Bata Industries v CA Digest

G.R. No. L-53672, May 31, 1982

Facts: 

The respondent New Olympian Rubber Products sought to register the mark "BATA" for casual rubber shoe products, alleging it had used the said mark since the 1970s. The petitioner, a Canadian corporation opposed with its allegations that it owns and has not abandoned said trademark. The petitioner has no license to do business in the Philippines and the trademark has never been registered in the Philippines by any foreign entity. Bata Industries does not sell footwear under the said trademark in the Philippines nor does it have any licensing agreement with any local entity to sell its product.

Evidence show that earlier, even before the World War II, Bata shoes made by Gerbec and Hrdina (Czech company) were already sold in the country. Some shoes made by the petitioner may have been sold in the Philippines ntil 1948. On the other hand, respondent spent money and effort to popularize the trademark "BATA" since the 70's. Moreover, it also secures 3 copyright registrations for the word "BATA". The Philippine Patent Office (PPO) dismissed the opposition by the petitioner while the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed said decision. However, a 2nd resolution by the CA affirmed the PPO decision.

Issue: Does the petitioner have the right to protect its goodwill alleged to be threatened with the registration of the mark?

NO. Bata Industries has no Philippine goodwill that would be damaged by the registration of the mark.

Any slight goodwill obtained by the product before World War II was completely abandoned and lost in the more than 35 years that passed since Manila's liberation from Japan. The petitioner never used the trademark either before or after the war. It is also not the successor-in-interest of Gerbec & Hrdina and there there was no privity of interest between them, Furthermore, the Czech trademark has long been abandoned in Czechoslovakia.

Hickok v CA Digest

G.R. No. L-44707, August 31, 1982

Facts:

Petitioner is a foreign corporation and all its products are manufactures by Quality House Inc. The latter pays royalty to the petitioner. Hickok registered the trademark 'Hickok' earlier and used it in the sale of leather wallets, key cases, money folds, belts, men’s underwear, neckties, hankies, and men's socks. While Sam Bun Liong used the same trademark in the sale of Marikina shoes. Both products have different channels of trade. The Patent Office did not grant the registration, but the Court of Appeals reversed the PPO decision.

Issue: Is there infringement in this case?

NONE. Emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involves and not on the arbitrary classification or the general description of their properties or characteristics. Also, the mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same by others on unrelated articles of different kind.

There is a different design and coloring of the trademark itself. The 'Hickok' trademark is in red with white background in the middle of 2 branches of laurel (in light gold) while the one used by Sam Bun Liong is the word 'Hickok ' in white with gold background between 2 branches of laurel in red with the word 'shoes' also in red placed below the word 'Hickok'.

Esso Standard v CA Digest

G.R. No. L-29971

Facts of the Case: 

The petitioner Esso Standard is a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the philippines. it is engaged in the sale of petroleum products which are identified by the trademarl 'Esso'. Esso is a successor of Standard Vacuum Oil Co, it registered as a business name with the Bureau of Commerce in 1962. United Cigarette is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. it acquired the business from La Oriental Tobacco Corp including patent rights, once of which is the use of 'Esso' on its cigarettes.

The petitioner filed a trademark infringement case alleging that it acquired goodwill to such an extent that the buying public would be deceived as ti the quality and origin of the said products to the detriment and disadvantage of its own products. The lower court found United Cigarette guilty of infringement. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was no infringment in this case.

Issue: Is there infringement committed?

Ruling: NONE. Infringement is defined by law as the use without the consent of the trademark owner of any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or tradename which would likely cause confusion or mistake or deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods.

The products of both parties (Petroleum and cigarettes) are non-competing. But as to whether trademark infringement exists depend on whether or not the goods are so related that the public may be or is actually deceived and misled that they come from the same maker. Under the Related Goods Theory, goods are related when they belong to the same class or have the same descriptive properties or when they have same physical attributes. In these case, the goods are absolutely different and are so foreign from each other it would be unlikely for purchasers to think that they came from the same source. Moreover, the goods flow from different channels of trade and are evidently different in kind and nature.

Sta.Ana v. Maliwat Digest

G.R. No. L-23023 August 31, 1968

Facts of the Case: 

In 1962, Florentino Maliwat sought to register the trademark "FLORMANN" used on shirts, pants, jackets and shoes for ladies men and children. He claimed its first use in commerce in 1955. Also in the same year (1962), Jose P. Sta. Ana (Petitioner) filed an application for the registration of the trademark "FLORMEN" (used in ladies and children shoes). he claimed its first use in commerce in 1959. Due to the confusing similarity , the Director of the Patent Office ordered an interference. Maliwat's application was then granted due to his prior adoption and use while that of Sta. Ana was denied. It was stipulated by the parties that 'Flormann' was used as a trademark in 1953 and Maliwat used it on shoes in 1962.

Issue: Was there any trademark infringement committed?

Ruling: YES. Both products of the parties have the same descriptive properties, thus its trademark must be protected.

The law does not require that the goods of the previous user and the late user of the same mark should possess the same descriptive properties or should fall into the same categories in order to bar the latter from registering his amrk. The meat of the matter is the likelyhood of confusion, mistake or deception upon the purchase of the goods of the parties. Herein, the similarity of the mark 'FLORMANN' and the name 'FLORMEN', as well as the likelihood of confusion is admitted. As such, Maliwat as prior adopter has a better right to use the mark.

Faberge v IAC Digest

G.R. No. 71189, November 4, 1992

Facts of the Case:

Co Beng Kay applied for the registration of the trademark 'BRUTE' to be used it its underwear (briefs) products. The petitioner opposed on the ground that there is similarity with their own symbol (BRUT, Brut33 & Device) used on its aftershave, deodorant, cream shave, hairspray and hair shampoo/soaps and that it would cause injury to their business reputation. It must be noted that the petitioner never applied for registration of said trademark for its brief products. The Patent Office allowed Co Beng Kay the registration and this was further affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Is there confusing similarity between the challenged marks and that its use would likely cause confusion on the part of the purchasers?

HELD: NONE. Co Beng Kay may rightly appropriate the mark. In this case Sec. 20 (Philippine Intellectual Property Law) is controlling. The certificate of registration issued confers the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those goods specified by the first user in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated therein. Moreover, the two products are so dissimilar that a purchaser of one (a brief) would not be misled or mistaken into buying the other (such as an aftershave).