the 0ord 6BLEN*6 and belo0 it are the 0ords 6. 0here the 0ord 6MAS!ER6 is inscribed in the $iddle. if an'. Occup'in# the center is a s@uareBshaped confi#uration shaded 0ith dar( bro0n and picturin# a heap of coffee beans. O= !7E *"REC!OR O= !7E B REA O= PA!EN!S. sli$ and slanted letters. !o borro0 the 0ords of the Supre$e Court in A$erican C'ana$id Co. the ph'sical discrepancies bet0een appellant C=CHs and appelleeHs respective lo#os are so ostensible that the casual purchaser cannot li(el' $ista(e one for the other. 5.++?. . *irector of Patents :2. 6=LA<OR6 appearin# on top of 6MAS!ER6.5>. AppelleesH 6MAS!ER ROAS!6 label :E1hibit 626. nderneath 6=LA<OR MAS!ER6 appears 6Pre$iu$ "nstant Coffee6 printed in 0hite. :. =ro$ the fore#oin# description. :2 SCRA 2->. !RA*EMAR&S AN* !EC7NOLOC% !RANS=ER :BP!!!.. 0hile the contendin# $ar(s depict the sa$e product. <.. !he distinctions are so 0ellBdefined so as to foreclose an' probabilit' or li(elihood of confusion or deception on the part of the nor$all' intelli#ent bu'er 0hen he or she encounters both coffee products at the #rocer' shelf. At the top is printed in bro0n color the 0ord 6NESCA=E6 a#ainst a 0hite bac(drop. bac(#round. 0ith the letter 6M6 further capitali)ed.6 Aith re#ard to appelleesH 6MAS!ER BLEN*6 label :E1hibit 6-6. *"REC!OR O= PA!EN!S. 0hite print. 6MAS!ER6 in appelleesH label is printed in taller capital letters. Appellant C=CHs label :E1hibit 6/6.C=CHs application. ho0ever. contents and pictorial arran#e$entI in short. the #eneral appearances of the labels bearin# the respective trade$ar(s are so distinct fro$ each other that appellees cannot assert that the do$inant features.SCRA 3->. colors. N<4 <AN *OR= L!*. Belo0 the 6MAS!ER6 appears the 0ord 6ROAS!6 i$pressed in s$aller. of 0hich onl' a 1ero1ed cop' is sub$itted. .Petitioners are no0 before this Court on the follo0in# assi#n$ent of errorsD . !he Court of Appeals ruledD Aere Ae to ta(e even a lac(adaisical #lance at the overall appearance of the contendin# $ar(s.2 SCRA .. RESPON*EN! CO R! CRA<EL% ERRE* "N RE<ERS"NC AN* SE!!"NC AS"*E !7E *EC"S"ON :NO. /. 4ust above the 0ord 6MAS!ER6 is a red 0indo0 li(e portrait of 0hat appears to be a coffee shrub clad in #old. is al$ost double the 0idth of appellant C=CHs. E! AL. !he letters are shaded 0ith red and bounded 0ith thin #oldBcolored inner and outer sidin#s. *A!E* *ECEMBER 52.??V pure instant coffee6 printed in s$all letters. is predo$inantl' a blend of dar( and li#hter shade of oran#e 0here the 0ords 6=LA<OR MAS!ER6. of its trade$ar(s 0ere used or appropriated in appellant C=CHs o0n.. appellant C=CHs and appelleesH labels are entirel' different in si)e. shaded in $ocha 0ith thin 0hite inner and outer sidin#s per letter and identicall' lettered e1cept for the sli#htl' protrudin# botto$ curve of the letter 6S6 ad9oinin# the botto$ tip of the letter 6A6 in the 0ord 6MAS!ER6. APPL"ES !O !7E CASE.. RESPON*EN! CO R! ERRE* "N "N<O&"NC !7E !O!AL"!% R LE APPL"E* "N !7E CASES O= BR"S!OL M%ERS <. RA!7ER !7AN !7E !ES! O= *OM"NANC%. RESPON*EN! CO R! ERRE* "N 7OL*"NC !7A! !7E !O!AL"!% R LE. . MEA* 4O7NSON M CO. RESPON*EN! CO R! ERRE* "N ="N*"NC !7A! APPELLAN! C=CHS !RA*E *RESS "S BE%ON* !7E SCOPE O= !7E PROSCR"P!"ON LA"* *OAN B% 4 R"SPR *ENCE AN* !7E !RA*EMAR& LAA.

Ahatever the $eans e$plo'ed. or 0hat he has been led to believe he 0ants. !he la0 prescribes a $ore strin#ent standard in that there should not onl' be confusin# si$ilarit' but that it should not li(el' cause confusion or $ista(e or deceive purchasers. !he petition is i$pressed 0ith $erit. as to $e li/el5.names and service.mar/s. B !here is hereb' established a re#ister of tradeB$ar(s. Consists of or co$prises a $ar( or tradeBna$e 0hich so rese$bles a $ar( or tradeBna$e re#istered in the Philippines or a $ar( or tradeBna$e previousl' used in the Philippines b' another and not abandoned. 7ence.<. 4ustice =ran(furter observed in the case of Misha4a/a Mf&. na$e.or the !rade$ar( La0. business or services of the applicant. "f it is true that 0e live b' s'$bols. "f another poaches upon the co$$ercial $a#netis$ of the s'$bol he has created. trade.-. v.SCRA 3->.. the desirabilit' of the co$$odit' upon 0hich it appears. A tradeB$ar( is a $erchandisin# shortBcut 0hich induces a purchaser to select 0hat he 0ants. in the $inds of potential custo$ers. . it is no less true that 0e purchase #oods b' the$. Once this is attained. "o. of Republic Act No. !he o0ner of a $ar( e1ploits this hu$an propensit' b' $a(in# ever' effort to i$pre#nate the at$osphere of the $ar(et 0ith the dra0in# po0er of a con#enial s'$bol. s'$bol or device adopted and used b' a $anufacturer or $erchant to identif' his #oods and distin#uish the$ fro$ those $anufactured and sold b' others. A trade$ar( has been #enerall' defined as 6an' 0ord. ?res&e "o. !he o0ner of a tradeB$ar(. tradeBna$es and service $ar(s 0hich shall be (no0n as the principal re#ister. business or services fro$ the #oods. the o0ner can obtain le#al redress. Colorable i$itation denotes such a close or in#enious i$itation as to be calculated to deceive . provides thusD #e&istration of trade. unless itD 111 111 111 :d.D> !he protection of tradeB$ar(s is the la0Hs reco#nition of the ps'cholo#ical function of s'$bols. the issue is 0hether the trade$ar( =LA<OR MAS!ER is a colorable i$itation of the trade$ar(s MAS!ER ROAS! and MAS!ER BLEN*. the @uestion in this case is 0hether there is a li(elihood that the trade$ar( =LA<OR MAS!ER $a' cause confusion or $ista(e or $a' deceive purchasers that said product is the sa$e or is $anufactured b' the sa$e co$pan'. tradeBna$e or serviceB$ar( used to distin#uish his #oods. business or services of others shall have the ri#ht to re#ister the sa$e on the principal re#ister.mar/s on the principal re&ister . "n other 0ords.62 A $anufacturerHs trade$ar( is entitled to protection. As Mr. Section / :d. to cause confusion or mista/e or to deceive purchasers I 111 111 111 :E$phasis supplied. the tradeB$ar( o0ner has so$ethin# of value. 0hich 0as in force at the ti$e. 0hen applied to or used in connection 0ith the #oods. *"REC!OR O= PA!EN!S :2. the ai$ is the sa$e BBB to conve' throu#h the $ar(. as a$ended.

. the #eneral i$pression of the ordinar' purchaser. !he $ar( $ust be considered as a 0hole and not as dissected. the co$ple1ities attendant to an accurate assess$ent of li(elihood of confusion re@uire that the entire panopl' of ele$ents constitutin# the relevant factual landscape be co$prehensivel' e1a$ined.5 !he Court of Appeals applied so$e 9udicial precedents 0hich are not on all fours 0ith this case. !he 0isdo$ of the li(elihood of confusion test lies in its reco#nition that each trade$ar( infrin#e$ent case presents its o0n uni@ue set of facts. As observed in several cases. as to cause hi$ to purchase the one supposin# it to be the other. not usuall' to an' part of it :3el Monte "orp. "n 3el Monte..+ "n deter$inin# if colorable i$itation e1ists. EVJ Van 3orp. v. "f the bu'er is deceived. 9urisprudence has developed t0o (inds of tests B the *o$inanc' !est and the 7olistic !est..? !he test of do$inanc' focuses on the si$ilarit' of the prevalent features of the co$petin# trade$ar(s 0hich $i#ht cause confusion or deception and thus constitute infrin#e$ent.>. "ndeed. et al. undiscernin#l' rash in bu'in# the $ore co$$on and less e1pensive household products li(e coffee. "t $ust be e$phasi)ed that in infrin#e$ent or trade$ar( cases in the Philippines. precedent $ust be studied in li#ht of the facts of the particular case.2 SCRA . it is attributable to the $ar(s as a totalit'. is the touchstone. therefore. as 0hat appellees 0ould 0ant it to be 0hen the' essentiall' ar#ue that $uch of the confusion sprin#s fro$ appellant C=CHs use of the 0ord 6MAS!ER6 0hich appellees clai$ to be the do$inant feature of their o0n trade$ar(s that captivates the prospective consu$ers. et al. v.. v. "n the case at bar. held thatD 6!he @uestion is not 0hether the t0o articles are distin#uishable b' their labels 0hen set side b' side but 0hether the #eneral confusion $ade b' the article upon the e'e of the casual purchaser 0ho is unsuspicious and off his #uard. in relation to the #oods to 0hich the' are attached :%ristol M5ers "ompan5 v.?. "n trade$ar( cases.. in #eneral. 6nc. . SCRA /. citin& Mead Johnson & "o.3 !he Court of AppealsH application of the case of 3el Monte "orporation v. supra. . "ourt of Appeals. "ourt of Appeals. supra.ordinar' persons..5>. 3irector of Patents. even $ore than in an' other liti#ation. EVJ Van 3orp. is such as to li(el' result in his confoundin# it 0ith the ori#inal. "A. circu$stances of each case. "A. . Each case $ust be decided on its o0n $erits. and so$eti$es peculiar. Ltd.. v. bu'in# under the nor$all' prevalent conditions in trade and #ivin# the attention such purchasers usuall' #ive in bu'in# that class of #oods./ 0e ruled that the li(elihood of confusion is a relative conceptI to be deter$ined onl' accordin# to the particular. and are therefore less inclined to closel' e1a$ine specific details of si$ilarities and dissi$ilarities bet0een co$petin# products. no set rules can be deduced..is. "n 1sso tandard. $isplaced. the Court of Appeals held thatD !he deter$ination of 0hether t0o trade$ar(s are indeed confusin#l' si$ilar $ust be ta(en fro$ the vie0point of the ordinar' purchasers 0ho are. the test of si$ilarit' is to consider the t0o $ar(s in their entiret'. Ltd. or such a rese$blance to the ori#inal as to deceive an ordinar' purchaser #ivin# such attention as a purchaser usuall' #ives. .. particularl' in ascertainin# 0hether one trade$ar( is confusin#l' si$ilar to or is a colorable i$itation of another.6 =ro$ this perspective. !he Supre$e Court in 3el Monte "orporation v.. the issue 0as about the alle#ed si$ilarit' of *el MonteHs lo#o 0ith that of Sunshine Sauce Manufacturin# "ndustries. 2 SCRA 2->.. Both corporations $ar(et .. as the' appear in the respective labels. Be it further e$phasi)ed that the discernin# e'e of the observer $ust focus not onl' on the predo$inant 0ords but also on the other features appearin# in both labels in order that he $a' dra0 his conclusion 0hether one is confusin#l' si$ilar to the other :Mead Johnson & "o.. the holistic test $andates that the entiret' of the $ar(s in @uestion $ust be considered in deter$inin# confusin# si$ilarit'. On the other side of the spectru$.

9udicial fora should not readil' appl' a certain test or standard 9ust because of see$in# si$ilarities. As this Court has pointed above. EVJ Van 3orf Ltd. "n the sa$e $anner. !he said products are not the usual 6co$$on and ine1pensive6 household ite$s 0hich an 6undiscernin#l' rash6 bu'er 0ould unthin(in#l' bu'. the factual circu$stances are substantiall' different. as the for$er is derived fro$ a co$bination of the s'llables 6S L6 0hich is derived fro$ sulfa and 6ME!6 fro$ $eth'l.6 5? As this Court has often declared. !hat is the reason 0h' in trade$ar( cases. "n the %ristol M5ers case. 0hile the other $a' be purchased overBtheBcounter. "n an' case. Also. "n the above cases cited b' the Court of Appeals to 9ustif' the application of the totalit' or holistic test to this instant case. !he sa$e criteria. the brands printed on the labels.I. On the other hand.the catsup product 0hich is an ine1pensive and co$$on household ite$. perhaps. "n the American "5anamid case. the 0ord S LME! is distin#uishable fro$ the 0ord S LME!"NE. there could be $ore tellin# differences than si$ilarities as to $a(e a 9urisprudential . "n deter$inin# 0hether t0o trade$ar(s are confusin#l' si$ilar. the differences bet0een ALAC!A and ALAS&A are #larin# and stri(in# to the e'e. the si$ilarit' ends there. both products are not identical as S LME!Hs label indicates that it is used in a drin(in# 0ater solution 0hile that of S LME!"NE indicates that the' are tablets. 3irector of Patents . ALAS&A refers to 6=oods and "n#redients of =oods6 fallin# under Class /2.> and American "5anamid "o.+ !he totalit' rule states that 6the test is not si$pl' to ta(e their 0ords and co$pare the spellin# and pronunciation of said 0ords. the t0o $ar(s in their entiret' as the' appear in the respective labels $ust be considered in relation to the #oods to 0hich the' are attachedI the discernin# e'e of the observer $ust focus not onl' on the predo$inant 0ords but also on the other features appearin# on both labels.. ALAC!A refers to 6Phar$aceutical Preparations 0hich Suppl' Nutritional Needs. Ahat is bein# @uestioned here is the use b' C=C of the trade$ar( MAS!ER. Also. each case $ust be studied accordin# to the peculiar circu$stances of each case. "n the Mead Johnson case. 9urisprudential precedents should be applied onl' to a case if the' are specificall' in point. both labels have stri(in#l' different bac(#rounds and surroundin#s. one is dispensable onl' upon doctorHs prescription. "t cannot also be said that the products in the above cases can be bou#ht off the shelf e1cept.2 Mead Johnson & "o. ho0ever. v. "n addition. Since *el Monte alle#ed that SunshineHs lo#o 0as confusin#l' si$ilar to or 0as a colorable i$itation of the for$erHs lo#o. and their na$es are practicall' the sa$e in spellin# and pronunciation.of the official classification of Medicines and Phar$aceutical Preparations to be used as prescribed b' ph'sicians. !his Court held that the addition of the s'llable 6"NE6 in respondentHs label is sufficient to distin#uish respondentHs product or trade$ar( fro$ that of petitioner. the 0ords or letterin# on the labels or $ar(s and the shapes and colors of the labels or $ar(s. cannot be applied in the instant petition as the facts and circu$stances herein are peculiarl' different fro$ those in the 3el Monte case. there 0as a need to #o into the details of the t0o lo#os as 0ell as the shapes of the labels or $ar(s."n the case at bar. and does not re@uire $edical prescription. v. "n vie0 of the difficult' of appl'in# 9urisprudential precedents to trade$ar( cases due to the peculiarit' of each case. for ALAS&A. other than the fact that both NestleHs and C=CHs products are ine1pensive and co$$on household ite$s.6 fallin# under Class . 3irector of Patents I. both of 0hich are che$ical co$pounds present in the article $anufactured b' the contendin# parties. both products are for $edicinal veterinar' use and the bu'er 0ill be $ore 0ar' of the nature of the product he is bu'in#. this Court held that althou#h both B"O=ER"N and B ==ER"N are pri$aril' used for the relief of pains such as headaches and colds. the Court of Appeals erred in appl'in# the totalit' rule as defined in the cases of %ristol M5ers v.

and are therefore less inclined to closel' e1a$ine specific details of si$ilarities and dissi$ilarities bet0een co$petin# products. si$ilarities or dissi$ilarities. the totalit' or holistic test is contrar' to the ele$entar' postulate of the la0 on trade$ar(s and unfair co$petition that confusin# si$ilarit' is to be deter$ined on the basis of visual. then he 0ould not have the ti$e nor the inclination to $a(e a (een and perceptive e1a$ination of the ph'sical discrepancies in the trade$ar(s of the products in order to e1ercise his choice. . 6NtOhe deter$ination of 0hether t0o trade$ar(s are indeed confusin#l' si$ilar $ust be ta(en fro$ the vie0point of the ordinar' purchasers 0ho are. and is therefore less inclined to closel' e1a$ine specific details of si$ilarities and dissi$ilarities bet0een co$petin# products. !he application of the totalit' or holistic test is i$proper since the ordinar' purchaser 0ould not be inclined to notice the specific features. in #eneral. in #eneral. As the Court of Appeals itself has stated. Ahile this Court a#rees 0ith the Court of AppealsH detailed enu$eration of differences bet0een the respective trade$ar(s of the t0o coffee products. since 0hat is of para$ount consideration is the ordinar' purchaser 0ho is. considerin# that the product is an ine1pensive and co$$on household ite$. if the ordinar' purchaser is 6undiscernin#l' rash6.precedent inapplicable. then it 0ould be less li(el' for the ordinar' purchaser to notice that C=CHs trade$ar( =LA<OR MAS!ER carries the colors oran#e and $ocha 0hile that of NestleHs uses red and bro0n. undiscernin#l' rash in bu'in# the $ore co$$on and less e1pensive household products li(e coffee. "t $ust be e$phasi)ed that the products bearin# the trade$ar(s in @uestion are 6ine1pensive and co$$on6 household ite$s bou#ht off the shelf b' 6undiscernin#l' rash6 purchasers. As such. 5. and 0ould therefore be 6less inclined to closel' e1a$ine specific details of si$ilarities and dissi$ilarities6 bet0een the t0o co$petin# products. Ae a#ree. undiscernin#l' rash in bu'in# the $ore co$$on and less e1pensive household products li(e coffee. "f the ordinar' purchaser is 6undiscernin#l' rash6 in bu'in# such co$$on and ine1pensive household products as instant coffee. Nestle points out that the do$inanc' test should have been applied to deter$ine 0hether there is a confusin# si$ilarit' bet0een C=CHs =LA<OR MAS!ER and NestleHs MAS!ER ROAS! and MAS!ER BLEN*. Rather. !he totalit' or holistic test onl' relies on visual co$parison bet0een t0o trade$ar(s 0hereas the do$inanc' test relies not onl' on the visual but also on the aural and connotative co$parisons and overall i$pressions bet0een the t0o trade$ar(s. connotative co$parisons and overall i$pressions en#endered b' the $ar(s in controvers' as the' are encountered in the realities of the $ar(etplace.55 !he Court of Appeals held that the test to be applied should be the totalit' or holistic test reasonin#. this Court believes that the do$inanc' test is $ore suitable to this case in li#ht of its peculiar factual $ilieu. !his Court cannot a#ree 0ith the above reasonin#. this Court cannot a#ree that totalit' test is the one applicable in this case. Moreover. An ordinar' purchaser or bu'er does not usuall' $a(e such scrutin' nor does he usuall' have the ti$e to do so. !he avera#e shopper is usuall' in a hurr' and does not inspect ever' product on the shelf as if he 0ere bro0sin# in a librar'.6 5. !he basis for the Court of AppealsH application of the totalit' or holistic test is the 6ordinar' purchaser6 bu'in# the product under 6nor$all' prevalent conditions in trade6 and the attention such products nor$all' elicit fro$ said ordinar' purchaser. aural.

both issued on Ma' . J. !he 0ord MAS!ER is printed across the $iddle portion of the label in bold letters al$ost t0ice the si)e of the printed 0ord ROAS!. Ric Puno 4r... ESCOLIN.. butter. NG SAM Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECON* *"<"S"ON G.FULL TE3T T7% L"G87#. .R.35BS and . the personalities en#a#ed to pro$ote the product.. NG SAM "() T+E DIRECTOR OF PATENTS.6 3/.. 0hile certificate of re#istration No. N# Sa$. Primitivo ". i&uion #e5na. are #iven the titles Master of the Ca$e and Master of the !al( Sho0. 0hich is ha$. . Certificate of Re#istration No..A$%. "n due ti$e. No.+/+. L-1BB?B 0u. !he trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 0as first used ill the Philippines b' petitioner on its products in .+/+.6 3/. all classified under Class /2 :=oods and "n#redients of =ood.+55. 1 1 1. Ponce 1nrile.BS applies to abrasive deter#ents.=or this reason. and those of petitioner consistin# of lard. No.R.3. REFINING CO. . coo(in# oil and soap are so related that the use of the sa$e trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 on said #oods 0ould li(el' result in confusion as to their source or ori#in. of the Rules of Practice of the Patent Office.: !he sole issue raised in this petition for revie0 of the decision of the *irector of patents is 0hether or not the product of respondent. butter and coo(in# oil.. . because of these advertisin# sche$es the $ind of the bu'in# public had co$e to learn to associate the 0ord MAS!ER 0ith the opposerHs #oods. L-1BB?B 0u. polishin# $aterials and soap of all (inds :Class /.. particularl' lard. Montecillo & %ello and Associates for petitioner. %ucasas for respondents. 1981K P+IL.. petitioner caused the re#istration of said trade$ar( 0ith the Philippine Patent Office under certificates of re#istration Nos. it is sufficientl' established that the 0ord MAS!ER is the do$inant feature of opposerHs $ar(. !his can be #leaned fro$ the fact that Robert 4a0ors(i and Att'. =urther..BS. respondents. . 1981 P+ILIPPINE REFINING CO. Is. "n .. this Court a#rees 0ith the BP!!! 0hen it applied the test of do$inanc' and held thatD =ro$ the evidence at hand. INC. P$oH%&t .3. INC.35BS covers ve#etable and ani$al fats. petitioner.. respectivel'. vs."(o L"G Fou()"t#o( G. "t is the observation of this Office that P+ILIPPINE 0URISPRUDENCE . the 0ord MAS!ER has al0a's been #iven e$phasis in the !< and radio co$$ercials and other advertise$ents $ade in pro$otin# the product.

0hich li(e0ise falls under Class /2. SRB.?. 0here no confusion is li(el' to arise. "nc. Business Address P 33 Rosario St. its appropriation as a trade$ar(.O0ner P =. 0hen applied to or used in connection 0ith the #oods. #o$ertson 1. as to be li(el'. as in this case. respondent N# Sa$.6 Such restricted ri#ht over a trade$ar( is li(e0ise reflected in our !rade$ar( la0. of said la0. 5>? Re#istration No. in the sense that others $a' used the sa$e $ar( on unrelated #oods. 0hich provides as unre#istrableD a $ar( 0hich consists of or co$prises a $ar( or tradena$e 0hich so rese$bles a $ar( or tradena$e re#istered in the Philippines or a $ar( or tradena$e previousl' used in the Philippines b' another and not abandoned. But it should be so distinctive and sufficientl' ori#inal as to enable those 0ho co$e into contact 0ith it to reco#ni)e instantl' the "dentit' of the user. si#nificant and distinctive.5? *ate Re#istered P Ma' 5-. !he parties sub$itted the case for decision 0ithout presentin# an' evidenceD thereafter the *irector of patents rendered a decision allo0in# re#istration of the trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 in favor of N# Sa$.6 4 .+3+. CAM"A Application No. as a$ended.--. 0here to allo0 such re#istration could li(el' result in confusion. ha$. the de#ree of e1clusiveness accorded to each user is closel' restricted. to cause confusion or $ista(e or to deceive purchasers. a citi)en residin# in "loilo Cit'. in accordance 0ith Section > of Republic Act No. Conversel'. P Particular Cood on 0hich $ar( is usedD !e1tiles. . re#istration of a si$ilar or even "dentical $ar( $a' be allo0ed.6 1 !hus. filed an application 0ith the Philippine Patent office for re#istration of the "dentical trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 for his product. is valid.+/.?. petitioner filed an opposition. 6 "t $ust be affir$ative and definite. of the la0. Basis of petitioner8s opposition 0as Section /:d. 7. this petition. del Pilar Crace Par(.E. 7ence. E$broideries laces. .+-? O0ner P Everbri#ht *evelop$ent Co$pan' Business Address P . Manila Class /. 7o0ever. 3 !he records of this case disclose that the ter$ 6CAM"A6 has been re#istered as a trade$ar( not onl' b' petitioner but b' t0o :5. A trade$ar( is desi#ned to "dentif' the user... nder Section /:d. capable to indicate ori#in. other concerns. Petitioner $oved for a reconsideration. Caloocan Cit' Class / P !hread and %arn 5. 0hile children refer to it as the butterfl' flo0er because of its shape. .+/3 *ate Re#istered B April 5?. After due publication of the application.> *ate =iled P Au#ust . A rudi$entar' precept in trade$ar( protection is that 6the ri#ht to a trade$ar( is a li$ited one. etc.? M. . other0ise (no0n as the !rade$ar( La0.. Alle#ed date of first use of the trade$ar( b' respondent 0as on =ebruar' . 3. as follo0sD . !he ter$ 6CAM"A6 is descriptive of a 0hole #enus of #arden plants 0ith fra#rant 0hite flo0ers.On Nove$ber 53. . $ista(e or deception to the consu$ers. Uuelli#. Bein# a #eneric and co$$on ter$. albeit in a fanciful $anner in that it bears no relation to the product it "dentifies. as pronounced b' the nited States Supre$e Court in the case of American Foundries vs. re#istration of a trade$ar( 0hich so rese$bles another alread' re#istered or in use should be denied. but the sa$e 0as denied. business services of the applicant. 6the $ere fact that one person has adopted and used a trade$ar( on his #oods does not prevent the adoption and use of the sa$e trade$ar( b' others on articles of a different description.+-?. CAM"A and Representation Application No. . So$e people call the 6CAM"A6 the 60hite #in#er plant6 because of its tuberous roots.

Runolf Call$an. li(e the coo(s. then it is apparent that it cannot "dentif' a particular businessI and he 0ho first adopted it cannot be in9ured b' an' subse@uent appropriation or i$itation b' others. the #oods of the parties are not of a character 0hich purchasers 0ould be li(el' to attribute to a co$$on ori#in. and are displa'ed separatel' even thou#h the' fre@uentl' $a' be sold throu#h the sa$e retail food establish$ents. as contraB distin#uished to trade$ar(s derived fro$ coined 0ords such as 6Role16..of the !rade$ar( Act.. of his boo(. his business na$e 6SAM8S 7AM AN* BACON =AC!OR%6 0ritten in bold 0hite letters a#ainst a reddish oran#e bac(#round B. ha$. confusion of business $a' arise bet0een nonBco$petitive interests as 0ell. A consu$er 0ould not reasonabl' assu$e that. !his is true 0hether or not the trade$ar(s are re#istered. :E$phasis supplied.. $uch less cause da$a#e to petitioner.. polishin# $aterials and soap of all (inds. 7e opined and Ae @uoteD " have ta(en into account such factors as probable purchaser attitude and habits. Ahile ha$ and so$e of the products of petitioner are classified under Class /2 :=oods and "n#redients of =ood. coo(in# oil. Sec. . "n his decision. butter. abrasive deter#ents. 0here the liti#ants are actuall' in co$petition. . Ae hold that the businesss of the parties are nonBco$petitive and their products so unrelated that the use of "dentical trade$ar(s is not li(el' to #ive rise to confusion. oil. !he particular #oods of the parties are so unrelated that consu$ers 0ould not in an' probabilit' $ista(e one as the source or ori#in of the product of the other. !he observation and conclusion of the *irector of Patents are correct. $i#ht be distributed and $ar(eted under dissi$ilar conditions. and lard. this alone cannot serve as the decisive factor in the resolution of 0hether or not the' are related #oods. declareD nfair Co$petition and !rade Mar(s. 67a$6 is not a dail' food fare for the avera#e consu$er. p. Mr. :p."t is evident that 6CAM"A6 as a trade$ar( is far fro$ bein# distinctive. retail outlets. the *irector of Patents enu$erated the factors that set respondent8s product apart fro$ the #oods of petitioner. petitioner has so diversified its business as to include the product of respondent. Opposer8s products are ordinar' da'BtoB da' household ite$s 0hereas ha$ is not necessaril' so. "n addition. 6&oda(6 or 6&ote16.. it does not "dentif' petitioner as the $anufacturer or producer of the #oods upon 0hich said $ar( is used. Rollo. e$braces co$petitive and nonBco$petitive trade$ar( infrin#e$ent $ut it is not so e=tensive as to $e applica$le to cases 4here the pu$lic 4ould not reasona$l5 e=pect the plaintiff to ma/e or sell the same class of &oods as those made or sold $5 the defendant. Respondent desires to use the sa$e on his product. " believe that ha$ on one hand. "n fine. $ar(etin# activities. and soap on the other are products that 0ould not $ove in the sa$e $anner throu#h the sa$e channels of trade. <OL. 0hile the product of respondent is processed fro$ pi#8s le#s.6 5 !he trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 is used b' petitioner on a 0ide ran#e of productsD lard. is certain to catch the e'e of the class of consu$ers to 0hich he caters. Ahile confusion of #oods can onl' be evident. in referrin# to 8$erchandise of substantiall' the sa$e descriptive properties. "t has been held that if a $ar( is so co$$onplace that it cannot be readil' distin#uished fro$ others. One purchasin# ha$ 0ould e1ercise a $ore cautious inspection of 0hat he bu's on account of it price. are e1pected to (no0 their business. 5. is the purchase of said food product dele#ated to household helps... in Section >?. there can be no li(elihood for the consu$er of respondent8s ha$ to confuse its source as an'one but respondent. E$phasis should be on the si$ilarit' of the products involved and not on the arbitrar' classification or #eneral description of their properties or characteristics. and the public 0ill not be deceived. B' itself. Seldo$.. e1cept perhaps to those 0ho. !he' pertain to unrelated fields of $anufacture. !he facsi$ile of the label attached b' hi$ on his product. and co$$ercial i$pression li(el' to be conve'ed b' the trade$ar(s if used in con9unction 0ith the respective #oods of the parties. butter. if ever. Besides. !hus. ". .5. the #oods of petitioners are basicall' derived fro$ ve#etable oil and ani$al fats.

.-?. butter. As the re#istered o0ner and prior user of the trade$ar(. A$ad antos and 3e "astro. dissentin#D " vote to #rant the petition of the Philippine Refinin# Co. As the re#istered o0ner and prior user of the trade$ar(. Foot(ot%s . !he purpose of the la0 0ill be served better b' not allo0in# the re#istration of the trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 for respondent8s ha$.. to the da$a#e or detri$ent of the petitioner. affir$ed in toto. /. 6CAM"A6 is li(el' to confuse the public that the source of the ha$ is the petitioner. 0ith such a li$itless nu$ber of other 0ords respondent $a' choose fro$. if #iven the sa$e trade$ar(. Jr.. 6CAM"A6 on a 0ide variet' of products such as lard. 6CAM"A6 on a 0ide variet' of products such as lard. petitioner8s business $a' thus be affected adversel' as a result. S . 0hile fro$ the standpoint of the purchasers.2. abrasive deter#ents. "oncepcion. 5. the use of the sa$e trade$ar( on the ha$ 0ould li(el' result in confusion as to the source or ori#in thereof. dissentin#D " vote to #rant the petition of the Philippine Refinin# Co. butter.A7ERE=ORE.. if the respondent8s ha$ is of poor @ualit'. 6CAM"A6 is li(el' to confuse the public that the source of the ha$ is the petitioner. -32. J. "nc. if #iven the sa$e trade$ar(. to the da$a#e or detri$ent of the petitioner. .25. 0ith such a li$itless nu$ber of other 0ords respondent $a' choose fro$. as trade$ar( for his product. S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s DE CASTRO. "nc. the instant petition is hereb' dis$issed and the decision of the *irector of Patents in "nter Partes Case No. Ni$s. . the respondent8s ha$ 0hich co$es under the sa$e classification of 6=ood and "n#redients of =oods6 under 0hich petitioner has re#istered its trade$ar(. as trade$ar( for his product. coo(in# oil. . Costs a#ainst petitioner. !he purpose of the la0 0ill be served better b' not allo0in# the re#istration of the trade$ar( 6CAM"A6 for respondent8s ha$. 5 5-+ nfair Co$petition and !rade Mar(. JJ. %arredo C"hairmanD. 2? L ed .. S%8"$"t% O8#(#o(s DE CASTRO. SO OR*ERE*.. petitioner8s business $a' thus be affected adversel' as a result. polishin# $aterials and soap of all (inds.Sct. . the use of the sa$e trade$ar( on the ha$ 0ould li(el' result in confusion as to the source or ori#in thereof.. <ol. if the respondent8s ha$ is of poor @ualit'. coo(in# oil. abrasive deter#ents. !hus.. so$e $easure of deception $a' ta(e effect upon the$. Sec. J. so$e $easure of deception $a' ta(e effect upon the$.>.. polishin# $aterials and soap of all (inds. 0hile fro$ the standpoint of the purchasers. !hus. p. concur. AFuino. 55. the respondent8s ha$ 0hich co$es under the sa$e classification of 6=ood and "n#redients of =oods6 under 0hich petitioner has re#istered its trade$ar(. !uerrero.

.. . . / Spar(lets Corp. Ori#inal Record.p.. C. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation L"G87#.+ =ed.A. Ni$s. Aalter &idde Sales Co. C. 3. October 5. 3+2... M"#( M%(u W Constitution W Constitution W Statutes W Statutes W 4urisprudence W 4urisprudence W 4udicial "ssuances W 4udicial "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances W !reatise W !reatise W Le#al Lin( W Le#al Lin( la0phil !oda' is =rida'. 5. vs. <ol. Ori#inal Record. 3+.+-. 333. p.+>. 3.P. p. v. 5d . M"#( M%(u L"G87#.. nfair Co$petition and !rade$ar(s. 5?. Sec.+.?/ =. 5??+ Search . . . A. C. Schueler. >th. .C.2. 3 Maniton Sprin#s Mineral Aater Co.

R. *EC"S"ON CALLE0O. 5??5 Orders . of Republic Act :R. !he R!C #ranted the application and issued Search Aarrant Nos. Evidences of sale 0hich include deliver' receipts. 0ENNIFER *. 4essie C. producers andGor distributors of the 0or(s. *A UT E o"$) o' D#$%&to$s "() O''#&%$s o' <ILA<ARE PRODUCT CORPORATIONF. patterns and flas(s used in the $anufactureGfabrication of ite$s a to dI e. !he applications sou#ht the sei)ure of the follo0in#D a. 5??. NOEL M. J.A... SR. 5??5 and =ebruar' .R. the NB" filed applications for search 0arrants in the R!C of Manila a#ainst Aillia$ Salinas.. No. 0R.B5/?.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECON* *"<"S"ON G. C+ING..B5/?. SP No. tilit' Model. Sr... ?.. "t 0as alle#ed that the respondents therein reproduced and distributed the said $odels penali)ed under Sections . Chin#. SALINAS. it appears that the follo0in# articlesGite$s 0ere sei)ed based on the search 0arrantsD Leaf Sprin# e'e bushin# a. and the officers and $e$bers of the Board of *irectors of Aila0are Product Corporation. SALINAS. Chin# re@uested the National Bureau of "nvesti#ation :NB".6 / On Septe$ber 5?. b..22. the $a(er and $anufacturer of a described as 6Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# for Auto$obile6 $ade up of plastic. ndeter$ined @uantit' of Leaf sprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obile that are $ade up of plastic pol'prop'leneI ndeter$ined @uantit' of Leaf sprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obile that are $ade up of pol'vin'l chloride plasticI ndeter$ined @uantit' of <ehicle bearin# cushion that is $ade up of pol'vin'l chloride plasticI ndeter$ined @uantit' of *ies and 9i#s./.22.. On Septe$ber /. SALINAS. affir$in# the 4anuar' . of the Re#ional !rial Court :R!C. and ?. Plastic Pol'prop'lene . in CABC. ?. No.. 5??.: !his petition for revie0 on certiorari assails the *ecision. Chin# and 4oseph %u 0ere issued b' the National Librar' Certificates of Cop'ri#ht Re#istration and *eposit of the said 0or( described therein as 6Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# for Auto$obile. respondents.. <ILLIAM M. petitioner. <ILLIAM M. 2?/. d. SALINAS. 0O+N ERIC I. SR. 0hich @uashed and set aside Search Aarrant Nos. vs. 1B1195 0u(% 19.. and . Chin# is the o0ner and #eneral $ana#er of 4eshicris Manufacturin# Co. 0OSEP+INE L. 1//5 0ESSIE G. invoices and official receipts.B5/?5 for the sei)ure of the aforecited articles.... ALONTO SOLAIMAN SALLE. and ?. of Manila.. >5+. Branch . 3 After due investi#ation. 2 "n the inventor' sub$itted b' the NB" a#ent.B5/?5 #ranted in favor of petitioner 4essie C. for policeGinvesti#ative assistance for the apprehension and prosecution of ille#al $anufacturers. SALINAS. c... and Resolution5 of the Court of Appeals :CA.

he en9o's ri#hts of a re#istered o0nerGholder thereof.?? 5 sets f. the petitioner stated that a search 0arrant is $erel' a 9udicial process desi#ned b' the Rules of Court in anticipation of a cri$inal case. Mold for C5/? rear . 5??5. set d. !he' aver that the $odels are not ori#inal. set #. Mold for leaf sprin# e'e bushin# C. On 4anuar' . X BAC . !he cop'ri#ht re#istrations 0ere issued in violation of the "ntellectual Propert' Code on the #round thatD a.+? . the petitioner averred that the court 0hich issued the search 0arrants 0as not the proper foru$ in 0hich to articulate the issue of the validit' of the cop'ri#hts issued to hi$. + !he respondents averred that the 0or(s covered b' the certificates issued b' the National Librar' are not artistic in natureI the' are considered auto$otive spare parts and pertain to technolo#'.+? . and @uashed the search 0arrant on its findin# that there 0as no probable cause for its issuance.. the' are not ori#inal. X c. Mold for sprin# e'e bushin# rear . Citin# the rulin# of the Court in Malaloan v. <ehicle bearin# cushion B center bearin# cushion .+? 0ith $etal . the trial court issued an Order.25 of the "ntellectual Propert' Code. and as such are the proper sub9ect of a patent. . the sub9ect $atter of the re#istrations are not artistic or literar'I b. !he court ruled that the 0or( covered b' the certificates issued to the petitioner pertained to solutions to technical proble$s. Pol'vin'l Chloride Plastic B C.+? 52 X B C5/? rear /? X B C5/? front /. "ourt of Appeals.. set b.B C. set> !he respondents filed a $otion to @uash the search 0arrants on the follo0in# #roundsD 5. b.+? $old > X *iesel Mold a. piece of the set e.. X Budder for C. Mold for vehicle bearin# cushion . the sub9ect $atter of the re#istrations are spare parts of auto$obiles $eanin# L there : sic.? "n opposin# the $otion. not literar' and artistic as provided in Article . ntil his cop'ri#ht 0as nullified in a proper proceedin#..5 #rantin# the $otion. are ori#inal parts that the' are desi#ned to replace. not cop'ri#ht. Mold for sprin# e'e bushin# front . Mold for sprin# e'e bushin# for C. . set c. 7ence. Mold for sprin# e'e bushin# for L..

/ !he petitionerHs $otion for reconsideration of the said decision suffered the sa$e fate. personall' e1a$ine in the for$ of searchin# @uestions and ans0ers.. 0hich too( effect on 4anuar' . "t is 0orth' to state that the 0or(s protected under the La0 on Cop'ri#ht areD literar' or artistic 0or(s :Sec.. the sa$e is e1plicitl' provided. !he Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion fall on neither classification. !he petitioner posits that even assu$in# e= ar&umenti that the trial court $a' resolve the validit' of his cop'ri#ht in a proceedin# to @uash a search 0arrant for alle#edl' infrin#in# ite$s.A. the court $ust necessaril' resolve 0hether or not an offense e1ists to 9ustif' the issuance or @uashal of the search 0arrant. li(e0ise. to 0itD "t is settled that preli$inaril'.A. before issuin# the 0arrant. enco$passes 0or(s 0hich $a' have a bearin# on the utilit' aspect to 0hich the petitionerHs utilit' desi#ns 0ere classified. . 5??. !he petitioner noted that respondent Aillia$ Salinas.R of #epu$lic Act -K(R. thusD 6!he probable cause $ust be in connection 0ith one specific offense. !he petitioner asserted that the respondents failed to adduce evidence to support their $otion to @uash the search 0arrants. irrespective of its $ode or for$ of e1pression.2 !he petitioner faults the CA for i#norin# Section 5. >5+.25. 0hat the Cop'ri#ht La0 protects is the authorHs intellectual creation."n li(e $anner. 0hen the ob9ects sub9ect of the sa$e. On Septe$ber 5-. . Accordin#l'. contendin# that the revocation of his cop'ri#ht certificates should be raised in a direct action and not in a search 0arrant proceedin#.2. the R!C co$$itted a #rave abuse of its discretion 0hen it declared that his 0or(s are not cop'ri#htable in the first place.7is $otion for reconsideration of the order havin# been denied b' the trial courtHs Order of =ebruar' ..la4phil. 0hich #ives the sa$e presu$ption to an affidavit e1ecuted b' . other0ise (no0n as the "ntellectual Propert' Code of the Philippines. !he petitioner forth0ith filed the present petition for revie0 on certiorari. 4r.:h... No. are patentl' not cop'ri#htable. 5??5. the fact that his utilit' desi#ns or $odels for articles of $anufacture have been e1pressed in the field of auto$otive parts. re#ardless of 0hether it is one 0ith utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale. "n a nu$ber of cases decided b' the Supre$e Court. the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. 7e insisted that his 0or(s are covered b' Sections . the petitioner insists. 5??5..net As such. 0as not bein# honest.. the said la0. 6"n the deter$ination of probable cause./. or based on so$ethin# alread' in the public do$ain does not auto$aticall' re$ove the$ fro$ the protection of the La0 on Cop'ri#ht. on facts personall' (no0n to the$ and attach to the record their s0orn state$ents to#ether 0ith an' affidavit sub$itted. for the offense of Violation of "lass 3esi&nation of "op5ri&hta$le Bor/s under ection 'HH.. but art for the cop'ri#ht and invention of ori#inal and orna$ental desi#n for desi#n patents. in the first place.++>. . . @ualit' or purpose. !he petitioner averred that the cop'ri#ht certificates are prima facie evidence of its validit'. the co$plainant and an' 0itness he $a' produce. . and derivative 0or(s :Sec.> of R.3 !he la0 #ives a nonBinclusive definition of 60or(6 as referrin# to ori#inal intellectual creations in the literar' and artistic do$ain protected fro$ the $o$ent of their creationI and includes ori#inal orna$ental desi#ns or models for articles of manufacture. contendin# that the R!C had no 9urisdiction to delve into and resolve the validit' of the cop'ri#ht certificates issued to hi$ b' the National Librar'. the ite$ sub9ect of the petition is not entitled to be protected b' the la0 on cop'ri#ht.6 "n the instant case. 6nc. as 0ell as of its content./.. >5+. "arol Bri&ht ales.25. there $ust be a findin# that a specific offense $ust have been co$$itted to 9ustif' the issuance of a search 0arrant. but subse@uentl' @uashed..' in relation to ection 'HH. provides in no uncertain ter$s that cop'ri#ht protection auto$aticall' attaches to a 0or( b' the sole fact of its creation. accordin# to the petitioner.5 of the "ntellectual Propert' Code. not0ithstandin# the classification of the 0or(s as either literar' andGor artistic. the CA rendered 9ud#$ent dis$issin# the petition on its findin# that the R!C did not co$$it an' #rave abuse of its discretion in issuin# the assailed order. !he test of protection for the aesthetic is not beaut' and utilit'. >5+. Moreover. 7e clai$s that R. !he petitioner also $aintains that the la0 does not provide that the intended use or use in industr' of an article eli#ible for patent bars or invalidates its re#istration under the La0 on Cop'ri#ht. citin# the rulin# of the nited States Court of Appeals in Bildlife 1=press "orporation v.25. the petitioner is pra'in# for the reinstate$ent of the search 0arrants issued. and the 9ud#e $ust. in 0ritin# and under oath. No.A. of R.25. ho0 can there be an' violationQ . . 0hether or not re#istrable as an industrial desi#n and other 0or(s of applied art under Section . No.. as he 0as able to secure a si$ilar cop'ri#ht re#istration of a si$ilar product fro$ the National Librar' on 4anuar' . and . if.

"n their co$$ent on the petition. the re#istration and deposit of 0or( is not conclusive as to cop'ri#ht outla' or the ti$e of cop'ri#ht or the ri#ht of the cop'ri#ht o0ner. !he respondents posit that a technical solution in an' field of hu$an activit' 0hich is novel $a' be the sub9ect of a patent.25. %r.5. respondents 4essie Chin# and 4oseph %u 0ere the o0ners of cop'ri#hted $aterialI and :b.5. >5+. the re#istration of cop'ri#hts does not provide for auto$atic protection.> 7e assists that the deter$ination of probable cause does not concern the issue of 0hether or not the alle#ed 0or( is cop'ri#htable.an author 0ho clai$s cop'ri#ht o0nership of his 0or(. Such 0or(. !he petitioner contends that he has in his favor the benefit of the presu$ption that his cop'ri#ht is validI hence.. describin# the place to be searched and the thin#s to be sei)ed. !he court cannot abdicate its constitutional obli#ation b' refusin# to deter$ine 0hether an offense has been co$$itted.>. used or intended to be used as the $eans of co$$ittin# an offense. 0hether he is the o0ner of a cop'ri#ht over the said $odels.A. !he respondents $aintain that a cop'ri#ht e1ists onl' 0hen the 0or( is covered b' the protection of R. particularl'. under Section 5. But this burden cannot be carried in a hearin# on a proceedin# to @uash the search 0arrants.5:b. "t bears stressin# that upon the filin# of the application for search 0arrant.. !he R!C is $andated under the Constitution and Rules of Cri$inal Procedure to deter$ine probable cause. probable cause is dee$ed to e1ist onl' 0here facts and circu$stances e1ist 0hich could lead a reasonabl' cautious and prudent $an to believe that an offense has been co$$itted or is bein# co$$itted.A. and evidences at least $ini$al creativit'I that it 0as independentl' created b' the author and that it possesses at least sa$e $ini$al de#ree of creativit'. in Section . "n olid Trian&le ales "orporation v.55 O0nership of cop'ri#hted $aterial is sho0n b' proof of ori#inalit' and cop'ri#htabilit'.. of R. >5+. No. the court $ust necessaril' resolve 0hether or not an offense e1ists to 9ustif' the issuance of a search 0arrant or the @uashal of one alread' issued b' the court.. the respondents herein. and not of a cop'ri#ht. Rule .. it is enou#h that there e1ists a reasonable suspicion of the co$$ission of the offense. the R!C 0as dut'Bbound to deter$ine 0hether probable cause e1isted. the burden of overturnin# this presu$ption is on the alle#ed infrin#ers. and.of the Rules of Cri$inal Procedure. No. >5+. Cop'in# is sho0n b' proof of access to cop'ri#hted $aterial and substantial si$ilarit' bet0een the t0o 0or(s. stolen or e$be))led and other proceeds or fruits of the offenseI or :c. as the issue therein is 0hether there 0as probable cause for the issuance of the search 0arrant. !he petitioner concludes that the issue of probable cause should be resolved 0ithout invalidatin# his cop'ri#ht. #eFuisite for issuin& search 4arrant. at a point in ti$e. (R .A. 7e $aintains that to 9ustif' a findin# of probable cause in the issuance of a search 0arrant. is the sub9ect of cop'ri#ht under Section . No.+ the Court held that in the deter$ination of probable cause. "t is not e@uivalent to absolute certaint' or a findin# of actual and positive cause. of R. in accordance 0ith Section /. /. B' ori#inalit' is $eant that the $aterial 0as not copied. !he R!C had 9urisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue 0hether the petitionerHs utilit' $odels are cop'ri#htable and. an oil resistant soft te1ture plastic $aterial stron# enou#h to endure pressure brou#ht about b' the vibration of the counter bearin# and thus brin#s bushin#s. Besides. Rule . 5. . fro$ rubber to plastic $atter of pol'vin'l chloride. 5? !he absence of probable cause 0ill cause the outri#ht nullification of the search 0arrant. =urther$ore. >5+. if so. a certain 0or( 0as deposited in the said office. L A search 0arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection 0ith one specific offense to be deter$ined personall' b' the 9ud#e after e1a$ination under oath or affir$ation of the co$plainant and the 0itnesses he $a' produce. the o0nership of a valid cop'ri#ht is essential. No.e. >5+. !he' insist that the certificates issued b' the National Librar' are onl' certifications that.. as alle#ed in an application is co$$itted. Rule 2 of the "$ple$entin# Rules of R. the substitution of $aterials.A.5. the respondents aver that the 0or( of the petitioner is essentiall' a technical solution to the proble$ of 0ear and tear in auto$obiles..of the Rules of Cri$inal ProcedureD SEC. !hus. i. "ndeed. !he petitioner adds that a findin# of probable cause to 9ustif' the issuance of a search 0arrant $eans $erel' a reasonable suspicion of the co$$ission of the offense. the respondents assert. Citin# Section 5. the respondents aver that no cop'ri#ht is said to e1ist if a part' cate#oricall' @uestions its e1istence and le#alit'..A. the cop'ri#hted $aterial 0as bein# copied and distributed b' the respondents. sub9ect of the offenseI :b. !he petition has no $erit. a search 0arrant $a' be issued for the search and sei)ure of personal propert' :a. Moreover. The heriff of #T" Q". the petitionerBapplicant 0as burdened to prove that :a.5/ !he applicant $ust thus de$onstrate the e1istence and the validit' of his cop'ri#ht because in the absence of . No. =or the R!C to deter$ine 0hether the cri$e for infrin#e$ent under R.

!o dischar#e his burden. the plaintiff shall be presu$ed to be the o0ner of the cop'ri#ht if he clai$s to be the o0ner of the cop'ri#ht and the defendant does not put in issue the @uestion of his o0nership. Aor(s for applied art include all ori#inal pictorials. Literar5 and Artistic Bor/s. Ori#inal orna$ental desi#ns or $odels for articles of $anufacture. . No.5. 5> !he presu$ption of validit' to a certificate of cop'ri#ht re#istration $erel' orders the burden of proof. No. Cop'ri#ht shall be presu$ed to subsist in the 0or( or other sub9ect $atter to 0hich the action relates if the defendant does not put in issue the @uestion 0hether cop'ri#ht subsists in the 0or( or other sub9ect $atterI and :b.. 5??. "t constitutes prima facie evidence of both validit' and o0nership52 and the validit' of the facts stated in the certificate. Literar' and artistic 0or(s. 0hich provides that a 60or( of applied art6 is an artistic creation 0ith utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article. the <ehicle Bearin# Cushion is illustrated as a bearin# cushion co$prisin# a #enerall' se$iBcircular bod' havin# a central hole to secure a conventional bearin# and a pluralit' of rid#es provided therefore. 5+ "ndeed.. and Septe$ber /. issued b' the National Librar' coverin# 0or( identified as Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# for Auto$obile and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion both classified under Section .. >5+.. !he central in@uir' is 0hether the article is a 0or( of art. !he petitioner cannot see( relief fro$ the R!C based on his clai$ that he 0as the cop'ri#ht o0ner over the utilit' $odels and. !he applicant should not ordinaril' be forced. as #leaned fro$ the specifications appended to the application for a cop'ri#ht certificate filed b' the petitioner. No... even ori#inal creation $a' be freel' copied. to prove all the $ultiple facts that underline the validit' of the cop'ri#ht unless the respondent. respectivel'. Related to the provision is Section . file an application for a search 0arrant for infrin#e$ent under R.. Section 5.. the said Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# for Auto$obile is $erel' a utilit' $odel described as co$prisin# a #enerall' c'lindrical bod' havin# a coBa1ial bore that is centrall' located and provided 0ith a perpendicular flan#e on one of its ends and a c'lindrical $etal 9ac(et surroundin# the peripheral 0alls of said bod'. to delve into and deter$ine the validit' of the cop'ri#ht 0hich he clai$ed he had over the utilit' $odels. >5+. . validit' 0ill not be presu$ed. >5+.6 are ori#inal intellectual creations in the literar' and artistic do$ain protected fro$ the $o$ent of their creation and shall include in particularD . Ahere the subsistence of the cop'ri#ht is established.A. 0ith the bushin# $ade of plastic that is either pol'vin'l chloride or pol'prop'lene. in its absence. 53 B' re@uestin# the NB" to investi#ate and. No. !he' are not intellectual creations in the literar' and artistic do$ain. and not its $ar(etabilit'. "n an action under this ChapterD :a. L . and sculptural 0or(s that are intended to be or have been e$bodied in useful article re#ardless of factors such as $ass production. >5+.? !o dischar#e his burden of probable cause for the issuance of a search 0arrant for violation of R. 5??.B. to 0itD SEC. at the sa$e ti$e.?. 5??.. #raphics.A. . a#ainst the respondents. in the first instance. !he' are certainl' not orna$ental desi#ns or one havin# decorative @ualit' or value. 0hether $ade b' hand or produced on an industrial scale.B5?/ dated Septe$ber ...25.25. the applicant $a' present the certificate of re#istration coverin# the 0or( or.>.5. shifts the burden of doin# so to the applicant. Li(e0ise.. if feasible.>.. 0hether or not re#istrable as an industrial desi#n. providesD 5. hereinafter referred to as 60or(s.A. other evidence. co$$ercial e1ploitation.. 0ith said cushion bearin# bein# $ade of the sa$e plastic $aterials. "t bears stressin# that the focus of cop'ri#ht is the usefulness of the artistic desi#n. :h. effectivel' challen#in# the$. But.cop'ri#ht protection. of R. A certificate of re#istration creates no rebuttable presu$ption of cop'ri#ht validit' 0here other evidence in the record casts doubt on the @uestion.+2 and 5??. or 0or(s of applied art.A. repudiate the courtHs 9urisdiction to ascertain the validit' of his clai$ 0ithout runnin# afoul to the doctrine of estoppel. and other 0or(s of applied art.A cop'ri#ht certificate provides prima facie evidence of ori#inalit' 0hich is one ele$ent of cop'ri#ht validit'. and . the petitioner thereb' authori)ed the R!C :in resolvin# the application.2..5 of R.5 Plainl'. the petitionerB applicant sub$itted to the R!C Certificate of Cop'ri#ht Re#istration Nos.25. these are not literar' or artistic 0or(s.:h.. "n such a case.

useful articles. have #enerall' been denied cop'ri#ht protection unless the' are separable fro$ the useful article.2.? of R. #raphic. the petitioner described the utilit' $odel as follo0sD LEA= SPR"NC E%E B S7"NC =OR A !OMOB"LE &no0n bushin#s inserted to leafBsprin# e'e to hold leafBsprin#s of auto$obile are $ade of hard rubber./ As #leaned fro$ the description of the $odels and their ob9ectives. Still an ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obiles that has a ver' si$ple construction and can be $ade usin# si$ple and ordinar' $oldin# e@uip$ent.. re#ardless of 0hether it is a creation 0ith utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on an industrial scale. nor artistic 0or(s. . is to provide a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obile that is $ade up of plastic. Ae a#ree 0ith the contention of the petitioner :citin# Section . is protected b' cop'ri#ht la0..=unctional co$ponents of useful articles. !he pri$ar' ob9ect of this utilit' $odel. out that 0ould cause the 0obblin# of the leaf sprin#. A further ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obile that is supplied 0ith a $etal 9ac(et to reinforce the plastic e'e bushin# 0hen in en#a#ed 0ith the steel $aterial of the leaf sprin#. 'et both causes cushion to the leaf sprin#. Another ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obiles $ade of pol'vin'l chloride. .. is an e1ploded perspective of a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# accordin# to the present utilit' $odelI =i#ure 5 is a sectional vie0 ta(en alon# line 5B5 of =i#. there is . and are capable of e1istin# independentl' of the utilitarian aspects of the article. =i#ure . useful articles and 0or(s of industrial desi#n are not. an oil resistant soft te1ture plastic or pol'prop'lene. an ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obiles that has a $uch lon#er life span than the rubber bushin#s. ori#inal intellectual. a hard plastic. . these articles are useful articles 0hich are defined as one havin# an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not $erel' to portra' the appearance of the article or to conve' infor$ation. the petitionerHs $odels are not 0or(s of applied art. no $atter ho0 artisticall' desi#ned. or sculptural features that can be identified separatel' fro$. 0hile 0or(s of applied art. . 7o0ever. >5+.. !hese and other ob9ects and advanta#es 0ill co$e to vie0 and be understood upon a readin# of the detailed description 0hen ta(en in con9unction 0ith the acco$pan'in# dra0in#s. Referrin# no0 to the several vie0s of the dra0in#s 0herein li(e reference nu$erals desi#nated sa$e parts throu#hout. that the authorHs intellectual creation.3 A useful article $a' be cop'ri#htable onl' if and onl' to the e1tent that such desi#n incorporates pictorial. !he' are utilit' $odels. therefore. %et.I =i#ure .2 "n this case. "ndeed. upon sub9ectin# the$ to so $uch or inter$ittent pressure 0ould eventuall' 0ore : sic.A.6 "t bears stressin# that there is no cop'ri#ht protection for 0or(s of applied art or industrial desi#n 0hich have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separatel' fro$ the utilitarian aspects of the article. is a lon#itudinal sectional vie0 of another e$bodi$ent of this utilit' $odelI =i#ure / is a perspective vie0 of a third e$bodi$entI and =i#ure 3 is a sectional vie0 thereof. No. literar' and artistic 0or(s are cop'ri#htable.the potential availabilit' of desi#n patent protection. the la0 refers to a 60or( of applied art 0hich is an artistic creation. 'et stron# enou#h to endure pressure brou#ht about b' the up and do0n $ove$ent of said leaf sprin#. !hus. albeit 0ith no artistic desi#n or value.. !hese rubber bushin#s after a ti$e..

../ $a' also be applied to this e$bodi$ent as an option thereof. an oil resistant soft te1ture plastic $aterial 0hich causes cushion to the propellerHs center bearin#.? co$prises a #enerall' c'lindrical bod' .? is provided 0ith a perpendicular flan#e . 0hich is also $ade of steel or cast steel. ./ surroundin# the peripheral 0alls .2 acco$$odates or en#a#es 0ith the leafBsprin# bolt :not sho0n. on the other hand.5 centrall' provided thereof. %et. . a soft te1ture oil and che$ical resistant plastic $aterial 0hich is stron#.? as sho0n is $ade of plastic.?. preferabl' pol'vin'l chloride. "n =i#ure 5. both are capable to endure the pressure applied thereto.sho0n a utilit' $odel for a leafBsprin# e'e bushin# for auto$obile #enerall' desi#nated as reference nu$eral . said bod' .?.5 of said bushin# . Referrin# no0 to the several vie0s of the dra0in#. an oil resistant soft te1ture plastic or a hard pol'prop'lene plastic. an ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a vehicleBbearin# cushion that has a $uch lon#er life span than rubber bushin#s.> <E7"CLE BEAR"NC C S7"ON &no0n bearin# cushions inserted to bearin# housin#s for vehicle propeller shafts are $ade of hard rubber..3 of said bod' . "n effect. 'et stron# enou#h to endure pressure brou#ht about b' the vibration of the center bearin#. Said bearin# cushion . As sho0n in =i#ure . the bushin# . !hese rubber bushin#s after a ti$e. =i#ures / and 3 sho0 another e$bodi$ent 0herein the leaf e'e bushin# . Ahen said leafBsprin# bushin# . !his steel tube .? is insertabl' provided 0ith a steel tube . havin# a coBa1ial bore . connectin# the leaf sprin# and the auto$obileHs chassis. but rather the $etal 9ac(et.2 to reinforce the inner portion thereof.. !he sub9ect bearin# cushion .. the $etal 9ac(et ./ acts 0ith the leafBsprin# e'e :not sho0n. =i#ure .. Said leafBsprin# e'e bushin# . Said another e$bodi$ent is also $ade of pol'prop'lene or pol'vin'l chloride plastic $aterial.? lon#er than those 0ithout the $etal 9ac(et.5 to house a conventional bearin# :not sho0n.2 and $etal 9ac(et . sho0s the 0alls .? is installed. !he pri$ar' ob9ect of this utilit' $odel therefore is to provide a vehicleBbearin# cushion that is $ade up of plastic. Another ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a vehicle bearin# cushion $ade of pol'vin'l chloride. there is sho0n a utilit' $odel for a vehicleBbearin# cushion #enerall' desi#nated as reference nu$eral .? co$prises of a #enerall' se$iBcircular bod' . Still an ob9ect of this utilit' $odel is to provide a vehicle bearin# cushion that has a ver' si$ple construction and can be $ade usin# si$ple and ordinar' $oldin# e@uip$ent.. 0hich serves reinforcin# $eans thereof. durable and capable of endurin# severe pressure fro$ the center bearin# brou#ht about b' the rotatin# $ove$ent of the .. As sho0n in =i#s. upon sub9ectin# the$ to so $uch or inter$ittent pressure 0ould eventuall' be 0orn out that 0ould cause the 0obblin# of the center bearin#. on one of its ends and a c'lindrical $etal 9ac(et . is a perspective vie0 of the present utilit' $odel for a vehicleBbearin# cushionI and =i#ure 5 is a sectional vie0 thereof. the bushin# . $a(in# the life of the bushin# .? 0ill not be directl' in contact 0ith steel.of the coBa1ial bore .. in effect. is provided 0ith a pluralit' of rid#es . !hese and other ob9ects and advanta#es 0ill co$e to vie0 and be understood upon a readin# of the detailed description 0hen ta(en in con9unction 0ith the acco$pan'in# dra0in#s. 0ould len#then the life and replace$ent therefor.. said leafBsprin# e'e bushin# .? is $ade of pol'vin'l chloride.. and. and 5.. =i#ure . 0herein li(e reference nu$eral desi#nate sa$e parts throu#hout.. !he steel tube . havin# central hole .? is elon#ated and c'lindrical as to its construction.

the scope of a cop'ri#ht is confined to literar' and artistic 0or(s 0hich are ori#inal intellectual creations in the literar' and artistic do$ain protected fro$ the $o$ent of their creation. a trade na$e $eans the na$e or desi#nation identif'in# or distin#uishin# an enterprise. and the protection afforded b' one cannot be used interchan#eabl' to cover ite$s or 0or(s that e=clusivel5 pertain to the others. co$pared to a patent 0hich is t0ent' 'ears. to buttress his petition. 0ith electric 0irin#. /. the provisions on utilit' $odel dispense 0ith its substantive e1a$ination /3 and prefer for a less co$plicated s'ste$. !he controvers' therein centered on the fact that althou#h cop'ri#hted as 60or(s of art. and not si$pl' a preBe1istin# ri#ht re#ulated b' it.25 of R. No cop'ri#ht #ranted b' la0 can be said to arise in favor of the petitioner despite the issuance of the certificates of cop'ri#ht re#istration and the deposit of the Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion. but not the utilitarian aspects. bein# not of the sa$e (ind and nature as the 0or(s enu$erated in Section . After revie0in# the histor' and intent of the S Con#ress on its cop'ri#ht le#islation and the interpretation of the cop'ri#ht office. of R. the personal properties described in the search 0arrants are $echanical 0or(s. . 6ncorporated . li(e0ise. No. on the other hand. 6ncorporated .6 the statuettes 0ere intended for use and used as bases for table la$ps. >5+. and $a' be obtained and en9o'ed onl' 0ith respect to the sub9ects and b' the persons. A utilit' $odel varies fro$ an invention. the ri#hts are onl' such as the statute confers. >5+. 6ncorporated v.A. in the strict sense of the ter$. "n that case. Bein# plain auto$otive spare parts that $ust confor$ to the ori#inal structural desi#n of the co$ponents the' see( to replace. A trade$ar( is an' visible si#n capable of distin#uishin# the #oods :trade$ar(.the Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion are not cop'ri#htable. soc(ets and la$pshades attached.6 /. Mean0hile. "n actualit'. or process. the S Supre$e Court declared that the statuettes 0ere held cop'ri#htable 0or(s of art or $odels or desi#ns for 0or(s of art. !he issue raised 0as 0hether the statuettes 0ere cop'ri#ht protected in the nited States./> the Court ruled thatD Cop'ri#ht. "t $a' be. !his is the reason 0h' its ob9ect is so$eti$es described as a device or useful ob9ect. refer to an' technical solution of a proble$ in an' field of hu$an activit' 0hich is ne0. hoemart. and on ter$s and conditions specified in the statute. considerin# that the cop'ri#ht applicant intended pri$aril' to use the$ as la$p bases to be $ade and sold in @uantit'. thusD !rade$ar(. !he 7i#h Court ruled thatD . the Cop'ri#ht Office interpreted the . for 0hich a patent for invention is.. !he petitioner cannot find solace in the rulin# of the nited States Supre$e Court in Ma2er v. "n relation thereto. unless there be so$ethin# in the conte1t of the state 0hich 0ould repel such inference. or an i$prove$ent of an' of the aforesaid.+?+ Cop'ri#ht Act to cover 0or(s of artistic crafts$anship insofar as their for$.. !hat the 0or(s of the petitioner $a' be the proper sub9ect of a patent does not entitle hi$ to the issuance of a search 0arrant for violation of cop'ri#ht la0s. is purel' a statutor' ri#ht. scholarl'.D.25.A. At that ti$e. Jr. involves an inventive step and is industriall' applicable. /? Essentiall'. hoemart. the artifacts involved in that case 0ere statuettes of dancin# $ale and fe$ale fi#ures $ade of se$iBvitreous china. 3rilon/2 and Pearl & 3ean CPhil. Accordin#l'. Appl'in# the principle of e<usdem &eneris 0hich states that 60here a statute describes thin#s of a particular class or (ind acco$panied b' 0ords of a #eneric character. !he' are not even artistic creations 0ith incidental utilitarian functions or 0or(s incorporated in a useful article. "t is a ne0 or independent ri#ht #ranted b' the statute. on at least three aspectsD first. "n ?ho v. in JoaFuin.3? the Court ruled that 6these cop'ri#ht and patent ri#hts are co$pletel' distinct and separate fro$ one another. a product. or $a' relate to. scientific and artistic 0or(s6 in Section . 6ncorporated v.:a.// both rec(oned fro$ the date of the applicationI and third. the re@uisite of 6inventive step6/5 in a patent for invention is not re@uiredI second.+ A utilit' $odel is a technical solution to a proble$ in an' field of hu$an activit' 0hich is ne0 and industriall' applicable. available. of an enterprise and shall include a sta$ped or $ar(ed container of #oods.6 !he Court e1pounded further. or services :service $ar(. "ourt of Appeals/+ and Pearl & 3ean CPhil. the $a1i$u$ ter$ of protection is onl' seven 'ears /. and carried such intentions into effect. the Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion are not orna$ental. it can cover onl' the 0or(s fallin# 0ithin the statutor' enu$eration or description. the principal function of 0hich is utilit' sans an' aesthetic e$bellish$ent. 0ere concerned. !he' lac( the decorative @ualit' or value that $ust characteri)e authentic 0or(s of applied art. the #eneric 0ord 0ill usuall' be li$ited to thin#s of a si$ilar nature 0ith those particularl' enu$erated. Bein# a statutor' #rant.propeller shaft of the vehicle. a utilit' $odel refers to an invention in the $echanical field. tein3. Neither are 0e to re#ard the Leaf Sprin# E'e Bushin# and <ehicle Bearin# Cushion as included in the catchBall phrase 6other literar'.D. Patentable inventions.. No. cop'ri#ht and patents are different intellectual propert' ri#hts that cannot be interchan#ed 0ith one another. "ndeed. v.

. p. as the petitioner hi$self ad$itted. Bello. such as paintin#s. Y6 So 0e have a conte$poraneous and lon#Bcontinued construction of the statutes b' the a#enc' char#ed to ad$inister the$ that 0ould allo0 the re#istration of such a statuette as is in @uestion here.6Aor(s of art :Class C. Brion. utilit' $odels 0hich $a' be the sub9ect of a patent. p. !his class includes 0or(s of artistic crafts$anship. 6d. pp. at /2. are ANN LLE* AN* SE! AS"*E. C. 4r. dra0in#s and sculpture. at ->.5. Foot(ot%s . Eu#enio. pp. 6d.B5/?.Ma' . at 3/B-. #lass0are.6 "n this case. Costs a#ainst the petitioner. 5??. L :a. pp. !olentino./. in so far as their for$ but not their $echanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.. / 3 - 2 > + . the fact that the 0or( is uni@ue and attractivel' shaped 0ill not @ualif' it as a 0or( of art. and ChicoBNa)ario. ena$els.. . Puno.? . concur. the bushin# and cushion are not 0or(s of art.. and ?. :Chair$an. No. .6 Si#nificantl'. the cop'ri#ht office pro$ul#ated a rule to i$ple$ent Ma)er to 0itD Y N"Of 6the sole intrinsic function of an article is its utilit'. 2?/. !in#a.3.B5/?5 issued on October . . 44.R. at 2. 6d. Penned b' Associate 4ustice A$elita C.R. L 6n !eneral. IN LIG+T OF ALL T+E FOREGOING.B23.++/. !he' are. 6d. . 5 #ollo. AustriaBMartine). SP No. .B. 35 !he 7i#h Court 0ent on to state that 6NtOhe dichoto$' of protection for the aesthetic is not beaut' and utilit' but art for the cop'ri#ht and the invention of ori#inal and orna$ental desi#n for desi#n patents. and Arturo *. the instant petition is hereb' *EN"E* for lac( of $erit. CA #ollo. concurrin#I #ollo. CA #ollo. and tapestries.?/>2+. Search Aarrant Nos. 0ith Associate 4ustices Elo' R.. as 0ell as all 0or(s belon#in# to the fine arts. 5.2B5/. 3/. such as artistic 9e0elr'... 2?. 5>B. CA #ollo. SO OR*ERE*. :retired. 4r. are A=="RME*. ?. !he assailed *ecision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CABC. Penned b' Actin# Presidin# 4ud#e Antonio M.5 SCRA 5/+.

..*( . Feist Pu$lications..//. @nited tates "ourt of Appeals.5d +. pp.3.5 .Supp."omm. supra. 6nc. ''*R'.. 2?.++.. teve Ta5lor..> . 6nc. Cop'ri#ht .5>5 :.. 6nc. 6nc.>+.d 3?5. "ourt of Appeals.. 3onald %ruce "ompan5 v. C.R.+>5. 55 5. v. #ollo. !. No. 3/. 5-3 :.=.. andi&an$a5an. Apple %arrel Productions. Apple %arrel Productions. +. . No. .S. Multi. Eos. . 5. tein. "orporation .- Citin# A$ador. 6$idI Mid4a5 Manufacturin& "orporation v. ''KH*-. "olum$ia Pictures. 55B5. 6nc.>/ :...America. %arnhart. Nove$ber 5??. -. . 6nc.53 :. .+>3. 6$id..!.2 Eorma #i$$on & Trimmin& v. .. Fifth "ircuit .++3.+>?.. v. =. #epu$lic of the Philippines v. 5/ 53 5- 52 Mid4a5 Manufacturin& "orporation v.America./ . 6nc. . !. Section . p.++-.. 5-.?. v..++-. v.. !a5 To5s. #ollo.//.25. . supra. >-. "harlene Products. . 2. :.Supp. supra./ ./?I .+3/.S.3 . #.. v. .. Tom5 "orporation. at +/.. %eard.>. 22. v.+>/. +/B-?. 5?. <icente B. v.++. 1conom5 "over "orporation. ..+>.? . 6nc. .. %udd5 L.? =. S. v.5d .5 =. p. 6d...5 #ollo. :. 6nc. .. +-/ =. 5> Au#ust . %. Little.5. v.3 .5>.I La/edreams v. =. 5.++> ed. #. Pivot Port 6nternational./2 . 6nc.3..?+. >5+. 6nc. %andai. 6nc. . 5+ March .Ct. SCRA . Tom5 "orporation.. Pivot Port 6nternational. #ural Telephone ervice "ompan5 . "harlene Products.#. :5??/. 5+ ..#. :.> =. Republic Act No.. supra. %andai. nder the "ntellectual Propert' Code. citin# Ma2er v.2? SCRA /+. 3urnham 6ndustries. %eard . 6nc. "orporation .++2.? =.5d /. 52 April .5d .5d +?3 :.5d +2? :.25 =. .. 5> 3urnham 6ndustries. /++ . v. .+ 5? 5.. 6nc. Eo. p. 533 SCRA /.. .

/5 An invention involves an inventive step if.5d +. to -/. Sub9ect to Section . p.. :Section 5-. . >5+. . of Republic Act No.6 shall appl' e1cept the reference to inventive step as a condition of protection. "n proceedin#s under Sections -. Sections /. >/B>2. L . ... Merit 3iamond "orporation. the utilit' $odel re#istration shall be canceled on the follo0in# #roundsD :a. :b. Applica$ilit5 of Provisions #elatin& to Patents.. R.?+. >5+.. 6nc. !hat the clai$ed invention does not @ualif' for re#istration as a utilit' $odel and does not $eet the re@uire$ents of re#istrabilit'. to the re#istration of utilit' $odels.Supp. and Sections 55. it is not obvious to a person s(illed in the art at the ti$e of the filin# date or priorit' date of the application clai$in# the invention... havin# re#ard to prior art.?>. v.+>. Ahere the ri#ht to a patent conflicts 0ith the ri#ht to a utilit' $odel re#istration in the case referred to in Section 5+. #ollo. Sections . <icente B. Section 5.5.?>.. pp. pp. Section 3/. ....?> to .+ /? /. supra./.:a.B+/..- 6$idI 3%" of Ee4 Aor/ v. 5.. 6TT "orporation . .?>. supra. #ollo. SEC. 2-> =. +. of Republic Act No.?+. at the end of the seventh 'ear after the date of the filin# of the application...=. in relation to Section 5.. 33. 5??.?+.. /. /. Section .?+.> :..?+. and :b. No. state the rule on utilit' $odels and #rant of a patent thereforD SEC. Eorris 6ndustries.. 5/ and 52I // /3 . the provisions #overnin# patents shall appl'./ :. -+..6 :Sec.. An invention @ualifies for re#istration as a utilit' $odel if it is ne0 and industriall' applicable. . mutatis mutandis.> .?+.2 .?+.. Republic Act No.?+..-3a. 23.A. 6Patentable "nventions.?+. Section . . pecial Provisions #elatin& to @tilit5 Models.. Patents nder !he "ntellectual Propert' Code. ed. to /+ shall not appl' in the case of applications for re#istration of a utilit' $odel. 0ithout an' possibilit' of rene0al. in particular havin# re#ard to Subsection . A utilit' $odel re#istration shall e1pire. the said provisions shall appl' as if the 0ord 6patent6 0ere replaced b' the 0ords 6patent or utilit' $odel re#istration.5. .++. >5+. :a. L . A$ador.

/. No.+>2. LB3>>2?. C. citin# Philippine %as/et$all Association v. one for utilit' $odel re#istration and the other for the #rant of a patent 0hether si$ultaneousl' or consecutivel'.+?>.2 SCRA .3 !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation L"G87#. . R.:.323>. convert his application into a patent application. !hat the o0ner of the utilit' $odel re#istration is not the inventor or his successor in title.I Murph5.?5 SCRA 553. upon pa'$ent of the prescribed fee. /?+ SCRA 5.and 32.R. M"#( M%(u L"G87#. SEC. 523. . No. "onversion of Patent Applications or Applications for @tilit5 Model #e&istration. R.Ct. ... /-?I . 33. -?/ :.+ March 5??5.2+ SCRA /. Eo. .. ++ Phil. No.?. An application $a' be converted onl' once. . upra.-. 3. 35 !reat Eorthern #5. !hat an' dra0in# 0hich is necessar' for the understandin# of the invention has not been furnishedI :d.#.2. 0hich shall be accorded the filin# date of the initial application. 35+.?.A.Ct. 3>. 2/ S. :Sec.. @nited tates .+3-. /3.-3a. 5?> SCRA 3/5I "e$u 6nstitute of Technolo&5 v. upon pa'$ent of the prescribed fee. L . Prohi$ition a&ainst Filin& of Parallel Applications. .3 Au#ust 5??.+++.A.5 At an' ti$e before the #rant or refusal of a utilit' $odel re#istration.. . Au#ust 5??/. . 5?.-3a. . 3+.L.. C. At an' ti$e before the #rant or refusal of a patent.. . SEC.SCRA -5+I 8llada v.. !. C. M"#( M%(u W Constitution W Constitution . !hat the description and the clai$s do not co$pl' 0ith the prescribed re@uire$entsI :c. Morris & "o. v. 0hich shall be accorded the filin# date of the initial application. No... No. . >.. L An applicant $a' not file t0o :5. >. "ourt of Ta= Appeals.++5. "ollector of "ustoms.. v. /2 C.3. C. . > Ma' .> *ece$ber . . "o. . :Secs./2 ...A. 8ple./>555.. an applicant for a utilit' $odel re#istration $a'. An&as. ')*H. an applicant for a patent $a'. No. "ourt of Appeals .?..-3a.Ed. -?553B5-.(. /- See ?apisanan n& m&a Man&&a&a4a sa !overnment ervice 6nsurance 5stem C?M!D v. applications for the sa$e sub9ect.R. /> /+ 3? 3. 5> 4anuar' . Nos. . convert his application into an application for re#istration of a utilit' $odel. R. -5 S.I Eational Po4er "orporation v. .S. ..R.R.?. 5-5. ./. 3. "ommission on Audit. Phil.?>+/-.3> :5???. No..S. . :Sec.R.2 SCRA . .:b.

'ears startin# 5 4une . 5??+ Search Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ="RS! *"<"S"ON G. 199B RO ERTO L. MB-5. 1 0hich set aside the order of the Re#ional !he antecedentsD On .> 4anuar' .W Statutes W Statutes W 4urisprudence W 4urisprudence W 4udicial "ssuances W 4udicial "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances W !reatise W !reatise W Le#al Lin( W Le#al Lin( la0phil !oda' is =rida'. ELLOSILLO. del Rosario alle#ed that he 0as a patentee of an audio e@uip$ent and i$proved audio e@uip$ent co$$onl' (no0n as the sin#Balon# S'ste$ or /arao/e under Letters Patent No. petitioner. petitioner filed a co$plaint for patent infrin#e$ent a#ainst private respondent 4anito Corporation. 1 Roberto L.issued b' the *irector of Patents. as 0ell as Letters Patent No. respectivel'. vs. J. COURT OF APPEALS AND 0ANITO CORPORATION. !he effectivit' of both Letters Patents 0as for five :3. 'ears and 0as e1tended for another five :3.+>.+>> and .. DEL ROSARIO.++. respondents.R. October 5../ Nove$ber ./ Nove$ber . 7e described his .+>.2 dated . 1151/B M"$&7 15. No.:p Roberto del Rosario petitions this Court to revie0 the decision of the Court of Appeals !rial Court of Ma(ati #rantin# a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction in his favor. MB35-+ dated 5 4une .++.

it is not entitled to the in9unctive relief #ranted b' respondent appellate court.3 Nove$ber . in the absence of a patent to 9ustif' the $anufacture and sale b' private respondent of sin#Balon# s'ste$s. its officers and ever'bod' else0here actin# on its behalf.++? petitioner learned that private respondent 0as $anufacturin# a sin#Balon# s'ste$ bearin# the trade$ar( mi5ata or mi5ata /arao/e substantiall' si$ilar if not identical to the sin#Balon# s'ste$ covered b' the patents issued in his favor. 0ith the 0hole s'ste$ enclosed in one cabinet casin#. directin# the issuance of the 0rit b' 0a' of a petition for certiorari 0ith pra'er for the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction and a te$porar' restrainin# order before respondent Court of Appeals. "t is not a cause of action in itself but $erel' a provisional re$ed'. On the other hand. !hus he sou#ht fro$ .++.sin#Balon# s'ste$ as a hand' $ultiBpurpose co$pact $achine 0hich incorporates an a$plifier spea(er. respondent appellate court #ranted the 0rit and set aside the @uestioned order of the trial court. advertised and $ar(eted in $ost countries of the 0orld lon# before the patents 0ere issued to petitioner. an ad9unct to a $ain suit. :d. and pra'in# for da$a#es.++. the Court of Appeals erred in ta(in# 9udicial notice of private respondent8s selfBservin# presentation of factsI :c. !he cru1 of the controvers' before us hin#es on 0hether respondent Court of Appeals erred in findin# the trial court to have co$$itted #rave abuse of discretion in en9oinin# private respondent fro$ $anufacturin#. fro$ usin#. "n9unction is a preservative re$ed' for the protection of substantive ri#hts or interests. the trial court issued a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction upon a bond on the basis of its findin# that petitioner 0as a holder of a utilit' $odel patent for a sin#Balon# s'ste$ and that 0ithout his approval and consent private respondent 0as ad$ittedl' $anufacturin# and sellin# its o0n sin#Balon# s'ste$ under the brand na$e mi5ata 0hich 0as substantiall' si$ilar to the patented utilit' $ode 3 of petitioner. !hus. !he application of the 0rit rests upon an alle#ed e1istence of an e$er#enc' or of a special reason for such an order before the case can be re#ularl' heard. !he controllin# reason for the e1istence of the 9udicial po0er to issue the 0rit is that the court $a' thereb' prevent a threatened or continuous irre$ediable in9ur' to so$e of the parties before their clai$s can be thorou#hl' investi#ated and advisedl' ad9udicated. it 0as i$proper for the Court of Appeals to consider @uestions of fact in a certiorari proceedin#I :b. "n the earl' part of . the Court of Appeals erred in disre#ardin# the findin#s of fact of the trial courtI and. that the in9unction is reasonabl' necessar' to protect the le#al ri#hts of plaintiff pendin# the liti#ation. sellin# and advertisin# the mi5ata /arao/e brand sin#Balon# s'ste$ for bein# substantiall' si$ilar if not identical to the audio e@uip$ent covered b' letters patent issued to petitioner. one or t0o tape $echanis$s.the trial court the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction to en9oin private respondent. "t is to be resorted to onl' 0hen there is a pressin# necessit' to avoid in9urious conse@uences 0hich cannot be re$edied under an' standard of co$pensation. usin# andGor sellin# and advertisin# the mi5ata sin#Balon# s'ste$ or an' sin#Balon# s'ste$ substantiall' identical to the sin#Balon# s'ste$ patented b' petitioner until further orders. the instant petition for revie0. the trial court te$poraril' restrained private respondent fro$ $anufacturin#. On 5/ =ebruar' . in vie0 of all the circu$stances. sellin# and advertisin# the mi5ata or mi5ata /arao/e brand. optional tuner or radio and $icrophone $i1er 0ith features to enhance one8s voice. !he $otion to reconsider the #rant of the 0rit 0as deniedI 4 hence. such as the echo or reverb to sti$ulate an opera hall or a studio sound. and that the /arao/e s'ste$ 0as a universal product $anufactured.++. the in9unction to be $ade per$anent after trial. !his petition alle#es thatD :a. 5 Petitioner ar#ues that in a certiorari proceedin# @uestions of fact are not #enerall' per$itted the in@uir' bein# li$ited essentiall' to 0hether the tribunal has acted 0ithout or in e1cess of 9urisdiction or 0ith #rave abuse of discretionI that respondent court should not have disturbed but respected instead the factual findin#s of the trial courtI that the $ovant has a clear le#al ri#ht to be protected and that there is a violation of such ri#ht b' private respondent. B A preli$inar' in9unction $a' be #ranted at an' ti$e after the co$$ence$ent of the action and before 9ud#$ent 0hen it is . petitioner herein clai$s. it appears. he has satisfied the le#al re@uisites to 9ustif' the order of the trial court directin# the issuance of the 0rit of in9unction. Private respondent assailed the order of 5/ =ebruar' . and the essential conditions for #rantin# such te$porar' in9unctive relief are that the co$plaint alle#es facts 0hich appear to be sufficient to constitute a cause of action for in9unction and that on the entire sho0in# fro$ both sides.++. On 3 =ebruar' . attorne'8s fees and costs of suit. there 0as no basis for the Court of Appeals to #rant a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction in favor of private respondent. On . "t e1pressed the vie0 that there 0as no infrin#e$ent of the patents of petitioner b' the fact alone that private respondent had $anufactured the mi5ata /arao/e or audio s'ste$.

!he Patent La0 e1pressl' ac(no0led#es that an' ne0 $odel of i$ple$ents or tools of an' industrial product even if not possessed of the @ualit' of invention but 0hich is of practical utilit' is entitled to a patent for utilit' $odel./ Nove$ber . provided 0ith a vertical partition therein definin# a rear co$part$ent and a front co$part$ent. and orna$ental desi#n for an article of $anufacture and :b. so$e act probabl' in violation of the plaintiff8s ri#hts. . ori#inal. .2 for a ter$ of five :3. said second cubical casin# bein# adapted to said first cubical casin# so that said first and second casin#s are secured to#ether in co$pact and portable for$I and a second loud spea(er fitted inside said front co$part$ent of said casin# and connected to the output of said a$plifier circuit.+>3 issued for a ter$ of five :3.+>. the first be#innin# 5 4une . !hus. provides P Sec. a control panel for$ed b' vertical and hori)ontal sections. 9 !he ter$s of both Letters Patents 0ere e1tended for another five :3. and that the facts a#ainst 0hich the in9unction is to be directed are violative of said ri#ht. a transistori)ed a$plifier circuit 0ired in at least t0o printed circuit boards attached at the bac( of said control panel. threatens. or is procurin# or sufferin# to be done. na$el'.petitioner 0as #ranted Letters Patent No. . said second cubical casin# havin# :bein#Q. 'ears fro$ the #rant !he construction of an audio e@uip$ent co$prisin# a substantiall' cubical casin# havin# a 0indo0 at its rear and upper corner fitted 0ith a sli#htl' inclined control panel. . 3esi&n patents and patents for utilit5 models. 33 of R. or is about to do. havin# a vertical partition 0all therein definin# a rear co$part$ent and a front co$part$ent. ne0 $odel or i$ple$ents or tools or of an' industrial product or of part of the sa$e. 0hich does not possess the @ualit' of invention but 0hich is of practical utilit' b' reason of its for$. 'ears each. 8 A#ain. confi#uration. Ad$ittedl'.++. construction or co$position. $a' be protected b' the author thereof./ Nove$ber . said rear co$part$ent bein# provided 0ith a door and enclosin# therein a set of tape rac(s and said front co$part$ent servin# as loud spea(er baffle. e1cept as other0ise herein provide .A.+>> and the second.established that the defendant is doin#.-3 as a$ended. there are onl' t0o re@uisites to be satisfied if an in9unction is to issue. of a tilit' Model herein described P MB3-5+ dated 5 4une . . there is no dispute that the letters patent issued to petitioner are for utilit' $odels of audio e@uip$ent. a first loud spea(er fitted inside said first co$part$ent of such first casin# and connected to the output of said transistori)ed a$plifier circuitI the i$prove$ent 0herein said control panel bein# re$ovabl' fitted to said first cubical casin# and further co$prises a set of tape recorder and tape pla'er $ounted on the vertical section of said control panel and said recorder and pla'er are li(e0ise connected to said transistori)ed a$plifier circuitI a second cubical casin# havin# an openin# at its rear. and said front co$part$ent servin# as a spea(er baffleI a transistori)ed a$plifier circuit havin# an echo section and 0rithed in at least the printed circuit boards placed inside said rear co$part$ent of said casin# and attached to said vertical partition 0all. tilit' Model described as P MB-5. throu#h various controls $ounted on said control panel of such casin#I a loud spea(er fitted inside said front co$part$ent of said casin# and connected to the output of the $ain audio a$plifier section of said transistori)ed a$plifier circuit and a tape pla'er $ounted on the top 0all of said casin# and said tape pla'er bein# connected in conventional $anner to said transistori)ed a$plifier circuit. ? =or the 0rit to issue the interest of petitioner in the controvers' or the ri#ht he see(s to be protected $ust be a present ri#ht. the e1istence of the ri#ht to be protected. petitioner is a holder of Letters Patent No. 'ears fro$ the #rant of a "n an audio e@uip$ent consistin# of a first cubical casin# havin# an openin# at its rear and upper rear portion and a partition therein for$in# a rear co$part$ent and a front co$part$ent servin# as a loud spea(er baffle. said cubical :casin#. P :a. "n this re#ard Sec. a le#al ri#ht 0hich $ust be sho0n to be clear and positive. An' ne0. (no0n as The Patent La4. 1/ 7ere. said transistori)ed a$plifier circuit capable of bein# operated fro$ outside. .. 33. on . the for$er b' a patent for a desi#n and the latter b' a patent for a utilit' $odel. in the sa$e $anner and sub9ect to the sa$e provisions and re@uire$ents as relate to patents for inventions insofar as the' are applicable.

> 0hich 'ou enu$erated here. San'o is . "t is not . No0 'ou 0ill a#ree 0ith $e that in 'our state$ent Sharp 'ou put the date as . " a$ sure 'ou 0ere the one 0ho provided hi$ 0ith the infor$ation about the $an' other co$panies sellin# the sin#Balon# s'ste$. 11 Ahere petitioner introduces the patent in evidence.+2+ " thin(. President of respondent 4anito Corporation. . the *irector of Patents deter$ines 0hether the patent is ne0 and 0hether the $achine or device is the proper sub9ect of patent. !he sa$e also 0ith San'o . . %ou $ean 'our la0'er 0as 0ron# in alle#in# to this Court that Sharp $anufactured and sold :in. 11 nder Sec. J. if it is in due for$. %ou $ean 'our la0'er 0as 0ron# 0hen he put the 0ord Sharp . Since it is ur#ent it is $ore or less. Cua.+>3 0hich 'ou put. San'o is 0ron#.e. is that ri#htQ !hese . the sin#Balon# s'ste$ even before the patent application of Mr. Mr."n issuin#. A. 0hether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article sou#ht to be patented. it affords a prima facie presu$ption of its correctness and validit'.+>3Q A. used or described 0ithin the countr'. . del Rosario and as a $atter of fact 'ou $entioned San'o.+>3 as found in the r#ent MotionQ A. No. !he decision of the *irector of Patents in #rantin# the patent is al0a's presu$ed to be correct.+>3 a#reedQ A. the *irector decides not onl' @uestions of la0 but also @uestions of fact. 111 111 111 J. Music$ate and Asahi. No0 do 'ou recall that 'our la0'er filed 0ith this 7onorable Court an r#ent Motion to Lift !e$porar' Restrainin# Order of this 7onorable Court. i. So this is also 0ron#. 'ou testified that there are :sic. Son' and Sharp. J. J.+>3Q A. "n passin# on an application. is that ri#htQ A.is also 0ron#Q . and the burden then shifts to respondent to overco$e this presu$ption b' co$petent evidence. !his is evident fro$ the testi$on' of 4anito Cua. reissuin# or 0ithholdin# patents and e1tensions thereof. Ma'be " infor$ed hi$ alread'. Respondent corporation failed to present before the trial court co$petent evidence that the utilit' $odels covered b' the Letters Patents issued to petitioner 0ere not ne0. or if it is substantiall' si$ilar to an' other utilit' $odel so (no0n. J. J. so $an' other co$panies 0hich alread' have :sic. More than that because. $ore or lessQ A.+>. to 0it P J. durin# the hearin# on the issuance of the in9unction. Panasonic . . J. 33 of !he Patent La0 a utilit' $odel shall not be considered 6ne06 if before the application for a patent it has been publicl' (no0n or publicl' used in this countr' or has been described in a printed publication or publications circulated 0ithin the countr'.

'ou don8t also have a proof that . J. this is also correct or 0ron#Q A. . %upan#co . A.+>-. "t is $ore or less because it is ur#ent. Mr.+>. is that ri#htQ A. No0 'ou are sure . an' advertise$ent. .+>3 is that correct or 0ron#Q A. A. B' Philipps Philippines . J.+>.+>. J. " thin( earlier. Aitness so 'ou are no0 tr'in# to tell this 7onorable Court that all 'our alle#ations here of the dates in this r#ent Motion e1cept for Music$ate 0hich 'ou are onl' +3V sure the' are all 0ron# or the' are also $ore or less or not sure. . Correct. J. J. !his one because. J. this is $ore or lessQ %ou are not also sureQ A.+>+ is this correct or 0ron#Q A. Music$ate of C. J. Ae don8t have ti$e to e1act the date. National b' Precision Electronic . . More or less. More or less. an'thin# in 0ritin# that 0ould sho0 that all these instru$ents are in the $ar(et. Na(abutshi b' Asahi Electronics that is also 0ron#Q A.. So 'ou don8t thin( also that this alle#ation here that the' $anufactured in . More or less. J. Panasonic " thin(. Earlier. A. Aitness.A. Ae said $ore or less. do 'ou have it.+>. Electone b' *"CO . No that is . J. So that $eans all 'our alle#ations here fro$ 5 to 3 are 0ron#Q O&. No0 do 'ou have an' proof. +3V sure. J.+2+. . So 'ou don8t thin( this is also correct.A. No " don8t have it because. !he dateQ J. S('lers . No " a$ satisfied 0ith 'our ans0er.this is also 0ron#Q A. . Aron#.is correctQ A. J. No0 Mr.

nder tilit' Model 35-+. both containin# a transistori)ed a$plifier circuit capable of bein# operated fro$ outside throu#h various controls $ounted on the control panel. are attached to the front panel and . instru$ent and . 15 these differences are P First. and such $a(in#.Bband. echo "C. P po0ered 0ith > printed circuit boards al$ost all of 0hich are "C controlled. the ri#hts of petitioner as a patentee have been sufficientl' established. tilit' Model No. the 2 printed circuit boards :PCB. under Sec. Fifth. a transistori)ed a$plifier circuit 0ith an echo section 0ired in at least 5 printed circuit boards is placed inside the rear co$part$ent of the casin# and attached to the vertical partition 0all. a loud spea(er fitted inside the front co$part$ent of the casin# is connected to the output of the $ain audio a$plifier section of the transistori)ed a$plifier circuit. . tape prea$. contrar' to the findin#s and conclusions of respondent Court of Appeals. . Third. 0ith the front co$part$ent consistin# of a loud spea(er baffle. the 5nd also the spea(er. and that both had loud spea(ers fitted inside the front co$part$ent of the casin# and connected to the output of the $ain audio a$plifier section both havin# a tape recorder and a tape pla'er $ounted on the control panel 0ith the tape recorder and tape pla'er bein# both connected to the transistori)ed a$plifier circuit. 0hile the mi5ata e@uip$ent is a substantiall' rectan#ular casin# 0ith panel verticall' positioned. . No. nder tilit' Model 35-+. / printed circuits are placed inside the co$part$ent of its casin# attached to the vertical partition 0all. a$plifier and . . $ain tuner.Bstore' buildin#. nder tilit' Model 35-+. there are various controls $ounted on the control panel of the casin#. Conse@uentl'. use and sell the patented $achine. this 7onorable Court. 0ith . 14 Respondent 4anito Corporation denied that there 0as an' violation of petitioner8s patent ri#hts. Petitioner established before the trial court that respondent 4anito Corporation 0as $anufacturin# a si$ilar sin#Balon# s'ste$ bearin# the trade$ar( mi5ata 0hich infrin#ed his patented $odels. . echo. article or product for the purpose of industr' or co$$erce. 13 As $a' be #leaned herein.st co$part$ent bein# a (it. the . 0hile in the mi5ata. J. a$plifier 0ith po0er suppl'.+>5Q %ou don8t have an' 0ritten proof. As described b' respondent corporation. nder tilit' Model No. attached to the hori)ontal divider.. usin# or sellin# b' an' person 0ithout authori)ation of the patentee constitutes infrin#e$ent of his patent. e@uali)er :. 35-+. econd. -5. 0hile in mi5ata. 35-+. ri#htQ A.rd are (its. the cubical casin# has a vertical partition 0all definin# a rear co$part$ent and a front co$part$ent servin# as a spea(er baffle. 0hile the mi5ata e@uip$ent has no rear co$part$ent and front co$part$ent in its rectan#ular casin#I it has onl' a front co$part$ent hori)ontall' divided into . "C controlled volu$e control. i=th. " have the product. petitioner as a patentee shall have the e1clusive ri#ht to $a(e. nder tilit' Model 35-+. Fourth. 0hile in . 7e also alle#ed that both his o0n patented audio e@uip$ent and respondent8s sin#Balon# s'ste$ 0ere constructed in a casin# 0ith a control panel. and co$pletel' disre#arded tilit' Model No. But. the printed circuit board havin# . co$part$ents li(e a . and the . . the various controls are all separated fro$ the printed circuit boards and the various controls are all attached thereto. throu#hout the territor' of the Philippines for the ter$ of the patent. But 'ou have not brou#ht the product in :sic. 0ireless $icrophone. . it $ust be e$phasi)ed.A(ai instru$ent that 'ou said 0as also in the $ar(et before .2 of !he Patent la0. 0hile in the mi5ata e@uip$ent the a$plifier is $ainl' "C :"nte#rated Circuit. and cited the differences bet0een its mi5ata eFuipment and petitioner8s audio e@uip$ent.2 0hich i$proved on the first. the unit is a substantiall' cubical casin# 0ith a 0indo0 at its rear and upper corner fitted 0ith sli#htl' inclined control panel. nder tilit' Model 35-+. the casin# havin# a vertical partition 0all definin# the rear co$part$ent fro$ the front co$part$ent. respondent onl' confined its co$parison to the first $odel. an' advertise$entQ A.

#ollo.. Jr. Br. #rantin# petitioner the 0rit of in9unction is RE"NS!A!E*. Vitu&. eventh.. 35. "n vie0 thereof. "n order to infrin#e a patent. . there is no other 0a' but to use 5 loud spea(ers connected to the a$plifier. -3. 1B "t $a' be noted that respondent corporation failed to present before the trial court a clear. Not0ithstandin# the differences cited b' respondent corporation. 32. Rules 32B-. SO OR*ERE*. A7ERE=ORE.3 Nove$ber . both are used to sin# 0ith a $inusBone tape and $ultiple1 tape and to record the sin#in# and the acco$pani$entI :d. p. -5.++.23. a tape pla'er is $ounted on the top 0all of the casin#. p. 5 Co$plaint 0as filed before the Re#ional !rial Court of Ma(ati. or acco$plish the sa$e result b' identical or substantiall' identical $eans and the principle or $ode of operation $ust be substantiall' the sa$e. or the device.. 0e find that petitioner had established before the trial court prima facie proof of violation of his ri#hts as patentee to 9ustif' the issuance of a 0rit of preli$inar' in9unction in his favor durin# the pendenc' of the $ain suit for da$a#es resultin# fro$ the alle#ed infrin#e$ent. 535B53. co$petent and reliable co$parison bet0een its o0n $odel and that of petitioner. both are used to enhance the voice of the sin#er usin# echo effect.. . <icente 4. 3 #ollo. pp. !he trial court is directed to continue 0ith the proceedin#s on the $ain action pendin# before it in order to resolve 0ith dispatch the issues therein presented. li(e the #uitar and other instru$entsI :h. "t is ele$entar' that a patent $a' be infrin#ed 0here the essential or substantial features of the patented invention are ta(en or appropriated. nder tilit' Model 35-+. / #ollo. both petitioner8s and respondent8s $odels involve substantiall' the sa$e $odes of operation and produce substantiall' the sa$e if not identical results 0hen used. treble. 0hile in mi5ata. . both are used to sin# 0ith a $inusBone or $ultiple1 tapes.mi5ata. both are used to sin# 0ith live acco$pani$ent and to record the sa$eI :e.. $achine or other sub9ect $atter alle#ed to infrin#e is substantiall' identical 0ith the patented invention. both are used b' a sin#er to sin# and a$plif' his voiceI :b. :i. both are encased in a bo1Bli(e cabinetsI and. pp. or that both are used to pla' $inusBone or standard cassette tapes for sin#in# or for listenin# toI :c. for recordin# the sin#er and the acco$pani$ent. 1? Clearl'. both can be used 0ith one or $ore $icrophones. and both $a' also be used to record a spea(er8s voice or instru$ental pla'in#.+>3 ed. bass and other controlsI :#.2/B.=rancisco. The #evised #ules of "ourt in the Philippines . 55. p. a $achine or device $ust perfor$ the sa$e function. therefore. JJ. ?apunan and 0ermosisima.++.2 0hich i$proved on his first patented $odel. it did not refute and disprove the alle#ations of petitioner before the trial court thatD :a. is RE<ERSE* and SE! AS"*E and the Order of the trial court dated 5/ =ebruar' . 5 tape pla'ers are used $ounted side b' side at the front. Foot(ot%s . .. concur. the *ecision of the Court of Appeals dated . #ollo. both are e@uipped 0ith cassette tape dec(s 0hich are installed 0ith one bein# used for pla'bac( and the other. and disre#arded co$pletel' petitioner8s utilit' Model No. Padilla.

. . ++B. 5> 4ul' .. pp. .2 Araneta v. M"#( M%(u W Constitution W Constitution W Statutes W Statutes W 4urisprudence W 4urisprudence W 4udicial "ssuances W 4udicial "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances W E1ecutive "ssuances . pp. ./ #ollo. #ollo.?3 Phil. .5 <ar#as v. !orts and *a$a#es in Philippine La0.. 7ilarion .2.+32.-3B. /? Phil. No. 5??B5?. 5/. .M. pp.+22 ed.. . >3. Cat$aitan..4arencio.+-+.. pp.. !arro)a.2 #ollo. 5> SCRA 2+5..+. 2>..++B5??. LB5?.. .?. pp.++. !SN.S. !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation L"G87#. p. .4. and 553B53. .3/. . . Philippine La0'ers8 Association v. Ltd.-2. A#rava. pp.. . pp.=ebruar' .3 #ollo. =... . %aptico and Co. :.??. + #ollo. M"#( M%(u L"G87#. .B5//. > #ollo. Phil..? Sa$son v.+. /3. .B>-?. citin& -+ C.B/3/.5> :..

. GON4AGA-RE*ES. On Nove$ber . 5??+ Search Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila !7"R* *"<"S"ON G. On =ebruar' .+>.. entitled 6Canon &abushi(i &aisha vs.AIS+A.A US+I.6 1/. and !echnolo#' !ransfer :BP!!!.W !reatise W !reatise W Le#al Lin( W Le#al Lin( la0phil !oda' is =rida'.3. On 4anuar' .++.. this petition for revie0. !rade$ar(s.?/.O Before us is a petition for revie0 that see(s to set aside the *ecision . . !he case 0as doc(eted as "nter Partes Case No.. che$ical products.?5?. a forei#n corporation dul' or#ani)ed and e1istin# under the la0s of 4apan.++3 of the Court of Appeals in CABCR SP No.. petitioner appealed the decision of the BP!!! 0ith public respondent Court of Appeals that eventuall' affir$ed the decision of BP!!!.+. SE O= !7E MAR& CANON BECA SE "! "S "!S !RA*EMAR& AN* "S SE* B. October 5. COURT OF APPEALS "() NSR RU ER CORPORATION.I . Petitioner also sub$itted in evidence its Philippine !rade$ar( Re#istration No. respondents.. . alle#in# that it 0ill be da$a#ed b' the re#istration of the trade$ar( CANON in the na$e of private respondent. 1/// CANON . petitioner. sho0in# its o0nership over the trade$ar( CANON also under class 5. Based on the records.parte. .R. !O ALLOA PR"<A!E RESPON*EN! !O REC"S!ER CANON =OR =OO!AEAR "S !O PRE<EN! PE!"!"ONER =ROM . private respondent NSR Rubber Corporation :private respondent. filed an application for re#istration of the $ar( CANON for sandals in the Bureau of Patents. . Petitioner $oved to declare private respondent in default for its failure to file its ans0er 0ithin the prescribed period. !he BP!!! then declared private respondent in default and allo0ed petitioner to present its evidence e=.. and d'e stuff. No. .+>3. the evidence presented b' petitioner consisted of its certificates of re#istration for the $ar( CANON in various countries coverin# #oods belon#in# to class 5 :paints. . dated =ebruar' 5. toner. J.-. 11/9// 0u. A <erified Notice of Opposition 0as filed b' petitioner. vs... .++3 den'in# the $otion for reconsideration of herein petitioner Canon &abushi(i &aisha :petitioner. Petitioner anchors this instant petition on these #roundsD A.?. 7ence. the BP!!! issued its decision dis$issin# the opposition of petitioner and #ivin# due course to private respondent8s application for the re#istration of the trade$ar( CANON. NSR Rubber Corporation6 and its Resolution dated 4une 52.++5. PE!"!"ONER "S EN!"!LE* !O EKCL S"<E ALSO =OR =OO!AEAR.

Clearl'.. petitioner points out that it has branched out in its business based on the various #oods carr'in# its trade$ar( CANON.3 7o0ever. petitioner clai$s that it is possible that the public could presu$e that petitioner 0ould also produce a 0ide variet' of foot0ear considerin# the diversit' of its products $ar(eted 0orld0ide. e1cept for its bare assertions.. deodorant. and d'estuff. has not ventured in the production of briefs. petitioner failed to attach evidence that 0ould convince this Court that petitioner has also e$bar(ed in the production of foot0ear products. can be used b' private respondent for its sandals because the products of these t0o parties are dissi$ilar. Even in this instant petition. !he certificates of re#istration for the trade$ar( CANON in other countries and in the Philippines as presented b' petitioner. private respondent can use the trade$ar( CANON for its #oods classified as class 53 :sandals. "t 0ould be ta1in# one8s credibilit' to aver at this point that the production of sandals could be considered as a possible 6natural or nor$al e1pansion6 of its business operation6. che$ical products.+ the *irector of patents allo0ed the 9unior user to use the trade$ar( of the senior user on the #round that the briefs $anufactured b' the 9unior user. Petitioner protests the appropriation of the $ar( CANON b' private respondent on the #round that petitioner has used and continues to use the trade$ar( CANON on its 0ide ran#e of #oods 0orld0ide. pi#$ents. an ite$ 0hich is not listed in its certificate of re#istration. PE!"!"ONER 7AS EARL"ER SA"* COO*S. the product for 0hich the trade$ar( BR !E 0as sou#ht to be re#istered. 0here the products of the said petitioner had been clearl' and specificall' described as 6Che$ical products. 0as unrelated and nonBco$petin# 0ith the products of the senior user consistin# of after shave lotion. cannot and should .parte all of its evidence to prove that its certificates of re#istration for the trade$ar( CANON cover foot0ear. d'estuff. "n sustainin# the *irector of Patents. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt . the #oods for 0hich private respondent sou#ht to re#ister the $ar( CANON. clearl' sho0ed that said certificates of re#istration cover #oods belon#in# to class 5 :paints. !he senior user vehe$entl' ob9ected and clai$ed that it 0as e1pandin# its trade$ar( to briefs and ar#ued that per$ittin# the 9unior user to re#ister the sa$e trade$ar( 0ould allo0 the latter to invade the senior user8s e1clusive do$ain. !o lend credence to its clai$. C. 5 SE* SA"* MAR& =OR SE CANON !O PRE<EN! CON= S"ON O= SE O= CANON BECA SE "! =ORMS PAR! O= "!S CORPORA!E !he BP!!! and the Court of Appeals share the opinion that the trade$ar( 6CANON6 as used b' petitioner for its paints. !his is clearl' sho0n in its !rade$ar( Principal Re#ister :E1hibit 6 6. Ae @uote 0ith approval the observation of the Court of Appeals thatD 6!he herein petitioner has not $ade (no0n that it intends to venture into the business of producin# sandals. 2 Petitioner8s opposition to the re#istration of its trade$ar( CANON b' private respondent rests upon petitioner8s insistence that it 0ould be precluded fro$ usin# the $ar( CANON for various (inds of foot0ear. the use of the sa$e trade$ar( on the latter8s product cannot be validl' ob9ected to.. toner. d'estuff. > "n Fa$er&e. *.. A revie0 of the records sho0s that 0ith the order of the BP!!! declarin# private respondent in default for failure to file its ans0er. On this basis. the trade$ar( o0ner is entitled to protection 0hen the use of b' the 9unior user 6forestalls the nor$al e1pansion of his business6. =or petitioner. che$ical products. PE!"!"ONER "S ALSO EN!"!LE* !O !7E EKCL S"<E NAME. PRO!EC!E* B% !7E PAR"S CON<EN!"ON. che$ical products. the fact alone that its trade$ar( CANON is carried b' its other products li(e foot0ear. this Court said that since 6:the senior user. che$ical products. A7EN "N =AC!. toner. polishin# a#ent6. shoe polisher. includin# foot0ear 0hich petitioner contends covers sandals. and toilet soap. shoe polisher and polishin# a#ents should have precluded the BP!!! fro$ #ivin# due course to the application of private respondent.. Ae find the ar#u$ents of petitioner to be un$eritorious. 0hen a trade$ar( is used b' a part' for a product in 0hich the other part' does not deal. Alle#edl'. d'estuffs. shavin# crea$. toner. PE!"!"ONER "S ALSO EN!"!LE* !O !7E R"C7! !O EKCL S"<EL% B S"NESS. Stretchin# this ar#u$ent.S"NC CANON =OR <AR"O S &"N*S O= =OO!AEAR. petitioner had ever' opportunit' to present e=. :the senior user. 0hen in fact it has earlier used said $ar( for said #oods. toner. there is a 0orld of difference bet0een the paints. toner developin# preparation. the o0nership of a trade$ar( or tradena$e is a propert' ri#ht that the o0ner is entitled to protect / as $andated b' the !rade$ar( La0. Ae do not a#ree. Petitioner counters that not0ithstandin# the dissi$ilarit' of the products of the parties. Ordinaril'. and d'estuff of petitioner and the sandals of private respondent. the BP!!! correctl' ruled that since the certificate of re#istration of petitioner for the trade$ar( CANON covers class 5 :paints. the corporate na$e or tradena$e of petitioner is also used as its trade$ar( on diverse #oods includin# foot0ear and other related products li(e shoe polisher and polishin# a#ents. 6ncorporated vs. talcu$ po0der.

petitioner 0ould alle#edl' be i$$ensel' pre9udiced if private respondent 0ould be per$itted to ta(e 6a free ride on. Ana vs. . ci#arettes are even peddled in the streets 0hile :petitioner8s. petitioner invo(es the protective $antle of the Paris Convention..6 . vs. this Court ruled that the petroleu$ products on 0hich the petitioner therein used the trade$ar( ESSO. the @uestion that usuall' arises is 0hether the respective #oods or services of the senior user and the 9unior user are so related as to li(el' cause confusion of business or ori#in. ci#arettes are sold in sariBsari stores. are hardl' in point.. :Respondnet8s. 6nc. .6 nion 0ithout the obli#ation of filin# or re#istration. the e1clusive ri#ht of petitioner in this case to use the trade$ar( CANON is li$ited to the products covered b' its certificate of re#istration. . "ourt of Appeals. to 0itD 6A tradena$e shall be protected in all the countries of the 0hether or not it for$s part of a trade$ar(. the product of private respondent. Petitioner is apprehensive that there could be confusion as to the ori#in of the #oods. !he products of petitioner are sold throu#h special che$ical stores or distributors 0hile the products of private respondent are sold in #rocer' stores. and reap the advanta#es of. and the product of respondent. An& vs. and so$eti$es peculiar.+ !he' $a' also be related because the' serve the sa$e purpose or are sold in #rocer' stores. co$position. @niversal #u$$er Products. On the other hand. Petitioner @uestions the applicabilit' of the #uidelines e$bodied in the Me$orandu$ of then Minister of !rade and "ndustr' Roberto On#pin :On#pin. 5? !hus. !hus. precedent $ust be studied in the li#ht of the facts of the particular case. !he :petitioner8s. 6nc. @niversal #u$$er Products. protected b' Article > of the Paris Convention.. "n such a case. =inall'. . . 0hen it noted that the t0o classes of products in this case flo0 throu#h different trade channels. "n its bid to bar the re#istration of private respondent of the $ar( CANON. che$ical products. sub9ect to the conditions and li$itations stated therein. the products involved are so unrelated that the public 0ill not be $isled that there is the sli#htest ne1us bet0een petitioner and the #oods of private respondent. Public respondents BP!!! and the Court of Appeals alle#edl' co$$itted an oversi#ht 0hen the' re@uired petitioner to prove that its $ar( is a 0ellB(no0n $ar( at the ti$e the application of private respondent 0as filed.. auto$otive shops and hard0are stores. !he li(elihood of confusion of #oods or business is a relative concept. are poles apart. and other s$all distributor outlets.? Ae reiterated the principle that the certificate of re#istration confers upon the trade$ar( o0ner the e1clusive ri#ht to use its o0n s'$bol onl5 to those &oods specified in the certificate .2 Contrar' to petitioner8s supposition. Petitioner further ar#ues that the alle#ed diversit' of its products all over the 0orld $a(es it plausible that the public $i#ht be $isled into thin(in# that there is so$e supposed connection bet0een private respondent8s #oods and petitioner. Petitioner asserts that it has the e1clusive ri#ht to the $ar( CANON because it for$s part of its corporate na$e or tradena$e. the :respondent8s. . .not be allo0ed to fei#n that :the 9unior user. te1ture or @ualit'.. . Evidentl'. circu$stances of each case. had invaded :the senior user8s. Ae a#ree 0ith the BP!!!. and thereb' render the trade$ar( or tradena$es confusin#l' si$ilar. 8#asul8 burners are not. 6nc. as in the case of "onverse #u$$er "orporation vs. the facts of this case 0ill sho0 that the cases of ta. Mali4at.. follo0in# the Esso doctrine. 7ere. 5. the #ood0ill and reputation of petitioner Canon6. products are distributed principall' throu#h #asoline service and lubrication stations."ndeed. the fact that the #oods involved therein flo0 throu#h different channels of trade hi#hli#hted their dissi$ilarit'. petitioner invo(es the rulin#s in ta. "n cases of confusion of business or ori#in. Teodoro. in 1sso tandard 1astern.+>. as 0ell as bet0een petroleu$ and ci#arettes. @niversal #u$$er Products. the paints.. there is a $ar(ed distinction bet0een oil and tobacco. !hus. ci#arettes are 6so forei#n to each other as to $a(e it unli(el' that purchasers 0ould thin( that petitioner is the $anufacturer of respondent8s #oods6 5. Ana vs. #rocer' store. dated October 53. the evident disparit' of the products of the parties in the case at bar renders unfounded the apprehension of petitioner that confusion of business or ori#in $i#ht occur if private respondent is allo0ed to use the $ar( CANON. 6nc. and of :petitioner.655 ndoubtedl'. An& vs. in trade$ar( la0 cases. Teodoro and "onverse #u$$er "orporation vs. if private respondent is allo0ed to re#ister the $ar( CANON. if not identical. sariBsari stores and depart$ent stores./ and "onverse #u$$er "orporation vs.5 "n support of the fore#oin# ar#u$ents. even $ore than in other liti#ation. as 0ell as confusion of business. !he 9ust cited cases involved #oods that 0ere confusin#l' si$ilar. toner and d'estuff of petitioner that carr' the trade$ar( CANON are unrelated to sandals.3.> Coods are related 0hen the' belon# to the sa$e class or have the sa$e descriptive propertiesI 0hen the' possess the sa$e ph'sical attributes or essential characteristics 0ith reference to their for$. e1clusive do$ain. Mali4at. in (ind and nature the products of :respondent. to be deter$ined onl' accordin# to the particular. a factor e1plained in this 0iseD 6!he products of each part' $ove alon# and are disposed throu#h different channels of distribution. Moreover.

liable to create confusion. $entions no re@uire$ent of si$ilarit' of #oods. as includin# 6an' 0ord. Petitioner calls attention to the fact that Article >. sec. either ad$inistrativel' if their le#islation so per$its. the !rade$ar( La0.. a trade na$e refers to the business and its #ood0illI a trade$ar( refers to the #oods. si#n or device or an' co$bination thereof adopted and used b' a $anufacturer or $erchant to identif' his #oods and distin#uish the$ for those $anufactured. devices or 0ords used b' $anufacturers. the $ar( $ust be for use in the sa$e or si$ilar class of #oodsI d. Petitioner believes that the appropriate $e$orandu$ to consider is that issued b' the then Minister of !rade and "ndustr'. directin# the *irector of patents toD 6re9ect all pendin# applications for Philippine re#istration of si#nature and other 0orld fa$ous trade$ar(s b' applicants other than the ori#inal o0ners or users. -. !he countries of the nion underta(e. the $ar( $ust be internationall' (no0nI b. s'$bol. of a $ar( considered b' the co$petent authorit' of the countr' of re#istration or use to be 0ellB(no0n in that countr' as bein# alread' the $ar( of a person entitled to the benefits of the present Convention and used for identical or si$ilar #oods. or occupationsI the na$es or titles la0full' adopted and used b' natural or 9uridical persons. . the person clai$in# $ust be the o0ner of the $ar(. i$itation or translation. the fact that its tradena$e is at ris( 0ould call for the protection #ranted b' Article > of the Paris Convention. fir$ na$es. not a patent or cop'ri#ht or an'thin# elseI c. !hese provisions shall also appl' 0hen the essential part of the $ar( constitutes a reproduction of an' such 0ellB(no0n $ar( or an i$itation liable to create confusion there0ith. other0ise (no0n as the Paris Convention. it should not be re@uired to prove that its trade$ar( is 0ellB(no0n and that the products are not si$ilar as re@uired b' the @uoted $e$orandu$. to refuse or to cancel the re#istration and to prohibit the use of a trade$ar( 0hich constitutes a reproduction. not tradena$es. Petitioner clai$s that the reason there is no $ention of such a re@uire$ent. and an' $anufacturin#.6 52 Si$pl' put.0hich accordin# to petitioner i$ple$ents Article -bis of the Paris Convention. a#riculturists. sold or dealt in b' others. No ti$e li$it shall be fi1ed for see(in# the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of $ar(s or used in bad faith. vocations. industrial. the provision for the protection of trade$ar(s. Petitioner e$phasi)es that the #uidelines in the $e$orandu$ of On#pin i$ple$ent Article -bis of the Paris Convention. the provision referrin# to the protection of trade$ar(s. !he $e$orandu$ readsD 6a. $erchants. co$$ercial. Luis <illafuerte. unions.--. na$e.--. > protects the tradena$e in the countries of the nion. the countr' of petitioner. :. the sub9ect of the ri#ht $ust be a trade$ar(. A period of at least five 'ears fro$ the date of re#istration shall be allo0ed for see(in# the cancellation of such a $ar(. Petitioner8s tradena$e should be protected here. !he countries of the nion $a' provide for a period 0ithin 0hich the prohibition of use $ust be sou#ht. a#ricultural or other or#ani)ations en#a#ed in trade or co$$erce. such as 4apan and the Philippines. !he ter$ 6trade$ar(6 is defined b' RA . or at the re@uest of an interested part'. is 6because there is a difference bet0een the referent of the na$e and that of the $ar(6 5/ and that 6since Art.2 of RA . industrialists. are si#natories 5+. the provision that pertains to the protection of tradena$es. even as e$bodied in par. e$ble$.6 Accordin# to petitioner.. 5> !he Convention of Paris for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert'. tradena$es. is a $ultilateral treat' that see(s to protect industrial propert' . of 0hich both the Philippines and 4apan. Article -bis of the Paris Convention statesD :.6 As far as petitioner is concerned.65. :5.!radena$e is defined b' the sa$e la0 as includin# 6individual na$es and surna$es. and others to identif' their business.6 Petitioner insists that 0hat it see(s is the protection of Article > of the Paris Convention.6 53 Ae cannot uphold petitioner8s position.

trade na$es and indications of source or appellations of ori#in. it is ruled that the Petitioner failed to co$pl' 0ith the third re@uire$ent of the said $e$orandu$ that is the $ar( $ust be for use in the sa$e or si$ilar (inds of #oods.. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt that Article > of the Paris Convention does not auto$aticall' e1tend protection to a tradena$e that is in dan#er of bein# infrin#ed in a countr' that is also a si#nator' to said treat' . .. is tr'in# to see( refu#e under its protective $antle. and at the sa$e ti$e ai$s to repress unfair co$petition. 0as $ade independent of the factual findin# that petitioner in said case had not conducted its business in this countr'.. No.+>. =i9i. to the *irector of Patents. !he Petitioner is usin# the $ar( 6CANON6 for products belon#in# to class 5 :paints. a set of #uidelines in the i$ple$entation of Article -bis :sic. this Office believes that there is no auto$atic protection afforded an entit' 0hose tradena$e is alle#ed to have been infrin#ed throu#h the use of that na$e as a trade$ar( b' a local entit'.5 Petitioner assails the application of the case of ?a$ushi ?aisha 6setan vs. not a patent or cop'ri#ht or an'thin# elseI c.3 Nove$ber . 6 . 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt. 23/5?. clai$in# that the sub9ect $ar( is 0ell (no0n in this countr' at the ti$e the then application of NSR Rubber 0as filed. . !hese conditions areD a. as this office sees it. Petitioner.. 7ence. the instant petition for revie0 on certiorari is *EN"E* for lac( of $erit. the then Minister of !rade and "ndustr'.++. . !his office is not un$indful that in the !reat' of Paris for the Protection of "ntellectual Propert' re#ardin# 0ellB(no0n $ar(s and possible application thereof in this case. 0hile the Respondent is usin# the sa$e $ar( for sandals :class 53. !he "nter$ediate Appellate Court. the sub9ect of the ri#ht $ust be a trade$ar(. Suffice it to sa' that the 9ust @uoted pronounce$ent in the case of ?a$ushi ?aisha 6setan vs. of the !reat' of Paris. S0it)erland. !o illustrate L if a ta1icab or bus co$pan' in a to0n in the nited &in#do$ or "ndia happens to use the tradena$e 6Rapid !ransportation6. the 7onorable Supre$e Court held thatD 8!he Paris Convention for the Protection of "ndustrial Propert' does not auto$aticall' e1clude all countries of the 0orld 0hich have si#ned it fro$ usin# a tradena$e 0hich happens to be used in one countr'. et. che$ical products. trade$ar(s. Petitioner points out that in the case of ?a$ushi ?aisha 6setan vs. .consistin# of patents. in vie0 of the fore#oin#. al. it does not necessaril' follo0 that 6Rapid6 can no lon#er be re#istered in #anda. the person clai$in# $ust be the o0ner of the $ar( :!he Parties Convention Co$$entar' on the Paris Convention.R. Petitioner8s contention that its $ar( is 0ellB(no0n at the ti$e the Respondent filed its application for the sa$e $ar( should fail. *irector Ceneral of the Aorld "ntellectual Propert' Or#ani)ation. the $ar( $ust be internationall' (no0nI b.+>3. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt. Roberto <. Ceneva. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt to this case. C. the $ar( $ust be for use in the sa$e or si$ilar (inds of #oodsI and d. !his contention deserves scant consideration. issued a $e$orandu$ dated 53 October .? Ae a#ree 0ith public respondents that the controllin# doctrine 0ith respect to the applicabilit' of Article > of the Paris Convention is that established in ?a$ushi ?aisha 6setan vs. petitioner sub$its that this factual difference renders inapplicable our rulin# in the case of ?a$ushi ?aisha 6setan vs. As pointed out b' the BP!!!D 6Re#ardin# the applicabilit' of Article > of the Paris Convention. 6ntermediate Appellate "ourt. Article b' *r. industrial desi#ns. "n &abushi(i &aisha "setan vs. or the Philippines.8 =ro$ the set of facts found in the records. On#pin. 7ence. the 7on.. 7o0ever. Bo#sch. petitioner therein 0as found to have never at all conducted its business in the Philippines unli(e herein petitioner 0ho has e1tensivel' conducted its business here and also had its trade$ar( re#istered in this countr'. service $ar(s. utilit' $odels. <+EREFORE.

>. 6$id.. Foot(ot%s . .?.. #ollo. =aber#e. :. Certificate of re#istration pri$a facie evidence of validit'. Court of Appeals. "nc.. . recreation e@uip$ent.. electric co$$unication $achiner' and apparatusI industrial $achiner' and i$ple$ents. "nc.-. shoe polisher and polishin# a#ents :Petitioner8s Me$orandu$..>. . pri$e $overs and i$ple$ents :e1cludin# $otors. $usical instru$ents.+>2. p. 2/ Phil 3? :. 6$id. 5 #ollo. che$ical products. #ollo. p. concur.+->.+/5./3.> :./ . niversal Rubber Products. citin# Sta. other $achiner' and e@uip$ent not belon#in# to an' other classI ba#s. p. 6$id. Melo. $usiness or services specified in the certificate. #ra$ophone :e1cludin# electric photo#raph. . Petitioner Canon clai$s that its trade$ar( CANON has been used and continues to be used in the Philippines and in other parts of the 0orld in its business over a 0ide ran#e of #oods such as.5.. 3 RA . office $achines and e@uip$ent :e1cludin# those belon#in# to applied electronic $achiner' and apparatus.SCRA . pp. Mali0at..-?. u$brellas and parasols. pneu$atic and h'draulic $achiner' and i$ple$ents. . upra. . sub9ect to an' conditions and li$itations stated therein. canes.. Pan&ani$an. their parts and accessories :e1cludin# shoe brushes and si$ilar #oods thereof.3 SCRA .:. household electric appliances. Penned b' 4ustice Serafin <. 2 > + . s$o(er8s articlesI tobaccos and $atches as 0ell as d'estuffs.. 5. sportin# #oods. 5.5-.--. JJ.. and of the re&istrant>s e=clusive ri&ht to use the same in connection 4ith the &oods. vs.5 ..+>5.3 . . . .53. C"hairmanD./2 SCRA . flash #un and flash bulbsI electric and $a#netic $easurin# instru$ents.?. - Esso Standard Eastern.. . the re#istrant8s o0nership of the $ar( or tradena$e. "ncorporated vs. Vitu&..PA certificate of re#istration of a $ar( or tradeBna$e shall be pri$a facie evidence of the validit5 of the re#istration. pi#$ents. Cuin#ona and concurred in b' 4ustices Corona "ba'BSo$era and Bennie AdefuinB*e la Cru) of the for$er Special Ei#hth *ivision./.++5. p. / Converse Rubber Corporation vs. Z 5?.. photo#raphic and cine$ato#raphic instru$ents and parts and electrical instru$ents li(e electric $otors and s0itchesI lenses and electrical e1posure $etersI li#htin# apparatus. fishin# tac(les. pouchesI foot0ear.3/. their parts and accessories. dolls.? . records. . and Pursima.C. 5/ SCRA . Ana vs.?53. :. upra.I to's. p... . +B. "nter$ediate Appellate Court.SO ORDERED. p.p. p. p. . toner developin# preparation..

"nc.5+. 6$id.. 3>-. No.> . . .. #ollo.. R BEN E. Court of Appeals./3?>. "nter$ediate Appellate Court. "nc. . p. SCRA 3>. pp. Nove$ber . vs. supra.++?. !RA*EMAR& LAA AN* PRAC!"CE "N !7E P7"L"PP"NES. p. 3/. p./5.>.. ACPALO.. p.. 5. p. R. Records.+.. 55 5. .2 ..SCRA ./3.. C. ACPALO. 6$id.. Mirpuri vs. 5>. . . 6$id.. supra.? . upra.+ 5? 5. . :... 6$id. 3.- Esso Standard Eastern.B55.+++. 5?.:. p. Esso Standard Eastern./. &abushi &aisha "setan vs. vs. 5?. Court of Appeals.//.5 !he La0phil Pro9ect B Arellano La0 =oundation .. 5/ 53 5- 52 5> 5+ . Court of Appeals. p. p. . 6$id. 6$id. Z . Records. .+>5. p. p.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful