Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GR No. 198889
Facts:
Petitioner Nutri-Asia, Inc. (petitioner) is a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws. It is the emergent entity in a merger with UFC Philippines Inc. that was
completed on Feb. 11, 2009.
On April 4, 2002, respondent Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Coroporation filed ofr the mark
“PAPA BOY & DEVICE” for goods under Class 30, specifically for “lechon sauce.” The
Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published said application for opposition in the IP Phil e-
Gazette on Sept. 8 2006.
Petitioner Nutri-asia filed with the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs a Verified Notice of
Opposition to the application alleging that the mark “PAPA” is for use on banana catsup and
other similar goods first used in 1954 by Neri Papa.
After using “PAPA” for 27 years, Neri Papa subsequently assigned the mark to Herman
Reyes who filed an application to register the said “PAPA” mark for use on banana catsup,
chili sauce, achara, banana chips and instate ube powder.
On November 7, 2006 the registration was assigned to Nutri-Asia. The company has not
abandoned the use of the mark “PAPA” and the variations (such as “PAPA BANANA
CATSUP label” and “PAPA KETSARAP”.) thereof as it continued the use of the mark up to
the present. Petitioner further allege that “PAPA BOY & DEVICE” is identical to the mark
“PAPA” owned by Nutri-Asia and duly registered in its favor. The petitioner contends that the
use of “PAPA” by the respondent-applicant would likely result in confusion and deception.
The consuming public, particularly the unwary customers, will be deceived, confused, and
mistaken into believing that respondent-applicant's goods come from Nutri-Asia, which is
particularly true since Southeast Asia Food Inc, sister company of Nutri-Asia, have been
major manufacturers and distributors of lechon sauce since 1965 under the registered mark
“Mang Tomas”.
The IPO-BLA rejected Barrio Fiesta’s application for “PAPA BOY & DEVICE”. Respondent
appealed before the IPO Director General, but the appeal was denied. The CA, however,
reversed the decision of the IPO-BLA and ruled to grant the application.
Petitioner brought the case before the Supreme Court, seeking the reversal of the decision and
resolution of the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not by using the “dominant feature” of Nutri-Asia’s “PAPA” mark for “PAPA
BOY & DEVICE” would constitute trademark infringement.
Held:
Petition has merit.
To determine the likelihood of confusion, the Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property
Rights Cases, Rule 18, provides:
RULE 18
Evidence in Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Cases
SECTION 1. Certificate of Registration. - A certificate of
registration of a mark shall be prima facie evidence of:
a) the validity of the registration;
b) the registrant's ownership of the mark; and
c) the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection
with the goods or services and those that are related thereto
specified in the certificate.
On the other hand, R.A. No. 166 defines a "trademark" as any distinctive word, name,
symbol, emblem, sign, or device, or any combination thereof, adopted and used by a
manufacturer or merchant on his goods to identify and distinguish them from those
manufactured, sold, or dealt by another. A trademark, being a special property, is afforded
protection by law. But for one to enjoy this legal protection, legal protection ownership of the
trademark should right be established.
The ownership of a trademark is acquired by its registration and its actual use by the
manufacturer or distributor of the goods made available to the purchasing public. The prima
facie presumption brought by the registration of a mark may be challenge in an appropriate
action. Moreover the protection may likewise be defeated by evidence of prior use by another
person. This is because the trademark is a creation of use and belongs to one who first used it
in trade or commerce.
The essential element of infringement under the law is that the infringing mark is likely
to cause confusion. There are two tests used to determine likelihood of confusion: the
dominancy test and the holistic test. The dominancy test applies to this case.
There are two types of confusion in trademark infringement: confusion of goods and
confusion of business. In Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, the Court distinguished the two types of confusion:
In relation to this, the court has held that the registered trademark owner may use his mark on
the same or similar products, in different segments of the market, and at different price levels
depending on variations of the products for specific segments of the market. The Court has
recognized that the registered trademark owner enjoys protection in product and market areas
that are the normal potential expansion of his business. The scope of protection thus extends
to protection from infringers with related goods.
It cannot be denied that since petitioner’s product, catsup, and respondent’s product, lechon
sauce, are both household products in similar packaging the public could think that petitioner
Nutri-Asia has expanded its product mix to include lechon sauce, which is not unlikely
considering the nature of petitioner’s business.
Moreover, the CA erred in finding that “PAPA” is a common term of endearment for “father”
and therefore could not be claimed for exclusive use and ownership. What was registered was
not “Papa” as denied in dictionary, but “Papa” as the last name of the owner of the brand,
making it a registrable mark.
Petition granted.