FRUIT OF THE LOOM V.

CA
133 SCRA 405
FACTS:
1. Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island,
USA. It is the registrant of the trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM in the Philippine Patent Office and
was issued two Certificates of Registration, one of which was in 1957 and the other in 1958.
2. Private Respondent, a domestic corporation, is the registrant of the trademark FRUIT FOR EVE in
the Philippine Patent Office.
3. Both are involved in the merchandise of garments.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against private
respondent, alleging that:
a. The latters trademark is confusingly similar to the formers, both trademarks being used in
womens panties and other textile products.
b. That the hang tags used by private respondent is a colorable imitation of those of the petitioner.
5. Private respondent alleged that there was no confusing similarity between the trademarks.
6. At the pre-trial, the following admissions were made:
a. That the registered trademark Fruit for Eve bears the notice Reg. Phil. Pat. Off. while that of Fruit
of the Loom does not.
b. That at the time of its registration, the plaintiff filed no opposition thereto.
7. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, permanently enjoining private
respondent from using the trademark Fruit for Eve.
8. Both parties appealed to the former Court of Appeals:
a. Petitioner questioned the lower courts failure to award damages in its favor.
b. Private respondent sought the reversal of the lower courts decision.
9. The former Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the lower courts decision and
dismissing the petitioners complaint. The petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.

HELD:

In cases involving infringement of trademark brought before this Court, it has been consistently held
that there is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark involved would be likely to cause
confusion or mistake in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers as to the origin or source of
the commodity. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words
but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion
where one is confusingly similar to the other. The similarities of the competing trademarks in this
case are completely lost in the substantial differences in the design and general appearance of their
respective hang tags. We have examined the two trademarks as they appear in the hang tags
submitted by the parties and We are impressed more by the dissimilarities than by the similarities
appearing therein. We hold that the trademarks Fruit of the Loom and Fruit for Eve do not resemble
each other as to confuse or deceive an ordinary purchaser. The ordinary purchaser must be thought
of as having, and credited with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the obvious
differences between the two trademarks in question.