-->
Facts:
Respondent Toribio Teodoro has continuously used "Ang Tibay," both as a trade-mark and as a trade-name, in the manufacture and sale of slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs since 1910. On September 29, 1915, he formally registered it as trade-mark and as trade-name on January 3, 1933.
Petitioner Ana Ang registered the same trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants and shirts on April 11, 1932, and established a factory for the manufacture of said articles in the year 1937.
The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendant (Ms. Ang) on the grounds that the two trademarks are dissimilar and are used on different and non-competing goods; that there had been no exclusive use of the trade-mark by the plaintiff; and that there had been no fraud in the use of the said trade-mark by the defendant because the goods on which it is used are essentially different from those of the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment, directing the Director of Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" in favor of petitioner, and perpetually enjoining the latter from using said trade-mark on goods manufactured and sold by her.
Thus, this case, a petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Ruling:
G.R. No. L-48226
December 14, 1942
Facts:
Respondent Toribio Teodoro has continuously used "Ang Tibay," both as a trade-mark and as a trade-name, in the manufacture and sale of slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs since 1910. On September 29, 1915, he formally registered it as trade-mark and as trade-name on January 3, 1933.
Petitioner Ana Ang registered the same trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants and shirts on April 11, 1932, and established a factory for the manufacture of said articles in the year 1937.
The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendant (Ms. Ang) on the grounds that the two trademarks are dissimilar and are used on different and non-competing goods; that there had been no exclusive use of the trade-mark by the plaintiff; and that there had been no fraud in the use of the said trade-mark by the defendant because the goods on which it is used are essentially different from those of the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment, directing the Director of Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" in favor of petitioner, and perpetually enjoining the latter from using said trade-mark on goods manufactured and sold by her.
Thus, this case, a petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Are the goods or articles or which the two trademarks are
used similar or belong to the same class of merchandise?
Ruling:
Yes, pants and shirts are goods closely similar to shoes and
slippers. They belong to the same class of merchandise as shoes and slippers. They
are closely related goods.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals and added that “although two non-competing articles may be classified
under to different classes by the Patent Office because they are deemed not to
possess the same descriptive properties, they would, nevertheless, be held by
the courts to belong to the same class if the simultaneous use on them of
identical or closely similar trademarks would be likely to cause confusion as
to the origin, or personal source, of the second user’s goods. They would be
considered as not falling under the same class only if they are so dissimilar
or so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely that the purchaser would
think that the first user made the second user’s goods”.
No comments:
Post a Comment