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).

Phil Refining v, Ng Sam Digest

Phil. Refining Co. v. Ng Sam and Director of Patents G.R. No. L-26676, July 30, 1982

Facts of the Case: The petitioner Philippine Refining Co. first used'Camia' as trademark for its products in 1922. In 1949, it caused the registration of the said trademark for its lard, butter, cooking oil, detergents, polishing materials and soap products. In 1960, Ng Sam filed an application for 'Camia' for its ham product (Class 47), alleging its first use in 1959. The petitioner opposed the said application but the Patent Office allowed the registration of Ng Sam.

Issue: Is the product of Ng Sam (Ham) and those of the petitioner so related that the use of the trademark 'Camia' on said goods would result to confusion as to their origin?

HELD: NO. The businesses of the parties are non-competitive and the products are so unrelated that the use of the same trademark will not give rise to confusion nor cause damage to the petitioner. The right to a trademark is a limited one, hence, others may use the same mark on unrelated goods if no confusion would arise.

A trademark is designed to identify the user, hence, it should be so distinctive and sufficiently original so as to enable those who see it to recognize instantly its source or origin. A trademark must be affirmative and definite, significant and distinctive and capable of indicating origin.

'Camia' as a trademark is far from being distinctive, It in itself does not identify the petitioner as the manufacturer of producer of the goods upon which said mark is used. If a mark is so commonplace, it is apparent that it can't identify a particular business and he who adopted it first cannot be injured by any subsequent appropriation or imitation by others and the public will not be deceived.

Mere classification of the goods cannot serve as the decisive factor in the resolution of whether or not the goods a related. Emphasis should be on the similarity of products involved and not on arbitrary classification of general description of their properties or characteristics.