Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Protection of Trademarks
3S
1. Converse Rubber Corporation & Edwardson Manufacturing Corp. vs Jacinto Rubber &
Plastics Co., and Ace Rubber & Plastics Corp.
G.R. Nos. L27425 & L30505. April 28, 1980
BARREDO, J.:
Petitioner: Converse Rubber Corporation
Goods: Canvas rubber shoes
Tradename: Converse Chuck Taylor All Star
Trademark: In the Phil: Chuck Taylor / March 3, 1966
Respondent: Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Co.
Goods: Canvas rubber shoes
Tradename: Custombuilt Viscount Custombuilt Challenger and Customebuilt Jaysons
Trademark: Custombuilt Jaysons / November 29, 1957
Facts:
Plaintiff Converse, an American Corporation, manufacturer of canvas rubber shoes under
the trade name Converse Chuck Taylor All Star. Converse is the owner of trademarks and
patent, registered with United States Patent Office, covering the words All Star, the
representation and design of a fivepointed star, and the design of the sole. The trademark Chuck
Taylor was registered by plaintiff Converse with the Philippines Patent Office on March 3,
1966. Since 1946, Chuck Taylor is being sold in the Philippines. Defendant Jacinto Rubber &
Plastics Company, Inc., a local corporation, likewise, manufactures and sells canvas rubber
shoes. Its trademark Custombuilt Jaysons was registered by the Philippines Patent Office on
November 29, 1957.
In 1963, Converse and Jacinto entered into protracted negotiations for a licensing agreement
whereby Jacinto would be the exclusive licensee of Converse in the Phil for the manufacture and
sale of the Chuck Taylor shoes but with the right to continue manufacturing and selling its own
products. Converse insisted on the condition that defendant Jacinto change the design of
Custombuilt shoes so as to give Custombuilt a general appearance different from Chuck
Taylor.; it submitted to plaintiff Converse for the latters approval a sketch of a new design for
Custombuilt. This design was accepted by plaintiff Converse. Defendant Jacinto Rubber then
proposed that the licensing agreement be made in favor of its affiliates, defendant Ace Rubber.
However, the licensing agreement did not materialize, because Hermogenes Jacinto refused to
sign the guarantee. Converse and plaintiff Edwardson then executed licensing agreement.
In 1966, Converse sent a written demand to Jacinto to stop selling Custombuilt shoes of
identical appearance as Chuck Taylor. Jacinto did not reply. Hence, this suit.
Contentions:
Plaintiff:
Defendant:
Jacinto insist that there is no similarity in design and general appearance between
Custombuilt and Chuck Taylor, pointing out that Custombuilt is readily identifiable
by the tradename
Custombuilt appearing on the ankle patch, the heel patch, and on the sole.
The registration of defendant Jacinto Rubbers trademark Custombuilt being prior to the
registration in the Philippines of plaintiff Converse Rubbers trademark Chuck Taylor,
plaintiffs have no cause of action.
(a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of
goods of another manufacturer or dealer..
The SC held that shoes manufactured by defendants to contain, as found by the trial
court, practically all the features of those of the plaintiff Converse except for their
respective brands, of course. The respective designs, shapes, the colors of the ankle
patches, the bands, the toe patch and the soles of the two products are exactly the
same . . . (such that) at a distance of a few meters, it is impossible to distinguish
Custombuilt from Chuck Taylor. These elements are more than sufficient to serve
as basis for a charge of unfair competition. Even if not all the details just mentioned
were identical, with the general appearances alone of the two products, any ordinary, or
even perhaps even a not too perceptive and discriminating customer could be deceived,
and, therefore, Custombuilt could easily be passed off for Chuck Taylor.
SEC. 29: A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he
manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a
mark or trade name is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods,
business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other
property rights
The fact that the shoes manufactured by Converse were not sold in local markets from
1949 to 1967 does not mean that one cannot be held guilty of unfair competition for
manufacturing products that appear similar as the Converses product. It denominates as
chances
of
being
therefore all the more
Director of Patents
did not err in finding no
confusing similarity. For
though the words BIOFERIN" and
BUFFERIN"
have
similar
sounding
their
respective
different backgrounds
color, size and design.
of the applicant is expressly stated as
dispensable only upon
doctors prescription, while that of oppositor
does not require the same. The
confused into purchasing one for the other are
rendered negligible.
An average person who is hungry and wants to eat a hamburger sandwich may not be
discriminating enough to look for a McDonalds restaurant and buy a Big Mac
hamburger. Once he sees a stall selling hamburger sandwich, in all likelihood, he will dip
into his pocket and order a Big Mak hamburger sandwich. Plaintiff McDonalds fast-food
chain has attained wide popularity and acceptance by the consuming public so much so
that its air-conditioned food outlets and restaurants will perhaps not be mistaken by many
to be the same as defendant corporations mobile snack vans located along busy streets or
highways. But the thing is that what is being sold by both contending parties is a food
item a hamburger sandwich which is for immediate consumption, so that a buyer may
easily be confused or deceived into thinking that the Big Mak hamburger sandwich he
bought is a food-product of plaintiff McDonalds, or a subsidiary or allied outlet thereof.
HELD:
No, the petition for the cancellation of registration of a mark before the BPTTT does
not bar any subsequent action for infringement before the regular courts by the adverse
party.
Pertinent Law
Section 151.2 of R.A. No. 8293 provides:
Section 151.2. Notwithsatanding the foregoing provisions,
the court or the administrative agency vested with jurisdiction to
hear and adjudicate any action to enforece the rights to a registered
mar shall likewise exercise jurisdiction to determine whether the
registration of said mark may be cancelled. The filing of the suit to
enforce the registered mark with the proper court or administrative
agency shall exclude any other court or agency from assuming
jurisdiction over a subsequently filed petition to cancel the same
mark. On the other hand, the earlier filing of petition to cancel
the mark with the Bureau of Legal Affairs shall not constitute a
prejudicial question that must be resolved before an action to
enforce the rights to the same registered mark may be decided.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Application to Facts
1.
The earlier instituttion of an Inter Partes case by the PETITIONER SHANGRI-LA
GROUP for the cancellation of the subject mark and logo cannot therefore effectively bar
the subsequent filing by the registrant RESPONDENT DEVELOPERS GROUP of an
infringement case.
Nevertheless, the infringement court may validly pass upon the right of registration.
Section 161 of R.A. No. 166 provides that in any action involving a registered mark, the
court may determine the right to registration, order the cancellation of the registration, in whole
or in part, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registration of the party to the
action.
Here, the RTC in the infringement case went further and upheld the validity of the
registration of the RESPONDENT DEVELOPERS GROUP. Hence, the RTC decision
renders the cancellation case before the BPTTT as moot and academic. To allow the BPTTT
to proceed would lead to a possible result contradictory to that which the RTC has rendered ,
which situation is not in accord with the orderly administration of justice.
DISPOSITIVE:
The SC finds it apropros to order the suspension of the proceedings before the Bureau
pending the final determination of the infringement case, where the issue of the validity of the
registration of the mark and logo in the name of the respondent was passed upon.
9. ESPIRITU VS PETRON
FACTS:
Respondent Petron Corporation (Petron) sold and distributed liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in
cylinder tanks that carried its trademark Gasul . Respondent Carmen J. Doloiras owned and
operated Kristina Patricia Enterprises (KPE), the exclusive distributor of Gasul LPGs in the
whole of Sorsogon. Jose Nelson Doloiras (Jose) served as KPEs manager.
12.
PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED and TIBURCIO S. EVALLE as Director of
Patents, respondents.
G.R. No. L-23035 July 31, 1975
and that the registration of the former is likely to deceive the buying public and cause
damage to it.
Philippine Nut filed its answer invoking the special defense that its registered label is not
confusingly similar to that of Standard Brands as the latter alleges.
The following were contained in their stipulation of facts:
(1) that Standard Brands is the present owner of the trademark "PLANTERS COCKTAIL
PEANUTS" covered by Certificate of Registration No. SR-172 issued on July 28, 1958;
(2) that Standard Brands trademark was first used in commerce in the Philippines in December,
1938 and
(3) that Philippine Nut's trademark "PHILIPPINE PLANTERS CORDIAL PEANUTS" was first
used in the Philippines on December 20, 1958 and registered with the Patent Office on August
10, 1961.
Director of Patents ordered the cancellation of Philippine Nut's Certificate of Registration No.
SR-416. The Director of Patents found and held that in the labels using the two trademarks in
question, the dominant part is the word "Planters", displayed "in a very similar manner" so much
so that "as to appearance and general impression" there is "a very confusing similarity," and he
concluded that Philippine Nut "was not entitled to register the mark at the time of its filing the
application for registration" as Standard Brands will be damaged by the registration of the same.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, Philippine Nut came up to this Court for a
review of said decision.
ISSUE: Is the trademark "PHILIPPINE PLANTERS CORDIAL PEANUTS" used by Philippine
Nut on its label for salted peanuts confusingly similar to the trademark "PLANTERS
Respondent Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a Verified Opposition alleging that the
trademark sought to be registered by Dermaline so resembles its trademark DERMALIN
and will likely cause confusion, mistake and deception to the purchasing public. Myra
said that the registration of Dermalines trademark will violate Section 123 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).
Myra claimed that, despite Dermalines attempt to differentiate its applied mark, the
dominant feature is the term DERMALINE, which is practically identical with its own
DERMALIN, more particularly that the first eight (8) letters of the marks are identical,
and that notwithstanding the additional letter E by Dermaline, the pronunciation for both
marks are identical. Further, both marks have three (3) syllables each, with each syllable
identical in sound and appearance, even if the last syllable of DERMALINE consisted of
four (4) letters while DERMALIN consisted only of three (3).
Myra asserted that the mark DERMALINE DERMALINE, INC. is aurally similar to its
own mark such that the registration and use of Dermalines applied mark will enable it to
Dermaline further argued that there could not be any relation between its trademark for
health and beauty services from Myras trademark classified under medicinal goods
against skin disorders.
Expectedly, Dermaline appealed to the Office of the Director General of the IPO.
However, the appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.
Undaunted, Dermaline appealed to the CA, but it affirmed and upheld the rejection of
Dermalines application for registration of trademark. The CA likewise denied Dermalines
motion for reconsideration; hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in upholding the IPOs rejection of Dermalines application for
registration of trademark.
RULING: No. As a registered trademark owner, one has the right under Section 147 of R.A. No.
8293 to prevent third parties from using a trademark, or similar signs or containers for goods or
services, without its consent, identical or similar to its registered trademark, where such use
would result in a likelihood of confusion.
In determining likelihood of confusion, case law has developed two (2) tests, the Dominancy
Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
The Dominancy Test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing
trademarks that might cause confusion or deception. It is applied when the trademark sought to
be registered contains the main, essential and dominant features of the earlier registered