CASE DIGEST: Emerald Garment vs. CA

EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC.

G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995

FACTS:

            On 18 September 1981, private respondent H.D. Lee Co., Inc. filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks & Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. SR 5054 for the trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" used on skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25, issued on 27 October 1980 in the name of petitioner Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation.

Private respondent averred that petitioner's trademark "so closely resembled its own trademark, 'LEE' as previously registered and used in the Philippines cause confusion, mistake and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods.

On 19 July 1988, the Director of Patents rendered a decision granting private respondent's petition for cancellation and opposition to registration. The Director of Patents, using the test of dominancy, declared that petitioner's trademark was confusingly similar to private respondent's mark because "it is the word 'Lee' which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. It is undeniably the dominant feature of the mark.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not a trademark causes confusion and is likely to deceive the public is a question of fact which is to be resolved by applying the "test of dominancy", meaning, if the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another by reason of which confusion and deception are likely to result.

HELD:

          The word "LEE" is the most prominent and distinctive feature of the appellant's trademark and all of the appellee's "LEE" trademarks. It is the mark which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. The alleged difference is too insubstantial to be noticeable. The likelihood of confusion is further made more probable by the fact that both parties are engaged in the same line of business.

Although the Court decided in favor of the respondent, the appellee has sufficiently established its right to prior use and registration of the trademark "LEE" in the Philippines and is thus entitled to protection from any infringement upon the same. The dissenting opinion of Justice Padilla is more acceptable.